Five Small Problems with AGW science.
in [Physics]
|
From: Chris L Peterson on 22 Feb 2010 00:35 On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:28:39 -0800 (PST), Benj <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > Smoking guns lie about everywhere. From >Algore's reversal of cause and effect between ocean temperature and >Atmospheric CO2 to the faked Hockey Stick that not only used bad data >which was fudged in part by closing the majority of temperature >stations in cold places... Great. Another incompetent fool. Quit polluting SCI groups and go off to the ALT groups, or any of the zillions of pseudoscience forums out there. Be with your own kind. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com
From: Benj on 22 Feb 2010 00:52 On Feb 21, 10:34 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...(a)alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > That doesn't change the likelihood that we're rapidly heading towards > ecological and economic disaster. The science it what it is. What the > voters think only affects whether we do anything about it, and it > doesn't look too likely we will. Do about what? About an imaginary non-problem designed to bring the first world to its knees? You have NO idea what the coming disasters are. All you know is what the media feeds you. So what is your idea? You want to waste all our money and technical resources finding ways to cram CO2 into the earth when CO2 is not even a MINOR part of the problem? Where are you when we need to talk about stopping the raping of the rain forests? (only 30% remain!) You do breath oxygen like the rest of us, no? And what about nasty pollution from coal. Oil is running out and coal and gas are the ONLY viable present alternatives. You want acid rain to kill crops? What you gonna eat, bubba? You just don't get it. There are plenty of problems but spending all our money destroying our economy on a thing that isn't even a problem isn't even stooopid. It's criminal! And WE are the victims.
From: Chris L Peterson on 22 Feb 2010 01:00 On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:52:53 -0800 (PST), Benj <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: >There are plenty of problems but spending all our money >destroying our economy on a thing that isn't even a problem isn't even >stooopid. The world economy is likely to be totally destroyed by the changes in climate that will occur over the next 50 years. And with that, a collapse of many societies is likely, and I doubt any democracies will survive. I hope you don't have children or grandchildren, because their future looks pretty grim. And that future is courtesy of uneducated fools like yourself (likely the product of our shabby education system, that fails to teach people to think). _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com
From: 0 O Z B O N on 22 Feb 2010 01:02 "Benj" <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message news:5d4ae74e-2fbc-4b0e-9828-4d023b24b52c(a)i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Feb 21, 10:34 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...(a)alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > That doesn't change the likelihood that we're rapidly heading towards > ecological and economic disaster. The science it what it is. What the > voters think only affects whether we do anything about it, and it > doesn't look too likely we will. Do about what? About an imaginary non-problem designed to bring the first world to its knees? You have NO idea what the coming disasters are. All you know is what the media feeds you. So what is your idea? You want to waste all our money and technical resources finding ways to cram CO2 into the earth when CO2 is not even a MINOR part of the problem? Where are you when we need to talk about stopping the raping of the rain forests? (only 30% remain!) You do breath oxygen like the rest of us, no? And what about nasty pollution from coal. Oil is running out and coal and gas are the ONLY viable present alternatives. You want acid rain to kill crops? What you gonna eat, bubba? You just don't get it. There are plenty of problems but spending all our money destroying our economy on a thing that isn't even a problem isn't even stooopid. It's criminal! And WE are the victims. ====================================== Bravo, excellent post! And don't forget population growth. If the whacko warmies were serious with their hoax, the first thing they should address is rampant population growth, not attack a harmless trace gas which is the basis of all life on earth. Warmest Regards Bon_0 "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
From: 0 O Z B O N on 22 Feb 2010 01:03
"Chris L Peterson" <clp(a)alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:6474o5l083ueed2gus0torlhl6vhiqftg4(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:52:53 -0800 (PST), Benj <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> > wrote: > >>There are plenty of problems but spending all our money >>destroying our economy on a thing that isn't even a problem isn't even >>stooopid. > > The world economy is likely to be totally destroyed by the changes in > climate that will occur over the next 50 years. Tut, Tut, Tut, .... Disclaimer The projections are based on results from computer models that involve simplifications of real physical processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted for the accuracy of the projections inferred from this brochure or for any person's interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this information. And further: Climate model responses are most uncertain in how they represent feedback effects, particularly those dealing with changes to cloud regimes, biological effects and ocean-atmosphere interactions. The coarse spatial resolution of climate models also remains a limitation on their ability to simulate the details of regional climate change. Future climate change will also be influenced by other, largely unpredictable, factors such as changes in solar radiation, volcanic eruptions and chaotic variations within the climate system itself. Rapid climate change, or a step-like climate response to the enhanced greenhouse effect, is possible but its likelihood cannot be defined. Because changes outside the ranges given here cannot be ruled out, these projections should be considered with caution. Warmest Regards Bon_0 "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville |