Climate change - anthropogenic or not?

Evan,

With all due respect, the question was indeed a legitimate one. The poster in question has spent many posts questioning the integrity of others (including/especially me) and I have endeavored to remain (within certain limits)positive in my responses. I am not meaning to covertly disparage RP1, but I am honestly interested in what he does.

You have explained perfectly how you are able to engage in your hobby(PC). I have explained how I can participate, all I asked is how can RP1? If this is off topic so be it, but I certainly would think it any more off topic than half the other stuff here.


If I offend, my humblest apologies,

Icarus

 

It's a bird, it's a plane, no it's super RP1! He leaps tall buildings in a single bound, he saves the world from global warming alarmists, he writes books, he heals the sick, he writes on PC, he saves cats from trees, puppies from burning buildings.

I for one, am impressed. LOL

 

You forgot - he has a blog, too:

I'm not quite sure how his blog fits the description "fair and balanced", but since that's also Fox News' slogan, it must be similar. With posts such as:

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters
The Real “Divergence Problemâ€
Call For Independent Investigation of Mann
ClimateGate Analysis
Quite Cold Out, Eh?
More on Bad Temperature Data
The Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
Quality of U.S. Temperature Data
New Cold Records and Hypothermia Deaths
Nearly Identical Rates of Warming
The IPCC and Recent Cooling
List of Al Gore “Oopsies!â€

It's pretty easy to see that it's 100% un-fair and un-balanced as there is no attempt at all to show the other side of the story, only a vain attempt to ignore it while hiding their own identity. But maybe that's the point!

And now - he has a book coming out! So when does the press tour begin? rp1 has been doing a great job of hyping it on PC ahead of it's release.

 

Global Warming is not on the scale of a region or a even a few years, we're talking about consequences for the next hundreds of years.
That New England got colder temps for the past few years is not relevant in terms of global warming.

Do you really honestly believe that we can continue behaving the way we do with our planet without severe consequences in the next decades or by the end of this century?

It is very easy to pinpoint all the flaws in the Global Warming analysis data because this is one of the most complex problem humanity has had to deal with and it means gathering data from dozens of various scientific fields so that not one person can claim to master it all.

Here's a short story for you guys (and I'm sure you'll be happy to turn it around):
If you wanted to jump out of the sixth-floor window of a building, claiming that there is the possibility that someone might just be walking beneath that window with a large mattress that will smoothly stop your fall; I cannot tell you that there is absolutely no chance that that would happen, but would you really jump anyway?

In my opinion that relates to what we are doing in hoping that our specy will be able to adapt quickly enough (thanks to our scientific knowledge) to the damage we are causing to our planet.

Oil resources are a finite resource by definition (at least within thousands of years), so it is silly to just keep wasting it until the very last second, then what next, do you want to draw most of the world's energy from coal? (unfortunately there may not be many other options right now)

PS: English is not my primary language so please excuse errors.

 

So, I see that radioprius1 is using us to help him write a book. He has of course no vested interest in this, like you wouldn't be hoping to sell any books if you were writing one would you?
Great thing about a book, and especially if you write it under a pseudonym is no one can answer you back. Which is a good thing because when anyone here asks RP1 a question he just pokes fun at them.
Evan isn't the only one here with the balls to use their real name.

 

I would just be happy if he stops the offensive quote mining of Carl Sagan...

 

+You guys are a hoot!

For years on end ALL we heard in the 'mainstream media' was one side of the story. One had to go to the internert and find sites that told the other side. An occasional book would be published showing the other side. Universal scorn was heaped on those who were skeptical of the AGW position. "Flat-earthers, deniers, denialists, big oil flunkies, uncredentialed," etc., etc.

NOW we have the CRU E-maills. Anyone who can look at them in a fair and balanced way is capable of seeing with their own eyes the abuse the scientific method suffered under a cabal of results-oriented, ideologues. Dispassionate science? Not from these fellows!

Time will out the truth for all to see. There is always a time lag in these matters for those ignorant of the truth to FINALLY have it slap them in the face (metaphorically speaking, Icarus).

I commend RP1 for his efforts. I can see how he might have misused 'fair and balanced' by presenting only one side. If all you hear is one side, presenting the other side could lead one to believe that the scale was being fairly balanced. In addition, he has lifted a load from me since I often felt I was in a distinct minority here to champion what has been proved to be a lot closer to the truth than the 'CO2 = disaster' fraud.

Thanks, RP1.

 

RP1,

I don't believe I attacked you "for keeping busy"! In fact I didn't attack you at all, I said I was impressed! As Mike Holmes would say,,," get it right!"


I do think that hiding as much of yourself as you do diminishes (what little) credibility that you do have. I can understand the desire for anonymity, but if you really wish to take a stand, it seems that at the very least, your Bona Fides should be known. As Pat Sparks has pointed out others who are at least as vocal as you are more public than you. I can name a bunch for this forum, including myself.

Somehow I don't suspect that you are at nearly as much risk of reprisal as say Salman Rushdie (sp?).

 

You mean all we heard from mainstream science...

True...but we'll all be long gone so where will we go to see the posted results?

So if you're going to wage a bet...let's say for those who will be around...what side would you like to choose?

The "oops, I was wrong, the planet is fine, there is no global warming so I guess we didn't need to reduce all the carbon emission"

Or..."oops, I was wrong, I guess we're f*cked..."

 

Yeah, that is pretty damn creepy.

 

With all due respect to Evan,

What am I, a doctor or a moon shuttle conductor?"
"I'm a doctor, not a flesh peddler."
"I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!"
"I'm a surgeon, not a psychiatrist."
"I'm a doctor, not an escalator."
"I'm a doctor, not a mechanic."
"I'm a doctor, not an engineer."
"I'm a doctor, not a magician."
"I'm a doctor, not a coal miner."
"I'm a doctor, not a mechanic"
"I'm a doctor, not a doorstop."

And my personal favorites,

"I'm a doctor, not a scientist." or "I'm a doctor, not a physicist."
Dr. (MD) McCoy!

 

My favorite was:

"I'm a doctor, not a construction worker."

Can't see how you can possible poke fun at anyone, Icarus.

 

No, I meant the media which pretty wildly exaggeate what even dishonest scientists dared to say.

There is not any empirical evidence to support the idea that mankind's production of CO2 will result in being screwed. None. Period.

That the earth has warmed coming out of the Little Ice Age is not in dispute. To ascribe all the warming to the rise in CO2 attributable to man is not supported by observation or verifiable theory. Tweaking computer models to produce predictions that fail time after time should lead one in the direction of skepticism (if not outright incredulity) rather than affirmation of a dire problem.

So, I'll chose the rational course of action, which is not to fix a non-existant problem by wrecking economies, killing jobs, robbing poorer people of the same opportunities we utilized to advance, increasing government coercion and generally REALLY screwing things up worse than they could ever be if we did absolutely nothing to curb CO2.

 

I like the points that the 141 scientists pointed out when they wrote a lead to the U.N Secretary General:

 

I've asked a number of times before, and I don't believe I have ever gotten any one to answer: Ufourya, can you please: "

So, I'll chose the rational course of action, which is not to fix a non-existant problem by wrecking economies, killing jobs, robbing poorer people of the same opportunities we utilized to advance"

How will changing to a clean(er) economy, over all, do any or all of the things you suggest, such as wrecking economies, killing jobs, or robbing poorer people of opportunities?

As I have suggested before, and posted citations to corroborate my suggestion that quite the contrary has historically been true. Please see my posts regarding the cost benefit of catalytic converters or appliance standards.

So once again in all earnestness, why do you think these things will be happen, and what evidence to you have to support your opinion?

Thank you.

PS To NvP, I have no problem being poked fun at, as long as it is in good cheer. Perhaps you are a coal miner,,LOL.

 

Say, didn't someone suggest that we 'follow the money' in an earlier post/thread?

As for stimulus jobs—whether "saved" or "created"—we thought readers might be interested to know whose employment they are sustaining. More than $2.4 million is stimulating the career of none other than Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann.
Mr. Mann is the creator of the famous hockey stick graph, which purported to show some 900 years of minor temperature fluctuations, followed by a spike in temperatures over the past century. His work, which became a short-term sensation when seized upon by Al Gore, was later discredited. Mr. Mann made the climate spotlight again last year as a central player in the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which showed climatologists massaging data, squelching opposing views, and hiding their work from the public.
Mr. Mann came by his grants via the National Science Foundation, which received $3 billion in stimulus money. Last June, the foundation approved a $541,184 grant to fund work "Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing," which will contribute "to the understanding of abrupt climate change." Principal investigator? Michael Mann.
He received another grant worth nearly $1.9 million to investigate the role of "environmental temperature on the transmission of vector-borne diseases." Mr. Mann is listed as a "co-principal investigator" on that project. Both grants say they were "funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009."
The NSF made these awards prior to last year's climate email scandal, but a member of its Office of Legislative and Public Affairs told us she was "unaware of any discussion regarding suspending or changing the awards made to Michael Mann." So your tax dollars will continue to fund a climate scientist whose main contribution to the field has been to discredit climate science.

Michael Mann Received Stimulus Money - WSJ.com