[50133]

None of the anthropogenic global warming skeptics here have given any cogent criticism of climate change science. Instead, the have employed naive arguments about ice ages, etc. under the assumption that these issues have not already been considered by practicing, PhD-degreed scientists in the field.

Do you also give pointers on track technique to Freddie Spencer?

Educate yourself.

***

I agree with the others that the arms race in liter bikes is for the fanboys. Let the tech trickle down from the racers to bikes most of us can actually exploit.

 

[50133]

Wow seruzawa, your comment has so many flaws I hardly know where to begin.

* How many peer-reviewed scientists dispute the anthropogenic global warming consensus? A handful, pushing tendentious theories like cosmic ray cloud formation, with many others debunked.

If you had a criticism that held water, that would be a different story.

* Anecdotes != data. Data is calibrated, validated and replete. So what if it snowed in Baghdad this year? It's the entire data set that counts.

* So because we don't understand lift and lightning we should abandon science altogether? This is the same non-argument used by creationists to discredit Darwinian evolution, i.e. the "God of the gaps." Do you also think God designed the computer you're using, instead of human being who understand solid state physics and semiconductors?

***

Kenneth,

Thanks for the kind comment, and I take your point about power -- improved technology can make power more usable. However, I still think it has some downsides: uses more gas, chews up more tire, increases cost/sophistication, and pushes up insurance rates. And, can't any idiot go fast in a straight line?

I guess my view is: give me reliability and just enough power and features to do what I need to do (e.g., touring two-up), then cut weight and sharpen the handling. If tech can give more easy-to-use power without adding weight or hurting reliability, great.

 

[50133]

Ha! Who said to abandon science? Just come back when climate pseudo-scientists have more than conjecture based on wildly inadequate data.

What makes you think the data is inadequate, and what would constitute adequate data in your mind?

(The data has been adequate in refuting all competing hypotheses. For example, take human CO2 emissions out of the models, and they no longer fit the climate history.)

You can't prove the absolute correctness of theories, you only falsify competing theories. Experience has shown this to work for several hundred years, so this is why I asked you whether you would abandon science.

 

[50133]

The_Airhawk,

We have ice cores that go back 650,000 years (less accurate proxies further back) and solar flux variation has been ruled out as a cause of the current warming trend.

All I'm saying is that before deriding something as "Kool-Aide," maybe you should know your sh*t first. (Yes, I realize I'm saying this to people on the Internet ...)

 

[50133]

I linked ice cores because it explains how one can extract temperature and CO2 data.

AFAIK, solar variability was ruled out two years ago -- do you have a more recent citation? (Don't see anything here for example.)

Do you have anything to add other than indignation?

 

[50133]

Wikipedia. LOL!

So long troll.

The article gives citations; if I'm misinformed, correct me.

 

[50133]

Kenneth,

Yeah, I have figured out the score. To be fair, this is not much different from other motorcycle forums. Some folks want to chill and shoot the breeze about bikes, others need to pose. I've just tried to fight the good fight here for critical thought.

One only hopes some motorcycle-related signal gets through the noise in the future. If the moderators want to nut up instead of contributing lame-ass comments themselves, they can enforce a moto-only comment policy with no ad hominem.

***

longride,

Your list is nothing but strawmen:

* There was no consensus on the "mini Ice Age" forecast -- just a half-dozen papers with good press. (more here). Hypothetically, even if there were a consensus, it wouldn't mean the climatology community was wrong now.

* Weather != climate -- climate has much greater inertia. Furthermore, while climate is a chaotic system, it's a myth that such systems can't be modeled or give stable predictions. (more here)

* Finally, don't believe Al Gore -- he's a policy wonk. Understand what the scientists are saying, and see if they have any holes in their logic. Criticize cogently -- then name-calling might actually have some weight.

 

[50133]

*shrug* I explained why your arguments are incorrect -- never attacked you personally. If you take it personally, that's your problem. Unfortunately, your close-mindedness affects others, both on this forum and in spreading misinformation in the public.

If, however, someone can explain to me how I am wrong, I'll be happy to revise my views.

Peace out -- maybe we'll chat bikes at some point in the future.

 

[50133]

longride,

Thanks for a grown-up post, just as I was unsubscribing.

All the surviving climate models agree that human CO2 emissions are the primary factor in the current warming trend -- nothing else fits. If you know of a model that fits the data, but doesn't have human CO2 as the driver, I'd like to know about it. (An incomplete list of refuted models: solar variation/sunspots, galactic motion, cosmic rays, natural cycling, volcanic output, and weather station miscalibration.)

And, no science is exact -- every model has open questions and phenomena it fails to explain. You make inductive leaps, and see what's left standing after checking against data. (Mathematics is different, because its conclusions follow deductively from its axioms, even if the axioms are found haphazardly.)

Anyway, I am proceeding to unsubscribe from this thread. If you wish to continue the conversation, PM me.