Prev: Serpent Mound. Ohio. Part 2.
Next: Wave function of macroscopic objects
From: oriel36 on 10 Jun 2010 17:48
On Jun 10, 12:40 am, Leon <trot...(a)hushmail.com> wrote:
> Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand
> scrutiny
>
> By Lawrence Solomon  June 6, 2010 – 10:47 pm
>
> A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the
> University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has
> concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming
> proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny.
>
> The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor
> and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the
> University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every
> major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work
> by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various
> rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize
> what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even
> disagreements.”
>
> Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global
> warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC
> publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment
> scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited
> climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment
> does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to
> comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined
> policy preference.”
>
> The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-
> made global warming, can be found here,http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf
>
> Financial Post
> LawrenceSolo...(a)nextcity.com
> Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe the author of
> The Deniers.

The mechanisms behind all this are extraordinarily complicated,for
instance,the 'scientific method' itself which is giving rise to the
speculative notion of human control over global temperatures is
actually following its own rules thereby leading to a predictable
stalemate which is extremely unhealthy for everyone concerned despite
the fact that some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing
and like to live off the fumes of discontent.Under normal
circumstances,the empirical method usually gives terrestrial sciences
a wide berth,preferring to consider things like the 'black hole at the
end of the universe' or dark this and dark that,speculative notions
which have no meaning for the wider population and amount to comic
strip science,almost like a cartoon where the next novelty and episode
is written by consensus.It is when the 'scientific method' encounters
things closer to home like climate that the unchallenged assumptions
that work so well in astronomy ( a once noble discipline that is
currently totally dysfunctional) become unstuck and exposed,not so
much the individual assumption applied to climate but the very
'scientific method' itself.

I suppose genuine people who are interested in the technical issues
rather than the social consequences of trying to squeeze climate
through a minor atmospheric gas or the idea of the planet as a
greenhouse would be wary of venturing back in history in order to
discover what was done to allow the emergence of these modeling
agendas,first through clocks and timekeeping averages in the late 17th
century and now using computers and why normal intellectual restraints
are cast aside in order to make the means justify the ends.

Isaac Newton was following his Arian beliefs to their logical
conclusion and it helps to actually be a Christian to understand why
these influences emerge in terms of 'laws' such as the spectacular
sounding 'universal law of gravitation' but people today are unlikely
to spot the Arian sentiments in Isaac's work as compared to other
Christian scientists such as Galileo,Copernicus or Kepler.An
astronomer,I mean an astronomer who has a fair comprehension of the
method and reasoning behind the Earth's planetary dynamics as first
proposed by Copernicus, looking at what Newton attempted to do would
see an assault on the eyes yet there is not the slightest sign that
Isaac tried to disguise his idiosyncratic treatment of the great
astronomical methods and insights -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton

In terms of planetary dynamics,that perspective is lethal even if the
statement is clear in context of his continuation of the modelling
agenda but I understood early on that most empiricists don't
understand their own system,they literally cannot tell what Newton did
and how he actually did it.The very 'laws of physics' were made up as
he went along and his followers today are those who begin with the
idea that the Earth is a greenhouse and humans control global
temperatures by using carbon dioxide levels as a temperature dial.I
would say our generation will be lucky enough to escape with a 'fool's
pardon' if it continues on the way it is doing ,not by arguing over
the climate topic but the actual 'scientific method' itself and how
one person acted stupidly (Flamsteed) and another got greedy (Newton).

Nobody actually has to go through the complicated and twisted
technical and historical details of all this even as the enormous
carbon dioxide hyperfuss has now subsided and people return to a more
stable platform of pollution control and new energy sources where the
whole thing belonged in the first place.It still leaves many questions
unanswered and that is where dealing with the 'scientific method'
itself comes in order to prevent these modelling agendas from running
amok again by those who care only about their models rather than
correct interpretation,experience and sometimes common sense.













From: Double-A on 10 Jun 2010 18:01
On Jun 9, 4:40 pm, Leon <trot...(a)hushmail.com> wrote:
> Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand
> scrutiny
>
> By Lawrence Solomon  June 6, 2010 – 10:47 pm
>
> A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the
> University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has
> concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming
> proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny.
>
> The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor
> and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the
> University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every
> major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work
> by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various
> rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize
> what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even
> disagreements.”
>
> Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global
> warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC
> publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment
> scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited
> climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment
> does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to
> comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined
> policy preference.”
>
> The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-
> made global warming, can be found here,http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf
>
> Financial Post
> LawrenceSolo...(a)nextcity.com
> Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe the author of
> The Deniers.

Forwarded to alt.astronomy

Double-A

From: nightbat on 11 Jun 2010 02:50
On Jun 10, 6:01 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 4:40 pm, Leon <trot...(a)hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand
> > scrutiny
>
> > By Lawrence Solomon  June 6, 2010 – 10:47 pm
>
> > A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the
> > University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has
> > concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming
> > proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny.
>
> > The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor
> > and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the
> > University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every
> > major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s
> > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work
> > by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various
> > rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize
> > what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even
> > disagreements.”
>
> > Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global
> > warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC
> > publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment
> > scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited
> > climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment
> > does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to
> > comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined
> > policy preference.”
>
> > The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-
> > made global warming, can be found here,http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf
>
> > Financial Post
> > LawrenceSolo...(a)nextcity.com
> > Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe the author of
> > The Deniers.
>
> Forwarded to alt.astronomy
>
> Double-A- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

nightbat

Thank you Commander Double A for your report and pointing
to the sad paper which forgot to take into account the actual real
world evidence. While this "Law Professor" Johnson takes note of the
opposition to climate change and or global warming premise findings he
fails to achnowledge the rising sea levels, bulk melting of ice and
snow cover via satellite evidence, increasing mega storms, breaching
of levees, and total rising rainfuls resulting in huge losses of life
around the world.

keep up your good work,
the nightbat
From: Painius on 11 Jun 2010 04:44
<nightbat(a)home.ffni.com> wrote in message...
news:0034410a-e83c-45fb-974e-d018a349fbc3(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 10, 6:01 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 4:40 pm, Leon <trot...(a)hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn�t withstand
> > scrutiny
>
> > By Lawrence Solomon June 6, 2010 � 10:47 pm
>
> > A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the
> > University of Pennsylvania�s Institute for Law and Economics has
> > concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming
> > proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny.
>
> > The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor
> > and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the
> > University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that �on virtually every
> > major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN�s
> > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work
> > by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various
> > rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize
> > what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even
> > disagreements.�
>
> > Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global
> > warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC
> > publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment
> > scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited
> > climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment
> > does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it �seems overall to
> > comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined
> > policy preference.�
>
> > The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-
> > made global warming, can be found
> > here,http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf
>
> > Financial Post
> > LawrenceSolo...(a)nextcity.com
> > Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe the author of
> > The Deniers.
>
> Forwarded to alt.astronomy
>
> Double-A-

nightbat

Thank you Commander Double A for your report and pointing
to the sad paper which forgot to take into account the actual real
world evidence. While this "Law Professor" Johnson takes note of the
opposition to climate change and or global warming premise findings he
fails to achnowledge the rising sea levels, bulk melting of ice and
snow cover via satellite evidence, increasing mega storms, breaching
of levees, and total rising rainfuls resulting in huge losses of life
around the world.

keep up your good work,
the nightbat

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Let's keep in mind that there is a need for separation here.
There are two issues here that often get lumped together
as one issue. There's the issue of global warming, which
runs in cycles upon cycles upon cycles, and then there's the
issue of whether or not global warming or cooling is caused
by mankind, whether or not it is "manmade".

The professor, i believe, is addressing the second issue.
And whether global warming is a natural state of things or
the result of our industrial efforts to improve our living
standards. I think he is saying that the present effort to
assign blame for global climate changes to mankind is not
being studied nor reported at the level of science, but is
instead being compromised by the political ambitions of a
few morally challenged idjits.

And the professor does appear to be correct.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S. "In my experience, there is only one motivation,
and that is desire. No reasons or principle
contain it or stand against it."
> Jane Smiley
Pulitzer Prize-winning American novelist

P.P.S.: http://www.painellsworth.net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth


From: Last Post on 11 Jun 2010 10:33
On Jun 11, 2:50 am, "night...(a)home.ffni.com" <night...(a)home.ffni.com>
wrote:
> On Jun 10, 6:01 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 4:40 pm, Leon <trot...(a)hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand
> > > scrutiny
>
> > > By Lawrence Solomon  June 6, 2010 – 10:47 pm
>
> > > A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the
> > > University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has
> > > concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming
> > > proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny.
>
> > > The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor
> > > and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the
> > > University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every
> > > major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s
> > > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work
> > > by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various
> > > rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize
> > > what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even
> > > disagreements.”
>
> > > Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global
> > > warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC
> > > publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment
> > > scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited
> > > climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment
> > > does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to
> > > comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined
> > > policy preference.”
>
> > > The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-
> > > made global warming, can be found here,http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf
>
> > > Financial Post
> > > LawrenceSolo...(a)nextcity.com
> > > Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe the author of
> > > The Deniers.
>
> > Forwarded to alt.astronomy
>
> > Double-A- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> nightbat
>
>            Thank you Commander Double A for your report and pointing
> to the sad paper which forgot to take into account the actual real
> world evidence. While this "Law Professor" Johnson takes note of the
> opposition to climate change and or global warming premise findings he
> fails to achnowledge the rising sea levels, bulk melting of ice and
> snow cover via satellite evidence, increasing mega storms, breaching
> of levees, and total rising rainfuls resulting in huge losses of life
> around the world.

Ø Well Dingbat, there is no need to "achnowledge
[sic] the rising sea levels" since the sea levels
are not rising; nor does the satellite evidence
show more than seasonal melting. Levees are
artificial constructs that must needs be repaired
and/or replaced from time to time but are
generally neglected. Further, there have been no
"rainfalls resulting in huge losses of life around
the world".

Ø Do NOT consider a deadly "tsunami" to be a
rainstorm. They are tidal waves generated by
submarine earthquakes.

Ø Dingbat, to conclude, there has been no climate
event in the past 200 years, inconsistent with
Nature. Further we are at "the end" of the 1500
year trend toward reglaciation. Live with it!

—— ——
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.

2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling to
that belief even if it means their death.

3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince

the anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists,

the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and

predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Serpent Mound. Ohio. Part 2.
Next: Wave function of macroscopic objects