Why we need to think before we build

[tom.harrigan]

Biff

I'm surprised you chose to highlight an article in Nature that concerns itself with some glaring discrepancies in climate models to back up your argument, which is based entirely on climate models. Somehow the models produce results with half the uncertainty in the parameter that controls them. Could be "anticorrelation" according to Schwartz, which is an amusing turn of phrase.

So, according to Schwartz et al, there is a need to better estimate anthropogenic climate forcing, particularly in order to assess climate models, which are shown to be inconsistent with the uncertainty (a factor of 4) in this parameter. Furthermore, _given_ present IPCC estimates, things are looking bad in 100years time, as the air will be cleaner, and CO2 forcing will dominate.

We desperately need to know with, greater accuracy, the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 - will someone please reveal it to us! Fortunately for us Schwartz already knew the answer, he'd already written the paper.

The answer is 1.1K, which means that in 100years time, it will hardly notice!

T.

 

[Nemesis]

I've given up contributing my own views on this after the vicious public and private abuse that I was subjected to (with my children reading at least 1 of the foul-mouthed private messages).

I have no idea what you consider vicious abuse - but if you consider anything posted on this forum to have been 'vicious' then clearly you have had a very sheltered existence.

I have of course no idea who has sent you private messages on this matter (not me is all I can say) and again no idea what they contained, but there are forum rules regarding abuse of the private message system. If you consider that the rules have been seriously breached then it is up to you to report the offender to Rob.

Rule 11

The above forum rules where applicable also apply to private messaging. Abuse of the private messaging system may lead to warnings (as above) and/or the revokation of private messaging.

 

[Nemesis]

With regard to this by Tom Harrigan:

We all know what you mean by "denier". It is a disgusting turn of phrase.

'We all know' is a sweeping generalisation, I hope Tom will agree, and actually I don't consider the word 'denier' to be so very disgusting. It very much depends on its context.

I appreciate the past history of the term when used with 'Holocaust' in front of it, but any connection with the Irving case may be possibly in the mind of Tom and not in the minds of all who read the term? If not then he can explain.

I also suggest that anyone considering that personal abuse has been rained on Tom puts it in the context of another thread! The comments he posts together out of context were in another thread altogether, and I wonder what Tom's motive was for reposting elsewhere an aggregate of what was said in the context of a very different debate and spread over several posts?

As far as ad hominem insults:

Ad hominem "attacks" are frequently encountered in debates, often ending up as an exchange of personal insults. Once disagreement occurs, it is very common to see people calling each other: stupid; ignorant; a liar; foolish; a religious nut; an atheist; a dupe; etcetera.

'Zealot' of course isn't in that list so possibly it doesn't count then. Especially with the getout of

You exhibit all the symptoms of

carefully placed in front of it.

And as for

You can't cope, you don't understand, you resort to verbal violence.

Oh what larks!

I had never thought, as I am sure nor had Biff, that when I was told I was taking the p*** out of anyone this was to be considered verbal violence. Heavens, what a sheltered life some must lead. I extract the urine and friends take it out of me constantly. It's a pretty normal means of discourse really, is joshing. Next time someone tries it out I will lift the hand and tell them sternly they are being verbally violent. I may end up with few friends, but it's a price I now see I must pay for correcting them.

Oh, there's nothing like the internet for a bit of light relief from real life!

This is interesting Biff - thanks. Gives some perspective.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/search/label/climate%20sensitivity

Via email, I hear that this paper from Stephen Schwartz is making a bit of a splash in the delusionosphere. In it, he purports to show that climate sensitivity is only about 1.1C, with rather small uncertainty bounds of +-0.5C.

 

[NT]

'We all know' is a sweeping generalisation

Sweeping generalisations are wrong.


NT

 

[Nemesis]

No, let's not start that game.

I hope it's not you who has been sending rude PM's... I only usually get nice ones, I have to say.

(Now before you take umbrage - I was only taking the... mickey!)

 

[biffvernon]

Careful N, you'll be accused of racism with that one :wink:

Tom, have you got round to reading the James Allen blog yet? I guess it answers your points.

 

[Nemesis]

Here's the derivation of both terms:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/344000.html

(WARNING it does have the p word so only click and read if you are an adult.)

 

[biffvernon]

But was Michael Bliss an Irishman?

 

[Nemesis]

No, I reckon a Geordie, so it's OK to take the ****.


http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/24/messages/514.html

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-tak1.htm

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-tak2.htm

(Warning - the last one 'raises' other issues which may prove offensive to some.)

I do have a copy of the dic (ooh er missus) tionary mentioned, and fascinating stuff it all is too.

Bill Bryson makes the point that the Americans have no equivalent phrase for 'taking the ****', and I have to say an American friend doesn't understand it when I do. Which is hard, as being a Geordie it's a way of life.

'Joshing' isn't the same really:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/6/messages/111.html



http://www.pilkipedia.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49272&sid=a7a0371b41bfdc953007b2a7c65e321c

 

[biffvernon]

I find this rings true:

'Taking the mickey' and 'taking the piss' out of someone are often used here in Ireland. They can have slightly different meanings, though.

'I knew he was only taking the mickey outa me, so I bought him pint and we had a laugh.'

'He was taking the piss outa me so I floored him!'

Even if both phrases do originate from the Geordie, Michael Bliss, the common usage illustrated above accords with my use of the phrase earlier in this thread, to which Tom may have taken offence. To alter the phrase from p*** to m*** alters the meaning away from that which I intended.

 

[NT]

I hope it's not you who has been sending rude PM's...

Who?

 

[Nemesis]

I think Tom, if this is the same tom (see posts below leader) may be a Monckton believer:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/02/monckton_on_the_spm.php


I tend to believe Gervase, really, man of great sense and colourful expressions.

I fully appreciate why you felt Tom's suggestion that you take Monckton seriously made you consider he was simply extracting the yellow stuff.

 

[Nemesis]

NT wrote:

Who?

Well, you or indeed any one of the people registered for this site. The finger has been pointed, but we don't know the culprit.

In fact I'm surprised and dismayed to find anyone sending rude PM's.

Tut.

An abuse of the system which can lead to a warning.

Tut again.

(I've never had a warning... has anyone ever had a warning from Rob or Simon? Just how bad to you have to be? Am I tempting fate?)

 

[Nemesis]

Anyhow - to get back to racism:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/12/ntintin112.xml


Being a flat capped Geordie (although not in Burberry check) I maybe should consider if the above comments by me re Geordies should be removed though.

Or are we Geordies not a race but simply a tribe?

I have to say oop here tekin the p and tekin the mick seem to be used to mean the same thing, without the subtle differences in the above example.

You can tek the p or the m and it's all OK, BUT - don't try 'looking' at someone or you can get tekin ootside and have seven shades of **** knocked out of you.

And as for joshing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Billings

 

[Pford75]

For the record, I have received both abusive private messages and also IM's (meaning I have had to remove my MSN id from my profile).

The IM's were particularly offensive, since we run MSN on our family PC all of the time and were read by my children. I don't wish to engage in the debate as to what words are considered 'offensive'...I think it's actually rather sad that some people feel the need to act in this way.

I'm staying out of the discussions where people have passionate views...sad really, but seems like the only way for me to make use of what is a very helpful forum for period property owners (it's taught me lots).

I have no idea who is responsible for the IM's (obviously someone from this forum and someone with a different and rather passionate view to my own on climate change), but their tone and content are sufficiently severe, that if they do not stop, I will report them to the police

 

[Nemesis]

Well, not me - if I wish to be abusive I'll post it here! Although I do feel that adding something like MSN to contact details may be a step too far. PM's are a better way of maintaining privacy and for those who wish for more contact then you can exchange e-mail addresses via that. It may be that unlike PM MSN can be accessed by those not registered, of course. Haven't checked that out.

I also suggest people keep another e-mail address - hotmail, google, Lycos, whatever - just for registering on websites, and using as contact for those you don't really know.

However - with regard to abusive PM's - you should know who they are from, and can report to Rob or Simon. I have no idea if there are ways to send PM's other than from your user name, but registration details are held and I think people genuinely abusing the system can have their ability to post blocked.


Passionate views - well, maybe, although at times it's simply lively discussion, salty even, without heat or rancour in reality. (Unless it's Graham, of course, whom I detest with a vengeance... no Graham, only joking, honest. ) Yes of course there are some who verge on trolling, but they are easily spotted.

A large pinch of salt and a (ribald) sense of humour is required for PPUK. You get immune after a while.

 

[biffvernon]

...obviously someone from this forum and someone with a different and rather passionate view to my own on climate change...

The trouble with posting a statement like that is that it points the finger of suspicion at anyone and everyone who has disagreed with you on that topic. That's not nice. I suggest you report the matter to admin, but the suspicions will remain until you name and shame them publicly.

 

[Nemesis]

I can assure anyone reading this that anything reported to admin is dealt with sensitively and with professional discretion (although just because you disagree with someone that doesn't mean posts will be removed!).

And I know that there are ways to trace ISP numbers etc.

I also know that there are people who troll and are very good at it - and who enjoy stirring up dissent.

I agree with Biff - report the matter to admin, who will deal with it.

 

[Flyfisher]

I also know that there are people who troll and are very good at it - and who enjoy stirring up dissent.

There are even those who publically admit they enjoy trying to wind people up.

 

[skier-hughes]

(Unless it's Graham, of course, whom I detest with a vengeance... no Graham, only joking, honest. )

I know deep down you love me :wink: