Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

PP - deliberate error or blind bias??? PP decryption pls?!

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by robsalvv, Apr 4, 2008.

  1. (Mods bear with me, before locking/Removing)

    In PP's recent thread: https://netrider.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51496

    He linked to an article which he somehow used as justification for his point of view regarding GW is not man made. Frankly, I don't get how he made that leap, BUT, PP made a fundamental or deliberate mistake... not sure which is was, but either of which frankly paints him with his pants around his ankles... along with some of his credibility.

    However, the linked article actually said this:

    Notice the deliberate or bias induced error? Either way, it does clearly bring into focus the information set PP is using in his own mind, and certainly brings into question what he says and how he understands/interprets what he reads.

    Then he linked to an article about global cooling and the link to the sun. When I look at the graph UP TO Jan '07, my engineering eye reckons a line of best fit has an upward slope, suggesting an increasing average :-k ...is it just me?? Or am I biased?? Here, you have a look.


    Yep, there's definite sharp drop since Jan '07, but the article surmises that El Nina is the reason for the recent drop in temperature. There are some folks heralding this drop as the harbinger of global cooling... but it's El Nina... so frankly, the linked article which PP used to support his case, does him NO FAVOURS at all. :? WTF??

    Then, if you read through the posted comments (I got through about half before I ran out of steam), the author is right behind forced CO2 warming, and the folks who feel they're in the know post freely without any kind of general agreement.

    Finally, the original author in a response to a comment, links to an article that totally debunks the connection between solar activity and global warming and laid GW right in the hands of CO2.

    Frankly, I'm utterly confused. :?

    I don't profess to understand this stuff, but I've read most of PP's stuff and just between you, me and the entire internet, I have no idea how PP keeps it all straight in his mind! On the finer points of climate change, PP appears to be slipperier than a grease encased river eel on an olive oil topcoated iced up teflon skid pan... Frankly, I reckon he's baffling me with batshit.

    Perhaps I need to engage MG to research ALL OF PP's posts and determine whether there's a consistent theme or a change or it's completely random?

    Anyway, in the mean time, somebody please help me out here. Without getting into PP bashing, could someone summarise in 100 words or less, the thrust of PP's understanding on the cause(s) and future direction of global climate change?


  2. Just on one of your points Rob, I too reckon that graph has an upward trend, and thought so when PP first posted it.

    I'd like to see a five period and ten period rolling average to smooth the data. I contemplated doing one but then decided that I couldn't be bothered on the grounds that I do have a life and that I was sufficiently confident of my eyeball estimation of a rising trend.

    At the end of the graph, a dip involving one or two data points indicates nothing but noisy data. If the drop is maintained, then it might be significant. I'm sure PP would have been very scathing of anyone in 1998 had pointed to that big spike as evidence of a catastrophic rate of global warming.

    I have also noticed some confusion in some PP posts between "climate" and "weather", but only where it suits his position.
  3. it's a troll
  4. You have all been told time and time again...........

    Your all wrong....

  5. meh, the global temp fell so bad, because i have reached an astounding level of coolness. in the 90's, i was only capable of being young and hot.
  6. Joel, we need to hit him with something.
  7. hmmm, a mostly empty chook bottle. hang on, gimme five and it'll be empty.
  8. Re: PP - deliberate error or blind bias??? PP decryption pls

    Here goes:
    Climate change is caused by hippies. Al Gore is a stupid hippy.
    No more hippies = no more mention of climate change. Therefore no more problem.
  9. Rob, I'd reckon a serious engaging of MG's research skills is in order. Definately.

    Well done BTW. :applause: I keep losing my concentration trying to keep up with his arguments and it seems I'm not the only one who thought he was baffling us with Bullshit.

    But lets see...
  10. Re: PP - deliberate error or blind bias??? PP decryption pls

    Finally, a solution we can all get behind!
  11. Got one going meself, Joel. Gimme ten mins.
  12. [​IMG] @ Doogz & Rob.

    Thanks for that, but seriously, this is waaay out of my league.

    No disrepect intended towards PP (because I have nothing against him)
    but there is way too much 'bullshit' (as in posts/threads/articles) etc etc
    to go thru, & I've yet to read any of em.

    I don't have the intelligence nor educationally background to tackle it
    & I'll be labelled selfish, but I have to be honest, its not a topic I could
    give two shits about. I'll read an OP or two & I have no idea WTF is
    being said, so how the f*ck can I reseach under those conditions? [​IMG]

    Everyone hates it but when I see yet another thread created, I actually
    shake my head & have another laugh because I know (as does everyone
    else) whats going to happen. What pisses me off is those stupid nOObs
    posting dumbarse shit all over this place :mad:

    PP is one determined mofo. I'll give him that much [​IMG]

    So thanks, but no thanks. I aint gonna even attempt to research shit in
    this instance. Waste of my time trying if I know I don't have the head to.
    You lot have more intelligence so I'll leave that to you guyz [​IMG]

  13. I understand all of what's being said but can never be fcuked writing or posting up responses.
    Just easier to say that PP needs to get Laid.
  14. PP :roll: The first five links were already kaiboshed by the link you posted earlier (see OP). So which links are we to believe??? The one you posted earlier, or these ones??? How about that deliberate / prejidicial bias error I pointed out?? :-k

    (Just to make the case again, YOUR earlier link solidly pointed to La Nina to explain the 0.6degC drop and the author isn't behind solar variation and linked to another author who solidly states that since the 70's the link between sun activity and earth temperature parted ways due to CO2... so the reference you used to support your case, did nothing of the sort :roll:)

    The sixth link is about better equations that don't predict run away greenhouse effect - but says nothing about GW or GC.

    And the last link is a political piece from someone (Monckton) who I believe shares your skepticism, but is far less qualified than many he comments on... interestingly, he can't see the same upward slope I seem to see... why is that?

    Here's what his Wiki entry says about Monckton and GW (formatting is my addition - italics for pro PP stuff, bold for con PP stuff):

    That's what I mean... you have serious filters switched on that takes in ONLY what fits into your agenda... which has now lead to you shooting yourself in the foot... especially when the info you link to infact DOESN'T support your proposition... :? Seriously mate your credibility is failing.

    On the postitive side, you're my best source of links to climate information because I can't be bothered looking for myself... but as to what they might contextually mean, I just can't take you seriously anymore.

    Perhaps Smee is right. :)

    MKEY & JOEL... :rofl:
  15. I think it is a case of :eek:wned:
  16. Well, here's my perspective on the argument...

    There are a few absolute truths out of this (I'm sure I'll miss plenty!):
    1. Anthropogenic sources of "greenhouse gases" has increased atmospheric levels of these gases.
    2. Climate (and weather) is inherently variable, and to a point, unpredictable
    3. Current atmospheric CO2 levels are nothing new - geologically speaking. Atmospheric levels have reached 1500 to 2000ppm during the eocene. There was plenty of life around then!
    4. Just because we don't have full information or a thorough understanding, it doesn't mean we should do nothing about it. (Ye olde precautionary priinciple)
    5. Humans use too many natural resources, and tend to use them inefficiently.

    There's loads more...that was a bad idea!

    Ayway...As far as climate change science goes, I think it is absolutely important to have both sides of the argument so all issues can be thoroughly investigated. When politicians and issues specific organisations get involved, generally one side gets drowned out.

    But, as in 4 above, this doesn't mean we should do nothing since we don't fully understand the topic fully. We should. We should be reducing our emissions, we should be reducing polution and using our natural resources better.

    Whether its global warming or global cooling, one solution contributing to a better environment is using our natural resources better and increasing carbon sequestration through forestry. Yay forestry :grin:



    PS There is some really interesting stuff recently about driving positive environmental outcomes through non-state market driven mechanisms...
  17. Cool point. That means that the points that fall in between those "truths" can generate lots of different / opposing views with the same set OR partial sets of data.

    Utterly agree. Politicians play politics which is usually agenda based. PP's well pointed out how some climate folks play politics too - which interferes with the science.

    For the record, I'm not anti PP - I've not often argued against what he writes, but often engaged to get more clarity. I've been kinda barracking for him to come up with some IPCC / Enviropoliticoscience knock out punch... but I'm just fed up with NR's supposed climate expert not getting his story straight and clearly seeming to have played fast and loose with his references. The prejudicial bias (which was probably always there) that came through in his last post finally did it in for me. :|

    Amen brother :) I agree. Even if the reduce, reuse, recycle philosophy has nothing to do with GW and CC, it's still inherently a good philosophy.

    I totally agree. I should probably give way more thought to how I can play my bit even better. My niece made a cute ingnorant comment the other day. Her family went camping over easter somewhere around Eildon. When I caught up with them afterwards, she said to me, "All those people complaining about chopping trees down and the environment, they don't know what they're talking about! Where we camped there were millions of trees!". LOL. 12 y.o. logic. When I pointed out to her that Victoria once had probably more than 10 times the amount of trees she had a big "ohhhh" moment.

    Here's what I know. PP's thrust is that the IPCC suck and that whatever they say is compromised because of their impure, biased (isn't that ironic) science... so, is there a cohesive alternative framework that possibly explains what's going on, or is it to early in climate time scale terms, to say??
  18. Nah, biodiversity is much higher now than at any other time in history.
  19. Could you please state something about self proclaimed in there. because supposed Environmental expert would insinuate that some people actually believe what he has to say. and I think after his endless backflipping, i think even most of the people who agree with his position have no faith in anything he has to say.

    I mean please someone speak up and correct me if you can follow how we are having both GC and GW at the same time. And how PPs interpretation of data actually backs his claims, because i just can't see it.