Insurance industry may be confronted with rising sea levels

[Trakar]

Uniformitarianism is a fundamental underpinning of geology and is the foundational observation of the physical world, it is by no means a "belief system".

Uniformitarianism was a foundational underpinning of geology when geology meant a generalized understanding of the Earth and it was believed to be several thousands of years old in a universe that wasn't much older and everything within and without was believed to exist in a steady and unchanging state.

It has been beat back by the facts and observed changes every since that time. This isn't to say that the consideration that the same basic principles in operation and mechanism today are fundementally the same throughout most of geological history is incorrect, but rather that while uniformitarianism is a flawed belief system based upon a flawed philosophy (eg "an unchanging universe") there are some useful RoT principles initiated by that flawed philosophical understanding that can yeild useful understandings.

When a geologist makes a prediction based on the PRINCIPLE of uniformitarianism he will tell you what will happen, what it will look like, and what the result of it will be.

Is that why the overwhelming majority of geologists support AGW?

If a geologist bases his response to you on philosophy rather than evidences he isn't conveying science, merely his philosophical postion on a subject. Your misunderstanding of this difference distinguishes the ideologues from those interested in scientific understandings of the world around us.

 

[westwall]

What I think about the climate, is entirely irrelevent to whether or not affirmative respondants to a poll asking people if they think we are experiencing climate change are concerned about climate change.

as I stated, however, I am willing to discuss your issue as well.



No problem at all. Once we identify the type of evidence sufficient for you to accept that climate change is occurring, then I'll see what I can do to meet those standards. Without that, we are chasing an undefined and unachievable solution.



Uniformitarianism is a belief system that is poor reflection of reality. Nothing, not even the basic forces within the extent of our perception and understanding has ever persisted in a steady or unchanged state.

Do you want me to demonstrate the level of changes we are seeing now versus the level of changes we understand in earlier epochs of our planet's history and then compare them to changes we've seen since when; the history of our species, modern global civilization,...?

As I said, put out some criteria you would feel neccessary for you to acknowledge AGW, we'll work out the details and I'll see what I can turn up.

Uniformitarianism is a fundamental underpinning of geology and is the foundational observation of the physical world, it is by no means a "belief system". When a geologist makes a prediction based on the PRINCIPLE of uniformitarianism he will tell you what will happen, what it will look like, and what the result of it will be. The cult of AGW on the other hand tells us if "X" occurs...something MAY happen, or it COULD happen. That is the very essence of a "belief system". Your blissfully ignorant comment reveals how far removed from science you truly are.

Uniformitarianism is a fundemental principle in geology. As is punctated equilibrium. We know from present observations that transform faults move units of land hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles from their prior positions. We also know that over millions of years we can state that the average motions was so many centimeters per year. But that is not how the movement occurs. The faults move in increments of tens of feet every few decades or couple of centuries.

We have seen the same thing in the paleo climate. For many millions of years, things will stay the same, then an event will occur that will change the climate very rapidly. Several times this event has been the rapid injection of CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere. And the result was a rapid warming and change in the climate of that era.

Now why do you suggest that the rapid injection of GHGs in the atmosphere today will have differant results? The physics are the same, irregardless of the source of the GHGs.

The laws of physics state that if we add GHGs to the atmosphere, the atmosphere will warm. And that is exactly what is happening at present.

Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory of evolution, it has nothing to do with geology. The tectonic theory (or even more specific tectono-stratigraphic terranes) states pretty much what you say, however, some areas are moving much more rapidly than others.

You claim the the "rapid injection of GHG's" will have a dramatic effect as regards our climate and yet, the only place where that is occuring is within the computer models of the AGW researchers. The real world doesn't seem to be following along with your claims.

Additionally, temperatures in the past are provably higher than the present day and all of the horrible consequences of the warming you claim will happen didn't back then. Why is that? Is the heat of today somehow special? Is it somehow different than the heat of 70 years ago? Or 800 years ago? Or 2000 years ago? Or how about 8000 years ago when it was really hot?

You claim all of theses terrible things are going to happen and yet the historical record is unquestionable in it's denial of those claims.

As Feynman would say...."YOU"RE WRONG!"

 

[westwall]

Uniformitarianism is a fundamental underpinning of geology and is the foundational observation of the physical world, it is by no means a "belief system".

Uniformitarianism was a foundational underpinning of geology when geology meant a generalized understanding of the Earth and it was believed to be several thousands of years old in a universe that wasn't much older and everything within and without was believed to exist in a steady and unchanging state.

It has been beat back by the facts and observed changes every since that time. This isn't to say that the consideration that the same basic principles in operation and mechanism today are fundementally the same throughout most of geological history is incorrect, but rather that while uniformitarianism is a flawed belief system based upon a flawed philosophy (eg "an unchanging universe") there are some useful RoT principles initiated by that flawed philosophical understanding that can yeild useful understandings.

When a geologist makes a prediction based on the PRINCIPLE of uniformitarianism he will tell you what will happen, what it will look like, and what the result of it will be.

Is that why the overwhelming majority of geologists support AGW?

If a geologist bases his response to you on philosophy rather than evidences he isn't conveying science, merely his philosophical postion on a subject. Your misunderstanding of this difference distinguishes the ideologues from those interested in scientific understandings of the world around us.

They don't. I know far more geologists than you ever will and the vast majority of them think it's a fraud just like I do. The geologists who do support the fraud are making money from it.

I make no money from my scepticism, far from it. I have sent money to many sceptics who are in poor financial straights because they have been ostracized for having the temerity to question authority. I have sent money to Dr. Balls defence team so he can beat the ever loving shit out of that fraud Mann.

On the other hand, when you look at those who do they are getting grants from the government to do their "research". If you weren't intellectually dishonest you would see the difference, but you are, so you don't.

 

[westwall]

Irrelevent to the issue being discussed, but I will be happy to accomodate this as an additional issue.

The first issue was a claim stating that there was a difference between people who acknowledged current climate change in a specific poll and people who are concerned about climate change. I say that the people who acknowledge and openly support that we are in a current climate change episode, are overwhelmingly concerned about climate change (regardless of whether or not they accurately understand the underlying science).

Your issue is of a different nature; what types of evidence would you find persuasive?

In fact it is not irrelevant. You have made claims about the climate. The climate now is no different than in the past and that is a bit of a problem for your claims. Uniformitarianism states that things that happened in the past will happen again in the future. Show us anything that is happening now that is somehow different than what has occured allready.

You made the claim now back it up.

Now Walleyes, that is not at all what uniformitarianism claims. Uniformitarianism states that the same preconditions will produce the same results.

But we have changed the preconditions. The CO2 content in the atmosphere is no longer 280 ppm. It is now about 400 ppm. The CH4 is no longer at 0.7 or 0.8 ppm, it is over 1.8 ppm. And there are industrial GHGs we have added to the atmosphere that are thousands of times as powerful as CO2.

And we are presently seeing the warming, and also seeing an increase in the number and severity of extreme weather events. You don't need to argue with me on that, you need to argue with Swiss Re and Munich Re.

You might also note that uniformitarianism fails on the subjects of impacts and caldera volcanos.

Nice wordplay but you're wrong....

Uniformitarianism - Glossary of Geology
Uniformitarianism is defined in the authoritative Glossary of Geology as "the fundamental principle or doctrine that geologic processes and natural laws now operating to modify the Earth's crust have acted in the same regular manner and with essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time, and that past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today; the classical concept that 'the present is the key to the past'." (Robert Bates and Julia Jackson, Glossary of Geology, 2nd edition, American Geological Institute, 1980, pg. 677).


Uniformitarianism

 

[westwall]

Uniformitarianism is a fundamental underpinning of geology and is the foundational observation of the physical world, it is by no means a "belief system".

Uniformitarianism was a foundational underpinning of geology when geology meant a generalized understanding of the Earth and it was believed to be several thousands of years old in a universe that wasn't much older and everything within and without was believed to exist in a steady and unchanging state.

It has been beat back by the facts and observed changes every since that time. This isn't to say that the consideration that the same basic principles in operation and mechanism today are fundementally the same throughout most of geological history is incorrect, but rather that while uniformitarianism is a flawed belief system based upon a flawed philosophy (eg "an unchanging universe") there are some useful RoT principles initiated by that flawed philosophical understanding that can yeild useful understandings.

When a geologist makes a prediction based on the PRINCIPLE of uniformitarianism he will tell you what will happen, what it will look like, and what the result of it will be.

Is that why the overwhelming majority of geologists support AGW?

If a geologist bases his response to you on philosophy rather than evidences he isn't conveying science, merely his philosophical postion on a subject. Your misunderstanding of this difference distinguishes the ideologues from those interested in scientific understandings of the world around us.

My gosh but you don't know shit about the history of geology do you? Uniformitarianism DEFINES the natural world. Before Hutton presented the theory, and Whewell named the principle, the earth sciences and philosophers were locked in the religiuos dogma of the time that the Earth was 6000 years old. Hutton and those that followed helped create modern science as it exists today.

You claim that sceptics are the idealogues and yet all we want is for the continued free exchange of ideas and research, it's YOU and yours who wish to stifle all dialogue. It's YOU and YOURS who wish to end any scientific research that runs counter to your dogma....and you claim we're the idealogues. What a joke. Your cohorts are a farce. You are the very definition of idealogue.

 

[bobgnote]

They don't. I know far more geologists than you ever will and the vast majority of them think it's a fraud just like I do. The geologists who do support the fraud are making money from it.

I make no money from my scepticism, far from it. I have sent money to many sceptics who are in poor financial straights because they have been ostracized for having the temerity to question authority. I have sent money to Dr. Balls defence team so he can beat the ever loving shit out of that fraud Mann.

On the other hand, when you look at those who do they are getting grants from the government to do their "research". If you weren't intellectually dishonest you would see the difference, but you are, so you don't.

Gee, Wally! Do you think skeptics will continue, to need money? You betcha!

Even back before Uniformitarianism, there was an interesting theory, about the shape of the Earth. It isn't flat, is it. No amount of pomposity will make the Earth flat, get it?

Uniformitarianism became popular, in the 18th Century, before the invention of the chainsaw, and so the most interesting times of AGW were yet to come. The CO2 was at 280 ppm, and it was not allowed, to migrate downward, over an 80-100K cooling.

As O.R. and I both posted, already, CO2 is bumping 400 ppm, and O.R. shot, how CH4 is no longer in the ppb area, Mmm-kay? The CH4 has a 20-year GWP of 72, which it will tend to keep for awhile longer, since we are dealing with a LOT of CH4, and the OH- ion concentration is liable to fail, which will allow CH4 to accumulate, without breaking down, to CO2 and H2O.

When that northern summer-ice albedo goes, Wally, we will have suffered what I consider a fatal tipping point. By then, whoever is a live human had better know what he is planting, when and where, including beetle-resistant trees, or all kinds of humans have to perish, soon enough.

I don't want to seem like a total Jew, Wally, but you know you and your skeptics aren't very kosher, and like the flat-earth believers, of the past, anti-warming skeptics who are furthermore too stupid, to understand chainsaws have just a spec of media time, left, before the lot of you run the fade, and Peyton won't throw it to you.

Hey, you seem to be loaded, so give skeptic-douches lots of spare change, dude!

Word is reaching me, of changes, in academic circles, not just involving gross example former chem instructor Nicholas Drapela, at OSU, but also people are known to me, who won't be back in class, since they were a little slow to pick up on AGW and ACC, when climate change is under way, and they were in some kind of discipline, where REAL SCIENTISTS SHOULD KNOW SOMETHING IS GOING ON.

Can you see going to school, to be taught, by some flat-earth shit-head? I think not. Being in school with flat-earth shit-heads would be bad enough. But being in Mr.Flatski's class? Not happening, even if he's a big, bad Jew.

Then again, lots of people think Mr.Jesus is coming back. NO, he won't. Just because somebody copped a load of Jewish fairy-tales and history, written back when writing was young does NOT mean the expounding of mythology means Mr.Jesus is coming back.

Hey, if your TV is broke, another TV can show a picture of your TV, back when it wasn't broke, or maybe, your TV will make the news, for being broke. But that broke TV won't be working, ever again. And it'll get thrown away. Get it?

 

[Trakar]

You claim that sceptics are the idealogues...

No, you are the one who claims to be a skeptic while rejecting science, logic and evidence.

I fully support science, skepticism and the primacy role of evidence. I promote rationality, not the rationalization of support for ideological prefences.

and yet all we want is for the continued free exchange of ideas and research, it's YOU and yours who wish to stifle all dialogue. It's YOU and YOURS who wish to end any scientific research that runs counter to your dogma....and you claim we're the idealogues. What a joke. Your cohorts are a farce. You are the very definition of idealogue.

Please indicate where or when I or any other member of the climate science community has argued for an end of legitimate scientific research. Again, these aren't even distortions, merely bald lies. You have apparently completely parted ways with reality.

 

[Trakar]

... I don't want to seem like a total Jew, Wally, but you know you and your skeptics aren't very kosher, and like the flat-earth believers, of the past, anti-warming skeptics who are furthermore too stupid, to understand chainsaws have just a spec of media time, left, before the lot of you run the fade, and Peyton won't throw it to you...

Real scientists are skeptics, these pseudoscience frauds are neither scientists nor skeptics, merely fringe ideological extremists denying reality in the hope that it will help them fool the ignorant.

 

[westwall]

You claim that sceptics are the idealogues...

No, you are the one who claims to be a skeptic while rejecting science, logic and evidence.

I fully support science, skepticism and the primacy role of evidence. I promote rationality, not the rationalization of support for ideological prefences.

and yet all we want is for the continued free exchange of ideas and research, it's YOU and yours who wish to stifle all dialogue. It's YOU and YOURS who wish to end any scientific research that runs counter to your dogma....and you claim we're the idealogues. What a joke. Your cohorts are a farce. You are the very definition of idealogue.

Please indicate where or when I or any other member of the climate science community has argued for an end of legitimate scientific research. Again, these aren't even distortions, merely bald lies. You have apparently completely parted ways with reality.

"THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED"

Or how about your incessant appeals to authority. Any of that ring a bell?

Your assertions are laughable on their face. As are you.

 

[Trakar]

You claim that sceptics are the idealogues...

No, you are the one who claims to be a skeptic while rejecting science, logic and evidence.

I fully support science, skepticism and the primacy role of evidence. I promote rationality, not the rationalization of support for ideological prefences.

and yet all we want is for the continued free exchange of ideas and research, it's YOU and yours who wish to stifle all dialogue. It's YOU and YOURS who wish to end any scientific research that runs counter to your dogma....and you claim we're the idealogues. What a joke. Your cohorts are a farce. You are the very definition of idealogue.

Please indicate where or when I or any other member of the climate science community has argued for an end of legitimate scientific research. Again, these aren't even distortions, merely bald lies. You have apparently completely parted ways with reality.

Your assertions are laughable on their face. As are you.

your opinions do not alter reality, they merely blind you to the world around you.

 

[westwall]

No, you are the one who claims to be a skeptic while rejecting science, logic and evidence.

I fully support science, skepticism and the primacy role of evidence. I promote rationality, not the rationalization of support for ideological prefences.



Please indicate where or when I or any other member of the climate science community has argued for an end of legitimate scientific research. Again, these aren't even distortions, merely bald lies. You have apparently completely parted ways with reality.

Your assertions are laughable on their face. As are you.

your opinions do not alter reality, they merely blind you to the world around you.

And yet, it is not me who is altering original data....that's you and yours. I am not stifling scientific discourse...that's you and yours. These are not my opinions, these are facts.

Want to see blind? Look in the mirror.....well maybe that won't work with you and yours.

 

[Trakar]

Your assertions are laughable on their face. As are you.

your opinions do not alter reality, they merely blind you to the world around you.

And yet, it is not me who is altering original data....that's you and yours. I am not stifling scientific discourse...that's you and yours. These are not my opinions, these are facts.

Want to see blind? Look in the mirror.....well maybe that won't work with you and yours.

You are, at best, mistaken. I urge you to open your eyes and your mind but the choice is yours.

 

[Old Rocks]

Uniformitarianism is a fundamental underpinning of geology and is the foundational observation of the physical world, it is by no means a "belief system".

Uniformitarianism was a foundational underpinning of geology when geology meant a generalized understanding of the Earth and it was believed to be several thousands of years old in a universe that wasn't much older and everything within and without was believed to exist in a steady and unchanging state.

It has been beat back by the facts and observed changes every since that time. This isn't to say that the consideration that the same basic principles in operation and mechanism today are fundementally the same throughout most of geological history is incorrect, but rather that while uniformitarianism is a flawed belief system based upon a flawed philosophy (eg "an unchanging universe") there are some useful RoT principles initiated by that flawed philosophical understanding that can yeild useful understandings.

When a geologist makes a prediction based on the PRINCIPLE of uniformitarianism he will tell you what will happen, what it will look like, and what the result of it will be.

Is that why the overwhelming majority of geologists support AGW?

If a geologist bases his response to you on philosophy rather than evidences he isn't conveying science, merely his philosophical postion on a subject. Your misunderstanding of this difference distinguishes the ideologues from those interested in scientific understandings of the world around us.

They don't. I know far more geologists than you ever will and the vast majority of them think it's a fraud just like I do. The geologists who do support the fraud are making money from it.

I make no money from my scepticism, far from it. I have sent money to many sceptics who are in poor financial straights because they have been ostracized for having the temerity to question authority. I have sent money to Dr. Balls defence team so he can beat the ever loving shit out of that fraud Mann.

On the other hand, when you look at those who do they are getting grants from the government to do their "research". If you weren't intellectually dishonest you would see the difference, but you are, so you don't.

Really? Then why are not these geologist views reflected in the views of the members of the American Geophysical Union or the Geological Society of America? In fact, why are not these views reflected in the curriculums of the universities around the world?

What you are stating is that almost all the geologists in every nation in the world that have major reputations are in on a fraud and conspiracy to delude the rest of us. Been fitted for a little tinfoil hat lately, Walleyes?

 

[Old Rocks]

Your assertions are laughable on their face. As are you.

your opinions do not alter reality, they merely blind you to the world around you.

And yet, it is not me who is altering original data....that's you and yours. I am not stifling scientific discourse...that's you and yours. These are not my opinions, these are facts.

Want to see blind? Look in the mirror.....well maybe that won't work with you and yours.

My, my, Walleyes. Once again claiming that everyone is blind except yourself and obese junkies on the radio.

 

[Old Rocks]

However, there is one Scientific Society that changed it's take on global warming after the members forced the leadership to change the societies statement because it did not follow real scientific evidence. That was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, that changed it position from denial of human influence to a non-commital stance after substancial number of members stated that they would quit the organization if it continued to deny real science.

 

[Trakar]

You claim that sceptics are the idealogues...

No, you are the one who claims to be a skeptic while rejecting science, logic and evidence.

I fully support science, skepticism and the primacy role of evidence. I promote rationality, not the rationalization of support for ideological prefences.

and yet all we want is for the continued free exchange of ideas and research, it's YOU and yours who wish to stifle all dialogue. It's YOU and YOURS who wish to end any scientific research that runs counter to your dogma....and you claim we're the idealogues. What a joke. Your cohorts are a farce. You are the very definition of idealogue.

Please indicate where or when I or any other member of the climate science community has argued for an end of legitimate scientific research. Again, these aren't even distortions, merely bald lies. You have apparently completely parted ways with reality.

"THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED"

Or how about your incessant appeals to authority. Any of that ring a bell?

Your assertions are laughable on their face. As are you.

Citing and referring to experts in a field of knowledge concerning that field of knowledge, is not a logical fallacy. For any true skeptics reading, the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority is where a person who is famous offers their opinion on an issue in which they have no expertise or qualification. For instance, if I based my understanding and opinion of global warming on the fact that Randi Rhodes talked about it on her radio program, that would be a fallacious appeal to authority, if I based my understanding of climate science on the fact that a professor in computer science that I know says that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, that would be a fallacious appeal to authority, but if I'm referring to a doctor in regards to a medical issue, a plumber about leaky pipes, or a climatologist about issues of our planet's climate, there is no fallacious appeal to authority.

Your issues are not funny, a touch sad, pitiful even, but not funny.