Five Small Problems with AGW science.
in [Physics]
|
From: Chris L Peterson on 19 Feb 2010 23:42 On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:10:30 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >That's a given! When theology conflicts with science, science wins! >Some people think the god thing is real. Science doesn't have anything to say about the "god thing". It has a lot to say about a number of religious beliefs, though. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Feb 2010 00:22 On 2/19/10 10:42 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:10:30 -0600, Sam Wormley<swormley1(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> That's a given! When theology conflicts with science, science wins! >> Some people think the god thing is real. > > Science doesn't have anything to say about the "god thing". It has a lot > to say about a number of religious beliefs, though. > _________________________________________________ > > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatory > http://www.cloudbait.com Thanks for correcting my point!
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Feb 2010 00:27 On 2/19/10 10:35 PM, I M @ good guy wrote: > 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. Climatologists come into play when planning infrastructure, urban planning (expansion and renewal), disaster prediction (such as flooding) and planning for water resources. As far as the weather--that happens independent of what the meteorologists predicted.
From: Last Post on 20 Feb 2010 00:37 On Feb 19, 11:35 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...(a)good.guy> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:15:27 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...(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, ø The climatologists who signed off on the IPCC #4 was exactly 52 not th ouysands and not hundreds merely 52. > > 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-- ø The issue is really irrelevant. Nobody can control the wind Nobody can control the rain or snow Nobody (collectively) can control climate. Global temps are within natural variations Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation Get used to it!! | In real science the burden of proof is always | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one | iota of valid data for global warming nor have | they provided data that climate change is being | effected by commerce and industry, and not by | natural phenomena
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Feb 2010 00:42
On 2/19/10 11:37 PM, Last Post wrote: > > � The issue is really irrelevant. > Nobody can control the wind > Nobody can control the rain or snow > Nobody (collectively) can control climate. > Global temps are within natural variations > Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation > Get used to it!! Many of your arguments are addressed and rebutted in this document: http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1-Factsheet_Climate_sceptic.pdf Give it a read and follow the references. |