UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (153) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next
Author: WuLong Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1976464  
Subject: Re: I dont believe man causes Global Warming Date: 2/23/2013 9:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Is this satire?
Sigh. I keep forgetting how other people get emotionally tied to their arguments and have difficulty in performing rational analysis.

Ok, let's take it in teeny baby steps.

From the suggested link and it's discussion of fig 2:
Nonsense: Monckton doesn't describe where he got this IPCC (1990) projection. The 1990 (first) IPCC report did present a "best estimate" of a roughly 3 K rise from 1990 to 2100, but this was hardly expected to be the straight line (with no error bars!) that Monckton plots here.
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html#sec4
This criticism essentially says that Monckton has been imprecise and is a valid criticism so far as it goes.
The line in question shows an increase of roughly .8C between 1990 and 2012. In actuality the increase is about 0.25C. The criticism, therefore would only be valid if the IPCC suggested error of ~.55C.
That's about twice the actual suggested error.

Bottom line - it's a distinction without a difference.

Having said all of that, this is perhaps a better graphic.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/19/an-animated-analysis-o...

So, with regard to this particular data point, the ball is now in your court. You must explain why an error of .55C does not mean that clearly, the Nobel-winning IPCC overstated its case.
Good luck with that.


On to Kyoto.

Who is claiming that Kyoto is the end solution?
What does that have to do with it being based on a fallacy?

As I said in 2007, The Kyoto protocol is deeply flawed in that China was not impacted in any fashion. China of course is the largest and fastest growing producer of greenhouse gases (they are bringing coal-fired powerplants online at a rate in excess of one per week, iirc). It is hardly a stretch to imagine that bad industrialist ideologues would simply relocate to China rather than bear the economic pain of reducing emissions. The end result is that the same amount of greenhouse gases are produced as would have otherwise been the case, but with added cost of economic dislocation.
People really need to consider 2nd-order effects.

http://boards.fool.com/i-am-interested-to-understand-then-si...


Now, again, I suggest that if you don't like what I have to say that you actually provide some evidence rather than sophistry.
Stop your childish insults and actually prove me wrong if you can. I dare you.

The truth, of course, is that you can't.
You hide behind your silly word games and ad hominem attacks because you have no other option.

Project much?
Not at all. Ever.
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (153) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next

Announcements

Foolanthropy 2014!
By working with young, first-time moms, Nurse-Family Partnership is able to truly change lives – for generations to come.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Post of the Day:
Macro Economics

Economic Implications of Cuba
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement