Physics Group Splinters Over Global Warming Review
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Tom Potter, you'd win more battles if you were part of something bigger.
Next: What is the biggest size of Molecule?
From: Sam Wormley on 29 Dec 2009 08:50 On 12/29/09 7:43 AM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote: > Sam Wormley<swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12/29/09 7:20 AM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote: >>> Sam Wormley<swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/28/09 9:27 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics. >>>>> 2) It isn't just socialism that drives this AGW fraud, it is also >>>>> research funding. >>>> >>>> Marvin--You have never made a scientific argument against >>>> global warming and the fact that it's being driven by an >>>> increase in CO2 concentration and contributed to by human >>>> activity. Instead you just yell fraud and six months ago >>>> you were yelling something else. >>>> >>>> CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level >>>> increase, are all consistent with each other. Real >>>> impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather >>>> patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting. >>>> >>>> The global data CLEARLY shows: >>>> >>>> Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2 >>>> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png >>> >>> <AGW speech> >>> A graph without source, stolen from where? >>> </> >> >> Google is your friend, Peter! >>> http://images.google.com/images?q=800%2C000%20year%20record&safe=off&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi >> > > Google is no reference to original data, Schmock! Google is not a reference... Google is a search engine that can help one find references. Why are you being so childish?
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Dec 2009 09:13 Marvin the Martian wrote: > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:46:42 -0800, Eric Gisin wrote: > >> Interesting that a senior CBS correspondant wrote this. >> >> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/ > entry5964504.shtml >> December 10, 2009 7:15 PM > > < snip > > >> Happer, the Princeton University physicist who jointly circulated the >> letter to APS, says: "APS has simply circled the wagons, while trying to >> figure out how to quieten the growing unrest in the membership." > > 1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics. A lot of science depends on funding which is approved and apportioned by politicians. > 2) It isn't just socialism that drives this AGW fraud, it is also > research funding. To get funding, science grant proposals, had to use the PC word salad of the day. There were posts made 15 years ago about this; IIRC, the term grantsmanship was used often. You are still trying to kill the messenger instead of identifying the real problem. /BAH
From: Ouroboros Rex on 29 Dec 2009 11:09 Eric Gisin wrote: > Interesting that a senior CBS correspondant wrote this. > > http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/entry5964504.shtml Will Happer. Same bullshit artist, different day. lol
From: Ouroboros Rex on 29 Dec 2009 11:11 Sam Wormley wrote: > On 12/29/09 7:43 AM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote: >> Sam Wormley<swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 12/29/09 7:20 AM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote: >>>> Sam Wormley<swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 12/28/09 9:27 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics. >>>>>> 2) It isn't just socialism that drives this AGW fraud, it is also >>>>>> research funding. >>>>> >>>>> Marvin--You have never made a scientific argument against >>>>> global warming and the fact that it's being driven by an >>>>> increase in CO2 concentration and contributed to by human >>>>> activity. Instead you just yell fraud and six months ago >>>>> you were yelling something else. >>>>> >>>>> CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level >>>>> increase, are all consistent with each other. Real >>>>> impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather >>>>> patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting. >>>>> >>>>> The global data CLEARLY shows: >>>>> >>>>> Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2 >>>>> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png >>>> >>>> <AGW speech> >>>> A graph without source, stolen from where? >>>> </> >>> >>> Google is your friend, Peter! >>>> http://images.google.com/images?q=800%2C000%20year%20record&safe=off&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi >>> >> >> Google is no reference to original data, Schmock! > > Google is not a reference... Google is a search engine that can > help one find references. Why are you being so childish? Petey is whining because I caught him over twenty times posting stolen graphs with zero attribution. lol
From: Marvin the Martian on 29 Dec 2009 13:08
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:20:39 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer wrote: > Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12/28/09 9:27 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: >> >> >> > 1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics. 2) It >> > isn't just socialism that drives this AGW fraud, it is also research >> > funding. >> >> Marvin--You have never made a scientific argument against global >> warming and the fact that it's being driven by an increase in CO2 >> concentration and contributed to by human activity. Instead you just >> yell fraud and six months ago you were yelling something else. >> >> CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level increase, are all >> consistent with each other. Real impact is showing up in agriculture, >> ecosystems, weather patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting. >> >> The global data CLEARLY shows: >> >> Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2 >> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png > > <AGW speech> > A graph without source, stolen from where? </> It is on Wormly's own website. You saw it on the web, so it MUST be true. Really, though. The two highest data points are IPCC lies. Speculation at best. The rest of the data was taken from ice core data at one location. Mind you, data from a glacier, which comprises most of the 800,000 years of data is being compared to a single year measurement from the top of a live volcano in a tropical paradise, near the middle of the Pacific Ocean which has a HUGE amount of CO2 that makes our atmospheric CO2 look puny by comparison: 40,000 GtC in the ocean compared to 750 GtC in the atmosphere. It is as much an "apples to oranges" comparison as it gets. 1) Ice core data wouldn't preserve a rapid change in CO2 concentration, due to diffusion. 2) There is very little CO2 on top of glaciers, while there is LOTS being emitted by the oceans in the tropics. 3) It is a comparison of a high latitude to an equatorial latitude. Again, apples to oranges. And even so, his whole arguments are a tangle of invalid arguments and false premises. Post hoc fallacies, correlation proves causation fallacies, appeal to consequence fallacies... the man is a living example of irrational thought. |