On Apr 27, 1:37 pm, Whata Fool <wh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> neutral...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >On Apr 26, 6:46 pm, Whata Fool <wh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> neutral...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >> >On Apr 26, 3:24 am, Whata Fool <wh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> neutral...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >> >> >On Apr 25, 11:59 am, Poetic Justice
<@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >Dog.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> neutral...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Apr 24, 9:01 pm, "alanmc95...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
<alanmc95...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> >> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> One way to spot "junk science", or junk arguments in
general, is
> >> >> >> >> a failure to acknowledge the opposition- A. McIntire
>
> >> >> >> > And since the round earthers fail to acknowledge the flat
earth
> >> >> >> > arguments, that must mean that the round earth theory must be
junk,
> >> >> >> > right?
>
> >> >> >> Didn't science prove the earth was round?
>
> >> >> >No, it was observed long before the scientific method was
developed.
>
> >> >> >> Global warming is like a flat
> >> >> >> earth.... a hypothesis, until science proves it one way or the
other.
>
> >> >> >This just indicates that you don't understand how science works.
> >> >> >Science doesn't prove anything; evidence does that. Scientific
> >> >> >theories are created to make sense of the evidence. There is
always
> >> >> >uncertainty in science, which people like you use to try and tear
down
> >> >> >the advances in understanding that have been made. You want to
throw
> >> >> >out the consensus of the experts in the field because you don't
like
> >> >> >the answer. Well, guess what. Science works towards answers
that are
> >> >> >accurate, whether you find them palatable or not.
>
> >> >> >As to balance of evidence; every national science organization,
every
> >> >> >international science organization, every relevant professional
> >> >> >organization, and even EXXON agrees with the IPCC *****sment.
When
> >> >> >you can find a single scientific body of national or
international
> >> >> >standing that disagrees with the IPCC, you just might have
something.
> >> >> >But as it stands, I'm sitting with a straight flush, and you've
got a
> >> >> >2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, mixed suits. And claiming that there's
actually a
> >> >> >conspiracy among the entire worlds scientific community is so
> >> >> >intellectually vacuous that being a young earth creationist would
be a
> >> >> >step up.
>
> >> >> You should quote where somebody claimed a conspiracy if you
> >> >> comment on it.
>
> >> >Your exact words were "massive conspiracy by retards who are so
> >> >egotistical as to believe the public is less than literate."
> >>
>http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/629e181e1ee930e3
>
> >> But was my words in this thread?
>
> >> Gosh, did I write that, it is great, it represents exactly what
> >> I think, although the "massive conspiracy" is different than the
usual
> >> planning of a conspiracy, rather than all participants trying to harm
> >> others, they all think they are "saving the planet".
>
> >So, instead of a conspiracy among the scientific community, you just
> >think that they are all deluded retards.
>
> All that are sure that CO2 is causing climate change (or any
other
> song you want to dance to) are most likely deluded, I would hate to
think
> they are just me-too men.
So, you think the scientific community is deluded. Fine. Any actual
evidence?
> There is a lot of talk about a doubling of the CO2 concentration,
> and I have already said I don't think that will happen, by the time all
> the easy to get oil and coal re used up, chances are that alternate
> energy will be in sufficient availability to allow CO2 concentrations
> to level off an peak.
Combustion of hydrocarbons isn't the only CO2 source; think concrete.
Additionally, CO2 levels at one point were over 7000 ppm (though
humans didn't exist at the time), which incidentally exceeds workplace
safety standards for an 8 hour ****ft...where do you think all the
carbon went?
> When daily TV news anchors are directed to include a going green
> tid-bit in every broadcast, more than science is in play.
Then ignore the mass media and go straight to the scientists. Oh yah,
you think that they're all deluded....
> >> Let's read that again;
>
> >>
>http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/629e181e1ee930e3
>
> >> Posted here in case somebody wants to read it without using the
> >> browser;
>
> >> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:12:55 +1000, "Bonzo" <boo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Vol.15, No. 2, Spring 1992
> >> >http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
> >> >Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific
Consensus
> >> > Richard S. Lindzen
>
> >> Thanks for posting that, it is amazing that this charade
> >> has gone on so long, and from all appearances the media and the
general
> >> public is still wondering what all the fuss is about.
>
> >> There will no doubt be big reactions once it is clear
that
> >> it is a massive conspiracy by retards who are so egotistical as to
> >> believe the public is less than literate.
>
> >> And the truth is even worse than Dr. Lindzen states,
> >> because the "average global temperature" is totally meaningless.
>
> >> The great bulk of the ocean is cold, very cold, and it
> >> would take an enormous amount of thermal energy to raise all the mass
of
> >> the ocean to 15 C.
>
> >> And the great mass of the solid Earth is hot, very hot,
and
> >> the small amount of mass in the atmosphere and the thin layer of the
> >> surface that is changed daily or seasonally by solar radiation can't
> >> possibly be significant in the total energy contained.
>
> >> All the talk of an average annual global temperature is
> >> just plain unadulterated bull****, spread by retards and gullible
fools
> >> who have a short spiritual experience in thinking they are saving the
> >> planet as if they were the hero in a catastrophe movie.
> >> [unquote]
>
> >> _____________________________________________________________________
> >> Now, if any of the AGW nuts or the leftists posing as AGW nuts
> >> want to point out anything in my above quote that is far from the
> >> truth, please do.____________________________________________________
>
> >Fool, the core of the planet and the deep ocean isn't considered by
> >anyone I've heard of to be part of the surface of the planet.
>
> And do you agree with that?
That the core of the planet isn't considered part of the surface?
Hmm...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surface
"1: the exterior or upper boundary of an object or body <on the
surface of the water> <the earth's surface>"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/core
"e: the central part of a celestial body (as the earth or sun) usually
having different physical properties from the surrounding parts "
Given the dictionary definitions of both, I think the answer is yes.
The core and the surface are not the same thing.
> The ocean gradually turns over,
> and it doesn't take much cold water to absorb the minuscule couple of
> watts per square meter surplus energy claimed.
> That could go on for a million years without much change.
And yet, measurements of the surface of the ocean have recorded an
increase of temperature over the past decade or so....
> The core of the planet definitely should be included in any
> "crisis" model, everything should be considered, even the 100 watts
> average output of all animals (including humans) weighing more than
> 40 pounds or so. That number could be 10 to 20 Billion (times 100
watts).
What? You're not including the effects of a butterfly flapping its
wings, or the effects of the incoming radiation from neighboring
galactic clusters? Fool, we don't need simulations accurate to the
quantum mechanical scale to measure how fast the wind blows.
> >Additionally, understanding of how the climate works has significantly
> >improved in the decade and a half from when the article was written.
>
> No doubt, and that is likely the reason more and more scientists
> are writing about cyclic climate and typical climate instead of a proven
> upward trend.
Citation required; and just so you know, if it was announced in the
media without peer review, it has no credibility.
> >Just because you haven't kept up with the research doesn't mean that
> >the research is wrong.
>
> I try to keep up,
And fail miserably.
> but there are too many leftists with agendas to
> use climate or any other means to further causes of little or no
consequence
> other than political.
In other words, it's all a great conspiracy.
> >> >> GW "science" is far from "accurate", air temperatures near
the surface
> >> >> can vary over large ranges even when the same amount of energy is
involved,
> >> >> and only idiots or agenda driven nuts would place extreme
confidence in
> >> >> the accuracy of averaged and rounded data with results within a
one unit
> >> >> spread.
>
> >> >I have confidence in the scientific method and the process of peer
> >> >review. Not perfect confidence (science doesn't work like that),
but
> >> >certainly enough to warrant taking out some metaphorical insurance.
>
> >> I have confidence in science too, once it matures, maybe AGW
even
> >> has more basis for belief than aether theory, but it can be just as
wrong,
> >> or more likely, almost wrong or only a tiny bit right, OR THE
OPPOSITE.
>
> >Fine, what level of confidence among the scientific community would
> >you consider good enough for you,
>
> Good enough for what?
For you to consider the science to be mature, fool.
> You seem to think I know what the whole
> mess is about, I have no idea what the IPCC, Al Gore, the European
Union,
> or any other entity expects people like me to do.
And yet, you're completely against it.
> Frankly I thought Jimmy Carter was a wimp for suggesting people
> wear a sweater and turn down the thermostat, so where does that leave
> me on what you think I should do.
It leaves you wasting finite resources, as well as your own money,
through your myopic ignorance.
> The money being spent on study grants and salaries and stupid
> advertising could be building solar cell production lines, solar thermal
> electric plants in the sunbelts of the world, Plug-in Electric Vehicles
> (PEVs) and many other more marginal alternate energy sources.
The purified silicon required for conventional solar cells is still
quite expensive and it would drive up the cost of integrated
circuits. But there has been a major breakthrough recently, allowing
for solar cells to be produced by a method that more resembles a
printing press than IC manufacture. There's a power plant being
constructed in Germany (IIRC).
> I just started driving one of my 1982 DFI Cadillacs because I can
> get 20 MPG with it, and I plan to convert my riding mower to a hybrid
> or all electric, but it doesn't really mean I am doing anything at all
> related to Climate Change or Global Warming, I just need to be able
> to control costs and avoid spending more and more money.
See, we can improve the environment AND make money at the same time.
But just so you know, 20MPG is below US standards, and far below fuel
efficiency guidelines for South Korea.
> >and why should your personal
> >uninformed position be given any credibility?
>
> Credibility about what?
Your claim that the scientific community is deluded.
> I have sup****ted solar energy since
> 1973, there isn't anything else to say, except those who want money for
> study of AGW or GW or planting trees are a bunch of nuts, many are
greedy
> or gorey, and some are just stupid or politically motivated.
> All the talk like clearing forests in the US is pure bull manure,
> yet that is one of their green platforms.
>
> > Do you advocate waiting
> >until every last person on the planet agrees?
>
> Waiting for what, to do what? You seem to lack the ability
> to write meaningful sentences?
You seem to have problems following the thread of a conversation.
That sentence was connected to the previous two in what is called a
"paragraph".
> >Do you think being
> >popular would make the results more accurate?
>
> What results?
The results that every scientific organization on the planet endorses.
> I suppose I should write more about how the
> atmosphere would not be able to cool itself without GreenHouse Gases,
> but there seems to be a lot of objecting to that fact.
Thats because you never actually backed your claim with evidence. For
example, you would have to explain what process is keeping the planet
33C warmer than it should be, based on measured incoming solar energy
and the 1st thermodynamic, if the greenhouse g***** in the atmosphere
add up to a cooling effect.....
> And I have been wanting to study the 1896 Arrhenius paper to see
> just how badly his assumptions have been misinterpreted, he said the
> moon has a mean surface temperature of 45 degrees, is that the same
> as the Earth?
Yes, Arrhenius did screw up his measurements, but that was more than a
century ago, and more accurate measurements have been taken. It's
roughly analogous to some of the original measurements of the size of
our planet. They got the shape right, but the size wrong. If you
believe that people are still using Arrhenius' original measurements,
then your chosen handle is seriously understated.
> I would like to see more written about the water/water-va**** cycle,
> with numbers, there is way too much written about climate and warming
> or cooling without numbers attached to the results.
That's probably because you dismiss anything written by the scientists
doing the work as deluded. If you were approaching it honestly, you
would start by pointing out the flaws in the IPCC re****t, which goes
through the process with numbers and references. But then, you make
Kent Hovind seem intellectually honest by comparison.
> >Does an unpopular
> >finding make the finding wrong in your world?
>
> I haven't seen any real "finding" of anything significant.
Then open your eyes.
> I know that the air and the highway right-of-ways are cleaner
> than they were 60 years ago, the weather is just as fickle, and
> flood control of the rivers is better, but bad things still happen,
> there is nothing new on this Earth that I know of.
That's because you're a myopic ignoramus.
> >> >> Change your userID, you seem opinionated.
>
> >> >Fool, yours fits like a glove.
>
> >> Yours doesn't, unless you straddle the fence a little more
obvious.
>
> >Fool, a neutralino is a theoretical particle thought to make up the
> >bulk of dark matter in the universe.
>
> In your case maybe a little gray matter would help.
>
> >> Look, last August I experienced the longest spell of above 90
> >> temperatures in 80 years, the driest month for the region, but not a
> >> single day was within 6 degrees of the record high for any day of the
> >> month.
>
> >Some day, you should learn the difference between climate and weather,
> >as well as the basic fact that the weather you had last August may not
> >actually be representative for the weather for the rest of the planet
> >for the rest of the year.
>
> Whatever the weather, it is included in the global annual average
> nonsense, the point is that nothing has changed, except a lot of dummies
> don't realize the outcome of studies is tainted by opinions.
>
> >> When the articles written are given a title before the data
> >> is presented, then they become agenda driven, and authors working for
> >> a man who has made his preferences known, they will pacify him in
order
> >> to hold their job and keep the peace.
>
> >You really don't understand how peer review works, do you.
>
> Of course, everybody does, you pat my back, I'll pat yours.
Point proven.
> >> A conspiracy by any name you want to give it, sheep with a
> >> known sheepherder.
>
> >And some of those sheepherders names are Timothy Ball, Robert Carter,
> >Vincent Grey, Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen.....so feel free to keep
> >bleating about how the worlds scientific community is involved in a
> >massive conspiracy.
>
> The names are not meaningful to me, what counts is the number
> of days I have to wear a heavy coat, Perhaps your writing makes
> more sense to people who use air conditioning more than I need to.
Perhaps you need to consider that the world may be larger than your
back yard.
|
