GaHillBilly
-
Content Count
293 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Store
Posts posted by GaHillBilly
-
-
"The cause of the bankin' collapse was deregulated gambling with other people's money, using highly leveraged derivatives on dishonestly packaged tranched and bundled bond instruments."
Maybe. I gather you do know something about financial markets, somewhat more than you do about AGW. I don't know much about them, so I'm definitely not sure.
I do know that GWB tried to reign in some of the MAE excesses and was blocked primarily by the Franks/Dodd axis of power. I don't know to what extent some of the MAE activities were a fundamental cause of the current financial collapse.
I do recognize -- and agree -- that the highly leveraged banking, whatever the causes that led to its being so profitable in the short term, were fundamental to the collapse.
Borrowing more than you can pay back is never prudent, but it is sometimes profitable.
However, I gather the causes are too complex for anyone to be sure why it really happened -- otherwise more than one or two would have 'seen it coming'. Also, if there was a clearly identifiable cause and effect chain, one party or the other would have been all over it. They haven't been, and although the Democrats blame the collapse on GWB, I have never seen them associate that blame with an explanation. This too suggests to me that either (a) they aren't sure why it happened either, or (b) they do know, but it's as much on them as on the Republicans.
But, to roll over and accept AGW just because you've gotten locally warmer weather is pretty silly from someone who seems to know what "tranching, packaging, derivatives, and unsecured leveraging" are. Until AGW became a religion, it was an 'accepted fact' that there were both long term (1000's of years) and short term (10's or 100's of years) climatological trends and variations. The "Little Ice Age", with effects described in Dicken's Christmas Carol, was ending at the time of the Civil War. The combatants who fought the battle near here woke up to frost in mid-September, something that's been unheard of since I was before I was a boy in the '50's.
So it's warmer now, then then.
But, is it "GW"? Probably. Is it a long term or short term trend? Dunno, and it seems likely they don't know, either. Is the "GW" primarily "AGW", instead of a non-anthropogenic "GW"? It seems pretty clear that that is unknown.
Are there state players who stand to benefit enormously if Western governments accept AGW as dogma. Yes.
Are there political views who stand to benefit enormously if Western governments accept AGW as dogma. Yes.
Is long term weather modeling even MORE SPECULATIVE than allowing banks to major in derivatives? Yes.
Does this prove that AGW is NOT happening. No.
Does this prove that it's imprudent -- at . this . time -- to bet trillions on AGW? Yes.
GaHillBilly
-
Ah, yah, well da Beavuh has spoken. So I guess all us dumb Southern hicks shud just shut up and lis'n to da man wid da advanced duhgrees who tahks funny.
He's tellin' us, so we can unnerstand that any us dummies dat have da questions bout global warmin' are jus dummies, no, lemme get ud right:
"da real fakers and fools are linin' up against global warmin'"
We're not da dummies: we're da "fakers and fools".
And, he's takin' his time to share his big money knowlej wid us, too. Dis money trouble our country is havin' is all da Republican's fault, and wuz caused by " Phil Gramm-style deregulation and the decision to repeal all of the depression-era protections which nearly took out our entire banking system last year."
Well, that's gud to know.
Here I was thinkin' it was that Barney wierdo fro Massasneezit and dumb Dodd from Conneticant that forced da banks and dose Mae-girls to loan all dat money to people who couldn't pay it back, so they could buy all dose big houses and live just as good as da rich men from Chicahgo.
GaHillBilly, tipping my hat.
-
Vol_scouter, I have a quote that may be useful in understanding the reception some of your recent explanations have received.
When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest.
Proverbs 29:9
-
Answering my own challenge, here's a first attempt collection of news claiming that 'it's cold because it's getting warm'. I'm sure the really juicy quotes will come later, after climatologists have had a chance to 'analyze' the cold.
I did find it surprising that the juiciest current quotes came from Chinese officials. I'd guessed the Chinese were quietly cheering Gore from the sidelines, given the enormous geopolitical benefit they stand to gain from cap-n-trade legislation. But, I was really surprised to see them do so publicly, given the chance that it might cause others to contemplate the global political implications of Guru Gore's wish list.
GaHillBilly
[ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6975867.ece ]
"The icy conditions of Western Europe, which broke records in half a dozen countries in December, are expected to last for at least another week.
Guo Hu, the head of the Beijing Meteorological Bureau, linked this weeks conditions to unusual atmospheric patterns caused by global warming."
"FREAK snowstorms and record low temperatures sweeping northern China are linked to global warming, say Chinese officials."
[ http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/polar-pressure-pattern-driving-chill-nearly-off-chart/ ]
"The head of the Beijing Meteorological Bureau asserted that global warming was behind unusual atmospheric patterns (a heap of climate scientists I queried saw no such link)."
"So if it is the longest cold snap for 29 years, does that prove that the idea of global warming is a non-starter? Funnily enough, it doesn't. For once you look at current meteorological conditions across the whole world, a different picture emerges."
(Explanation follows of how it's only cool in Europe, etc. and that it's much warmer elsewhere -- like here in the US!! I guess that would be a pretty persuasive argument for a Brit not keeping up with current US weather.)
(Explains how it would REALLY be cold, instead of just really cold, if not for global warming.)
"Global warming is responsible for the overall upward temperature trend, and any snow outside our window shouldnt convince us that Earth has stopped heating up, says Richard Heim, an NCDC meteorologist. "Most of the top 10 warmest years have happened in the last decade and a half," Heim tells ScientificAmerican.com."
(Fails to mention that the "warmest decade" conclusion depends on much disputed data and models.)
-
Hey, JoeBob;
I think we should have a contest to see how many articles can be found which explain that the current cold weather is CAUSED by global warming!
I'd bet anything that there will be some, though it may be harder to find them than it would have been before 'Climate-gate'.
I can't find the link at the moment, but a few days ago I read an article about a group of indigenous Andeans who are dying off due to poverty and and repeated cold winters*. The writer explained that the repeated cold winters were due to glacial melting caused by . . . AGW!
GaHillBilly
* No info on how you can help. I gathered that previous local efforts have been stymied by lack of local funding, and external efforts have been hampered by local red tape, for which there apparently was funding.
-
Vol_scouter, it's finally dawned on me that Merlyn is like an old, toothless and senile pit bull, gnawing on our legs:
+ too toothless to do any injury;
+ too nerve-damaged to recognize when he's been injured;
+ too stubborn to quit or let go.
With a dog, the solution would be to put him out of his misery.
With Merlyn, there is no solution. All we can do is leave, and leave him snapping and snarling around this thread by himself.
There's no point to responding to him or trying to answer him -- he is alternately unable or unwilling to participate in a reasoned discussion.
GaHillBilly
-
The issue of understanding scientific statements and publications has been part of several ongoing threads here, so I thought this lexicon of scientific terminology might be helpful. The Dyrk Schlingman to whom this list is commonly attributed appears to now be a DVM in Oregon, but apparently is no longer publishing this list himself.
Anyhow, on to the list:
============================================================================
Scientific Jargon by Dyrk Schlingman, Oregon State University
After several years of studying and hard work, I have finally learned scientific jargon. The following list of phrases and their definitions will help you to understand that mysterious language of science and medicine.
IT HAS LONG BEEN KNOWN
I didn't look up the original reference.
A DEFINITE TREND IS EVIDENT
These data are practically meaningless.
WHILE IT HAS NOT BEEN POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE DEFINITE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS
An unsuccessful experiment, but I still hope to get it published.
THREE OF THE SAMPLES WERE CHOOSEN FOR DETAILED STUDY
The other results didn't make any sense.
TYPICAL RESULTS ARE SHOWN
This is the prettiest graph.
THESE RESULTS WILL BE IN A SUBSEQUENT REPORT
I might get around to this sometime, if pushed or funded.
THE MOST RELIABLE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED BY JONES
He was my graduate student; his grade depended on this.
IN MY EXPERINCE
once
IN CASE AFTER CASE
Twice
IN A SERIES OF CASES
Thrice
IT IS BELIEVED THAT
I think.
IT IS GENERALLY BELIEVED THAT
A couple of other guys think so too.
CORRECT WITHIN AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE
Wrong.
ACCORDING TO STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Rumor has it.
A STATISTICALLY ORIENTED PROJECTION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE FINDINGS
A wild guess.
A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF OBTAINABLE DATA
Three pages of notes were obliterated when I knocked over a glass of beer.
IT IS CLEAR THAT MUCH ADDITIONAL WORK WILL BE REQUIRED BEFORE A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THIS PHENOMENA OCCURS
I don't understand it.
AFTER ADDITIONAL STUDY BY MY COLLEAGUES
They don't understand it either.
THANKS ARE DUE TO JOE BLOTZ FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE EXPERIMENT AND TO ANDREA SCHAEFFER FOR VALUABLE DISCUSSIONS
Mr. Blotz did the work and Ms. Shaeffer explained to me what it meant.
A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT AREA FOR EXPLORATORY STUDY
A totally useless topic selected by my committee.
IT IS HOPED THAT THIS STUDY WILL STIMULATE FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN THIS FIELD
I quit.
This may be used or broadcast in any form as long as I receive credit.
============================================================================
My older son found this, and has given it to several of his professors to their amusement and chagrin. If you've had to slog through many 'peer-reviewed' publications, you will recognize this as one of those 'true jokes', like the one about how to tell if a salesman is lying*.
GaHillBilly
*"His lips are moving!"(This message has been edited by GaHillBilly)
-
Merlyn, in the recent past, over praising kids ("You're doing GREAT!"; That's so GOOD!"; "Fantastic job!") has been a staple of educational motivation concepts. Recently, the trend seems to be to back away from the BS, as it has begun to dawn on the "highly educated" teachers and professors with "advanced degrees", that when you praise a kid who's acting like a monster and learning nothing, the results might not be what you hope.
It's too late for all the idiot children running around, who are confused as heck why, when they are "just so SMART!", they can't pass algebra.
Us hillbillies figured it out, even BEFORE they tried that BS. Unfortunately, it seems that you were educated while that mess was still in vogue. Given your D&D-ish nom de forum (Merlin the King), I'm guessing you are a 20 - 30ish ex-dweeb, which would put you right in that group of highly over-praised idiots.
So, here's a clue: DanKroh and I disagree because we think differently. You and I disagree because you don't -- and apparently can't -- think about science in an educated manner.
Here's a second clue: if your teachers and SMs praised you for doing "A Great JOB!" with your work, and told you that you were "just so SMART!" . . . they were lying!
If vol_scouter were wrong . . . you wouldn't be able to tell. You are just too under-educated in scientific and mathematical concepts.
GaHillBilly
-
Dan, you specifically were NOT one I had in mind. I suspect we disagree on almost everything, but the impression I've gotten from you here is that you try to be honest and stick with the facts, at least as you know them.
I should have made clear, and did not, that I don't think everyone here who has argued a pro-gay position has distorted facts, much less done so deliberately.
And, I will certainly recognize that social scientists, in the (distant!) past, have distorted 'facts' about homosexuals, in a anti-homosexual way. But, it was wrong then, and it's wrong now.
Apart from the issue of honesty as a moral value, when the facts and research get distorted -- as they have been, both then and now -- it's hard to trust anything. The 10% homosexuals is a recent and especially egregious lie, one that was made knowingly in the past, and is being made occasionally even now.
For the record: I trust old texts (or claims) that virtually all homosexuals were pedophiles just about exactly as well as I trust new texts and claims that homosexuals are likely to be pedophiles (in the near- or post- puberty sense) than heteros. Which is to say, I don't trust either to stick to the data.
So, I'm left with trusting the data I actually know for myself, which includes things like my wannabe pedophile (now deceased) homosexual uncle, my experiences as unwilling "fresh meat" for homos to hit on in Europe in the '70's, friendship with an old homo couple years ago, current public homo 'cruising' in the parks we go to nearby, and employment (as a contractor) by a number of homosexuals, well, mostly lesbian couples. I'm not currently friends with anyone I know to be homosexual, but have both been friends and have worked with homosexuals in the past.
Actually, I take that back. My wife has a homosexual coworker (elementary teacher) who is very competent generally and very friendly. He knows we're conservative; we know he's not. We're still friends, and he and my wife get along fine. He and I have had some 'discussions', but for obvious reasons I go easier in that situation than I have here.
But, I still wouldn't leave him alone with my younger son.
HiLo deliberately and dishonestly distorted what I said, in a manner characteristic of much CURRENT pro-gay literature, and with what SOME others have done here (Troop24 comes to mind). That's not to say that no-one has ever distorted points or statements to argue for an anti-homo position. Maybe, it's happened here -- this thread is very long. But, I don't recall it, and I have tried very hard not to do so myself.
Dan, I should add I don't trust a lot of the literature that comes out of my own 'community' among evangelicals, either. Being honest, when the facts are against you, is only slightly more popular among evangelicals than I find it to be among atheists!
GaHillBilly
-
"And GaHillBilly thinks he has proven to us that homosexuals will exhibit abusive sexual behavior towards Scouts by telling us a story about what consenting adult gay people do when they meet up."
It is incredibly disheartening to see Scouters repeatedly engage in deliberately dishonest distortion, as you have done here, HiLo. After PRE-qualifying, and excluding what you claim, you STILL lie about what I said, and inject thoughts into my head.
There's no point in trying to argue with you -- I already stated that I did not claim ANYTHING other than what I described, though the behavior I described was, and is, NOT what you stated.
[ OGE, before you rebuke me for calling HiLo a liar, please take a look at what I did post, preferably in its entirety. But, here are two relevant quotes:
"1. I'm not claiming that the behavior I'm going to describe is pedophilia.
2. I'm also not claiming that this behavior is associated with physical assault.
3. I'm not claiming that this behavior necessarily extends to other areas of these person's lives.
4. Although this behavior is ubiquitous and common, I am NOT asserting that all homosexuals engage in this behavior. I have no idea what percentage do. "
AND
"To the best of my knowledge, this sort of behavior is both common, and unique to homosexuals. (Again, when I say common, I mean it is going on constantly during daylight hours unless it's pouring or snowing. I don't mean that every homo participates in this stuff.)
This does not prove that homosexuals are more likely than, say women SMs, to molest young post-pubertal boys." ]
One of the reason I would fiercely oppose homosexuals in Scouts is that I suspect that the sort of pro-homosexual dishonesty repeatedly displayed here is also characteristic of the social scientists and psychologists who are publishing pro-gay studies.
Some of you may remember a few years back, shortly after AIDS was discovered, that the homosexual community was arguing 'authoritatively' that homosexuals made up about 10% of the population. The MSM published these 'authoritative' figures like the lapdogs they are. Eventually, such an egregiously dishonest distortion was corrected -- not without protests from the homosex community -- down to the current 1 - 3% value.
But, that episode along with the dishonesty here and elsewhere has left me seriously skeptical about all the data that 'shows' that homosexuals are not pedophiles, especially when "pedophilia" is applied to sex with near- and post-pubertal boys.
HiLo, just like the 10 percenters before you, you've shown yourself ready to engage in lies and distortion on this topic in an attempt to win your point. If you make up your facts, here, when a simply glance-back in the thread reveals your lie, what must we conclude you will do when we can not check your claims?
GaHillBilly
-
"Quantum mechanics and general relativity conflict, and haven't been reconciled. "
Merlyn, please name an area of engineering, particle physics, or astrophysics where scientists are unable to decide whether to apply quantum physics & the standard model OR the general theory of relativity, and thus are unable to perform the requisite calculations.
Failing that, please have a generous helping of your own words for your New Year's meal
Neither quantum theory nor general relativity are a Grand Unified Theory (GUT). Quantum theory and the standard model work very, very well for the little stuff. And general relativity works well for the big stuff.
So although neither works outside their 'realm', but I'm not aware of any conflict except in the minds of theorists who want one theory to cover both the big and the little.
GaHillBilly
-
To the contrary, it has been repeatedly implied that homosexuals are no more likely to exhibit abusive sexual behavior than heterosexuals, and thus, constitute no more risk to Scouts. The case I described documents specific examples of a general and common homosexual behavior that is -- at the very minimum -- illegal.
If it's really necessary, I'll dig back through prior posts and provide quotes.
GaHillBilly.
-
Support of gays in the BSA has been repeatedly argued here with various forms of the assertion that homosexuals, apart from their sexual preference itself, behave no differently than heterosexuals.
Over the holidays, I had occasion to be reminded again (and again) of at least one characteristic homosexual behavior is not duplicated by either heteros or (AFAIK) lesbians.
Now, since King Merlin and Voyageur seem to embrace mis-interpretation as a legitimate form of argument, let me qualify before I assert:
1. I'm not claiming that the behavior I'm going to describe is pedophilia.
2. I'm also not claiming that this behavior is associated with physical assault.
3. I'm not claiming that this behavior necessarily extends to other areas of these person's lives.
4. Although this behavior is ubiquitous and common, I am NOT asserting that all homosexuals engage in this behavior. I have no idea what percentage do.
All of those things MAY be true, but I don't know or have evidence that they are.
What I AM asserting is that the behavior I'm going to describe is
+ unique to homosexuals;
+ that it is illegal;
+ that it is common in occurrence.
Hopefully, that's enough qualification and clarification to at least slow down the snipers. (Maybe, they won't even read this far, and so they won't have anything to respond to!)
Anyhow, my family and I hike several times a week in nearby parks. We go to certain areas repeatedly, with the result that we are very familiar with not only the native flora and fauna, but also the transient human wild life.
I can state, with absolute personal knowledge, that homosexuals constantly frequent certain areas of these parks in order to solicit and participate in anonymous or random sex.
1. We've checked out the short little trails worn through the woods, which end in piles of condoms at convenient spots for leaning.
2. We've seen the cars with bearded guys (I'm not prejudiced -- I have a beard too) smoking and waiting, rather than hiking.
3. We've seen the car tags from Atlanta and Tennessee cities, as well as local areas.
4. We've seen the same guys repeatedly, sometimes hanging out and waiting so long that they are still there when we return from a 1 - 2 hour hike.
5. We've seen them skedaddle when LEOs check out the population, only to return an hour later.
6. We've seen a steady stream of new guys, as well as a rotating pool of regulars.
7. We've confirmed, with multiple individual LEOs that what we think is happening, is happening.
8. Our boys, who are tall, slim and relatively good looking, get totally grossed out by the creepy smiles they get when they pass through those areas.
9. They are so persistent and regular, that their 'hangout' areas do not have the problems with car break ins that occur elsewhere.
10. We can safely offer a personal estimate of more than 100 DIFFERENT homo sex cruisers hanging out in the parks over the past 5 years. (I occasionally photo tags -- I have over 50 tag numbers of guys sitting and smoking in their cars at trailheads.)
To the best of my knowledge, this sort of behavior is both common, and unique to homosexuals. (Again, when I say common, I mean it is going on constantly during daylight hours unless it's pouring or snowing. I don't mean that every homo participates in this stuff.)
This does not prove that homosexuals are more likely than, say women SMs, to molest young post-pubertal boys. It does support the idea that they are far more likely to LEER at, and OGLE young post-pubertal boys. My sons have occasionally been 'ogled' by girls their own age, but never to their knowledge by older women. But these creepy guys (many my age) never miss a chance, to smile 'sweetly' at my sons.
+ It also offers at least one area where homosexuals engage in ILLEGAL and PUBLIC SEXUAL behavior, that is distinctly different than any common heterosexual behavior.
+ I know young guys (and some older ones) 'cruise' bars, etc. for quick hookups. But even a one-night stand is distinctly different than what these guys do. They arrive separately, and after their activity is apparently over in a few minutes, leave separately.
GaHillBilly
-
Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the putative cause of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). You can read the abstract below yourself, but for those not versed in statistical science-speak,
=> the bottom line is that the data shows no increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 150 years.
-
"a heterosexual boy abused, molested or otherwise inappropriately touched a younger scout, he would most likely get away with it, but if there was evidence that the perpetrator was homosexual, he'd be expelled in a heartbeat?"
A heterosexual boy would NOT abuse a younger Scout sexually -- by definition. If he did so, he would be functionally homosexual.
(I'm well aware that many functional homosexuals consider themselves hetero. But men or boys who have or seek sex with men or boys, they are homosexual in my definition and, I think, within the BSA's definition. And yes, I know what Kinsey said. But Kinsey has been shown to be a pedophile pervert who used his famous study to recruit sex opportunities. Oh, by the way, he was also an active Scout, FWIW.)
But, if you are referring to non-sexual abuse and harassment, it was already going on -- AND being swept under the rug -- in that troop.
Lisa, inadvertently I think, pointed out the key difference. A homosexual will be removed pre-emptively, where as a non-sexual likely abuser will only be removed AFTER abuse has occurred, and in some troops, not even then.
If you think getting shoved around and verbally humiliated by an older Scout is just as bad as getting homosexually fondled by an older Scout, than you're not going to have problems with gays in the troops.
OTOH, if you see, as I and many other parents do, being homosexually fondled as far worse than being punched around and verbally humiliated, you WILL have problem with opening troops to gays.
The fact is, in our most recent troop and in many other troops, the abusers (of whatever type) are often older Scouts with parent leaders, who are often in denial, and who can and will protect them. Current BSA regulations make it possible to protect Scouts who engage in physical or verbal abuse, but impossible to protect those that engage in sexual abuse.
You want to change that to make it possible to protect -- EVEN THOUGH THAT MAY NOT BE YOUR PRIMARY PURPOSE -- sexual abusers.
You can say all day long that physical and verbal abuse should not be allowed. But you know, and I know, that it's common and that it's common for parent leaders to protect their sons.
GaHillBilly
-
Merlyn,
You certainly are stubborn.
But one of the problems with a debate in a forum like this is that there are no judges.
=> If this were a fist fight, you'd be down and out.
=> If this were a judged debate, you'd be down and out.
But here, you just go on and on.
You don't even seem to understand enough of the technical aspects of this discussion to realize that you've been knocked down. You are like one of those pop-up puppet clowns. You get knocked down, but pop right back up, looking just as silly as you did before.
I know you are used to 'winning' certain debates here simply by wearing other people out. Maybe that will happen this time. I find it amazing that you are so willing to be repeatedly stupid in public.
GaHillBilly
-
OGE, I would request that you go back and read my posts, and compare them to Merlyn's remarks. If you still think I'm being unfair to him, I'll happily request that you delete what I said.
But, I think you'll find that he's not paying attention to what has been said, and is ducking and sniping, rather than responding to the arguments.
His remark suggesting that the phrase "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" was something I manufactured because it was "sciency-sounding" was simply asinine. You can easily confirm this yourself if you follow the search link I posted for that exact phrase. I realize that if you aren't actually interested in this topic yourself, it requires some tedious reading to verify what I'm saying. But, I don't know how else to resolve it, short of giving in to his distortions.
I think he's used to being in groups where Guru Gore is worshiped unquestioningly, and where no one challenges some of the stupid things said about AGW. I'm very, very familiar with this pattern and I see it all the time among closed groups of evangelicals. But, contrary to liberal dogma, such unquestioning submission to the stupidities dominant in your particular circle is not a pattern unique to evangelicals OR Southerners.
I strongly suspect he actually is not able to follow much of what is being said, but doesn't want to either drop out or study up. So, he's sniping instead.
GaHillBilly
-
Merlyn, it would make this easier if you could hold more than one thought or fact in your mind at time. I'll answer you, but it's probably futile, because then you'll respond ONLY to what's in this answer, rather than the complete thread.
+ Regarding my opinion vis a vis AGW:
I have voiced the same opinion about AGW throughout this thread, and that opinion is entirely consistent with not knowing what CO2 levels have been. That opinion is that GW is probable, but unproven; and that AGW is unproven AND improbably. (If you like, you can replace "proven" with "demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence to be statistically likely")
My further opinion is that, so long as AGW is unproven, we shouldn't spend TRILLIONS to try to fix it, using solutions that are themselves not 'proven' to produce the expected results. Given that we are way past broke as a nation, I think that our CURRENT financial situation is a far greater, and far more real threat, to my grandchildren than the hypothetical risk of AGW.
+ Regarding data:
I know where SOME of the data comes from, and that knowledge is one reason for my skepticism. It appears NO ONE knows where all the data comes from, and that's another reason for my skepticism. (But, there are many OTHER reasons for doubting AGW, besides these two.)
+ Regarding "proof":
Get a life . . . and a dictionary! Even practicing scientists use this word inconsistently. See above for what I "mean".
Regarding chaotic phenomenon:
Sheesh.
Just because you haven't heard of chaotic phenomena before, doesn't mean I made it up. "Initial conditions" is just a term from calculus or dynamic system analysis. "Sensitive dependence" or "non-linearity" means that small changes in initial conditions produce unanticipatably large changes in outcomes. The two phrases have been commonly combined.
[ http://www.google.com/search?q="sensitive+dependence+on+initial+conditions" ]
You've still got time to get a textbook on chaos in physics before Xmas. Get it, read it, and then you'll know more than I do about chaotic phenomena. While you're at Amazon, it's not too late to purchase some "Sai Baba Nag Champa Incense", to use while you mediate before your altar to Guru Gore!
[ http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Chaos-Physics-Mathematics-Phenomena/dp/0750305088 ]
[ http://www.amazon.com/Incense-Champa-Sai-Satya-Baba/dp/B0000ZUGS6/ ]
GaHillBilly
More articles on chaos & climate:
This page links to an article examining one aspect of chaotic phenomena, as it affects weather modeling, and offers links to many more:
[ http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1005341 ]
Additional links that appear to be relevant - I've only read the abstracts because I can't afford the articles (RANT: It irritates me no end that I have to pay for research paid for by tax-funded governments!!)
[ http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/63/2/201 ]
I scanned this article; it looked interesting and appears to attempt to address some aspects of chaos as it impacts climate model validity. However, I'm not capable of judging the validity of their analysis.
[ http://www.meteo.unican.es/files/pdfs/2008_revelli_jpa.pdf ]
-
Merlyn, you really don't get it, do you?
CO2 levels may, or may not have changed. I gather that they have been measured recently (over the past 40 years) and have increased. Before that, it's my understanding that CO2 was not measured directly. So, you have short period with relatively accurate atmospheric CO2 measurements, and much, much longer period over which they were estimated in a variety of ways, the accuracy and reliability of which is being questioned.
Beyond that, the integrity of the data regarding BOTH CO2 and temperature measurements is seriously in doubt, due to the recent CRU email release.
But . . . even that doesn't begin to address the scope of the problem.
There is NO proof that CO2 levels have significant effect on global temperatures. Even under best case scenarios, the best that can be achieved is highly significant correlation. Proof would require a scope of experimentation that is not possible.
But, we don't have highly significant correlation . . . which is why the CRU guys felt the need to 'improve' the 'normalized' data. We have somewhat significant correlation.
But, even highly significant correlation does not establish causation.
So . . . even if we could all agree on what the CO2 levels were over, say, the last 2000 years (which would include the warm Roman period, the Little Ice Age, and other historically verified temperature excursions), the dispute would be far from over.
Everyone seems to forget that 15 or 20 years ago we were being told that weather was a 'fractal' or was a "chaotic phenomenon" that exhibited "sensitive dependence on initial conditions". The colloquial expression of this was the term, "the butterfly effect". More recently, there was even a bad Ashton Kutcher movie made with that as the title.
So far as I know, those claims that weather and climate are chaotic (in the mathematical sense) have not been repudiated or discredited. But, if climate is chaotic, then even if you have ALL the data for the past 2000 years, accurate to the nearest 0.001%, you STILL would not be able to predict climate change because of that little issue of "sensitive dependence on initial conditions".
GaHillBilly
-
To the contrary, Calico, I for one am well aware that gays are among the Scouts today. You may recall I even pointed out -- only to have my comments pooh-poohed by guys on YOUR side of the issue -- that having first gay experiences in Scouting apparently has a somewhat iconic character in gay lore. But, it appeared to be gay lore with some basis in reality.
Again, speaking for myself, I was very cautious about an SPL who I already knew to be a bully, when I encountered some evidence that he might be also gay. I specifically warned my son not only to avoid being alone with him, but come to me immediately if he saw this guy try to corral one of the younger and weaker Scouts off by themselves.
However . . .
I also know that this guy was TERRIFIED of being ID'd as gay (there'd been some accusations -- accusations I was NOT connected to in ANY way -- I'd kept my observations to myself). Under current Scout regulations, he'd have been out in a flash as soon as there was anything more than a unsubstantiated accusation. And he really, really wants that bird decoration on his uniform.
