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 1 Jan 2010 10:04 On 1/1/10 5:10 AM, I M @ good guy wrote: > 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. > I was hoping you would have greater curiosity about the chemistry and physics of global climate change and dig into the science deeper. What's to stop you from channeling your cabin fever into trying to understand why climatologists have come to the conclusions that they have. Are you not the least bit interested in the science?
From: Marvin the Martian on 1 Jan 2010 11:03 On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:03:24 -0600, Sam Wormley 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. You don't have a clue what an "intelligent argument" is, do you? We have e-mails where they conspire to alter the data with a "trick" to "hide the decline". 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. Then you come here and tell these bald faced lies that anyone familiar with the issue knows is just a damned lie, and you think that has weight?
From: Marvin the Martian on 1 Jan 2010 11:08 On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:22:13 -0800, Spencer Spindrift wrote: > On Dec 29, 9:00 pm, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...(a)casual.com> wrote: >> Marvin the Martian wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:46:42 -0800, Eric Gisin wrote: 1) A real >> >>> science society wouldn't get involved in politics. > >> >> 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. > >> > 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. >> > Why do all my posts on this topic disappear into cyberspace? Could it be > because I bring up the taboo subject of overpopulation as the true cause > of climate change and advocate a death rate solution? If this mss. > vanishes I'll become a conspiracy k00k! > > Spencer Primate Most AGWers use it a fig leaf for their global genocide fantasies, yes. The mistake the rest of the world is making is that they wouldn't murder billions of people once they had a chance. They will do it the same way that Mao and Stalin did along with dozens of petty African warlords; and that is by starvation. Idiot policies like the "national animal control act", the "safe foods act" and the trees on farmland policy.
From: Sam Wormley on 1 Jan 2010 11:09 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.
From: Marvin the Martian on 1 Jan 2010 11:19
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:28:54 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 12/31/09 4:16 PM, I M @ good guy wrote: > > >> Really, I have been attending presentations >> in college auditoriums and public halls since the 1940s, and Global >> Warming or Climate Change is about the dumbest of all. > > That make you one old fart, doesn't it! > >> Only one way to convince me, real easy, >> just give me a year warmer than 1998. >> >> > Published in 2006 > http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html That "article" hides by not giving a reference. There is a "for more information" that takes you to here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/ Turns out that claim is from that Nazi Nutjob Hansen, who wants to charge all "deniers" with crimes against humanity. The mans a raving loon. And you know the data is utter bullshit because 1938 (aprox) was about as warm as 1998, within a small fraction of a degree, and was probably the warmest year of the 20th century. The real temperatures are hidden by Hansen's bullshit "Global-Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly" parameter, which is basically whatever the nutjob Hansen says it is. You AGWers really must STOP using sources now debunked as utter fabrications. That isn't going to work. |