Author Topic: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"  (Read 21995 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wasp69

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7564
  • Reputation: +899/-520
  • Hillbilly Yeti
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #25 on: April 04, 2015, 09:37:17 PM »
Guys, if you don't want to enter into this discussion, fine. I'll talk about the book, the science, or the author.

Well, I've tried twice...
"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and then bid the geldings to be fruitful."

C.S. Lewis

A community may possess all the necessary moral qualifications, in so high a degree, as to be capable of self-government under the most adverse circumstances; while, on the other hand, another may be so sunk in ignorance and vice, as to be incapable of forming a conception of liberty, or of living, even when most favored by circumstances, under any other than an absolute and despotic government.

John C Calhoun, "Disquisition on Government", 1840

Offline BuzzClik

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Reputation: +16/-563
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #26 on: April 04, 2015, 10:02:16 PM »
Well, I've tried twice...
What you tried to do was undermine this discussion by questioning my motivations. You have not read a word of the book, and it is clear you don't intend to do so. I declared at your first question that you didn't what my answer was, and you have proven that to be true.

Done and done.

Offline Bad Dog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5921
  • Reputation: +312/-313
  • God help me I do love it so
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #27 on: April 04, 2015, 10:12:07 PM »
What you tried to do was undermine this discussion by questioning my motivations. You have not read a word of the book, and it is clear you don't intend to do so. I declared at your first question that you didn't what my answer was, and you have proven that to be true.

Done and done.
Lame.

You have told us precisely nothing about your book but expect us to discuss it?  So do you expect us to run out & buy the book that you have only completed 1/3 of before you will discuss it with us.

Offline BuzzClik

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Reputation: +16/-563
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #28 on: April 04, 2015, 10:15:13 PM »
Buzz, what is the proper temperature of the earth, and upon what do you base your answer?
The average global temperature is pretty close to meaningless. It's a nice, simple number that is easily accessible to the general public, but carries no value.

The science of climate change always has been about more than average global temperature. The maps that have been generated concerning vulnerable areas demonstrate this clearly: in the US, California is highly vulnerable and will suffer high temperatures and decreased rainfall; the Midwest will be nearly immune. One pole will be nearly unchanged; the other will heat up considerably.

Offline BuzzClik

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Reputation: +16/-563
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #29 on: April 04, 2015, 10:16:13 PM »
I wouldn't either if I were you Buzzy.  Simple question for you what does your book theorize the climate to be "changing" to?  You also need to keep up with the "science" the current term is "climate disruption" which helps you avoid the above question.  I personally prefer "climate diversity" which allows you to completely ignore actual data and nuisances like East Anglia and other data fudging activities.
Ok.

Offline Bad Dog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5921
  • Reputation: +312/-313
  • God help me I do love it so
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #30 on: April 04, 2015, 10:24:59 PM »
The average global temperature is pretty close to meaningless. It's a nice, simple number that is easily accessible to the general public, but carries no value.

The science of climate change always has been about more than average global temperature. The maps that have been generated concerning vulnerable areas demonstrate this clearly: in the US, California is highly vulnerable and will suffer high temperatures and decreased rainfall; the Midwest will be nearly immune. One pole will be nearly unchanged; the other will heat up considerably.

"The science of climate change always has been about more socialism than average global temperature"

Fixed it for you

Offline Big Dog

  • ^^Smokes cigars and knows things.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15546
  • Reputation: +1951/-213
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #31 on: April 04, 2015, 10:42:08 PM »
The average global temperature is pretty close to meaningless. It's a nice, simple number that is easily accessible to the general public, but carries no value.

It's too bad your side has to resort to "meaningless" numbers to scare your low-information supporters. But your boy Harry Reid let the cat out of the bag about Democrat integrity, didn't he?

Quote
The science of climate change always has been about more than average global temperature. The maps that have been generated concerning vulnerable areas demonstrate this clearly: in the US, California is highly vulnerable and will suffer high temperatures and decreased rainfall; the Midwest will be nearly immune. One pole will be nearly unchanged; the other will heat up considerably.

Gee, just like the last four and a half billion years.

The very spot I am sitting on has been under a mile of ocean, and a mile of ice. Ten feet below my chair are fossils of animals and plants who lived, and died, in temperatures hot enough to make Rosie O'Donnell lose weight, and cold enough to make a mastodon buy a fur coat.

Color me unimpressed by the alarmism.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2015, 12:54:39 AM by Big Dog »
Government is the negation of liberty.
  -Ludwig von Mises

CAVE FVROREM PATIENTIS.

Offline thundley4

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39048
  • Reputation: +2049/-124
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #32 on: April 04, 2015, 10:44:14 PM »
I'm just waiting for any advocate of anthropomorphic global warming to explain why there has been a larger percentage increase of the temperature on Mars than on Earth during the same period.


Offline Big Dog

  • ^^Smokes cigars and knows things.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15546
  • Reputation: +1951/-213
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #33 on: April 04, 2015, 10:46:35 PM »
I'm just waiting for any advocate of anthropomorphic global warming to explain why there has been a larger percentage increase of the temperature on Mars than on Earth during the same period.

It's obvious- WE'RE ****ING UP THE WHOLE SOLAR SYSTEM!!!!!!
Government is the negation of liberty.
  -Ludwig von Mises

CAVE FVROREM PATIENTIS.

Offline wasp69

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7564
  • Reputation: +899/-520
  • Hillbilly Yeti
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #34 on: April 05, 2015, 12:07:27 AM »
What you tried to do was undermine this discussion by questioning my motivations. You have not read a word of the book, and it is clear you don't intend to do so. I declared at your first question that you didn't what my answer was, and you have proven that to be true.

Done and done.

Actually, what I did was ask you what appealed to you, I clarified my question to guage what I may have wanted to ask next, actually admitted that I was unfamiliar with the author and his work, and your reaction is a ****ing tantrum?

You schizophrenic twat, I was the only one that tried to advance this discussion on your terms and you pissed in my face? 

Go sit in the corner and suck your thumb, DUmbass, you're no use to anyone here.
"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and then bid the geldings to be fruitful."

C.S. Lewis

A community may possess all the necessary moral qualifications, in so high a degree, as to be capable of self-government under the most adverse circumstances; while, on the other hand, another may be so sunk in ignorance and vice, as to be incapable of forming a conception of liberty, or of living, even when most favored by circumstances, under any other than an absolute and despotic government.

John C Calhoun, "Disquisition on Government", 1840

Offline obumazombie

  • Siege engine to lib fortresses
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21814
  • Reputation: +1659/-578
  • Last of the great minorities
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #35 on: April 05, 2015, 10:21:48 AM »
The average global temperature is pretty close to meaningless. It's a nice, simple number that is easily accessible to the general public, but carries no value.

The science of climate change always has been about more than average global temperature. The maps that have been generated concerning vulnerable areas demonstrate this clearly: in the US, California is highly vulnerable and will suffer high temperatures and decreased rainfall; the Midwest will be nearly immune. One pole will be nearly unchanged; the other will heat up considerably.

All time highs for the antarctic ice cap is "nearly unchanged".
I guess everything is up for grabs in libland.
There were only two options for gender. At last count there are at least 12, according to libs. By that standard, I'm a male lesbian.

Offline BuzzClik

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Reputation: +16/-563
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #36 on: April 05, 2015, 12:40:13 PM »
I have made it a strict, personal policy to never discuss scientific issues with those unable or unwilling to discuss the science. I'll take a couple of examples from here as illustration why:
  • Political discussions may be motivated by scientific findings, but they are devoid of scientific content. The term "alarmist" is a political term, not a scientific one.
  • Conjured scandals are fun but pretty friggin' stupid. East Anglia was shown to be nothing by three different panels. A truly informed person knows this.
  • The climate/average temperature on Mars has some value in these discussions, but only in the proper context. That context was missed in the comment about Mars on this thread.
  • CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas for more than 100 years. The amount of radiation re-directed back to earth undergoes some tiny amounts of tuning, but nothing of significance.
I will not debate comments (1) and (2) above at all; if you can make a scientifically relevant statement in the context of (3) and (4), I'd consider discussing those.

I'm just not interested in the "gotcha" bullshit that drives you guys. If you want to discuss the science, prove it. 

Offline thundley4

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39048
  • Reputation: +2049/-124
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #37 on: April 05, 2015, 01:22:59 PM »
Explain the pause of rising temperatures on Earth, when the models all predict rising temps, but the temps on Mars have been increasing without human interference.