Under current Scout regs, the instant that there was any substantiated evidence that he was gay, I could have pushed him out of the troop, all by myself no matter what anyone else wanted. He knew this, and though we'd never discussed that particular issue, he also knew that he could not 'roll' me the way he had the SM, and several other leaders.
There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that -- if he is gay -- the fear of being caught and pushed out of Scouts restrains his behavior. (Did I note that he really, really, REALLY wants that bird on his uniform?)
But, under pro-gay regulations, everything about that hypothetical situation would have changed. Instead of being a concerned parent and leader who was applying long standing Scout principles, in the face of some wishy-washy adults, I would have become a bigot in need of diversity training.
The kid he had (hypothetically) fondled would have been said to be 'exaggerating' (the young weak kids had uninvolved parents; his parents are leaders); the matter would have been discussed and handled in a way 'to protect the needs of ALL the boys (especially his)'
Let me make it clear: ANY incident of him fondling a boy is purely HYPOTHETICAL, but the weak and unethical protection of the older boys (with parent leaders) at the expense of the younger boys was a well established tradition in that troop.
So, changing the rules would change a lot even with the existing group of Scouts, long before the effects of the resultant influx of gay boys appeared.
GaHillBilly
-
Merlyn, instead of endlessly sniping, why don't you explain what proxy measurements are, why they are germane to discussions of AGW, and how they add to the uncertainty of any predictions or models which rest on them.
Do so in a factual way, and you'll not only demonstrate that you have a clue (as opposed to a bad case of Gore-worship), AND you'll help a lot of people here on both sides who don't understand what proxy measurements are or why they are an issue.
Beavuh, if Murh-lun ducks da kwest-shun, perhaps ya can fill en for him, since ya got all dose advance duhgrees and all.
GaHillBilly
-
Merlyn, I'm not sure if you read and understand what HICO wrote.
But, I've noted that few here seem to have any idea what any of the following are:
+ proxy measurements
+ order of magnitude
+ statistical linkage
etc.
These are all concepts that are critically germane to the debate about AGW and the CRU. Whether HICO is right or wrong, he shows considerable evidence of understanding key concepts in the debate.
Can YOU explain why the dependence of the ANY complex model on "proxy measurements" as a primary data input raises serious doubt about the validity of the model?
If you can't . . . you really don't understand one of the core issues.
GaHillBilly
-
Voyageur, there's not much we seem to agree on, but I found this post both informative and interesting.
As my sons approach adulthood, I'm increasingly aware the impact of 'main stream media' and main stream 'infotainment' on their view of the world, society, and science.
Fortunately, they are getting the message. My older son's first reaction now, to a new natural history guide book, is to see how many errors and mis-identifications he can find in it. We've reached the point where we no longer make plant or animal ID's based on a single text: there are just too many errors in the popular ones.
Having spent a good portion of my life in contact with research on technical chemistry dealing with water treatment, I've developed a very healthy skepticism about 'scientists'. I've read too many journal articles with serious and obvious errors or oversights. I can't claim the expertise in other areas to judge accurately the value of the materials presented, but I have no reason to assume that other realms of science perform better than the chemists do.
But most people today, and especially most young people, form their views about science and history, not from contact with actual science, but from a hodge-podge of science fiction movies, main stream media reports, and seriously flawed high school texts. Even worse, hardly anyone has the mathematical background to understand how terribly uncertain most presentations of frequency or risk are (including, but hardly limited to, AGW).
That's not a new problem, I suppose. You may be able to correct me, but it's my impression that the majority of decision makers on both sides of the Civil War believed, in the beginning, that the war would be over in 6 months or less.
The more I understand about the uncertainties of the information we receive, the less I find I know for sure.
GaHillBilly(This message has been edited by GaHillBilly)
-
Just in the FYI category:
"South African Epidemic Of Schoolboy Sexual Abuse"
[ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080728192809.htm ]
Not sure what to make of it, but it seemed relevant. (BTW, the article ID's adult woman on adolescent boy sex as the primary problem, there.)
GaHillBilly
A Scouter pervert in the news
in Issues & Politics
Posted
"A Boy Scout leader who is also the top police officer in the Missouri town of Fredericktown is facing statutory sodomy charges for allegedly having sex with children."
[ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,582191,00.html ]
GaHillBilly