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: Marvin the Martian on 1 Jan 2010 11:24 On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:32:13 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 12/31/09 4:19 PM, Benj wrote: >> On Dec 29, 8:05 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 12/29/09 12:47 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: >>>> It is why physics hasn't moved much since the 1950s. >> >>> My, my, the color of your strips is showing, Marvin! >>> >>> Tremendous discovery in physics, astronomy and the sciences since >>> the 1950s! >> >> You bet. Like the "discovery" that CO2 is the "incontrovertible" cause >> of global warming, that Evolution is "fact" not "theory", that theory >> of uniformity is wrong and actually nobody ever really believed it, >> that intelligence it determined by the size of the brain, that UFOs are >> "mass hallucination" and that the earth is the ONLY planet in the >> universe where life exists in any remarkable form. Sure, Sam, LOTS of >> progress. >> >> >> > Glad you agree Benj... > > Don't forget the solution to the solar neutrino problem, sequencing > of genomes, space telescopes, finding water lots of placed in the > solar system. Data gathering is not science. Science is the development of new theories proven to predict. In the first half of this century, that would include Quantum mechanics, Relativity, relativistic quantum, and the physics of transistors. No theoretical developments on that scale have happened in the last half of the 20th century.
From: Marvin the Martian on 1 Jan 2010 11:29 On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:41:56 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer wrote: > Marvin the Martian <marvin(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:10:47 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: >> >> > On 12/30/09 4:47 PM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote: >> >> Sam Wormley<swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 12/30/09 10:45 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote: >> >>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:48:40 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Until a few dacades ago, Peter. The CO2 ain'y been this high >> >>>>> for 15,000,000 years! >> >>>> >> >>>> Actually, he just debunked that. More fraud on the part of the AGW >> >>>> advocates. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> Marvin, you should invest in some glasses. As of March 2009, >> >>> carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration >> >>> of 387 ppm by volume and increasing at a rate of 1.7 ppm per >> >>> year. >> >> >> >> Caused by what? >> >> Evidence your claim. Here. >> >> >> >> Btw, show me the data set for your 15 mio. years claim. Where is it? >> >> And don't come up with Google now. >> >> I want to see YOUR data set you are referring to. >> > >> > As I told Marvin... the concentration and rate of increase in >> > concentration of CO2 is an observable, and undeniable observable. >> > >> > As for the cause, there is more and more evidence suggesting that >> > human activity (deforestation, cement production, fossil fuel >> > burning) is a contributing factor. >> > >> > Peter, why don't you take global climate change seriously? >> >> A sane man, a rational man, would have discussed the correction to the >> CO2 data that shows that our recent CO2 levels is NOT unusual. >> >> Wormley, however, simply repeats the same sloped curve that the article >> attacked, completely ignoring the entire issue, and throws in some >> gratuitous irrelevant argumentum ad hominem. >> >> Discussing this with him is pointless, IMHO. He doesn't listen and is >> an endless source of smug assed yet mindless cut and paste repetitive >> posts. > > Seems to me he is trapped in a repetitive time warp. I wonder if he even reads what's posted. I think he just goes by the name of the poster, and then he does his cut and paste. He uses the same post hoc argument using bogus "temperature anomalies" graphs over and over even if you point out that his logic is invalid and his premises are exposed as outright lies and fraud. He seems to think there is some civic duty in science to believe in AGW and advocate for it. No.
From: Sam Wormley on 1 Jan 2010 11:29 On 1/1/10 10:24 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote: > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:32:13 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> On 12/31/09 4:19 PM, Benj wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 8:05 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 12/29/09 12:47 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: >>>>> It is why physics hasn't moved much since the 1950s. >>> >>>> My, my, the color of your strips is showing, Marvin! >>>> >>>> Tremendous discovery in physics, astronomy and the sciences since >>>> the 1950s! >>> >>> You bet. Like the "discovery" that CO2 is the "incontrovertible" cause >>> of global warming, that Evolution is "fact" not "theory", that theory >>> of uniformity is wrong and actually nobody ever really believed it, >>> that intelligence it determined by the size of the brain, that UFOs are >>> "mass hallucination" and that the earth is the ONLY planet in the >>> universe where life exists in any remarkable form. Sure, Sam, LOTS of >>> progress. >>> >>> >>> >> Glad you agree Benj... >> >> Don't forget the solution to the solar neutrino problem, sequencing >> of genomes, space telescopes, finding water lots of placed in the >> solar system. > > Data gathering is not science. Science is the development of new theories > proven to predict. In the first half of this century, that would include > Quantum mechanics, Relativity, relativistic quantum, and the physics of > transistors. > > No theoretical developments on that scale have happened in the last half > of the 20th century. Yup--general relativity, QCD, GED, etc. pretty much says it all. :-) Nice that we agree!
From: Marvin the Martian on 1 Jan 2010 11:37 On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:09:28 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 1/1/10 10:03 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote: > > >> We have a Fortran source code that is even COMMENTED that it is >> applying a 'fudge factor' and there is no rational reason at all for it >> to be there other than to support an argument that you know is false. > > Why don't you post that FORTRAN Code (or a link to it) so we may > scrutinize. You won't scrutinize. You never have a critical eye. You just look at the day and claim it is night. Those of us who CARE about science have already looked at it and saw what a laughably outrageous piece of code it was. They clearly didn't think anyone would ever look at it. Just go away Wormely, You just didn't lose your credibility; you shot it, poisoned it, ran a tank over it, fed it to a wood chipper and then fed it to the pigs.
From: Sam Wormley on 1 Jan 2010 11:39
On 1/1/10 10:19 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote: > > You AGWers really must STOP using sources now debunked as utter > fabrications. That isn't going to work. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0 |