Wheels fall off global-warming hysteria
in [Physics]
|
Prev: The inertial propelled buttkicker
Next: Draft paper submission deadline is extended: MULTICONF-10
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Feb 2010 09:28 Marvin the Martian wrote: > On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:58:01 -0800, George wrote: > >> On Feb 2, 7:24 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> NOAA Climate Monitoring >>> http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php >>> >>> >> But they are the people who 'adjusted' the data and who employ those who >> went along with the scam. > > It is as if to prove a witness didn't commit perjury, Sam quotes the > proven perjurer as gospel truth. > > Then he can't figure out why people have a problem with it. > > And when you point out to Sam that the ice age ended some 25,000 years > ago and glaciers have been melting since then, he can't see why that > debunks his post hoc argument that glaciers are melting so it MUST be due > to CO2 and it MUST be man made and it MUST be bad. > > These illogical consistencies are pointed out time after time to Sam, and > his only reply is to be a damned poser. There is no explanation for his > compulsive and irrational behavior. Now consider that Sam has thinking capabilities. Extrapolate his problems about this subject to people who don't have thinking capability but make economic and national policy decisions. /BAH
From: Claudius Denk on 2 Feb 2010 10:09 On Feb 1, 12:25 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:49:37 -0800, matt_sykes wrote: > > On 1 Feb, 07:39, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2/1/10 12:25 AM, Just A Guy wrote: > > >> > Does all this prove global warming is a hoax? > > >> > I believe it does. > > >> Now your have to come up with some other explanation for all that > >> ice melting and global sea level rise. :-o > > > Global sea ice isnt changing. > > AGWers don't yet realize it's not the sea level that's rising - it's > their ship that's sinking. LOL.
From: Claudius Denk on 2 Feb 2010 10:14 On Feb 1, 10:24 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/1/10 4:18 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 1, 1:39 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2/1/10 12:25 AM, Just A Guy wrote: > > >>> Does all this prove global warming is a hoax? > > >>> I believe it does. > > >> Now your have to come up with some other explanation > >> for all that ice melting and global sea level rise. :-o > > > Sam, > > Ice has been melting and the sea level rising since the end of the > > last ice age. 8,000 years ago, the sea level was rising four times as > > fast as the 20th century average. The slope of the sea level rise > > flattened again in 2006 (TOPIX). > > > We don't have very good data for the polar ice caps prior to 2002 but > > I sure don't see a monotonic trend. Do you? > > > You act like the natural variability in the climate is very small and > > that what we have seen is unusual. Do you know what the natural > > variation is? > > > None of the short term climate model predictions have panned out. If > > they can't predict a few years ahead why would you conclude that they > > can predict ahead 40 or 100 years? > > > Do I think that the USA should reduce its dependence on foreign oil? > > You bet. We should have been building nuclear power plants but the > > greenies stopped that. So whose fault is it that the USA burns as > > much oil as it does? It is time that the green movement takes > > responsibility for the consequences of the policies they have > > advocated and continue to advocate. > > > Enough is enough. > > > --Mike Jr. > > Mike, you don't get it, normal or human activity driven, the earth > is warming. That warming has impact showing up in agriculture, > dying ecosystems, weather patterns, shifting seasons. > > NOAA Climate Monitoring > http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php > > The Pew Center on Global Climate Change > http://www.pewclimate.org/ Pew is a propaganda institution. Or, more concisely and more accurately, PEW stinks! There is no statistically significant indication that the earth is either warming or cooling. It's only envirowhackos that believe otherwise.
