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 31 Dec 2009 17:32 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.
From: I M on 31 Dec 2009 22:58 On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:03:24 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 12/31/09 1:21 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:05:12 -0800, pegleg wrote: >> >>> EVERY single time someone says "the data clearly show" those words are a >>> political statement and nothing more. The data are so corrupted that >>> they show nothing and are good for nothing any more. >> >> Exactly. The true data didn't support their AGW conclusion, so they >> altered it. WE know this from both the e-mail about the "trick" to "hide >> the decline" and the Fortran code that was even commented as "fudge >> factor". Data that was changed to support their preconceived conclusion >> seems to be common in the AGW crowd, so everything published from these >> proven frauds is now suspect. We have to start over with real scientist. > > Spoken like a science illiterate. There are a lot of them in our > society. Not everybody can be a smart mouth ex-associate professor.
From: I M on 31 Dec 2009 23:21 On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:41:56 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer <spamtrap.AT(a)AT.frankenexpress.de> 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. Maybe he needs to be posting all his messages in sci.physics.relativity, they will love his ego.
From: I M on 1 Jan 2010 06:10 On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:59:48 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer <spamtrap.AT(a)AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote: >"I M @ good guy" <I_m(a)good.guy> wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:26:27 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >On 12/30/09 8:31 PM, I M @ good guy wrote: >> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:10:47 -0600, Sam Wormley<swormley1(a)gmail.com> >> >> 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? >> >> >> >> >> >> I take it seriously, but I don't have >> >> to like the colder than normal weather >> >> and the resulting bigger heating bills, >> >> I even have to let faucets run when >> >> the temperature goes 10 degrees >> >> below normal. >> >> >> >> Move about 800 miles east and >> >> see how you like it, but wait till spring, >> >> some of the roads may be closed. >> >> >> > >> > You appear to easily confuse local weather and global climate. >> >> There is no "global climate", every region >> has it's own unique climate, which may include >> every kind of weather ever experienced. >> >> To show how stupid the temperature >> averaging is, the high temperature for this >> date was 70 degrees, tomorrow the high >> will be 29, and the low for this date was >> 13 below, tomorrow night it will be 18 F. >> >> Both those records were before 1885, >> and with temperature excursions like that, >> averaging is a joke. >> >> Global Warming has become a big joke, >> all the AGW gossip and alarmism has always >> been a joke. >> If the alarmists would even stick to the >> IPPC latest reports at least the insanity would >> be gone. >> >> >> Too bad AGW is being claimed by so many >> hopeful carbon credit salesmen. >> > >It's so very vain even trying to open a rudimentally discussion with him. >He's the worst case I've seen in this newsgroup since years. >Even Ollibolli Rex or LLiard LLoyd are more conversable and amusing. >This mantra-like "Look, I have - No, you're wrong - Look, I have- No, you're >wrong" without any substance is more like his religion than science. >As soon as you scratch his surface a little bit, he shuts himself off, hiding >behind his stupid links. I have been reading messages from sci.physics in 2003 that were cross-posted to sci.physics.relativity, I have never seen an original message by him, even though he had to spend twice as long in school. :-) With old age, long history of mild diabetes and resulting heart trouble, cold weather is no longer a joke, so I will suffer long stretches of cabin fever during the next couple of months while the AGW idiots complain about a fraction of a degree warmer average in the cooked books. There must be air moving up north some place to have so much arctic air moving down here.
From: Ilja on 1 Jan 2010 08:35
On 29 Dez. 2009, 23:47, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > 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. No, the problem is the way how scientists are paid. It makes them whores. Give a scientist a secure job (teaching at a university, nothing else, publishing papers as his hobby, no grants) and you obtain independent scientist who are able to tell you the truth without being afraid of loosing their jobs. (No, not loosing their jobs, but simply not getting a new one.) Almost everybody has more job security. But job security is the basis of independence. Make them dependent on science managers who distribute grants, and you obtain whores. > It is why physics hasn't moved much since the 1950s. |