Derails from Climate Change News thread.

[Hermit]

Fucking asswipe mods.

Would you prefer us to adopt the Ratskep model?

Don't you ever read his mantra? Of course not, you fucking useless useful fool of Trotzkyist Stalinist Fourth International (Fifth Deviationist) Anarcho-Syndicalism. He obviously wants you to adopt or cry.

[Hermit]

We'll just have to do what the humans in the Pacific Northwest (and elsewhere) did 10,000 years ago, when the sea level started to rise from it's then level THREE HUNDRED FUCKING FEET LOWER THAN IT IS TODAY!300 feet you say?

That was 15,000 years ago. I wonder how many billion human beings were alive then, and what infrastructure they were living with.

Today 120 million people live in Bangladesh alone, 6 million of whom live on land that is less than one metre above sea level. Mixing those 6 million in with the land already occupied by the millions living on higher ground should be as easy as a nomadic tribes consisting of a couple of dozen hunter-gatherers moving to higher ground.

[FBM]

Well, once we start killing each other off in sufficient numbers, that problem will be solved.

[macdoc]

5 milliion or so at the beginning of agriculture.
Humans were down to 8,000 individuals at one choke point according to mitochondrial DNA....lucky they cooperated to survive eh.

Wandering individual survivors had no chance of surviving or procreating.

[mistermack]

5 milliion or so at the beginning of agriculture.
Humans were down to 8,000 individuals at one choke point according to mitochondrial DNA....lucky they cooperated to survive eh.

Wandering individual survivors had no chance of surviving or procreating.

That's a fairly meaningless argument. If humans dropped to 8,000, that could equally be quoted as a failure, not a success story. Depends what it was, that nearly wiped us out.

But that itself could be a false picture.
If the 8,000 actually proliferated and wiped out all the others, that would show up as a similar bottleneck in the mdna record. It doesn't necessarily point to near extinction.

[Seth]

We'll just have to do what the humans in the Pacific Northwest (and elsewhere) did 10,000 years ago, when the sea level started to rise from it's then level THREE HUNDRED FUCKING FEET LOWER THAN IT IS TODAY!300 feet you say?

That was 15,000 years ago. I wonder how many billion human beings were alive then, and what infrastructure they were living with.

Today 120 million people live in Bangladesh alone, 6 million of whom live on land that is less than one metre above sea level. Mixing those 6 million in with the land already occupied by the millions living on higher ground should be as easy as a nomadic tribes consisting of a couple of dozen hunter-gatherers moving to higher ground.

Wah. They've only got a couple of hundred years to move, so that must mean they're all gonna die!

Oh, wait, they're all gonna be dead anyway, and their grandchildren's grandchildren will be living somewhere else anyway because they aren't idiots like you Warmists and won't just sit there and drown as the seas rise around them.

You see, the reason that people don't believe you Warmists is because you make mountains out of molehills and you cry wolf, run around like Chicken Little and try to panic people so they will obey the dictates of the Warmist power brokers who are using this non-threat as an economic and social weapon of Marxist Progressivism.

Absolutely NOTHING that might even speculatively happen if the Warmist religious beliefs are true requires any sort of immediate action, because absolutely nothing we can possibly do in the short (less than a century) term will change one damned thing about what the climate is or is not going to do.

This is about power, control and money and nothing else, period.

Adapt or die.

[aspire1670]

Denialism is about power, control and money and nothing else, period.

[Hermit]

Stop your hysterical shouting. I think you're overdosed on pills, Sethbaby.

[mistermack]

This is what makes climate a joke ''science''.

I can't think of any other ''science'' that has this denialist crap.
And climate ''science'' is totally obsessed with warming. It's a one-issue subject, and that one issue is on very shaky ground.
Not that climate has warmed. Climate is always warming or cooling.
But that manmade CO2 is going to make the climate keep on warming. That's totally speculative bollocks.

Compare it to physics. Physics is built on solid ground, everything is dissected and argued over, ripped apart and put together again. Every new claim is subjected to the most intense criticism.
And yet, if someone disagrees with relativity, they don't get the full ''denialist'' treatment.
They just get their arguments and hypotheses examined and accepted or rejected.

Climate is the only branch of science that has this religious attitude towards disagreement with current theory.
That's why it's a joke.

[macdoc]

Oh bullshit - still strutting your ignorance. It's your lack of any sort of science knowledge that is the laughing matter.

just saying physics is built on "solid ground" is grounds for hilarity.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... wking.html

Some aspects of physics like the optical properties of CO2 are well established and you can prove it in your kitchen not that you will and you can't even got to that point in your knowledge.

You get in planes when aerodynamic theory is incomplete.

You are called a denier because you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to physics, science or especially climate science.
Climate changes due to physical principles....forcings. RIght now - our use of fossil fuels is the primary forcing....get over it.

The better description for you is ignorant of how your world works.

[JimC]

mistermack wrote:

...Compare it to physics. Physics is built on solid ground, everything is dissected and argued over, ripped apart and put together again. Every new claim is subjected to the most intense criticism....

It is probably best compared to a specific branch of physics, cosmology. By its very nature, it cannot be an experimental science, so it relies on gathering data, building models, and testing the implications of those models against further data. Not quite as rigorous as a purely experimental science, but it can and has provided us with a clearer picture of much of the dynamics of the universe that we ever had before. Of course, it does have its controversies, such as inflation and dark matter...

[FBM]

[Edited out, because I misunderstood what I read.]

[mistermack]

Macdoc, for someone who is so het up about climate, you demonstrate an incredible ignorance.
You seem to think the world climate is like a jamjar in your kitchen.
That is so stupid, it's laughable. The subject is incredibly complex, and yet you think it's that simple.

It's you that's simple, if you think a jar in a kitchen tells anything significant about world climate.
You're just being pathetic. CO2 is a tiny component of air. (0.04 % or one part in every 2,500) And it's a tiny component of the overall heat balance. The major greenhouse gas is water vapour, not CO2.
Everybody knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so shut the fuck up about jamjars.

The point about climate is that there is heat coming in, and heat going out. And every source is constantly varying in size. To simplify it to some CO2 in a jamjar is moronic.
Try it with a jamjar with one part in 2,500 CO2 if you want to use a sane example. Not a jar FULL of CO2.

But still, maybe it's better if you do keep it simple. It suits your level of knowledge on the subject.

[mistermack]

mistermack wrote:

...Compare it to physics. Physics is built on solid ground, everything is dissected and argued over, ripped apart and put together again. Every new claim is subjected to the most intense criticism....

It is probably best compared to a specific branch of physics, cosmology. By its very nature, it cannot be an experimental science, so it relies on gathering data, building models, and testing the implications of those models against further data. Not quite as rigorous as a purely experimental science, but it can and has provided us with a clearer picture of much of the dynamics of the universe that we ever had before. Of course, it does have its controversies, such as inflation and dark matter...

yeh, but it's all worked on and discussed rationally. You don't get people calling each other inflation deniers, or dark matter deniers.
There is no taboo on criticising any aspect of physics. Even when predictions come true to incredibly high accuracy, you're still allowed to disagree.

But with climate, predictions can be anywhere you want. And if you make a prediction, and it doesn't come true, it doesn't matter in the slightest.

Seventeen years ago, the models were predicting constant and growing warming. Seventeen years later, it hasn't warmed in the slightest. In spite of 17 years worth of extra CO2 pumped into the atmosphere.

In physics, that would make your models a joke. In climate, you're not even allowed to mention it.

[cronus]

Climate change is not about science ultimately. If CO2 is to be confronted adequately it is likely to become a engineering issue on a very large scale the way planets are lining up.