Five Small Problems with AGW science.
in [Physics]
|
From: Quadibloc on 19 Feb 2010 22:44 On Feb 19, 8:15 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Why are the likes of you so vehemently railing against thousands of > climatologist around the world, 1) Scientists aren't so smart. They try to convince people that God's own account of the Creation wasn't true, thus leading them to doubt the accuracy of the Bible, and lead them into the snares of temptation! 2) Environmentalists have a long, well established, track record of trying to make things difficult for America's hard-working business leaders - and for those industrial activities linked to national defense. Russia and China don't have to worry about pesky environmentalists - and they'll soon be running our country if we have to fight with one hand tied behind our back! The trouble is that I myself think that reason #2 actually *has* some validity - but I don't let my politics lead me to wishful thinking about the science. John Savard
From: Chris L Peterson on 19 Feb 2010 23:01 On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:44:17 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard(a)ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >1) Scientists aren't so smart. They try to convince people that God's >own account of the Creation wasn't true... Well, they've already done that. It doesn't require much effort- whichever god's account you might be referring to. You're not usually so irrational. Is somebody else using your identity? _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com
From: Quadibloc on 19 Feb 2010 23:24 On Feb 19, 9:01 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...(a)alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > You're not usually so irrational. Is somebody else using your identity? The question was: why are people disputing AGW. So my answer was what *they* think, not what I think. Although I may be rational, I don't use smileys regularly. John Savard
From: I M on 19 Feb 2010 23:35 On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:15:27 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 2/19/10 6:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:24:17 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > >>> NATURE: Setting the climate record straight >>> >>> A co-chair of the IPCC's beleaguered second working group discusses >>> recent criticisms >>> >>> http://cl.exct.net/? >> qs=926acdd1e8d6491ea2e8fb55d81badb5354e09a09f6cce5b381c56c97d6a7584 >>> >>> >>> The IPCC is not like a political party with a manifesto that it's >>> preaching and a rapid-rebuttal office. But the IPCC will need to decide >>> whether it is in the business of simply undertaking its five-year >>> assessments or being the source of information and being able to >>> respond, on an ongoing basis, to enquiries. >> >> Is this a "free association moment" for you, Wormley? The issue was >> comparison between Venus and Earth and using that to PROVE that ... what? >> AGW is caused by CO2? I pointed out how absurd that is, as Venus (and >> even my planet, the now frozen rock Mars) has much more CO2 than Earth. >> > > It doesn't much matter what the thread title is, Marvin--You are > attempting to disparage the science of climatology without scientific > justification. This behavior of the "teapot types" was discussed this > afternoon on NPR's Talk of The Nation Science Friday. > > Why are the likes of you so vehemently railing against thousands of > climatologist around the world, representing tens of thousands man- > years studying the changes is weather over long periods of time. > Long before there was an IPCC. You are really silly, and so is governments and schools if there are thousands of climatologists, ten should be enough, good meteorologists are needed, not climatologists. > Furthermore, the great quantity of research data spanning many > decades is rather overwhelming--The earth is warming at rates not > accounted for by natural causes. We humans continue to pour copious > quantities of CO2 into the environment and it is driving climate > change. Speculation at best, BS otherwise, messages still get deleted. > Most every thread you have comment in (usually you just attack > posters, organizations and data sources without scientific scrutiny) > is easily rebutted by the issues referred to in this document: > >http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1-Factsheet_Climate_sceptic.pdf > > > There are not enough sensors on other planets to explain what is > happening right here right now. > > Look at the observables, Marvin! We need a good laugh, explain how Global Warming causes cold and snow again.
From: Chris L Peterson on 19 Feb 2010 23:40
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:24:35 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard(a)ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >The question was: why are people disputing AGW. So my answer was what >*they* think, not what I think. Although I may be rational, I don't >use smileys regularly. Sorry. The thread got fragmented from the original, so most of the previous discussion was missing. There are those who would (and have) misrepresented regulars around here. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |