Climate of suspicion
in [Physics]
|
From: Javi on 23 Jan 2010 14:59 Mike Jr wrote: > On Jan 23, 10:45 am, Unum <non...(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 >> > <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ > > And who is donating to greenpeace? How much is Greenpeace spending on AGW-related issues. I bet much less than $35 million.
From: Androcles on 23 Jan 2010 15:05 "I M @ good guy" <I_m(a)good.guy> wrote in message news:dciml5d0fh9hb7iv90p4ufl1o2h00jcdp6(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:07:16 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > >>"I M @ good guy" <I_m(a)good.guy> wrote in message >>news:nfoll51gao1fctgont5ju2mdqgtcdebcf8(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:55:29 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On 1/22/10 11:50 PM, Claudius Denk wrote: >>>>> On Jan 22, 4:32 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Climate of suspicion >>>>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html >>>>>> >>>>>> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors >>>>>> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately for the AGW alarmists the public is beginning to accept >>>>> the facts. >>>> >>>> >>>> The public, very unfortunately, is rarely very informed about >>>> science. >>> >>> >>> And Sam is going to educate them? >>> >>Well yeah, he's an adjunct professor of astronomy, or so he claims ( a >>part-time position with a teaching load below the minimum required to earn >>benefits). That qualifies him to name the planets in the correct order and >>spout nonsense on the imaginary heating effects of atmospheric CO2 >>(0.0038%). > > > Sorry to mention, that number is not correct, > I just put 1000000 * .0038 in GWBASIC with a ? > in front of it and got 3800 Doesn't matter; I've now discovered CO2 is a bird, it flies south for the winter. As we all know, that's why it is warm in the Southern hemisphere right now. Some birds haven't all gone, there are still 380 CO2 birds for every million other birds of all species, but only in the Northern hemisphere. Good thing too, the snow melted where I live. It's still on the ground in Scotland though. http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_8470000/newsid_8476700/8476774.stm > So, in percent, it might be called .038 percent, > but that is misleading, the number to use to get > 380 PPMV is .00038 times one million. > > Should I ask somebody with an advanced > math degree how to calculate percent? You should ask somebody with a retarded astronomy diploma and no knowledge of chemistry or physics how to calculate mean temperature when there are 90% of CO2 birds flying in the South and only 10% flying in the North.
From: I M on 23 Jan 2010 15:12 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. Maybe the climate "scientists" need more so they can all use jet airplanes to fly around the world. >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.
From: Androcles on 23 Jan 2010 15:18 "I M @ good guy" <I_m(a)good.guy> wrote in message news:unlml5tr94jc6kr9d5mhagtssr8bvldv19(a)4ax.com... > 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. > > Maybe the climate "scientists" need more so > they can all use jet airplanes to fly around the world. > Well yeah, of course. They have to study CO2 where it's warm, it's no good studying it in the cold. In Florida they are called "snowbirds", they arrived every winter. > >>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. > > > > > >
From: Sam Wormley on 23 Jan 2010 15:48
On 1/23/10 11:42 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > On Jan 23, 12:55 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> The public, very unfortunately, is rarely very informed about >> science. > > This is a very elitist statement. We the people are doing just fine > thank you. > > http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/dusting_off_the_political_fwor.html > > --Mike Jr. Despite its importance to economic growth, environmental protection, and global health and energy issues, scientific literacy is currently low among American adults. According to the national survey commissioned by the California Academy of Sciences: Only 53% of adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun. Only 59% of adults know that the earliest humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time. Only 47% of adults can roughly approximate the percent of the Earth�s surface that is covered with water. Only 21% of adults answered all three questions correctly. |