Climate of suspicion
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 23 Jan 2010 20:34 On 1/23/10 7:27 PM, I M @ good guy wrote: > > Perhaps you suffer from teacheritis, I look for > truth, if the teacher is wrong, I can't help saying so > even if it means harsher grading. > Empirical data is the final arbiter. I suspect if the global warming continues... in another ten years you will still be in denial. Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2 http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResImages/1-Global-pg-13.jpg http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif And accompanying Sea Level Rise http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png
From: I M on 23 Jan 2010 21:01 On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:17:28 -0600, Unum <noneof(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: >On 1/23/2010 2:12 PM, I M @ good guy wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:45:45 -0600, Unum<noneof(a)yourbusiness.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 1/23/2010 12:15 AM, Surfer wrote: >>>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:10:21 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr >>>> <n00spam(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are supposed to get as much credit for disproving a hypothesis as >>>>> proving it. But with "climate change" (BTW, doesn't it aways?) you >>>>> only get funding if your work supports the predetermined political >>>>> objective. >>>>> >>>> There is a risk of that happening. >>>> >>>> However wouldn't the fossil fuel industry have more than enough money >>>> to fund work that supports the opposing objective? >>> >>> >>> Yes, and they do; >>> >>> Money the big oil companies are spending on lobbying; >>> http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2010&ind=E01 >>> >>> They spent $35+ million in the 2008 election cycle and ~$8 million >>> already in the 2010 cycle. >> >> >> Compared to only $2000 million budgeted by one >> agency of the US Government. > >No-so-good-guy makes yet another remark completely unrelated to the issue >under discussion. Sorry facts cause pain; http://www.budget.gov.au/2009-10/content/bp2/html/bp2_expense-08.htm R & D seemed less controversial 10 years ago; "As enacted for FY2001, $1.239 billion went to research and technology programs and no funds were provided for tax incentives." http://ncseonline.org/NLE/crsreports/climate/clim-22.pdf and the next year; "Under the Bush Administration, the FY2002 request for climate change research and technology is $940 million. Also requested is $1.1 billion for a 10-year package of energy tax credits, not covered in this CRS report. As shown in Table 1, the research and technology funding proposed for the Department of Energy accounted for about 86.6% of the overall climate change research and technology request; 13% was proposed for the Environmental Protection Agency, and approximately 0.3% proposed for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)." Only $5000 million a couple of years later; http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05461.pdf Maybe the little brains of AGW freaks can't understand $5000 million. Then in 2006, it goes up to $5400 million; http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/fy06_climate_change_rpt.pdf And in 2010, there should be enough budgeted to offset those pesky skeptics; http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/budget/FY2010RD.pdf >> Maybe the climate "scientists" need more so >> they can all use jet airplanes to fly around the world. > >Maybe sour old men who have no lives other than the internet need to >watch a little more TV instead. > >>> Many reports of additional donations to denialist junk scientists; >>> http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets >>> >>> And extensive astroturfing; >>> http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0819/energy-and-climate-rallies-real-or-astroturf >> >> >> If it was up to the leftist control freaks, there >> would be no money for any questioning, maybe >> there wouldn't be any questioners free to question. > >If it was up to shriveled up old wastrels posting to the internet all day >long nobody would know anything. And then they would post about it. Go Green, Go For Broke.
From: oriel36 on 24 Jan 2010 01:39 On Jan 24, 1:24 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...(a)good.guy> wrote: > I didn't understand a work you said. It is a matter of simple arithmetic when you have a world globe in front of you - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/World_globe.jpg Turn the globe 15 degrees and the equatorial distance will be 1037.5 miles of planetary geography,turn it 360 degrees and you get a full equatorial circumference of 24,901 miles with each 15 degrees of geographical separation equating to 1 hour time difference or 4 minutes for each degree of rotation. In 10 years or so,I have yet to see one person in any forum affirm this most basic astronomical fact,they actually resent it in their quest to maintain the flat Earth reasoning of 'sidereal time',a concept which contains no information that the Earth is round,rotating and the dimensions which fit rotation at 15 degrees per hour.As planetary dynamics is central to distinguishing global climate from weather,it is safe to say that people know little about climate or even what causes the seasons.
From: Sam Wormley on 24 Jan 2010 01:47 On 1/24/10 12:39 AM, oriel36 wrote: > > It is a matter of simple arithmetic when you have a world globe in > front of you - > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/World_globe.jpg > > Turn the globe 15 degrees and the equatorial distance will be 1037.5 > miles of planetary geography,turn it 360 degrees and you get a full > equatorial circumference of 24,901 miles with each 15 degrees of > geographical separation equating to 1 hour time difference or 4 > minutes for each degree of rotation. > > In 10 years or so,I have yet to see one person in any forum affirm > this most basic astronomical fact,they actually resent it in their > quest to maintain the flat Earth reasoning of 'sidereal time',a > concept which contains no information that the Earth is round,rotating > and the dimensions which fit rotation at 15 degrees per hour.As > planetary dynamics is central to distinguishing global climate from > weather,it is safe to say that people know little about climate or > even what causes the seasons. Do use that globe... it does turn 360�, but is one SIDEREAL day. You are the only human I know of that can't understand that!
From: Androcles on 24 Jan 2010 02:02
"oriel36" <kelleher.gerald(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e2ab1512-49a7-48e4-80ef-b41742232bf6(a)h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... On Jan 24, 1:24 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...(a)good.guy> wrote: > I didn't understand a work you said. It is a matter of simple arithmetic when you have a world globe in front of you - Turn the globe 15 degrees =================================================== Relative to what, you stupid ignorant cretin? Haven't you ever seen the Sun cross the sky? How about the Moon? You can't turn the Earth 15 degrees relative to both! |