From: tg on 2 Feb 2010 10:30 On Feb 2, 10:14 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Feb 1, 10:24 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 2/1/10 4:18 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > > > > On Feb 1, 1:39 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 2/1/10 12:25 AM, Just A Guy wrote: > > > >>> Does all this prove global warming is a hoax? > > > >>> I believe it does. > > > >> Now your have to come up with some other explanation > > >> for all that ice melting and global sea level rise. :-o > > > > Sam, > > > Ice has been melting and the sea level rising since the end of the > > > last ice age. 8,000 years ago, the sea level was rising four times as > > > fast as the 20th century average. The slope of the sea level rise > > > flattened again in 2006 (TOPIX). > > > > We don't have very good data for the polar ice caps prior to 2002 but > > > I sure don't see a monotonic trend. Do you? > > > > You act like the natural variability in the climate is very small and > > > that what we have seen is unusual. Do you know what the natural > > > variation is? > > > > None of the short term climate model predictions have panned out. If > > > they can't predict a few years ahead why would you conclude that they > > > can predict ahead 40 or 100 years? > > > > Do I think that the USA should reduce its dependence on foreign oil? > > > You bet. We should have been building nuclear power plants but the > > > greenies stopped that. So whose fault is it that the USA burns as > > > much oil as it does? It is time that the green movement takes > > > responsibility for the consequences of the policies they have > > > advocated and continue to advocate. > > > > Enough is enough. > > > > --Mike Jr. > > > Mike, you don't get it, normal or human activity driven, the earth > > is warming. That warming has impact showing up in agriculture, > > dying ecosystems, weather patterns, shifting seasons. > > > NOAA Climate Monitoring > > http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php > > > The Pew Center on Global Climate Change > > http://www.pewclimate.org/ > > Pew is a propaganda institution. Or, more concisely and more > accurately, PEW stinks! > > There is no statistically significant indication that the earth is > either warming or cooling. It's only envirowhackos that believe > otherwise. What would constitute a statistically significant indication..... 1. That the energy in the climate system is increasing. 2. That the energy in the climate system is decreasing. 3. That the energy in the climate system is remaining the same. .....over some time period? Come on, all you scientist and physicists and experts in statistical data analysis, this should be an easy question. Or are you simply talk-radio drones who can't do anything but repeat propaganda? -tg
From: Oregon Petition on 2 Feb 2010 10:36
Sam Wormley wrote: > Nevertheless the earth is warming. Only if you believe what scientists say. And we all know how they can't be trusted. Most of them are leftists. From The St. Petersburg Times, 8/16/09: http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1027502.ece Why scientists are seldom Republicans By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without scientists? Ask the Republican Party. It lives in such a world. Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a kitchen table. It is no wonder the Republican throngs showing up to disrupt town hall meetings on health care reform are so gullible, willing to believe absurd claims like the coming of "death panels." Their party is nearly devoid of neuroscientists, astrophysicists, marine biologists or any other scientific professional who would insist on intellectual rigor, objective evidence and sound reasoning as the basis for public policy development. The people left don't have that kind of discipline and don't expect it from their leaders. They are willing to believe anything some right-wing demagogue with a cable show or pulpit tells them, no matter how outlandish. Since the Sonia Sotomayor nomination we've been hearing about the GOP's Hispanic deficit. Only 26 percent of Latino registered voters now say they identify with or lean toward the Republican Party. But that's a full house compared with scientists. Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean Democratic. We shouldn't be surprised that people who are open to evidence-based thinking have abandoned the Republican Party. The GOP has proudly adopted the mantle of the "Terri Schiavo, global warming shwarming" party with the Bush administration helping cement the image by persistently subverting science to serve a religious agenda or corporate greed. But what worries me is not the shrunken relevancy of the GOP, a party in which 56 percent of its members oppose funding of embryonic stem cell research, 39 percent believe humans have always existed on Earth in their present form, and in which only 30 percent say human activity is warming the planet. It is that this nation's future depends upon people who don't think that way and the Republican Party is closing the door to them. Every hope we have to invent our way out of this economic malaise and create enough Information Age jobs to maintain a stable and prosperous middle class sits on the shoulders of people who understand and practice the scientific method. Every hope we have of advancing human understanding of the physical universe and bettering our lives in it, is tied to professionals now represented by only one of our nation's two major political parties ? while the other party attempts to obstruct them. Global warming is a prime example. Earth is under siege by CO2 emissions to a point that the Pentagon is warning that our national security is at risk if climate change is not arrested. All Americans and politicians should be united for collective action. Yet George Bush spent essentially his entire presidency ignoring and suppressing scientific concerns. Even today, with the effects of global warming evident, Republicans in Congress are trying to bury the cap-and-trade energy bill, the nation's first attempt (albeit not strong enough) to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Their alternative is to offer nothing. Why are they so blind to the looming crisis? Because to embrace what scientists are saying about global warming would give political liberals a win, something the GOP leadership is not wont to do. Republicans build their political careers disdaining "elitists" with a good education, complex charts and empirical data. They see it to their political advantage to rally people to distrust science. That means our nation is only likely to advance to meet the heady scientific challenges of the future, on health and the environment ? advancements that translate directly into economic progress and rising living standards ? if the Democrats remain in power with substantial majorities. But if the nation's economic situation doesn't turn around soon, a GOP resurgence could very well come. Then scientists will once again be on the defensive against a Republican Party that left them behind in favor of the Tea Party crowd, the birthers, and the people who shout at town halls that government better keep its hands off their Medicare. Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to describe it. |