Wheels fall off global-warming hysteria
in [Physics]
|
Prev: The inertial propelled buttkicker
Next: Draft paper submission deadline is extended: MULTICONF-10
From: longview on 2 Feb 2010 16:16 On Feb 2, 2:35 pm, tg <tgdenn...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > On Feb 2, 3:13 pm, longview <thebah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 2, 1:45 pm, tg <tgdenn...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > On Feb 2, 1:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 2/2/10 9:14 AM, Claudius Denk wrote: > > > > > > There is no statistically significant indication that the earth is > > > > > either warming or cooling. It's only envirowhackos that believe > > > > > otherwise. > > > > > You must live in California > > > > I don't think that's necessary. Please note that he or any of his co- > > > religionists are never going to tell you what *would* constitute > > > evidence that they would accept. I've asked my simple question > > > multiple times and there is simply no response, even from those who > > > claim a background in hard science. > > > > This is the classic anti-science rhetorical game---whatever data you > > > present will not be sufficient. > > > > -tg > > *** > > > Long term the climate is most likely changing, as change is the norm. > > I am not sure if this is a good or a bad thing. > > What would make you sure? I think "sure" was a weak word. Confidence in a global change in climate resulting from Human activity. That would require a Delta Temp/Delta Time statistically outside the normal noise. I do not think we have a good idea on what the normal change is yet. To find a signal, we first have to know what the carrier is. > > It is the height of hubris to assume now is the proper > > temperature. > > Is there any temperature that would not be the proper temperature? Based on proposed legislation, anything different than now. > > That man and his activities are responsible for the warming, is a > > question that we do not have enough data to answer. > > How much would be enough data to answer? We can start by allowing science to work, do not practice conclusion based research. Research grants should never pre-suppose the answer to a question. Allow any theory to try to stand on it's own, if it falls, move on to the next theory. The theory that CO2 causes global warming is broken, the data does not support the theory. Yet our Government is still pushing this as fact. The EPA and the current administration have stated that if legislation is not passed, regulation will be forced. Politics and Science do not mix well. History has many examples where the state has suppressed or altered science for it's own goals. I would like to know that the sacrifices being asked of our population is based on real science and real data, not cherry picked data, selected to show a political output. > > -tg >
From: tg on 2 Feb 2010 16:51 On Feb 2, 4:16 pm, longview <thebah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 2, 2:35 pm, tg <tgdenn...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > On Feb 2, 3:13 pm, longview <thebah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 2, 1:45 pm, tg <tgdenn...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 2, 1:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 2/2/10 9:14 AM, Claudius Denk wrote: > > > > > > > There is no statistically significant indication that the earth is > > > > > > either warming or cooling. It's only envirowhackos that believe > > > > > > otherwise. > > > > > > You must live in California > > > > > I don't think that's necessary. Please note that he or any of his co- > > > > religionists are never going to tell you what *would* constitute > > > > evidence that they would accept. I've asked my simple question > > > > multiple times and there is simply no response, even from those who > > > > claim a background in hard science. > > > > > This is the classic anti-science rhetorical game---whatever data you > > > > present will not be sufficient. > > > > > -tg > > > *** > > > > Long term the climate is most likely changing, as change is the norm. > > > I am not sure if this is a good or a bad thing. > > > What would make you sure? > > I think "sure" was a weak word. Confidence in a global change in > climate resulting from Human activity. > That would require a Delta Temp/Delta Time statistically outside the > normal noise. > I do not think we have a good idea on what the normal change is yet. > To find a signal, we first have to know what the carrier is. > > > > It is the height of hubris to assume now is the proper > > > temperature. > > > Is there any temperature that would not be the proper temperature? > > Based on proposed legislation, anything different than now. > > > > That man and his activities are responsible for the warming, is a > > > question that we do not have enough data to answer. > > > How much would be enough data to answer? > > We can start by allowing science to work, do not practice conclusion > based research. > Research grants should never pre-suppose the answer to a question. > Allow any theory to try to stand on it's own, if it falls, move on to > the next theory. > The theory that CO2 causes global warming is broken, the data does not > support the theory. > Yet our Government is still pushing this as fact. The EPA and the > current administration have stated that > if legislation is not passed, regulation will be forced. > Politics and Science do not mix well. History has many examples where > the state has suppressed or altered science > for it's own goals. > I would like to know that the sacrifices being asked of our population > is based on real science and real data, > not cherry picked data, selected to show a political output. > In other words, I am correct that you will never give any criterion that can be tested---a typical Creationist answer to science that doesn't fit your religious viewpoint. -tg
From: leonard78sp on 2 Feb 2010 23:06 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 ø Hey Worm How do you explain that the Arctic sea ice is thicker than ever, and there is no global sea level rise. Wake up and smell the coffee. | In real science the burden of proof is always | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one | iota of valid data for global warming nor have | they provided data that climate change is being | effected by commerce and industry, and not by | natural phenomena
From: Sam Wormley on 2 Feb 2010 23:18 On 2/2/10 9:32 PM, Andrew Bolt wrote: > > The world's greatest scientific mind and inventor Lord Christopher > Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and 2nd cousin of George > Monckton-Arundell, 7th Viscount Galway says that only Al Gore believes > in global warming and once we silence him by censoring his lies, > victory will be ours and nobody will believe in global warming > forevermore! > You probably think Einstein was wrong.
From: Benj on 3 Feb 2010 00:22
On Feb 2, 11:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/2/10 9:32 PM, Andrew Bolt wrote: > > > > > The world's greatest scientific mind and inventor Lord Christopher > > Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and 2nd cousin of George > > Monckton-Arundell, 7th Viscount Galway says that only Al Gore believes > > in global warming and once we silence him by censoring his lies, > > victory will be ours and nobody will believe in global warming > > forevermore! > You probably think Einstein was wrong. And you obviously believe that polar ice has disappeared, Florida is flooded with frantic seniors sprinting for "high ground" in North Carolina and polar bears are all dead. You clearly cannot be this stooopid which proves you must be some kind of lying shill. |