Offline BuzzClik

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Reputation: +16/-563
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #38 on: April 05, 2015, 01:36:19 PM »
Explain the pause of rising temperatures on Earth, when the models all predict rising temps, but the temps on Mars have been increasing without human interference.
No.

Offline Big Dog

  • ^^Smokes cigars and knows things.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15546
  • Reputation: +1951/-213
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #39 on: April 05, 2015, 01:38:30 PM »
If you want to discuss the science, prove it.

Here's some simple science for you: Various parts of the  Earth has been much hotter, much colder, much wetter, and much dryer than they are currently. The current conditions on this planet are well within those extremes. Billions and billions of animals and plants have lived, adapted, and died through those changes. If species of animals and plants are unable to adapt and reproduce in sufficient quantities, those species become extinct. That is nature.

So-called "climate science" is not science, in the same way that psychology and sociology are not sciences. Just because a person can get a PhD in it, does not make it valid- Penis Denial Gender Studies and Vagina Gazing Womyn's Studies are paragons of silly things you can get a doctoral degree in.

"Climate science" is not verifiable or falsifiable, nor does it have an accurate predictive value. You can not tell me, with any degree of accuracy beyond the WAG, what the surface temperature, barometric pressure, or relative humidity would be for any point on earth at midnight 30 days from now, or even where or when the next hurricane will touch the eastern seaboard of the United States. Yet the "climate scientists" purport to predict conditions with pinpoint accuracy 100 and 1,000 years from now; that is probably the most significant indication that "climate science" is bullshit. In real science, the margin of error grows greater, not more precise.

The use of computer models which are programmed with assumptions and biases, is the antithesis of science. Garbage in, garbage out. If you believe them, you are a fool.

"Climate science" is imaginary, like "gender identity"; and just like "gender identity", a group of people expect everyone else to accept a product of the imagination, as though it was real. If you expect someone outside of your Hive to believe in it, then you expect us to be fools, too.

As a wise man once said, "If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong".
Government is the negation of liberty.
  -Ludwig von Mises

CAVE FVROREM PATIENTIS.

Offline freedumb2003b

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • Reputation: +498/-70
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #40 on: April 05, 2015, 01:50:54 PM »
I have made it a strict, personal policy to never discuss scientific issues with those unable or unwilling to discuss the science. I'll take a couple of examples from here as illustration why:
  • Political discussions may be motivated by scientific findings, but they are devoid of scientific content. The term "alarmist" is a political term, not a scientific one.
  • Conjured scandals are fun but pretty friggin' stupid. East Anglia was shown to be nothing by three different panels. A truly informed person knows this.
  • The climate/average temperature on Mars has some value in these discussions, but only in the proper context. That context was missed in the comment about Mars on this thread.
  • CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas for more than 100 years. The amount of radiation re-directed back to earth undergoes some tiny amounts of tuning, but nothing of significance.
I will not debate comments (1) and (2) above at all; if you can make a scientifically relevant statement in the context of (3) and (4), I'd consider discussing those.

I'm just not interested in the "gotcha" bullshit that drives you guys. If you want to discuss the science, prove it.

Start by qualifying yourself.

1) What is a scientific theory?
2) Why do the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Gravity fit?
30 What is "scientific consensus."  Give 3 examples
3) Give 1the above how does AGW (or Climate Change or whatever it is called these days) fit?

If you cannot properly answer these questions you have disqualified yourself from discussing science and can be dismissed as just having talking points encapsulating a purely political agenda (and thus, once again, outed as a liar).
Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with an ax

Hello to the Baizuo lurkers from DU, DI, JPR and Huffpo

DUmmies can no more understand the "Cave" than a rat can understand a thunderbolt, but they fear it just the same. Fear the "Cave", DUmmies. Fear it well. Big Dog 12-Jan-2015

Proud charter member of the Death Squad Hate Force! https://conservativecave.com/home/index.php?topic=112331.msg1386168#msg1386168

Ted Kennedy is the only person with an actual confirmed kill in the war on women.

Offline wasp69

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7564
  • Reputation: +899/-520
  • Hillbilly Yeti
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #41 on: April 05, 2015, 01:54:54 PM »
I'm just not interested in the "gotcha" bullshit that drives you guys.

And you have the nerve to call someone else a hypocrite?
"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and then bid the geldings to be fruitful."

C.S. Lewis

A community may possess all the necessary moral qualifications, in so high a degree, as to be capable of self-government under the most adverse circumstances; while, on the other hand, another may be so sunk in ignorance and vice, as to be incapable of forming a conception of liberty, or of living, even when most favored by circumstances, under any other than an absolute and despotic government.

John C Calhoun, "Disquisition on Government", 1840

Offline thundley4

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39048
  • Reputation: +2049/-124
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #42 on: April 05, 2015, 01:57:43 PM »
No.

You can't be anthropomorphic global warming doesn't exist.

Offline Bad Dog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5921
  • Reputation: +312/-313
  • God help me I do love it so
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #43 on: April 05, 2015, 01:58:50 PM »
I have made it a strict, personal policy to never discuss scientific issues with those unable or unwilling to discuss the science. I'll take a couple of examples from here as illustration why:
  • Political discussions may be motivated by scientific findings, but they are devoid of scientific content. The term "alarmist" is a political term, not a scientific one.
  • Conjured scandals are fun but pretty friggin' stupid. East Anglia was shown to be nothing by three different panels. A truly informed person knows this.
  • The climate/average temperature on Mars has some value in these discussions, but only in the proper context. That context was missed in the comment about Mars on this thread.
  • CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas for more than 100 years. The amount of radiation re-directed back to earth undergoes some tiny amounts of tuning, but nothing of significance.
I will not debate comments (1) and (2) above at all; if you can make a scientifically relevant statement in the context of (3) and (4), I'd consider discussing those.

I'm just not interested in the "gotcha" bullshit that drives you guys. If you want to discuss the science, prove it.

1.  So is "climate denier" especially whilst linking I with holocaust  denier.
2.  I read the e-mails which East Anglia was forced to apologize for and I have never seen any panel findings.  The standard phony scandal defense (like the race card) is pretty much used up at this point.  I prefer phony, scandal defense.
3. Cop out.
4. Your problem is that, with the advent of satellite data, all you have are models that have failed over and over  You have been trying to sell this "alarmist" crap in its various forms since the mid 60's changing from "cooling" to "warming" to "change" and now "disruption".  Unfortunately, satellite data is now killing you and panic is setting in.

On a positive note, your solution has remained constant... More Socialism.

I would be most appreciative if you would give some links to the East Anglia "panels" you mentioned.


Offline BuzzClik

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Reputation: +16/-563
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #44 on: April 05, 2015, 02:16:37 PM »
This will be my only set of comments on this, Dog. You're entitled to your opinion, and that opinion won't change no matter how long we debate. So, this one time:

So-called "climate science" is not science, in the same way that psychology and sociology are not sciences. Just because a person can get a PhD in it, does not make it valid- Penis Denial Gender Studies and Vagina Gazing Womyn's Studies are paragons of silly things you can get a doctoral degree in.
Psychology and sociology are soft sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science) but sciences nonetheless. Climate science (which is a very limited field and a small subset of the multiple disciplines contributing to the study of climate change) is a hard science: it has testable theories based on chemistry, physics, etc.

"Climate science" is not verifiable or falsifiable, nor does it have an accurate predictive value. You can not tell me, with any degree of accuracy beyond the WAG, what the surface temperature, barometric pressure, or relative humidity would be for any point on earth at midnight 30 days from now, or even where or when the next hurricane will touch the eastern seaboard of the United States. Yet the "climate scientists" purport to predict conditions with pinpoint accuracy 100 and 1,000 years from now; that is probably the most significant indication that "climate science" is bullshit. In real science, the margin of error grows greater, not more precise.
This assertion of yours is quite wrong on many fronts. Climate is not what happens to the weather 30 days from now; it is the trends in weather-related observations over long periods of thirty years or more. Climate predictions become more precise (less noise) with longer periods of prediction. Their accuracy is actually quite good over relatively short periods but falters with longer periods (i.e., approaching 1000 years).

The use of computer models which are programmed with assumptions and biases, is the antithesis of science. Garbage in, garbage out. If you believe them, you are a fool.
Computer assisted models have a real role in every aspect of science: chemistry, astrophysics, biology, etc., and some of these models have essentially zero error. Your slam on computer models is totally wrong, but let's bring it back to climate change computer models. The role of the models is multi-fold; predicting changes in climate across the globe is only one of those outcomes.

About ten years ago, I had an hour-long talk with a post doctoral associate in front of his highly technical poster on climate change. He and his advisor, a colleague of mine, were skeptics about climate change (particularly the origins of climate change). However, they recognized the undeniable fact that the climate was changing. The poster was discussing vulnerable regions in the US. They predicted that the West Coast was going to fry along with some parts of the Southwest. The Midwest would remain largely unchanged, and the East Coast would experience colder, wetter winters. All based on computer models. Sound familiar?

Offline BuzzClik

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
  • Reputation: +16/-563
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #45 on: April 05, 2015, 02:19:57 PM »
2.  I read the e-mails which East Anglia was forced to apologize for and I have never seen any panel findings.
Ignorance is no excuse.

4. Your problem is that, with the advent of satellite data, all you have are models that have failed over and over
No. The models have improved with tremendously over the past 30 years with satellite data.

You are not well informed on this subject.

Offline Bad Dog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5921
  • Reputation: +312/-313
  • God help me I do love it so
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #46 on: April 05, 2015, 02:35:44 PM »
Ignorance is no excuse.
No. The models have improved with tremendously over the past 30 years with satellite data.

You are not well informed on this subject.

Nor is lying.  If such "panels" existed, they would have been splattered all over the press and, you would be spamming us with links.

The only progress that has been made is that the propagandists have learned to hide their "improved" models after the early ones were destroyed simply by running them backwards.  Oh, and threats of professional destruction (or worse) have forced many to hide their doubts.  But, thankfully, some are coming forward also contributing to your increasing panic.

You have been consistently lying in many of your posts here but, we must now take your word on glowball diversity.  Not likely Buzzard.


Offline Big Dog

  • ^^Smokes cigars and knows things.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15546
  • Reputation: +1951/-213
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #47 on: April 05, 2015, 03:34:13 PM »
Psychology and sociology are soft sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science) but sciences nonetheless.

Ah, yes. Soft sciences, or more accurately, pseudosciences. Unprovable, no predictive value, but a great opportunity for some people to make a living from Other People's Money without accountability. Getting a PhD in a "soft science" is like getting a license to steal.

Quote
This assertion of yours is quite wrong on many fronts. Climate is not what happens to the weather 30 days from now; it is the trends in weather-related observations over long periods of thirty years or more.

Redefining a word to suit your purposes does not make it correct. It makes you disingenuous. Again, I refer you to the progressive use of "gender". I can describe the climate on the Great Plains today. With much less precision, I could describe the climate on the Great Plains 100 years ago on this date, and with equal imprecision I could predict the climate of the Great Plains 100 years from today.

But climate does not exist, physically. It is a concept which selectively describes arbitrarily chosen weather conditions in an arbitrarily chosen area, over an arbitrarily chosen period of time. Because it has four variables (one selective and three arbitraries, not counting the biases and assumptions added to the computer models), it can not even be said to be real in an objective sense- which makes it merely subjective, like emotions.

So, although you called it "hard science", climatology is ultimately on a footing with pseudosciences like sociology and mesmerism. I'd say that I wouldn't be surprised if people 100 years from now laugh at "climatology" the way we laugh at medicinal leeches today; but I will be dead, so I will not be able to be surprised.

In closing: You may not have noticed, but no matter what happens with the real world, your side declares that ever-increasing government control of free men and women is needed to save Mother Gaea from us eeevil planet-raping humans. Because "climate science" is, at its end, an emotional demand for total government control of free will, it is not science at all, but politics- your politics, specifically.

Of course climate changes. Seasons change, people change (hat tip to Expose'). That's nature. Adapt yourself to it, or die.

The People rest.

And now for a musical interlude.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCQiYJrsqYo[/youtube]
Government is the negation of liberty.
  -Ludwig von Mises

CAVE FVROREM PATIENTIS.

Offline Bad Dog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5921
  • Reputation: +312/-313
  • God help me I do love it so
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #48 on: April 05, 2015, 03:43:32 PM »
The People rest.


Dayum!!! H-5 my friend.

Offline obumazombie

  • Siege engine to lib fortresses
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21814
  • Reputation: +1659/-578
  • Last of the great minorities
Re: William Hay's "Experimenting on a Small Planet"
« Reply #49 on: April 05, 2015, 03:44:30 PM »
Dayum!!! H-5 my friend.

I'm glad you 2 dogs are on our side.
There were only two options for gender. At last count there are at least 12, according to libs. By that standard, I'm a male lesbian.