Earth Hour

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

No, not everyone, just the few remaining denialists, contrarians and flat earthers.

*snigger* Oh I do like a good name calling session. Adults to the left, children to the right

[Gray-Wolf]

No, not everyone, just the few remaining denialists, contrarians and flat earthers.

LOL!

If I plotted a line between the worlds hottest year and last winter.......lo and behold, temperatures fell......therefore........an ice age is coming!

I have no issue with C-Bob per se but I have always questioned his motives as he [at times] seems to have been straining to put his flies in the ointment.

For the majority of us this is fine as we have fully functioning,enquiring minds but for the younger,more impressionable folk on here it seems [to me at least] a little more sinister.

One passage of a well read book says ''suffer the little children to come unto me'' and this has always meant to me that education starts with the young, the old are set in both their experience and their ways and so are harder to re-educate should the need arise [ask granny about decimalisation....] and so we must be careful when exposing our youth to subterfuge,filibustering and disingenuous statements for the sake of 'personal fun'.

I have always debated [since high school] and have fully enjoyed and engaged in the debating societies I have attended. During this time you do tend to get a feel for the folk who are arguing for a point they do not believe in [however accomplished they are in the art] and [to me] C-Bob has always seemed of that ilk.

We need more honest posting reflecting our beliefs and understanding and not posts purely because you can.

Rant over.

Ian.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Oh wise wolf. Sorry, but I could probably quote "And Pooh stared at the honey..." which to me means nothing.

Perhaps i'm one of those moods at the moment, but...

What passages in a book mean to us, is a personal thing. Its not an actual thing. We all have our own little ways of the world, but thats what makes us human.

I honestly dont know how we can sit here, and say x person is so and so, and y person must be of youth, and of course z person needs to write more truth.

Why do you feel the need to have that tone? Cant you just let people have their opinion? Are you the messiah?

Edited March 31, 2008 by ChrisL

[Admiral_Bobski]

Deary me! What a lot to respond to...where to start...?

Devonian:

But, but... what does 'temperatures levelled off' mean? Well it means you have a period of time over which you can say that it has? Now if I take the recent period 1999 to 2005 what has happened to temperatures? They have, over that period, risen.

The problem I have is that today, or 2008 if you like, is a point in a time scale - and an end point at that. If one of 2008, 2009 or 2010 are the warmest ever year (and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them is) then what seem like levelling of to you will once again be part of a warming trend (no, I'm not ruling out a fall, but I think it's unlikely). I think that's problem with start and end point data. In the middle of a set of timed data you know where it's going because you have the forward data, at the end you don't, at the beginning you don't know what it was doing previously. I think end points are a great problem, it's why I stick to the long term trend - which is a warming on - we simply don't know if this 'temperatures levelling off' is for real yet.

As I say, I expect more warming. So I see all this talk of flat lining as 'timespan picking'. But, we will see. And if it doesn't happen I wont deny it.

Where you draw a trend line through a dataset makes a big difference to the conclusions, obviously. One high or low year tacked on to the end of a string of annual temperatures can mean the difference between a warming trend and a cooling trend. However, to do so there must be one of two scenarios:

A - The high or low year must be quite significant to alter a pre-existing significant trend

B- The high or low year can be less significant if the preceding years do not form a significant trend.

You show your cards with the announcement that you expect 2008, 2009 or 2010 to be the warmest ever year - you have a presupposition that warming is happening. I, on the other hand, accept wholeheartedly that it may start to cool or it may start to warm, and I accept these two possibilities equally. I have no bias, whereas you (and others) clearly do.

Whether or not "this 'temperatures levelling off' is for real" the fact is that temperatures have levelled off for now. The real question is whether temperatures will subsequently start to drop, and the answer to that is that nobody knows for sure.

BIFFVERNON:

No, not everyone, just the few remaining denialists, contrarians and flat earthers.

I really, really hope that comment was intended humourously. And even if it wasn't, look at the data!!! Whether or not temperatures have levelled off has nothing to do with one's viewpoint on AGW - it is a matter of scientific fact! I'm going to have a lie down in a darkened room in a moment, but first...

Gray-Wolf (I've taken the liberty of breaking your post up into more managable chunks):

If I plotted a line between the worlds hottest year and last winter.......lo and behold, temperatures fell......therefore........an ice age is coming!

What on earth are you getting at? That doesn't even begin to parallel any of my previous comments.

I have no issue with C-Bob per se but I have always questioned his motives as he [at times] seems to have been straining to put his flies in the ointment.

Ah, you got me - I'm actually a SMERSH agent, come to wreak environmental havoc on the Western World. I'm paid by all of the big oil companies and, were it not for the colossal paycheques they give me, I wouldn't even be in this debate.

How can you possibly question my motives? What an arrogant and patronising thing to say! My motives are pure - I don't agree with the AGW Hypothesis, I think it is deeply flawed, and I will continue to argue against it until such a time as its argument is made convincing. I have never strained to find a nit to pick with AGW - the nits are there, and I pick freely. Perhaps it is merely you who have strained to understand me...?

For the majority of us this is fine as we have fully functioning,enquiring minds but for the younger,more impressionable folk on here it seems [to me at least] a little more sinister.

I see - so disagreeing with AGW is tantamount to brainwashing the next generation. Now that is ironic. Is it not better for children to be shown that there are two sides to the argument than to be coerced into blindly following the latest fad?

I have always debated [since high school] and have fully enjoyed and engaged in the debating societies I have attended. During this time you do tend to get a feel for the folk who are arguing for a point they do not believe in [however accomplished they are in the art] and [to me] C-Bob has always seemed of that ilk.

We need more honest posting reflecting our beliefs and understanding and not posts purely because you can.

Your "feeling for folk" has seriously misled you. I fervently believe the points I argue, and I resent the insinuation that I am in some way an untrustworthy, argumentative, s**t-stirrer (which is basically what you are saying). I am being entirely honest.

I think it's time for me to take a looooooong sabbatical.

CB

[biffvernon]

Is it not better for children to be shown that there are two sides to the argument

Only when there are two sides. When it comes to the issue we are discussing there aren't. There's the science. And there's a few strange folk who don't/won't/can't understand science.

Meanwhile, over in Bangkok, a very important meeting has just started (without the strange folk).

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?News...&Cr1=change

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

I like being strange. Strange is what makes the brain twitch with excitement.

[Gray-Wolf]

Chris, there's no messiah in here, there is a mess but no messiah..........

As posted before. Because this is the written word it is open to your personal interpretation of tone (hence the need for emoticons) so the 'tone' you perceive is generally a reflection of how you feel the world deals with you. Patronising and condescending readings generally go with a person of low personal security who feels that this is how the world deals with them. Remember, everything posted is but an opinion until someone tells you it is a fact and backs it up with the proofs.

We cannot but differ in our opinions as, like Brian says, we are all different and if we feel that others are being troublesome just 'for the crack' then should we not address it? though our mods are great it would appear that many is the time that action only follows a complaint (justified or not) and the threads go unmonitored until that point.

I you find my posts offencive then you have chosen to 'take' offence as none is intended in it's composition.

First they came for the Jews and I said nothing............

Ian.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Devonian]

Deary me! What a lot to respond to...where to start...?

Devonian:

Where you draw a trend line through a dataset makes a big difference to the conclusions, obviously. One high or low year tacked on to the end of a string of annual temperatures can mean the difference between a warming trend and a cooling trend. However, to do so there must be one of two scenarios:

A - The high or low year must be quite significant to alter a pre-existing significant trend

B- The high or low year can be less significant if the preceding years do not form a significant trend.

You show your cards with the announcement that you expect 2008, 2009 or 2010 to be the warmest ever year - you have a presupposition that warming is happening. I, on the other hand, accept wholeheartedly that it may start to cool or it may start to warm, and I accept these two possibilities equally. I have no bias, whereas you (and others) clearly do.

Whether or not "this 'temperatures levelling off' is for real" the fact is that temperatures have levelled off for now. The real question is whether temperatures will subsequently start to drop, and the answer to that is that nobody knows for sure.

Humm, you say of me 'you have a presupposition that warming is happening' despite the fact I said "I'm not ruling out a fall, but I think it's unlikely" and you go on to claim I'm biased?! If I was sure would I say 'I'm not ruling out a fall, but I think it's unlikely'?

CB, temperatures can be claimed to have levelled off if you pick a particular time period. As I said if I pick 1999-2005 they have risen. It's folly to cherry pick in such a way - either if I or you do it.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Only when there are two sides. When it comes to the issue we are discussing there aren't. There's the science. And there's a few strange folk who don't/won't/can't understand science.

There are two sides to this debate - or perhaps it would be fairer to say that there is a lot more to the debate than many people will accept. To ignore the "other side" of the argument is denialism, regardless of which side of the line you stand on.

Gray-Wolf:

As posted before. Because this is the written word it is open to your personal interpretation of tone (hence the need for emoticons) so the 'tone' you perceive is generally a reflection of how you feel the world deals with you. Patronising and condescending readings generally go with a person of low personal security who feels that this is how the world deals with them. Remember, everything posted is but an opinion until someone tells you it is a fact and backs it up with the proofs.

We cannot but differ in our opinions as, like Brian says, we are all different and if we feel that others are being troublesome just 'for the crack' then should we not address it? though our mods are great it would appear that many is the time that action only follows a complaint (justified or not) and the threads go unmonitored until that point.

I you find my posts offencive then you have chosen to 'take' offence as none is intended in it's composition.

The tone you perceive is generally a reflection of how you feel the world deals with you? No. It may be a reflection of how you feel the individual in question deals with you. I do not feel hard done by, persecuted or alienated in my daily life - I'm actually a surprisingly happy person who thinks the best of others - but when you start hurling around accusations of pedantry, deceit and ignorance I fail to see how it could be interpreted as anything other than offensive. Perhaps you should vet your posts for potentially antagonistic language before hitting the "Add Reply" button...?

CB

Humm, you say of me 'you have a presupposition that warming is happening' despite the fact I said "I'm not ruling out a fall, but I think it's unlikely" and you go on to claim I'm biased?! If I was sure would I say 'I'm not ruling out a fall, but I think it's unlikely'?

CB, temperatures can be claimed to have levelled off if you pick a particular time period. As I said if I pick 1999-2005 they have risen. It's folly to cherry pick in such a way - either if I or you do it.

Sorry, Dev - I missed your post while I was writing...

You say that you are not ruling out a fall - which is intended to show that your expectations are not biased - but then you qualify it with "But I think it's unlikely", which shows that your actual expectation is for a subsequent rise in temperatures. Regardless, you do have an expectation of what is to follow, where I have none. B)

But I think it was you who said I should discount the El Nino year 1998, because it was obviously a blip. If we're discounting that year then it seems fair to discount 1999 as well, since it was a blip on the low side. However, if you include 1998 then we do have a slight downward trend. Yes, it is cherry-picking to an extent, but at least it's a nice round decade rather than a random 6-year period. (Of course you can argue that even a decade is just a "random period" - it just seems a nice round number because that is what mankind has made it - but still...)

Despite that, if you take the years 2000 to present then there is no significant temperature trend, either up or down. Surely even eight years of "levelling off" is enough for us to try and establish a cause? I am not saying that we are at a peak in temperatures and a cooldown is imminent - it's certainly possible, but I'm not suggesting it to be the case - I just think that the levelling off of temperatures is interesting, potentially important, and utterly disregarded by those who would rather the temperature trend was still strongly positive.

CB

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Chris, there's no messiah in here, there is a mess but no messiah..........

As posted before. Because this is the written word it is open to your personal interpretation of tone (hence the need for emoticons) so the 'tone' you perceive is generally a reflection of how you feel the world deals with you. Patronising and condescending readings generally go with a person of low personal security who feels that this is how the world deals with them. Remember, everything posted is but an opinion until someone tells you it is a fact and backs it up with the proofs.

We cannot but differ in our opinions as, like Brian says, we are all different and if we feel that others are being troublesome just 'for the crack' then should we not address it? though our mods are great it would appear that many is the time that action only follows a complaint (justified or not) and the threads go unmonitored until that point.

I you find my posts offencive then you have chosen to 'take' offence as none is intended in it's composition.

First they came for the Jews and I said nothing............

Ian.

Ian B) You do make me laugh, sorry. I've read human behaviour, and also been the subject of counselling myself.

Lets try not to create, what I would call, comments to try and either i) Make the poster be percieved as you are describing, or ii) Make the poster feel there is something the matter.

I'm wise enough to understand your tactics, and to be fair, they're manipulative. To the point that they are, from my point of view, frustrating to read. Yes, I could ignore your comments, but it seems to be your posts that always bring a discussion down to your level of games.

I wonder why you always feel the need to be right? To be the voice of righteousness? To be the only one that has the correct answer? Yep. Theres psychology behind every persona, eh!?

[Cakie]

Hi peeps B)

As Earth Hour has been and gone I'm going to close this thread. Feel free to carry on your discussions in the other thread in the Environmental area.