Global Warming: How to approach the science (R Lindzen)
in [Physics]
|
Prev: The Angeleño Ledger Daily Press
Next: What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest ?mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
From: Benj on 21 May 2010 11:56 On May 20, 1:39 pm, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Only from the point of deniers. Don't be silly about "reality" when > present global temperatures are here. This is the reality: > > http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001 Didn't read the Lindzen talk at all, did you? All you Holowarmers can do is post slanted data rinse/repeat rinse/repeat rinse/repeat rinse/ repeat... No science can sway your belief in your gods!
From: Benj on 21 May 2010 11:59 On May 19, 5:33 am, Giga2 <justho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 18 May, 16:17, "Eric Gisin" <er...(a)nospammail.net> wrote: > > >http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lindzen_heartland_... > > > Slide show of yesterdays talk at ICCC 2010 by Richard Lindzen. Not powerpoint, lots of information. > > Good stuff. I wonder what name we should accept if not 'sceptic'? He > is right I think, it maybe does give too much scientific credence to > AGW alarmism. Excellent talk! And his "skeptic" remarks reinforce what I've been saying here for a long time. These terms along with "denier" and "Anthropogenic" and others are all carefully psychologically "loaded" to create a one- sided debate. They are proof positive that the "climate-change" issue is not one of "incontrovertible" science but rather of political prevarications! Lindzen deserves much credit here for throwing off government influences on science (something not so easy for MIT to do) and standing up tall for reasonable data and debate. "Massaged" climate data is a mouse-painting scandal that paints all of us in science! Lindzen exposes many of the "tricks" being used to fool and scare the public into accepting large taxes on so-called "carbon footprints". He shows real data demonstrating the "spin" used to give the appearance of real scientific climate data while actually covering up the actual variations. He even hints at the very clever scientific trick of using the Nile-like statistics of climate data to fool the ignorant into believing that large variations are somehow abnormal and man-induced. It's truly refreshing to find someone like Lindzen with allegiance to science rather than to some political bosses paying your salary and giving money to your school. We salute you! And the critical point here is that there are PLENTY of serious ecological problems that desperately need work without wasting all our resources on some IMAGINARY ones designed to make a few thieves rich!
From: spudnik on 21 May 2010 14:54 I'd accept a triple-negative designation, just to very clear about it, like: Denying the denial of the Deniers -- we decide, you don't agree! I also liked the suggestion about ... I forgot. thusNs: that just makes me feel completely hopeless. - Don't show quoted text, please - thusNso: ah, yes; the perfect reflector (lightsail) would have to actually "adsorb" the momentum of the puffy little photons, so that ... so that -- so, there! - Show quoted text - thus: I mean, they don't even have to be next to each other (technical defintion of "next" to follow .-) > parallel lines that do not go to infinity never converge, like in FLT, there never is a success. And that is the key to Fermat's next Threorm, dood. thusNso: I can see that you're a victim of "General Semantics and the Nine E-primes." what ever in Hell you think that you were saying, it does seem that "one period of lightwaving," howsoever properly defined, would be a sufficient unit of h-bar as a scalar of time -- if not a dimensionless constant (a "scalar" should be a dimensionless quantity to count some thing). did that make any sense at all? --Pi, the surfer's canonical value, is not constructible with a pair of compasses .. but, could be with a pair and a half of compasses; dyscuss.
From: erschroedinger on 21 May 2010 16:12 On May 21, 11:49 am, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On May 19, 6:42 pm, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Good stuff. I wonder what name we should accept if not 'sceptic'? He > > > is right I think, it maybe does give too much scientific credence to > > > AGW alarmism. > > > Denier? > > Yeah. It was refreshing to see Lindzen go after the term "skeptic", > but he didn't have the balls to go after the propaganda term > "denier". > > If you ever needed any proof that "climate change" is a POLITICAL > rather than "scientific" issue, the use of the term "denier" to > describe any scientist not blindly supporting Anthropogenic Global > Warming is IT! No, the use to describe a person who ignores the data, who ignores the scientific principles.
From: Dawlish on 22 May 2010 04:10
On May 21, 4:49 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On May 19, 6:42 pm, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Good stuff. I wonder what name we should accept if not 'sceptic'? He > > > is right I think, it maybe does give too much scientific credence to > > > AGW alarmism. > > > Denier? > > Yeah. It was refreshing to see Lindzen go after the term "skeptic", > but he didn't have the balls to go after the propaganda term > "denier". > > If you ever needed any proof that "climate change" is a POLITICAL > rather than "scientific" issue, the use of the term "denier" to > describe any scientist not blindly supporting Anthropogenic Global > Warming is IT! Well, it would be, if all scientists that didn't "bilndy support........" were deniers and not sceptics, but mostmany that have doubts, in the same way I do and are sceptical and certainly nor deniers. There are very few deniers amongst scientists because they realise what is most likely to be the truth. Many of those, having worked in this field closely, are convinced. I can understand that easily. I can't understand how a scientists can be completely convinced of the opposite in the face of so much research and data. |