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 3 Feb 2010 07:51 Claudius Denk wrote: > 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. Not really. You need to watch what their leaders are doing now. Then you can predict the next mess they will make. Follow the money. /BAH
From: longview on 3 Feb 2010 07:49 On Feb 2, 3:51 pm, tg <tgdenn...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > 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 Just curious, how is pointing out the flaw in the AGW CO2 theory ( cause vs effect,80 years), and asking for untainted data in any way a religious viewpoint?
From: Tom P on 3 Feb 2010 07:53 Sam Wormley 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 > You can expect the usual incoherent denialist knee jerk reactions in this order: - it's cooling - there is no climate change - climate change is natural - warming is natural - warming is good - who needs glaciers and polar bears anyway.
From: tg on 3 Feb 2010 08:36 On Feb 3, 7:49 am, longview <thebah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 2, 3:51 pm, tg <tgdenn...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > Just curious, how is pointing out the flaw in the AGW CO2 theory > ( cause vs effect,80 years), and asking for untainted data in any way > a religious viewpoint? You are obviously not qualified to make judgments about the theory, since if you were qualified you could easily answer my questions. Therefore, your opinion is based on religious belief, not science--- whether it comes from talk radio or the bible is irrelevant. -tg
From: Marvin the Martian on 6 Feb 2010 20:08
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. Wormley is a firm believer that if he tells a lie often enough, people will believe his lies. His postings get old. Thanks for pointing out that he's using the lies to "prove" the lies are correct. |