j_b

quote: cool, i am just thinking of hiking the loop (colchuck to snow creek pk lot)soon.wait until spring (May is good) and do it on skis. You could also climb Prussik on the way.

quote: Isn't a smaller ozone "hole" a good thing?yes it is a good thing since ozone protects from harmfull UV radiations. Incidentally this may indicate that the phasing out of CFCs (refrigerants) is bearing fruit. The agents replacing CFCs (HFCs, etc...) may also have a lower global warming potential.

quote: Please note that estimates are in themselves admissions of uncertainty, thus in no way representing proof, and when reading the latest IPCC report one finds uncertainty estimates accross a large number of areas to be high.you are placing a burden of proof before any action be taken about human greenhouse gas emissions that is unreasonable and 'incidentally' serving your purpose of not wanting anything to be done. If you are looking for proofs you'll be looking for a long time as there are few certainties in science (there are few laws) as in life in general. For example we may not have proven that increased CO2 causes warming (in the sense that it has not been reproduced in the lab) but all data, theoretical and numerical models point to increased CO2 concentrations causing warming. Clearly nobody arguing in good faith would question it seriously on the basis of the evidence gathered. So .... do you buy home fire insurance? do you have any proofs of your house burning tomorrow? the quotes in previous posts are from the Synthesis Report for policy makers but you'll aslo find more specifics in 'Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability' [ 10-01-2002, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: j_b ]

quote: or are simply a basket of allegations added by one or two researchers who are on the bandwagonfrom the IPCC report: "Where appropriate, the authors of the 3rd assessment report assigned confidence levels that represent their collective judgement in the validity of a conclusion based on observational evidence, modeling results, and theory that have been examined. Estimates of confidence relating to WGII findings are: very high; (95% or greater), 'high' (67-95%), 'medium' (33-67%), 'low' (5-33%), and 'very low' (5% or less)." quote: As for particulates, that is a separate basket of worms from "proving" CO2 is causing warmingfunny how you did not have such qualms embracing the Chang paper.

darn, you beat me to it!

quote: Nobody can really tell whether or not they really traveled as part of an ecosystem, but with the right mindset and practice you can come close to it.and with the right mindset you can also imagine predators, just to keep your numbers to the sustainable level ...

quote: What kind of organisms?from the IPCC report: "Overall climate change is projected to increase threats to human health, particularly in lower income populations, predominantly within tropical/subtropical countries. Climate change can affect human health directly (e.g, reduced cold stress in temperate countries but increased heat stress, loss of life in floods and storms) and indirectly through changes in the ranges of disease vectors (e.g. mosquitoes), water-borne pathogens, water quality, air quality, and food availability and quality (medium to high confidence). The actual health impacts will be strongly influenced by local environmental conditions and socio-economic circumstances, and by the range of social, institutional, technological and behavioral adaptations taken to reduce the full range of threats to health." http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/SYRspm.pdf

quote: j_b:"the second sentence is confusing enough to leave the reader with the message that 2000 years ago global climate was warmer than at present" MtnGoat: It was, we've already established the "warmest ever" claims are false. sigh .... warm temps in China 2000 years ago don't prove that global temps were warmer 2000 years ago. If anything global temperature may have been warmer during the hypsithermal interval (~6000 years ago). http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10k.html quote: from the evidence of the cyclical nature of the global climate, we can see precisely what scientists convinced of warming must prove is not natural.there is conscensus among climate scientists that today's global warming is due to human greenhouse gas outputs superimposed on a natural, long term (~14,000 years) warming trend. The IPCC report is the document which resumes the scientific litterature on this topic as of today. quote: else it would be proven and settledwhether there is proof or reasonable evidence has little to do with policy. You have no proof your house will burn in a fire tomorrow yet you still purchase home fire insurance, don't you?

I gather few people do the Giant's Tears start because of bad bolts. Has anyone considered replacing the hardware? The climb is of high quality and I'd consider it a higher priority than setting up another rap route (original descent is good enough in my book)

quote: The abstract makes clear what the determination is, since it's close enough to show commonalities with other data for cyclic behaviour, it was worth an interesting thread. Since I am interested in the details, that's why I started a subscription.I believe the online abstract is only available to AGU members. What you posted was not the paper abstract but an interpretation of the paper by an organisation which appears to have links to the Western Fuels Association. quote: Further, if you'll please note, I am taking a stab at the erroneous comment "warmer than ever", which is sufficiently proven false by more reports than just this one.No climate scientist believes that today is warmer than it has ever been (although it may well be the case for the past 120,000 years). There were past periods with over 10 times the modern atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Actually what you said (or rather what co2science.org said) is the following: quote: What it means: The results of this study demonstrate that the so-called unprecedented warmth of the 20th century is a myth. Indeed, the warmth of this period was but a manifestation of naturally-induced regularly-recurring conditions similar to those experienced in prior millennia. the second sentence is confusing enough to leave the reader with the message that 2000 years ago global climate was warmer than at present and that today's warming is entirely due to natural causes similarly to the Chinese example of 2000 years ago. And we know this is not true for a number of reasons (climate in China versus global climate and natural variability does not exclude human caused variability). So at best the interpretations are disingenuous. quote: I'd like to ask you, have *you* read the IPCC report and data you are likewise claiming is valid?I have not read the entire report but I have read and discussed the literature on which it is based for over a decade. quote: If we are not to use third party evidence gathered in good faith, or to rely on summaries of reports for talking points, nothing we discuss can considered valid until we show we have indeeed read the entire body of data we are discussing. I have never asked for this from you, because I expect you to comment on what you have learned from a relatively informal perspective, at least backed by some level of honest judgement, which I grant you simply from first principles, this is not reciprocated. the authors of the paper in all likelyhood are in good faith, co2science.org in all likelyhood is not. So don't present the paper findings through the glasses of an anti-global warming hypothesis organisation and expect to be granted the mantle of scientific objetivity. quote: If I understand this correctly, IMO to be consistent we should no longer consider any discussion not backed by full reading of the texts in question invalid.you can discuss anything with whatever level of knowledge you possess but don't be surprised when someone object to your claims of presenting scientific findings whereas in fact you are presenting a biased interpretation. And don't forget rule #1, don't over-interpret the results(cover your ass).

quote: Not yet, takes a couple days to process a subscription to AGU. Looks like an interesting journal. Shall I let you know when I've finished reading it, or will you just switch modes to a different form of attacks?exactly what I thought, you pounce on the IPCC for basing a report on data that you judge insufficient (have you read the papers presenting said data?), yet you jump at the opportunity to take a stab at the global warming hypothesis on the basis of data you can't really comment on since you have not read the paper. How is that for double standards? You can call it personal attacks, what I see is poor application of the scientific method by a critic of the climate science community. quote: As for asking twice, you're hardly king of responses. You have many questions waiting for you on the other thread you never answered. I ask you to be consistent here and answer some of thoseFirst, I don't have the time to address your posts point by point, they are way too lengthy. Second, I take responsability for not answering some of your questions, and let my posts stand as they are. Besides, I usually don't answer what I judge beside the point (and/or diversion from the issue at hand). You can call me on it (which you did) for all I care. Finally, I mentioned my asking you twice whether or not you read the paper before you commented on it because I think it pretty well supports my hypothesis that you actually mostly care about whether it supports your conservative agenda (whether it is good science or not). quote: Please explain how we know *you* are free of judging evidence by your agenda, since you are very vocal in attacking me for doing this on the basis of my having a point of view and attempting to support it. That's it. That's the sum total of what you excoriate me for.whenever you have evidence that I let my perpective on life unduly color my assessment of scientific ideas, let me know.

quote: also the last two pitches are new...the old goes up and right of that corner...the new ones go up and left.... the old line scrambled right of the dirty corner then traversed left to the base of the penultimate pitch (knobby face). The only new climbing of this section is what is level with the corner and left of it. There were no bolts above the top belay of the last 5.9 pitch but I remember girth hitching knobs. Actually for years there was a broken drill bit in a pothole there which may explain the runout above.

quote: If you're MtnGoat, it's not compelling evidence until it's been exhaustively verified and cross-referenced.I wish it were true. For one it does not appear he did too much verifying of the Yang paper he was commenting on before he endorsed it (I mean co2science.org was commenting on). I am still waiting to hear whether he actually read the paper (I asked twice without a response). And two, I doubt it will ever be compelling evidence if it goes against his political agenda.

quote: So now you're going to claim organizations that have a point of view and try to support it are self serving? What insight! Can you perhaps find me a group of people for any argument or position who are not self serving?this is not really deserving of an answer because this is the usual 'climate scientists are self-serving unless I like what they say'. I find it interesting that once in a while you endorse a piece of data wholeheartedly, whereas you claim to be dubious of every other data set which does not go your way. Your motives and methods are transparent. Again I did not attack the paper (i did not endorse it either, I have not read it, have you?), I only point out the way it is used by oil industry supporters.

quote: I didn't post that link because they were not the source of the reportno you didn't because you wanted to give yourself and your point of view legitmacy. Do you actually have a subscription to GRL? quote: Now to the meat of this angle on the data, the "who pays" fallacy. Science and good practice is independent of who pays. While individual practitioners can and do have other agendas, the winnowing of good process takes it all out in the wash. we are not talking about the science but on the reporting of it. I have not read the paper but I can already tell you are overreaching on its implications as pointed out by Sayjay. The fact there were warmer times in the past is obvious but it does not mean that current warming is only due to natural forcing. quote: "Who pays" arguments are a diversionary argument designed to minimize the role of the review of good process and actual data. Attack the data if you can and it's process, who supported the work is a non issue that comes out in the wash when inspected for process, method, and repeatabilityagain I have not read the paper (have you?) but I doubt it was published with the intent of refuting the global warming hypothesis. I have no need to be alarmed by their results. It is, however, important to know 'who pays' to interpret the science. quote: If we want to waste our time making value judgements about various organization and their agenda instead of using good method to look at their resultsAgain I doubt the authors have much to do with co2science.org. 'value judgement'? right. The Western Fuel Association tells me that spewing CO2 in the environnment is good and I should not be a little tickled by how self serving it sounds? give me a break, will ya?

check this out! http://www.co2science.org/journal/2002/v5n39c2.htm do you notice something? so why would MtnGoat not volunteer the link? who is co2science.org exactly? quote: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change [ http://www.CO2science.org] The Center claims to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content." The Center is led by two brothers, Craig and Keith Idso. Their father, Sherwood Idso, is affiliated with the Greening Earth Society [Western Fuel Association]; the Center also shares a board member (Sylvan Wittwer) with GES. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another. Spin: Increased levels of CO2 will help plants, and that's good. Funding: The Center is extremely secretive of its funding sources, stating that it is their policy not to divulge it funders. There is evidence for a strong connection to the Greening Earth Society (ergo Western Fuels Association). found at: http://www.ucsusa.org/index.html (follow the 'global warming' link then 'prominent skeptic organizations' link. ..... the obfuscating goes on ....

quote: On Sunday, stage 15 of the Vuelta de Espana will finish at the top of the Angliru. what a climb! the conditions were atrocious and looked downright dangerous (especially with cars on this narrow road). Apparently most of these guys were grumbling about it having nothing to do with bicycle racing. I assume Roberto would disagree but it seems such an extreme event that I am not sure how well it fits in the Vuelta. What's your take?

Jon, you make good suggestions although I am not sure how practical they all are. Also we should not lose perspective of the important role played by the mounties with respect to introducing, year in and out, group of novices to the sport (and at little cost). I don't mean to give them a blank check to invade popular beginner spots yet I am not sure they do so an unreasonable number of times per year considering the above. Perhaps someone is keeping count?

quote: It doesn't legitimize the policy itself, it does legitimize the means.This is exactly your problem. You can't see how the means determine policy. Would our policies be the same if policymakers had to enforce them?

well, if you persist in attempting to demonstrate that police enforcing jaywalking rules (for example) legitimizes your use of an army to point guns at an entire people without your having to commit more than tax dollars, be my guest (in your persistance that is). In an argument like this, the trick is not to throw the baby with the bath water.

quote: When you make me hire a person I don't want to hire, by law, you are threatening me with the same act you don't want me threatening Iraqis with. You don't want me aiming guns at them, but you support aiming guns at me.oh please. You are in serious need of introducing a little nuance in your thinking. Being able to compare 2 things in one respect does not mean they are equivalent (it's not very good science by the way). For example jaywalking and murder are comparable insofar as they are both against the rules interpreting the social contract, yet we agree they are not met with the same punishment because their impact on society is very different. Breach of the social contract is to a certain extent met differently according to culture yet I don't think you'd go as far associating yourselves with those cultures that compare stealing one's neighbors apples with murdering his children. So yes, I do feel entitled to having someone enforce laws for me yet I still feel that if you are calling for the death of thousands of individuals on either side of the fence you should be ready to vote with your feet (and I don't mean paying taxes). quote: Are we operating from an unknown standard where we assume all races sexes or groups or religions will randomly distibute themselves perfectly into every area of life? no we are not, yet whenever we observe an uneven distribution we should strive to infer its reasons for being so as well as the consequences. In this case lower than the mean socio-economic status leads to a higher risk of loosing one's life. quote: you have lost me now, evidence of what? If you think this indicates something is wrong, we do not understand each other here. When did making threatening statements become protected to the extent they cannot be investigated? do you have conclusive evidence as to their making threatening statements? no, yet you already concluded they were guilty and should pay in some fashion (despite the obviously ridiculous scenario of having terrorists discuss their plans for everyone to hear). Ergo, you discard your high principles when you see fit. quote: Who said anything about cops? You don't pay closer attention to someone, avoid eye contact, etc? talk about hyperbolic leaps!come on. You were justifying calling the law, not avoiding eye contact.

quote: Saddam is not overly religious. He wants only to stay in power, the US is a threat to that. He will use the fury of muslim extermist (who, by the way, are still pissed off about the crusades) to attack the US (that means YOU). He has chemical, biological, and probablly nuclear weapons. Saddam will not overtly attack the US, he has no Navy or Air Force to speak of. But, if you think that a small group of people can't get inside the US, and relase a viral agent into a crowed place, you are niave. so if I follow your argument, invading Iraq to take out Saddam (and killing 1000's of muslims in the process) will diminish the threat of having a small group of muslim extremists (who are still pissed off about the crusades) getting inside the US?

quote: That's very clever. Shall we discuss wether you feel paying your taxes means *your* deeds shall be done by others as well? Which social goals do you support imposition of onto others with laws you pay for and oppression you support? I'm sure there's one or two.this in turn is not very clever. Why don't you humor us and explain how say, the social impact of affirmative action (or whatever you prefer) is comparable to that of waging war? quote: The difference is, everyone in the military now is a volunteer and they know when they join they are risking their lives, by choice, for the likes of us taxpayers.are you sure that volunteerism is the only thing in play here? funny how our military is not representative of all socio-economic strata of society. quote: If I go up to a cop and tell him I'm going to shoot someone at the restauarant, do they have to wait until I do? Don't I have free speech? if you really think this is what they said you have problems with reading but it is more likely a nasty habit in hyperbolic thinking instead of step-by-step logic. quote: nor freedom from investigation if you threaten people with harmagain do you have evidence of this? you keep making my case about your lack of steadfastness in sustaining your proclaimed values quote: Do you simply assume everyone you meet, no matter what their appearance, is just the same as everyone else, or excercise a modicum of caution? you mean calling the cops whenever a strange character approches me amounts to "a modicum of caution". quote: I know it's popular and all to go on about vapid this and plastic that, but as long as people like it, that's all that mattersyeah right, we all know kids want to go to McD because they like the food (sarcasm). That's also why they give away toys, have playrooms and market their product with a clown.

quote: Let's stop the music, and let slip the dogs of warI am surprised you are still shooting the breeze around here and are not at the recruiting office. Or perhaps you intend to send your kids in your place? Or is it that you pay enough taxes for someone else to do your deed?

quote: It depends on how you define guilt. I did not say they should be in jail, I made no statements that is it not their right to speak as they wish, I didn't say they were "guilty" of anything in particular, though I will claim now they were guilty (in the sense of being responsible for their actions) of using very poor judgement. They are free to speak as they wish and yet, you reserve yourself the right to submit them to an ordeal and potentially worse. quote: Wether or not we use personal standards and biases to judge a particular appearance in one way or another is one angle, but the fact that we do so nonetheless is merely a survivial instinct which remains valuable to this daythe issue is not whether you should use your sense of observation to spot trouble but whether you use incomplete information before you take counter action and how this reflect on little steadfastness in sustaining the values you claim to have (freedom, free speech, etc ...). Why is it that we acknowledge our wrong w.r.t. Japanese Americans and appear to be ready to repeat them toward another ethnic group?