Prev: Can we detect a blueshift of �c?
Next: Albert Einstein didn't accept black holes or the idea of totally collapsed stars
From: josephus on 22 Apr 2010 05:58
Benj wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2:01 am, josephus<dogb...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> right and his disproven paper too. the problem here is that IPCC is
>> science and not really deep political. certain real science will be
>> used by govenments. that is why it was created in the first place. so
>> denier sentiments are just that, opinions and worth the stuff in my
>> outhouse. (or catbox) it is necessary to have evidence. I have
>> noticed that evidence is specifically ignored. they dont have the skill
>> set to read the papers, they dont believe the stuff we translate for
>> them. they are lame and think they are sceptics because they are
>> ignorant and dont know anything. I have actully heard people say that
>> they dont need no education, they have street smarts.
>
> Oh sure. And we are supposed to beleive that you are so smart that
> simply your WORD should stand as proof to the world! As the world
> freezes all you can do is repeat your policitical propaganda lies over
> and over and over. It is your opinion that has been shown to the world
> as fabricated prevarications. Why don't you just hit all us
> "deniers" [Use of the ver WORD proves you have ZERO credibility on
> this issue] with your "ultimate proof"... The Amazing Randi says that
> AGW is real! And say hello to your bosses at the Club of Rome who
> invented all this bullshit.
>
> idiot.

i dont have to invent anything, I can read and i can write programs I
have written LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of fortran of all varieties.
these program are simple input and output standalone programs. some
cleanup data. some collate data. and some print data.


the fact that I know all the tree ring data is junk. it is provable.
I can show it to anyone that wants to look. the bozo with the C++
programs showed it was junk. it does not correlate to the temperature
data. and that is the whole point of why they tested it to begin with.
to get that data to collate with the temperature data. you must change
the values to the extent that you no longer have tree ring data.

it is legal to remove etraneous data, and strange extreme data. that
depends on context. whether it is 0 or -1 or some other set of conditions

deniers get money from OIL AND GAS AND COAL. I dont. I am an astronomer
and found something new in celestial mechanics, SO I care about the
science, and get huffy with psuedoscience. I can read technical papers
and I know enough math to understand them. it is the bogus papers that
people offer that give me gas. I am currenly studying QM and reading up
on the mathematics. I am not impressed with ignorance. I know and have
studied physics and cosmology enough to worry abut world lines and tensors.


my advice is dont believe me, believe the data. that is the whole crux
of the problem. the temperature data shows warming, the science is
about collecting the evidence and trying to understand. deniers are not
about understanding, they lie and that is opposed to understanding.

most deniers commit logical faults and I call them STUPID MONKEY TRICKS.
1. adhomin attacks
2. strawman arguments
3. begging the question
4. asserting your conclusion as proof.

these are the things that creationists do, and I have seen deniers
all do them. I have seen AGW mangle the science but I dont see them
LYING and I dont see them attacking in adhomin manners. only deniers
mangle the text to promote lies.

josephus
--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings
From: Sam Wormley on 23 Apr 2010 00:55
On 4/22/10 1:30 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:
> http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/854-clmategate-and-the-crisis-of-climate-alarmism.html
>

Who are you trying to fool Gisin?

Climate Researchers Cleared of Malpractice
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/14/tech/main6395192.shtml

Academic experts clear scientists in 'climate-gate'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR2010041404001.html

Climate scientists at East Anglia University cleared by inquiry
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7097234.ece

From: spudnik on 23 Apr 2010 18:35
the whole basis, sometime since Ahrrenius coined "greenhouse
gasses," has been predicated on a simple lack
of a model of an ordinary glass house, say,
at a certain lattitude out of the tropics. not only
is "global" warming an oxymoron, nonsequiter, or
just a misnomer, by a very simple trig "model"
of insolation at any lattitude, but there are *no* datasets
that show such a phenomenon (extrapolating
from the handful that I ahve looked at,
more or less casually, over the decades).

and, yet, the climate is changing very rapidly
"in the Anthropocene."

>    Climate scientists at East Anglia University cleared by inquiry
>      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7097234.ece

thus:
so, what, do you say, is correct?

> quantity of matter". (They think that when the weight of a given mass
> changes, some of its MATTER has converted into energy. They are

thus:
if you don't know any spherical trig, a la color plate one
in _S_, you might as well forget "it."
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/synergetics.html

thus:
with ships & materiel) -- what the Revolution was about -- not just,
Taxation without representation, a la the Tea Party effetes and
the Encyclopedia Brittaninca!
as they say, the bears make money, the bulls make money, and
the hogs always get slaughtered.
none of the (two) experts, I have read or asked,
thought that a Carbon Tax wouldn't work as well, just that
it was somehow politically impossible.

thus:
if some one gave a *reason* to redefine "twin primes,"
that'd be "mathematical" (proviso: er, maths;
math is four subjects, at minimum). as for the idea
of calling AP, an ultrafinitist, I only have two things
to say: a)
it wouldn't make any difference to him,
being a user of "E-prime," the joke-language
of Korbizynski (sp.?); b)
the Monster group's symmetry has a factoring
that is awfully similar to Bucky's here-to-fore silly
finite base for computation:
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s12/p3100.html#1238.20

> "prime," "twin prime," etc., to be as interesting as one in
> which sets can have nonzero infinitesimal measure.

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
From: kdthrge on 23 Apr 2010 19:05
On Apr 22, 11:47 pm, josephus <dogb...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>   actually the tree rings have to do with tree resources,  and water and
> nutrients.  that will increase and decrease the rings.  they also change
> from season to season.   but that is  not the same thing as temperature.
>   can you point to any paper or even algorithm that will translate tree
> rings into temperature?  I have been looking and have not found any.
>
This only means Mann's funding should be immediately revoked. And the
IPCC should apolgize and rescind any and all tree ring studies.

And it means any graphs that show correlation are false.

KD

From: Benj on 24 Apr 2010 11:28
On Apr 23, 12:55 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/22/10 1:30 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:
>
> >http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/854-clmategate-and-the-crisis-of-c...
>
>    Who are you trying to fool Gisin?
>
>    Climate Researchers Cleared of Malpractice
>      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/14/tech/main6395192.shtml

CBS NEWS? Right. Now there's an honest reliable source of
information!

>    Academic experts clear scientists in 'climate-gate'
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR201...

WASHINGTON POST? Now there's a scientific "peer-reviewed" journal that
gives everyone the latest scientific truth!

>    Climate scientists at East Anglia University cleared by inquiry
>      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7097234.ece

And the TIMES? Oh sure. They've been saying England is roasting
during the coldest winter EVER! Talk about your political agenda.

So "Wormley" when are you going to produce anything other than popular
propaganda? Oh that's right. NEVER.

idiot.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Can we detect a blueshift of �c?
Next: Albert Einstein didn't accept black holes or the idea of totally collapsed stars