The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Carbon rationing or freedom > Comments

Carbon rationing or freedom : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 14/3/2008

Should governments let climate alarmists impose policies that limit an individual’s access to energy?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. Page 15
  10. 16
  11. 17
  12. All
Fester, Dickie

Be careful, even mentioning RealClimate on OLO can get you whacked.

I visit the sceptic websites as well, to get their ‘perspective’ on things.

Here’s one of Roy Spencer’s sermons from the Watts’ site. Check out the comments and contribution from “loquor’, an ecologist that really does know what he's talking about.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/

Another thing, Spencer and his disciples have said the Argo system of 3000 swimmie/floatie/robotie/thingies are showing no global warming in the oceans. Now, I’m no expert on these little blighters, but studying ocean heat content, ENSO and coupled atmospheric-ocean systems interest me.

What bothers me, and please comment or correct me if I’m wrong (anyone) is that errors have been found in Argo that biased the results to ‘cooling’. See:

http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/Acpres_offset.html

http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/Acpres_offset2.html

So it’s no surprise Spencer & Co are saying the oceans are not warming.
If this is the case, Spencer’s (Marohasy’s) claims are full of you know what.

For a good overview of Argo, see this site:

http://www.coriolis.eu.org/cdc/argo_rfc.htm

Of course, the Argo system is independent of what the researchers do to the data-set provided … but the data-set is freely available and at least the team that runs Argo have a QA/QC system in place.

BTW Dickie,

While the Wilkins Ice Shelf collapse may be stunning, more so is the spin going around the denialist blogo-sphere. This from Salon:

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/03/26/antarctic_ice_shelf/

Ever wonder where a lot of the world’s heat is going? Nah … couldn’t be the oceans.
The disciples say Spencer can’t be wrong (now this is being dishonest).
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 27 March 2008 2:14:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A regarding ““misguided comments by Col exemplify the issues”

Maybe you could identify how any of my statements are supposedly “misguided”, so I can at least place myself back on the path to truth or possibly challenge your lowgrade sledge."

Q&A response “Sorry Col, lost count when it comes to GW stuff.”

My “misguided comments” must hold some prominence in your short term memory for you to have commented on them in the first place. Yet you cannot quote them now

That is a feeble excuse

Or maybe you are having problems with short term memory, a scientist might suggest you have been boiling water in aluminum utensils.

So surely, among all those misguided comments, you could find a couple to quote

I guess sledging is as scientific as you can get.

To echo the words of others…

“I acknowledge that there are two sides. Some, like you, don't want to. I'd like to see your science qualifications. I bet they don't exist.”

I feel justified in suggesting, since you seem incapable of discovering the supposedly already written “misguided comment” penned by myself, that you are even less likely to make discoveries or revelations in the matter of science, a profession whose exacting standards are surely more testing than simply parroting what I may have said, in some misguided moment or otherwise.

Dickie I see you are still avoiding the challenge I put to you too

quote “where I have ever penned heroic support for any cartel of any shape or form.

It is your “intellectual ability” which is now on the line Dickie, “

Am I to assume you lack the scientific rigor to defend your statement and identify where I have given support to cartels

Are we common reading folk of OLO to assume you are simply trying to be vexatious in attempting to censor those who have the temerity to challenge you omnipotence?

Q&A and Dickie are, in their support of science, supposedly valiant pursuers of fact and truth.

It seems to me their support of such is subordinate to the expediency which comes with unbridled hubris.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 27 March 2008 2:59:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks GrahamY for making your climate change 'sceptic' bias clear in your last post: the alarmist label used 3 times against Gavin Schmidt and the many respected climate scientists who maintain Realclimate.org (with an antagonistic’ thrown in for good measure), while Spencer gets called a scientist two or is it three times. Nothing like a bit of repetition eh mate?
Posted by Liam, Friday, 28 March 2008 5:44:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A you will not get an apology because you are wrong. The document that you link to does not support your claims about the Walker Circulation. Anyone who clicks on the link can find that for themselves, but just one quote "The term Walker Circulation was first introduced in 1969 by Professor Jacob Bjerknes, referring to the large-scale atmospheric circulation along the longitude–height plane over the equatorial Pacific Ocean."

It's the first sentence. You couldn't have missed it. It shouldn't matter that you made a mistake. Everyone makes them. But it does matter not only that you refuse to acknowledge it, but that you dishonestly keep asserting that you haven't. I say "dishonestly" because I make the assumption that you are smart enough to read and understand enough of the information to know that you are wrong. That leaves as the only alternative that you are intentionally saying something that is not correct. That is the definition of dishonesty.

I note you say that you tried to post 5 minutes before the 24 hours and were then "penalised an extra hour". There is an algorithm that polices the posting rules. This appears to be another incorrect statement, unless I hear from others that this is what is happening, in which case I have a problem with a software engineer. I know my software engineers well, and I think the onus is on you.
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 28 March 2008 9:04:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham Y

Unlike Q&A, I couldn't care less if you apologise about anything. But I would like to think that you are learning something, as many do on this forum. For example, you said this earlier:

"There's a few errors in what you say too......How does colder air give rise to lower pressure?"

Now have you learned something or do you still think this an error?
Posted by Fester, Friday, 28 March 2008 9:43:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Recapping, (I’m really trying to understand Graham Young’s attack).

Keiran asks,

“Why is the surface cooling across the tropics and mainly on the equator like the Indian and Pacific cooling forming a particularly noticeable band?”

Q&A responds,

“The Equatorial Indian Ocean Oscillation (EQUINOO) is connected to the Pacific El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) through global shifts of the Walker Circulation cells.”

GrahamY retorts,

“What do you mean "Walker Circulation cells"? There's only one that I'm aware of.”

Q&A answers,

“You misunderstand Graham, there is a ‘Walker Circulation’ but it comprises three distinct and dynamic cells (over equatorial Africa, Indonesia and South America).”

GrahamY repeats,

“There's only one Walker circulation. Check Wikipedia first,” and continues the attack:

“Why don't you just say "Whoops I got it wrong" and move on? You don't have to be a science guru to be involved in these conversations, just to have an ability to interact with scientific information honestly.”

Q&A is flabbergasted and repeats,

“There is a ‘Walker Circulation,’ it comprises three distinct and dynamic cells – Indian, Pacific and Atlantic.”

And to clarify, points to

http://www.geosc.psu.edu/Courses/Geosc320/Lau.pdf

and again repeats,

“There are 3 Walker Circulation cells, not 1.”

GrahamY comes back vehemently,

“Q&A … you are wrong. The document that you link to does not support your claims about the Walker Circulation. Anyone who clicks on the link can find that for themselves …

_____________

If anyone cares to look they would read these words in the 1st paragraph, or just look at the diagrams:

“Today, the Walker Circulation generally refers to the totality of the circulation cells as shown in Figure 1” and goes on;

“As is evident in Figure 2A, the Walker Circulation also includes secondary circulation cells whose rising motions appear over the land regions of South America and Africa, with compensating subsidence over the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean …”

Now, is there anyone else reading this thread that can honestly say there isn’t three Walker Circulation cells?

Liam

You think GrahamY’s has a sceptic bias? That would have been ok, but given the above … well, he’s just a *denier*.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 29 March 2008 12:57:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. Page 15
  10. 16
  11. 17
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy