frightening declassified images

On 1/26/2016 5:45 PM, rickman wrote:
On 1/26/2016 2:07 PM, PAS wrote:
On 1/26/2016 8:46 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/25/2016 6:18 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:51:19 -0500, PAS wrote:

On 1/25/2016 2:31 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/25/2016 10:47 AM, PAS wrote:
On 1/22/2016 3:43 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/22/2016 2:21 PM, PAS wrote:
On 1/22/2016 12:28 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 1/22/2016 12:08 PM, PeterN wrote:
These declassified images recall what I think should be our
biggest
real concern

http://www.alternatewars.com/Bomb_Loading/Bomb_Guide.htm
I thought global warming is supposed to be our biggest concern.

Active use of the current global nuclear weapon inventory is
certainly
going
to accelerate global warming.






Coal and other fossil fuel generated power is just a tad slower.


Or to no measurable affect at all.

I have not seen any reliable independent studies that support your
statement. Perhaps you can provide some.

You wouldn't believe them anyway, would you? It's settled
science, as
the president proclaimed.

Try me. i am looking for peer reviewed studies, using appropriate
data.

You can try these but only you can decide what you think is
appropriate
data.
http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html



As for the myth that 97% of climate scientists agree, maybe this can
shed more light on who, exactly, that "97% is:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...78462813553136


This has been hashed and rehashed over and over and I suspect that no
opinions will be changed.

This has been covered in the past. It's 97% of a carefully selected
group of some 60-something scientists. It's a load of bull****.


I would not select a climate change specialist to analyze an oncology
issue. The issue is proper data analysis, by those with a proper
background and no dog in the water. .

Many of these scientists need funding in order to continue with their
research, they surely have a dog in the water.

Any researcher has a personal interest in supporting any research they
have done previously. However, it is always devastating to produce
results that end up being wrong. So they all have a very significant
interest in doing good research unless they are just flat being
bought. Are you suggesting the government will not sponsor good
research that indicates AGW is not a problem?

People in government have an agenda. I believe that, absolutely, there
is zero interest in the federal government sponsoring any research that
would indicate that man-caused global warming is a myth. It doesn't fit
the President's agenda or that of many others.

On 1/26/2016 5:53 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/26/2016 4:52 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:07:58 -0500, PAS wrote:

Many of these scientists need funding in order to continue with their
research, they surely have a dog in the water.

I have no interest in joining in this discussion, but I do have a
strong interest in the use of language.

Out of curiosity, is your "dog in the water" wordplay on rising ocean
temperatures or levels, or is it just an error? The idiomatic phrase
is "a dog in this fight".



I will answer, since I first used the expression. Here on the Isle of
Long, we have used the expression as I have stated. I have heard other
variations on the theme. I deliberately did not use the word "fight"
because it is not a fight. We were having a discussion. Unlike
discussions with others, PAS and I do not take our differences
personally. We have met several times, and I consider him a friend, so
there is no fight.
The Internet service here prohibits me from sites which may have
further documentation.

Like other regions, we have our sayings and, Lord knows, our accents. I
don't pronounce "R" when it's at the end of a word, like car. That's
just the way I tawk.

On 1/26/2016 7:59 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:46:05 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/25/2016 6:18 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:51:19 -0500, PAS wrote:

On 1/25/2016 2:31 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/25/2016 10:47 AM, PAS wrote:
On 1/22/2016 3:43 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/22/2016 2:21 PM, PAS wrote:
On 1/22/2016 12:28 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 1/22/2016 12:08 PM, PeterN wrote:
These declassified images recall what I think should be our biggest
real concern

http://www.alternatewars.com/Bomb_Loading/Bomb_Guide.htm
I thought global warming is supposed to be our biggest concern.

Active use of the current global nuclear weapon inventory is
certainly
going
to accelerate global warming.






Coal and other fossil fuel generated power is just a tad slower.


Or to no measurable affect at all.

I have not seen any reliable independent studies that support your
statement. Perhaps you can provide some.

You wouldn't believe them anyway, would you? It's settled science, as
the president proclaimed.

Try me. i am looking for peer reviewed studies, using appropriate data.

You can try these but only you can decide what you think is appropriate
data.
http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html

As for the myth that 97% of climate scientists agree, maybe this can
shed more light on who, exactly, that "97% is:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...78462813553136

This has been hashed and rehashed over and over and I suspect that no
opinions will be changed.

This has been covered in the past. It's 97% of a carefully selected
group of some 60-something scientists. It's a load of bull****.


I would not select a climate change specialist to analyze an oncology
issue. The issue is proper data analysis, by those with a proper
background and no dog in the water. .

Talking of "proper data analyisis" and with regard to the 97%: the
original source of the 97% figure is a paper published by Oreskes in
2005. Oreskes carried out a computerised word-search of papers to do
with climate change looking for “global climate change�. She then read
the abstracts to determine which papers explicitly rejected climate
change. She found but 3% met this criteria. From this she deduced that
97% supported the claim that global warming was occurring and was due
to mankind. You don't have to look hard to see the flaw in this logic.
Oreskes has now amended her claim to "approximately 20 percent of
abstracts explicitly endorsed the consensus on climate change that:
"Earth's climate is being affected by human activities".".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes

Later, in a slight shift, J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus
on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,"
Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013);
DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 claims, as stated in the abstract:

"Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2%
endorsed the consensus."

Apart from the fact that we don't know exactly what the consensus is
that the authors think they are endorsing, the 97.2% is of a subset of
all papers. Table 3 shows that this subset represents only 32.6% of
all abstracts 34.8% of all authors. No opinion is stated by 66.4% of
all abstracts and 64.6% of all authors. What this says to me is that
(only) 35.4% of all authors feel sufficiently strongly about mankind's
contribution warming to voice an opinion. 64.6% of all authors have
not voiced an opinion so we cannot know what it might be.

So Oreskes never got anywhere near 97% and nobody has yet been able to
support her original claim.

Then Doran and Zimmerman had a go. Their matter is longer and more
convoluted but it has been nicely summarised by David Burton in 'Watts
Up With That?' in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/1...nsensus-claim/

More information may be found at
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/97pct/

Zimmerman reached her conclusion after sending a questionaire to
10,257 earth scientists of whom 3146 responded. She then filtered the
replies down to a group of 79. On the basis of their answer to her
first question she then reduced the group to 77.

The point is "that 97% of climate scientists agree on climate change"
is a statement which cannot be justified. The truth is that 97% of a
77 member carefully selected sub-set of a sub-set of climate
scientists agree on climate change. There is no way that 77 climate
scientists can be claimed to be representative of the 10,257 earth
scientists to whom the questionaire was sent, or even the smaller
number who replied. It certainly can't be used to justify a claim
that "that 97% of climate scientists agree on climate change. Yet that
claim rolls on. It's a big lie.


And if they are 10%, is it a risk worth taking.

--
PeterN

On 1/26/2016 8:05 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:50:14 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/26/2016 2:07 PM, PAS wrote:
On 1/26/2016 8:46 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/25/2016 6:18 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:51:19 -0500, PAS wrote:

On 1/25/2016 2:31 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/25/2016 10:47 AM, PAS wrote:
On 1/22/2016 3:43 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/22/2016 2:21 PM, PAS wrote:
On 1/22/2016 12:28 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 1/22/2016 12:08 PM, PeterN wrote:
These declassified images recall what I think should be our
biggest
real concern

http://www.alternatewars.com/Bomb_Loading/Bomb_Guide.htm
I thought global warming is supposed to be our biggest concern.

Active use of the current global nuclear weapon inventory is
certainly
going
to accelerate global warming.






Coal and other fossil fuel generated power is just a tad slower.


Or to no measurable affect at all.

I have not seen any reliable independent studies that support your
statement. Perhaps you can provide some.

You wouldn't believe them anyway, would you? It's settled
science, as
the president proclaimed.

Try me. i am looking for peer reviewed studies, using appropriate
data.

You can try these but only you can decide what you think is appropriate
data.
http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html


As for the myth that 97% of climate scientists agree, maybe this can
shed more light on who, exactly, that "97% is:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...78462813553136

This has been hashed and rehashed over and over and I suspect that no
opinions will be changed.

This has been covered in the past. It's 97% of a carefully selected
group of some 60-something scientists. It's a load of bull****.


I would not select a climate change specialist to analyze an oncology
issue. The issue is proper data analysis, by those with a proper
background and no dog in the water. .

Many of these scientists need funding in order to continue with their
research, they surely have a dog in the water.

While some sell themselves out, many others maintain their integrity.
Obviously, if you go to work for Koch, you know, going in, what is
expected of you.
Think tobacco.

Think science.

What have the XXXX funded studies found? How sound are they? Science
doesn't care about the politics of the person with the cheque book.
Science only concerns itself about the data and whether or the
theories of hypothosese can be falsified.


think tobacco

--
PeterN

On 1/26/2016 8:57 PM, Davoud wrote:
Tony Cooper:
Out of curiosity, is your "dog in the water" wordplay on rising ocean
temperatures or levels, or is it just an error? The idiomatic phrase
is "a dog in this fight".

"...dog in this hunt" is more common in my experience. Also "...dog in
this race."


Some are just dogged about arguing. [ducking for cover]
--
PeterN

On 1/26/2016 9:18 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:53:51 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/26/2016 4:52 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:07:58 -0500, PAS wrote:

Many of these scientists need funding in order to continue with their
research, they surely have a dog in the water.

I have no interest in joining in this discussion, but I do have a
strong interest in the use of language.

Out of curiosity, is your "dog in the water" wordplay on rising ocean
temperatures or levels, or is it just an error? The idiomatic phrase
is "a dog in this fight".



I will answer, since I first used the expression. Here on the Isle of
Long, we have used the expression as I have stated. I have heard other
variations on the theme. I deliberately did not use the word "fight"
because it is not a fight. We were having a discussion. Unlike
discussions with others, PAS and I do not take our differences
personally. We have met several times, and I consider him a friend, so
there is no fight.
The Internet service here prohibits me from sites which may have further
documentation.

The reason that I ask is that "I don't have a dog in that fight"
parallels how it is used. It suggests that a person doesn't want to
get involved because he doesn't have an interest in the proceedings.

"I don't have a dog in the water" doesn't suggest anything
interpretable.

So, it must be either an error or an attempt at wordplay.


My meaning certainly came across.

--
PeterN

On 1/26/2016 10:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 19:26:22 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/26/2016 6:55 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:38:11 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per PAS:
You can try these but only you can decide what you think is appropriate
data.
http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html

As for the myth that 97% of climate scientists agree, maybe this can
shed more light on who, exactly, that "97% is:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...78462813553136

This has been hashed and rehashed over and over and I suspect that no
opinions will be changed.

Seems easy to hung up on precise numbers.

How about we reduce this to the ridiculous....

Would anybody grant that at least twenty percent of climate scientists
agree ?

If so, consider that Russian roulette is 16-17%. (1/6 = 16.66666...)

Would a rational person play Russian roulette?

Suppose you weren't rich and you had the inside scoop that the chances
of your house burning to the ground were 16-17% ? Would you forgo
homeowner's insurance to save a buck?

No I wouldn't forego the insurance. But neither would I pay attention
to the person who advised me to protect the house by burning the
entrails of a goat on a fire made of oak chips on a day when the wind
would carry the smoke onto the house.

The question is, have those umpteen% of scientists correctly
identified the problem?


there are none so blind, as those who will not see.
(not original)

I bet I look harder than you do. :-)


since I don't know how hard you look, and have little understanding of
your research abilities, I have no basis for a response.

--
PeterN

On 1/27/2016 9:17 AM, PAS wrote:
On 1/26/2016 5:45 PM, rickman wrote:
On 1/26/2016 2:07 PM, PAS wrote:
On 1/26/2016 8:46 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/25/2016 6:18 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:51:19 -0500, PAS wrote:

On 1/25/2016 2:31 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/25/2016 10:47 AM, PAS wrote:
On 1/22/2016 3:43 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/22/2016 2:21 PM, PAS wrote:
On 1/22/2016 12:28 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 1/22/2016 12:08 PM, PeterN wrote:
These declassified images recall what I think should be our
biggest
real concern

http://www.alternatewars.com/Bomb_Loading/Bomb_Guide.htm
I thought global warming is supposed to be our biggest concern.

Active use of the current global nuclear weapon inventory is
certainly
going
to accelerate global warming.






Coal and other fossil fuel generated power is just a tad slower.


Or to no measurable affect at all.

I have not seen any reliable independent studies that support your
statement. Perhaps you can provide some.

You wouldn't believe them anyway, would you? It's settled
science, as
the president proclaimed.

Try me. i am looking for peer reviewed studies, using appropriate
data.

You can try these but only you can decide what you think is
appropriate
data.
http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html



As for the myth that 97% of climate scientists agree, maybe this can
shed more light on who, exactly, that "97% is:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...78462813553136


This has been hashed and rehashed over and over and I suspect that no
opinions will be changed.

This has been covered in the past. It's 97% of a carefully selected
group of some 60-something scientists. It's a load of bull****.


I would not select a climate change specialist to analyze an oncology
issue. The issue is proper data analysis, by those with a proper
background and no dog in the water. .

Many of these scientists need funding in order to continue with their
research, they surely have a dog in the water.

Any researcher has a personal interest in supporting any research they
have done previously. However, it is always devastating to produce
results that end up being wrong. So they all have a very significant
interest in doing good research unless they are just flat being
bought. Are you suggesting the government will not sponsor good
research that indicates AGW is not a problem?

People in government have an agenda. I believe that, absolutely, there
is zero interest in the federal government sponsoring any research that
would indicate that man-caused global warming is a myth. It doesn't fit
the President's agenda or that of many others.

thank you for capitalizing.
This President's agenda is to do what's right. You probably don't agree,
and let's just agree to disagree.

--
PeterN

On 1/27/2016 10:30 AM, rickman wrote:
On 1/26/2016 7:59 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:46:05 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/25/2016 6:18 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:51:19 -0500, PAS wrote:

On 1/25/2016 2:31 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/25/2016 10:47 AM, PAS wrote:
On 1/22/2016 3:43 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/22/2016 2:21 PM, PAS wrote:
On 1/22/2016 12:28 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 1/22/2016 12:08 PM, PeterN wrote:
These declassified images recall what I think should be our
biggest
real concern

http://www.alternatewars.com/Bomb_Loading/Bomb_Guide.htm
I thought global warming is supposed to be our biggest concern.

Active use of the current global nuclear weapon inventory is
certainly
going
to accelerate global warming.






Coal and other fossil fuel generated power is just a tad slower.


Or to no measurable affect at all.

I have not seen any reliable independent studies that support your
statement. Perhaps you can provide some.

You wouldn't believe them anyway, would you? It's settled
science, as
the president proclaimed.

Try me. i am looking for peer reviewed studies, using appropriate
data.

You can try these but only you can decide what you think is
appropriate
data.
http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html


As for the myth that 97% of climate scientists agree, maybe this can
shed more light on who, exactly, that "97% is:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...78462813553136


This has been hashed and rehashed over and over and I suspect that no
opinions will be changed.

This has been covered in the past. It's 97% of a carefully selected
group of some 60-something scientists. It's a load of bull****.


I would not select a climate change specialist to analyze an oncology
issue. The issue is proper data analysis, by those with a proper
background and no dog in the water. .

Talking of "proper data analyisis" and with regard to the 97%: the
original source of the 97% figure is a paper published by Oreskes in
2005. Oreskes carried out a computerised word-search of papers to do
with climate change looking for “global climate change�. She then read
the abstracts to determine which papers explicitly rejected climate
change. She found but 3% met this criteria. From this she deduced that
97% supported the claim that global warming was occurring and was due
to mankind. You don't have to look hard to see the flaw in this logic.
Oreskes has now amended her claim to "approximately 20 percent of
abstracts explicitly endorsed the consensus on climate change that:
"Earth's climate is being affected by human activities".".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes

Later, in a slight shift, J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus
on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,"
Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013);
DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 claims, as stated in the abstract:

"Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2%
endorsed the consensus."

Apart from the fact that we don't know exactly what the consensus is
that the authors think they are endorsing, the 97.2% is of a subset of
all papers. Table 3 shows that this subset represents only 32.6% of
all abstracts 34.8% of all authors. No opinion is stated by 66.4% of
all abstracts and 64.6% of all authors. What this says to me is that
(only) 35.4% of all authors feel sufficiently strongly about mankind's
contribution warming to voice an opinion. 64.6% of all authors have
not voiced an opinion so we cannot know what it might be.

So Oreskes never got anywhere near 97% and nobody has yet been able to
support her original claim.

Then Doran and Zimmerman had a go. Their matter is longer and more
convoluted but it has been nicely summarised by David Burton in 'Watts
Up With That?' in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/1...nsensus-claim/


More information may be found at
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/97pct/

Zimmerman reached her conclusion after sending a questionaire to
10,257 earth scientists of whom 3146 responded. She then filtered the
replies down to a group of 79. On the basis of their answer to her
first question she then reduced the group to 77.

The point is "that 97% of climate scientists agree on climate change"
is a statement which cannot be justified. The truth is that 97% of a
77 member carefully selected sub-set of a sub-set of climate
scientists agree on climate change. There is no way that 77 climate
scientists can be claimed to be representative of the 10,257 earth
scientists to whom the questionaire was sent, or even the smaller
number who replied. It certainly can't be used to justify a claim
that "that 97% of climate scientists agree on climate change. Yet that
claim rolls on. It's a big lie.

You do realize that "Earth's climate is being affected by human
activities" is not something that most research in the field will be
addressing, right? So it only makes sense that most papers won't
express an opinion one way or the other.

Of course that does not men the 97% figure is right. It sounds like
that is not a number that should be waved around as a valid
representation of scientific opinion.

People say a lot of crap most of the time. I'm not sure why that would
surprise anyone. The world is full of crap. But I can't see how any of
this makes AGW any less real.

this discussion reminds me that about twelve years ago I did an analysis
of research papers on the health effects EMF. My conclusion then was
that there was nothing conclusive. The most likely cause of health
issues in people living near power lines, was poor dietary habits.
Although I was paid to do that analysis by an entity with a vested
interest, they were surprised by the result, which was not in accord
with their agenda.

--
PeterN

On 1/26/2016 4:52 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:07:58 -0500, PAS wrote:

Many of these scientists need funding in order to continue with their
research, they surely have a dog in the water.
I have no interest in joining in this discussion, but I do have a
strong interest in the use of language.

Out of curiosity, is your "dog in the water" wordplay on rising ocean
temperatures or levels, or is it just an error? The idiomatic phrase
is "a dog in this fight".


I responded to Peter N using the phrase he used, I've not used that
phrase before.