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 29 Dec 2009 13:15
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:03:42 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:


> Sam, are you kidding?
>
> YOU made up the claim and YOU showed us a graph. So it's up to YOU to
> show us the data used for this graph!
>
> If you can't, what a pitty, this graph is invalid.

It's Hanson's graph. You know, that hateful little madman at NASA who
testified to Congress that all "deniers" should be charged with "crimes
against humanity" like Nazis.

Why Hanson isn't in a padded cell in a straight jacket and instead is on
the government dole spewing out his hate spittle in NASA's name is beyond
me.

The whole graph is a comparison of Antarctic Ice core CO2, which can't
show rapid changes in CO2, with ONE data point taken from the top of a
live volcano in a tropical paradise in the middle of the Pacific ocean.
The other two data points that go way out of line are fabricated from
Hanson's sick, twisted mind.

I've been down this rabbit hole with Wormley before. He just keeps
repeating himself.


From: Marvin the Martian on 29 Dec 2009 13:47
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:13:54 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

> 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.

That's like justifying prostitution by saying johns will pay for it.
Pretty soon, you end up with Clap or AIDS. Pretty much where we are at
now, the AGW fraud is the AIDS of science, and it might claim 6 billion
victims if we don't wise up and throw the whores out.

>> 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.

The problem is the whores who will take the money and give the
politicians whatever results they want. These aren't scientist, they're
whores.

Yes, you're right. The "professor" who brings funding to the school gets
to keep his job, the one who doesn't is replaced and someone else is
given a chance to bring in funding. Then the grad student has a choice of
what gets funded. If the grad student's work debunks his professor's
golden goose research project, then he doesn't get his Ph.D. and his work
never sees the light of day. The sniveling little sycophantic who parrots
his professor's fraudulent lies gets the research assistantship and a
Ph.D..

It' not just a fraud, it's a pyramid scheme. Pretty soon there are no
honest scientist LEFT.

Why do you think that the hot fusion researchers, after promising a
working hot fusion reactor is just 10 years away, have been able to
promise that for the last 40 years?! Hot fusion is one of the big funded
research projects for engineers and physicist. If you "discover" hot
fusion, the funding immediately drys up and everyone is unemployed. No
way are we going to get hot fusion because it would kill the golden
goose.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

It is why physics hasn't moved much since the 1950s.
From: Ouroboros Rex on 29 Dec 2009 14:58
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
> Marvin the Martian <marvin(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:03:42 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Sam, are you kidding?
>>>
>>> YOU made up the claim and YOU showed us a graph. So it's up to YOU
>>> to show us the data used for this graph!
>>>
>>> If you can't, what a pitty, this graph is invalid.
>>
>> It's Hanson's graph. You know, that hateful little madman at NASA who
>> testified to Congress that all "deniers" should be charged with
>> "crimes against humanity" like Nazis.
>>
>> Why Hanson isn't in a padded cell in a straight jacket and instead
>> is on the government dole spewing out his hate spittle in NASA's
>> name is beyond me.
>>
>> The whole graph is a comparison of Antarctic Ice core CO2, which
>> can't show rapid changes in CO2, with ONE data point taken from the
>> top of a live volcano in a tropical paradise in the middle of the
>> Pacific ocean. The other two data points that go way out of line are
>> fabricated from Hanson's sick, twisted mind.
>>
>> I've been down this rabbit hole with Wormley before. He just keeps
>> repeating himself.
>
> Next time we should turn him to see whether there stucks a windup-key
> at his lower rear.
>
> I'm almost sure, there was no change in CO2 since ever.
>
> (Have little time atm, so copy&paste)
>
>
>
> CO2 was always at about an average of 330 +/-40 ppmv
> over the last 400000 years.

Until now. lol


From: Ouroboros Rex on 29 Dec 2009 14:57
Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:03:42 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
>
>
>> Sam, are you kidding?
>>
>> YOU made up the claim and YOU showed us a graph. So it's up to YOU to
>> show us the data used for this graph!
>>
>> If you can't, what a pitty, this graph is invalid.
>
> It's Hanson's graph. You know, that hateful little madman at NASA who
> testified to Congress that all "deniers" should be charged with
> "crimes against humanity" like Nazis.
>
> Why Hanson isn't in a padded cell in a straight jacket and instead is
> on the government dole spewing out his hate spittle in NASA's name is
> beyond me.
>
> The whole graph is a comparison of Antarctic Ice core CO2, which can't
> show rapid changes in CO2, with ONE data point taken from the top of a
> live volcano in a tropical paradise in the middle of the Pacific
> ocean.

Cite, please.


From: Sam Wormley on 29 Dec 2009 19:48
On 12/29/09 12:59 PM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

>
> CO2 was always at about an average of 330 +/-40 ppmv
> over the last 400000 years.
>

Until a few dacades ago, Peter. The CO2 ain'y been this high
for 15,000,000 years!

>
> PRESS RELEASE SUMMARY OF ARTICLE:
> Public release date: 8-Oct-2009
> University of California - Los Angeles
> Contact: Stuart Wolpert
> <mailto:swolp...(a)support.ucla.edu>swolp...(a)support.ucla.edu
> 310-206-0511

> Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev:  Tom Potter, you'd win more battles if you were part of something bigger.
Next: What is the biggest size of Molecule?