[mtbr]

bootlegga bootlegga:

mtbr mtbr:

retard?

I never said Edmonton and Leduc are the same place liar..

No, but you inferred it by saying that a snowstorm that hit Leduc must have hit Edmonton;

mtbr mtbr:

you mean this one

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story ... ml?ref=rss

Spring snowstorm slams northern Alberta
Greyhound bus slides off highway near Leduc; no one injured

must have made a circle around Edmonton though

If you didn't mean that, then it's time for a remedial writing course, because that's the way it sounds!

Strike one!

mtbr mtbr:

I scrolled back...this is what you wrote

$1:

Check the City's traffic cams jamroll, see any snow, anywhere in Edmonton...nah didn't think so...that's because we haven't got any (unless you count trace amounts last Thursday that melted by lunchtime).

Sounds like I just said it snowed but melted the same day...strike two!

mtbr mtbr:

it snowed Nov 10 did you bother to read my posts...not last week but Nov 10 read the data...maybe you should spend less on the insults and more on the substance.
here's your first post word for word..

$1:

"But Zip, don't you know those graphs are socialist propaganda!

I don't know whether mankind is behind the changes or not, but it is getting warmer, at least in Edmonton. I've lived here for almost four decades and NEVER seen rain in February, but we got that this year. Edmonton STILL doesn't have a lick of snow, and it's almost November. To top it off, it's still above zero here and some of the grass is still green if you can believe it.

I know one year does not a change make, but it's been getting worse (or better if you hate the cold/snow) each year since I got back from overseas in 2001.Hell, the last couple of years [b]we didn't even gt snow in early May, which used to always happen.[/b] Winter takes longer to get here and the snow is gone quicker each spring.

Deny it if you want, but the climate is changing. I'll be the first to admit I'm not enough of a scientist to know exactly what, but change is afoot."

funny how your posts have changed as I proved you're a liar...or at least an idiot with a short memory

you had snow the first week of November this year(and last Thursday according to you)..and I'm sure you had snow on the ground at the beginning of last May because of the lovely weather you had at the end of April. Is it a short memory or is a selective memory. Maybe it's Alzheimer's.

I never said anything about snow on the ground, I said we didn't get snow, as in no snowfall. Anyone who lived in Edmonton for a long time knows that we get snowfall in May. It may be a big dump or a light dusting that melts in a day or two, but it always comes. Whether it's May 1st or May 15th, we expect to get it...which is why no one in Edmonton ever plants their garden before the May long weekend...but you would already know that from your father-in-law in Beaumont right?

Nov 10th? I think you're the one with Alzheimers...

mtbr mtbr:

http://edmonton-daily-photo.blogspot.com/2008/11/first-snow-fall.html

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

First Snowfall

You're own post says the 12th...three strikes and you're out!

Anyways, we sidetracked this thread long enough.

nice to see you finally read my posts and checked my links...wow it snowed at least twice this month in Edmonton and a big wallop at the end of last April(but that storm missed Edmonton according to you)...but you forgot all about all those events.

yet you muse how the weather as changed so much in Edmonton Maybe the snow is in your head and not on the ground

I think it's getting warmer in Edmonton it must be Global warming ppphhht



But but wait a minute...if it's not snowing in Edmonton that's proof its not getting warmer in Edmonton

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008 ... ciers.html

[Biblesmasher]

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

Many scientist receive funding for research from...you guessed it, you and me and they have a vested interest to show that humans have an influence on climate change. Considering that the total energy (electrical/fuels/etc.) output of the planet on a given day is a miniscule amount when compared to the energy received from the sun on a daily basis. Human activity is far over-rated.

One scientist indicates that humans have no effect on climate change:
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/ ... 6-sun.html

$1:

Climate change is not caused by humans, but by natural forces, Patterson says.

.
People will say the damnedest things for money. On what side is the money today and who would get paid more?

Many g. warming "skeptics" and deniers receive money from ...you guessed it, the biggest contributers to climate change. Seeing as they have a much more focused agenda and unified representation on this issue then do the amorphous "you and me" Ill put in with the smart money. The deniers are exponentially more heavily funded. Besides Im not sure if you understand how science works. Scientists smash each others work to pieces all the time if its bad science. They dont all sit around a big conference table and come up with a plan to grab your tax money(next youll be telling me about 911 and inside jobs). An individual scientist may embark on something you or I find frivolous, but its either good or bad science...and if it isnt sound, it gets put in the dust bin, not endorsed by the American institute of physics and NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

And yeah, you guys are good at ferreting out dissenting voices but Like I said, if the vast majority of neurosurgeons tell me I have a brain tumour thats about to kill me I play the odds (Most non dumbasses do). The ratio of authorities lean heavily in my favour friend.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I think even wiht the grpahs you posted it's a little silly to say we're heading for an imminent ice age.

Say what? Who said anything about an imminent ice age? I know I didn't.

Edit

Oh wait...Ok I see it, the one 2 pages back, right? That's why you posted the tricky graphs which appeared to suggest radical warming.

It is your interpretation that they "appeared to suggest radical warming" not mine. I posted them to demonstrate that, based on these temperature observations and reconstructions, it does not appear we are headed for an imminent ice age.

$1:

On the other hand...and now that you mention it...the coolers do seem to have as much reason to fear as the warmers do. There might be as much actual evidence for a coming catastrophic cooling as there is for a coming catastrophe of warming. Maybe even more. Which is to say, not much at this time.

Great--so I'll lump you in with the "coming ice age" doomsayers then. You've just relegated yourself to fringe staus in this debate.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

It is your interpretation that they "appeared to suggest radical warming" not mine. I posted them to demonstrate that, based on these temperature observations and reconstructions, it does not appear we are headed for an imminent ice age.

I agree. We are not headed for an ice age as we are not finished leaving the last one.

[scarecrowe]

Biblesmasher Biblesmasher:

Many g. warming "skeptics" and deniers receive money from ...you guessed it, the biggest contributers to climate change. Seeing as they have a much more focused agenda and unified representation on this issue then do the amorphous "you and me" Ill put in with the smart money. The deniers are exponentially more heavily funded. Besides Im not sure if you understand how science works. Scientists smash each others work to pieces all the time if its bad science. They dont all sit around a big conference table and come up with a plan to grab your tax money(next youll be telling me about 911 and inside jobs). An individual scientist may embark on something you or I find frivolous, but its either good or bad science...and if it isnt sound, it gets put in the dust bin, not endorsed by the American institute of physics and NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

if the vast majority of neurosurgeons tell me I have a brain tumour thats about to kill me I play the odds (Most non dumbasses do). The ratio of authorities lean heavily in my favour friend.

You are putting too much trust into the majority of the brain-trust. Good/bad science is more perception than reality (and yes, I have been in the realm each and every day for the last three + decades).
Using your analogy of the neurosurgeon is common sense but not always the absolute truth. Think of what was considered good science three decades ago when stomach ulcer development was caused by mental stress (here we go again and attributing the cause of some natural phenomenon to some human influence). When Robin Warren and Barry Marshall first proposed that the helicobacter pylori bacteria was the root cause of stomach ulcers, all the good science scientists laughed these two right out of the scientific community but Robin Warren and Barry Marshall were proven correct. Good science is better termed generally accepted science but generally accepted science does not necessitate that it is of high quality.

Greenhouse gas concentrations correlated to temperatures is at best, Mickey Mouse science. The assumptions made concerning dX% GH gas = dY% temp. change are at best a wild ass guess and made to appear independent of solar radiation flux which is far more influential.

"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds." Einstein.

[BartSimpson]

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

You are putting too much trust into the majority of the brain-trust.

I agree. The same university and science wonks who are pushing their 'consensus' for global warming also vote left in ratios of 19:1.

If asked, these 'brain trust' people would support a panoply of leftist policies and this much is readily shown by numerous surveys on the topic. Global warming policies advance a left wing agenda these so-called 'scientists' admittedly embrace when surveyed on political matters so it can be concluded that their consensus of political opinion likewise colours their scientific conclusions.

[Zipperfish]

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

Good/bad science is more perception than reality (and yes, I have been in the realm each and every day for the last three + decades).

Can you nelaborate on this, please. To my mind, scientific method is the most objective method we have available to us. What mehtod would you have us use to describe what you call "reality" instead?

$1:

Greenhouse gas concentrations correlated to temperatures is at best, Mickey Mouse science. The assumptions made concerning dX% GH gas = dY% temp. change are at best a wild ass guess.

This is simply not true. There are several hundred experiments being conducted by high school students across the world as we speak, and each of those experiments--every one--will show that, the greenhouse effect is an observed and predictable phenomenon.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

You are putting too much trust into the majority of the brain-trust.

I agree. The same university and science wonks who are pushing their 'consensus' for global warming also vote left in ratios of 19:1.

So you're saying that really, really smart people tend to vote left in a ratio of 19:1. Fascinating.

[Biblesmasher]

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

Biblesmasher Biblesmasher:

Many g. warming "skeptics" and deniers receive money from ...you guessed it, the biggest contributers to climate change. Seeing as they have a much more focused agenda and unified representation on this issue then do the amorphous "you and me" Ill put in with the smart money. The deniers are exponentially more heavily funded. Besides Im not sure if you understand how science works. Scientists smash each others work to pieces all the time if its bad science. They dont all sit around a big conference table and come up with a plan to grab your tax money(next youll be telling me about 911 and inside jobs). An individual scientist may embark on something you or I find frivolous, but its either good or bad science...and if it isnt sound, it gets put in the dust bin, not endorsed by the American institute of physics and NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

if the vast majority of neurosurgeons tell me I have a brain tumour thats about to kill me I play the odds (Most non dumbasses do). The ratio of authorities lean heavily in my favour friend.

You are putting too much trust into the majority of the brain-trust. Good/bad science is more perception than reality (and yes, I have been in the realm each and every day for the last three + decades).
Using your analogy of the neurosurgeon is common sense but not always the absolute truth. Think of what was considered good science three decades ago when stomach ulcer development was caused by mental stress (here we go again and attributing the cause of some natural phenomenon to some human influence). When Robin Warren and Barry Marshall first proposed that the helicobacter pylori bacteria was the root cause of stomach ulcers, all the good science scientists laughed these two right out of the scientific community but Robin Warren and Barry Marshall were proven correct. Good science is better termed generally accepted science but generally accepted science does not necessitate that it is of high quality.

Greenhouse gas concentrations correlated to temperatures is at best, Mickey Mouse science. The assumptions made concerning dX% GH gas = dY% temp. change are at best a wild ass guess and made to appear independent of solar radiation flux which is far more influential.

"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds." Einstein.

I see you displaying your grasp of the minutia...Nicely done...Doesnt change the fact that the vast majority of people who have been even more than "in the realm" for 3+, 4+, 5+ decades, accept the science that points to a human effect on climate. No offense but if one of the few paleoclimatologists that deny global warming doesnt cancel out the ridiculously long list of experts that accept it then you and your equations...well... And just curious, in what capacity are you present "in the realm"?

BTW keeping with YOUR analogy, its funny how you generally allow the "brain trust" to facilitate the research that eventually builds the planes we fly in, Design safe structures and create medical equipment even AFTER scientists dissed poor Robin and Barry. With your way of thinking its hard to see how one can reasonably believe ANYTHING any scientist says. Im sorry, until fear of a leftist agenda and conspiracy theory can perform a transplant, Im gonna go with the scientific system and methodology that saves lives.

[Biblesmasher]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

You are putting too much trust into the majority of the brain-trust.

I agree. The same university and science wonks who are pushing their 'consensus' for global warming also vote left in ratios of 19:1.

So you're saying that really, really smart people tend to vote left in a ratio of 19:1. Fascinating.

a slip of freudian proportions from Bart

[Sapio]

The real debt comes to head at which factor is strong, is man's impact or natures. If nature is then there is nothing we can or should do, if man they we need to make some changes. We are on a nature up swing at the same time that our use of oil, coal.... etc is being used at records level, thus a natural pattern is being made worst by us. The question is can we lower our use to a level that will make any difference or should we be looking at not only how to fix the problem, but how to cope with it.

[scarecrowe]

Biblesmasher Biblesmasher:

the ridiculously long list of experts

... and the list gets longer due to $$$. A postgrad fellow I know was offered a scholarship in climate change research at a northwestern state university recently and he accepted. I asked him "why are you doing this...you have absolutely no background in atmospheric science." He said that it was all about the money. He's a smart fellow but I am sure he will have to follow the doctrine as outlined by his mentor(s).

[ziggy]

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

Biblesmasher Biblesmasher:

the ridiculously long list of experts

... and the list gets longer due to $$$. A postgrad fellow I know was offered a scholarship in climate change research at a northwestern state university recently and he accepted. I asked him "why are you doing this...you have absolutely no background in atmospheric science." He said that it was all about the money. He's a smart fellow but I am sure he will have to follow the doctrine as outlined by his mentor(s).

Which brings us back to the article at the start of the topic,why is a general even mentioning the arctic melting? He was up there in the summer,when it (gasp) melts as it has allways done.He should go back in september,when it freezes like it has allways done.
But it seems he has also figured out that enviro fearmongering means dollars.
maybe he wants those icebreakers which is also funny because when the forces go to train in the north they usually have to revert back to the old ways for transportaion,warmth and fuel and have to be taught by the rangers to survive.
That means dogsleds,and hunting for fur and food.Military extreme weather gear they get doesnt cut it.

[N_Fiddledog]

Did you hear about this one?

Bravo New Zealand

The New Zealand government has suggested a "possible review of the science behind climate change". The green lobby is up in arms, because they think this interprets into global warming doctrine being challenged.

I think stories like this one (and there's lots of them) show which side is curious about the science, and which side is purely political.

All the NZ government is saying is let's look at the totality of the science.

[Zipperfish]

Sapio Sapio:

The real debt comes to head at which factor is strong, is man's impact or natures. If nature is then there is nothing we can or should do, if man they we need to make some changes. We are on a nature up swing at the same time that our use of oil, coal.... etc is being used at records level, thus a natural pattern is being made worst by us. The question is can we lower our use to a level that will make any difference or should we be looking at not only how to fix the problem, but how to cope with it.

That sums up my thinking, pretty much. I think the reality is that we're looking at adaptation, whether or not the global wamring is natural or exacerbated by human emissions of greenhouse gases. It's not like China or India are going to embark on a program of restraint.

Personally, I'm more worried about the fish.