Prev: 9-11 Truth makes HUGE showing at Los Angeles Peace March
Next: Help Save Eurotrash Re: Tax Bert's Water!
From: Meteorologist on 14 Apr 2010 08:43
On Apr 14, 5:12 am, Giga2 <justho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 13 Apr, 20:53, "leonard7...(a)gmail.com" <leonard7...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 13, 5:55 am, Giga2 <justho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > And I don't find much evidence for Lindzen denying tobacco is
> > > addictive or even cancer-causing to some extent.
>
> > Ø What has that to do with climate science??
> >      Absolutely nothing.
>
> >      Stay on topic, FOOL!!
>
> You are right in that, however earlier posters were claiming that
> Lindzen was a 'tobacco denier' (whatever that means) to besmirch his
> scientific reputation. I breifly looked for some evidence of that and
> found only that he questioned the science of secondary smoking being a
> big problem. This is a much more reasonable position than the false
> impression they are trying to give. Of course they have to try
> personal attacks on these people as AGWers so rely on scientific
> authority figures. But as you say even if he had said that tobacco is
> great for your body it would have no bearing on his brilliant analysis
> of AGW. In the future perhaps you could read the whole thread so you
> are up to speed on the conversation.

You are so right; actual conversation on climate
science problems is desperately needed so that
we all can be enlightened.

David Christainsen
From: Giga2 on 14 Apr 2010 10:44
On 14 Apr, 13:43, Meteorologist <dchristain...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 5:12 am, Giga2 <justho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13 Apr, 20:53, "leonard7...(a)gmail.com" <leonard7...(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 13, 5:55 am, Giga2 <justho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > ...
>
> > > > And I don't find much evidence for Lindzen denying tobacco is
> > > > addictive or even cancer-causing to some extent.
>
> > > Ø What has that to do with climate science??
> > >      Absolutely nothing.
>
> > >      Stay on topic, FOOL!!
>
> > You are right in that, however earlier posters were claiming that
> > Lindzen was a 'tobacco denier' (whatever that means) to besmirch his
> > scientific reputation. I breifly looked for some evidence of that and
> > found only that he questioned the science of secondary smoking being a
> > big problem. This is a much more reasonable position than the false
> > impression they are trying to give. Of course they have to try
> > personal attacks on these people as AGWers so rely on scientific
> > authority figures. But as you say even if he had said that tobacco is
> > great for your body it would have no bearing on his brilliant analysis
> > of AGW. In the future perhaps you could read the whole thread so you
> > are up to speed on the conversation.
>
> You are so right; actual conversation on climate
> science problems is desperately needed so that
> we all can be enlightened.
>
> David Christainsen

Yes, just having arguments isn't going to help really.
From: spudnik on 14 Apr 2010 16:28
just because it was British,
I'd assume that the folks at E.Anglia did this, on purpose.

"global" warming is almost & assiduously all computerized simulacra,
and extremely limited reporting, about glaciers e.g.

> >http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2868937.htm

thus:
to recap my reply to the TEDdies comments (as I am still
listening to B.Greene's pop-sci talk ... zzzz),
first of all,
Minkowski made a silly slogan about ordinary phase-space,
then he died. thank you!

> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html

thus:
they were just at the library auditorium,
selling the electromags to cure depression.... beats the heck
out of electroconvulsing, but I missed the refreshments!

thus:
I didn't get the gist of the CBS reportage, although it seemed
to be literate & wikipediaized (yeeha .-)
seemed like "more decimal points," although
there was a (wikip.) bibliographic note referring to Dicke --
I think, it was his paper that Einstein saw on one
of his rare visits to his Caltech office, and pooh-poohed,
regarding the predominant redshifitng of the heavens.

thus:
and, if at the centerof Sun is an iron core,
the theory might have to be revized (don't laugh;
not only was this a mainstream theory at one time,
it may not have been laid to rest (in current research)).

thus:
Rob, you uneducated, global-warmed-over bog-creature --
did you create any oil, today?...
seriously, that was amuzing about the cancellation-of-submission.
reminds me
of the time that Popular Science made an on-the-wayside attack
upon S. Fred Singer; at the time they were owned by Times-Mirror,
the then-owner of the LAtribcoTimes. the article was nominally and
visually an aggrandizement of three professors (and taht could
have included one of my own, at UCLA) of a theory about climate,
which had been celebrated already (I think) with a Nobel.
they included a mug-shot of the good doctor,
along with no mention of his vitae; alas!

thus:
the Skeptics were a Greek cult in the Roman Pantheon,
along with the Peripatetics, the Gnostics, the Solipsists etc.
ad vomitorium; as long as the Emperor was the Top doG,
you were left to your beliefs (til, of course,
Jesus -- after it became the state church).

thus:
virtually all of "global" warming -- strictly a misnomer, along
with Arrhenius 1896 "glasshouse gasses," except to first-order --
is computerized simulacra & very selective reporting, although
a lot of the latter is just a generic lack of data (that is,
historical data for almost all glaciers -- not near civilization).
I say, from the few that I casually *am* familiar with,
that *no* database shows "overall" warming --
not that the climate is not changing, rapidly,
in the Anthropocene.

thus:
instead, we should blame Pascal for discovering,
experimentally, his "plenum," which he thought was perfect. I mean,
it's always good to have a French v. English dichotomy,
with a German thrown-in for "triality."
> of Newton's "action at a distance" of gravity,
> via the re-adumbration of his dead-as-
> a-doornail-or-Schroedinger's-cat corpuscle,
> "the photon." well, and/or "the aether,"
> necessitated by "the vacuum."

--Light: A History!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com

--NASCAR rules on rotary engines!
http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: 9-11 Truth makes HUGE showing at Los Angeles Peace March
Next: Help Save Eurotrash Re: Tax Bert's Water!