Only 13% Of Congressional Republicans Believe In Man-Made Global Warming
simple_...@yahoo.com
National Journal has released a new "Congressional Insiders Poll,"
which surveyed 113 members of Congress - 10 Senate Democrats, 48 House
Democrats, 10 Senate Republicans, and 45 House Republicans - about
their positions on global warming.
The results were startling. Only 13 percent of congressional
Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global
warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats. Moreover,
the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global warming
has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23 percent.
hanson
news:1170782921....@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
That leaves 87% resp 5% of rational Lawmakers.
The rest have been brainwashed and become damaged
goods by the green Bible
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/20543afd0304b3f3
wherein it says:
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
ahahaha... ahahahanson
kdt...@yahoo.com
They certainly do not have the right to pass laws based upon their
belief in global warming. Any such laws can be proved unconstitutional
due to the careful valid application of science which proves the
theoretical assumptions to be invalid. As of such, any such references
to those that may believe and pass such laws will be appropiately due.
In any event, for the IPCC to issue such statements such as the
"debate is over", demonstrates their disconection with reality.
Bringing this before US law means the debate is just beginning. And
possibly the criminal investigation of the scientific fraud behind
this movement to control the use of energy and the economy of the US.
Any agrandizzement in this process of introduction of this fraudulent
science for the purpose of passing such lies would be a very severe
crime, on either side.
Since burden of proof is upon the proponents bringing this case,
deliberate omission of data by the proponents in their presentation
can be effectively construed as deliberate fraud and intent to commit
fraud. Any deliberate false testimony or deposition can be prosecuted,
also.
The burden of proof is upon those bringing this before US law. It
seems to be paramount to their case to avoid this burden of proof, and
confuse the issue by any form of characterizations of their scientific
opponents The IPCC only gives itself a rating of 90% sure of their
conclusions. References to a consensus of these climatologists, or
'mainstream science', does not fulfill the burden of proof for AGW.
Deatherage
NobodyYouKnow
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:N83yh.9778$MH2.8771@trnddc03...
> <simple_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1170782921....@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > source: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/warming-13-percent/
> >
> > National Journal has released a new "Congressional Insiders Poll,"
> > which surveyed 113 members of Congress - 10 Senate Democrats, 48 House
> > Democrats, 10 Senate Republicans, and 45 House Republicans - about
> > their positions on global warming.
> >
> > The results were startling. Only 13 percent of congressional
> > Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global
> > warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats. Moreover,
> > the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global warming
> > has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23 percent.
> >
> [hanson]
> That leaves 87% resp 5% of rational Lawmakers.
What it means is that the majority of Republicans are psychotic. They
profess that their beliefs define reality rather than the other way around.
> The rest have been brainwashed and become damaged
> goods by the green Bible
Obviously 'damaged goods' refers to the Republicans which fit the definition
of 'mentally ill'. Psychosis is a key indicator. On that score we mgiht
include hanson and anyone else that exhibits delusional thinking. We need
to institutionalise them until they can deal with reality and then teach
them about science.
neutr...@gmail.com
I wonder what the parallel results would have been if they had asked
their opinion on a couple other scientific topics...such as "Do you
believe that humans developed from earlier species?", "Did God create
human beings in their present form exactly as the Bible describes?",
or "Is global warming a sign of the second coming of Christ?"
hanson
Ian St. John aka "NobodyYouKnow" TheVoice...@nowhere.ino
w/i news:5f06a$45c922be$cf703dde$28...@PRIMUS.CA...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:N83yh.9778$MH2.8771@trnddc03...
>> <simple_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1170782921....@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > source: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/warming-13-percent/
>> > Only 13 percent of cong. Republicans believe in AGW
>> > compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats. .
>> >
>> [hanson]
>> That leaves 87% resp 5% of rational Lawmakers.
>
> What it means is that the majority of Republicans are psychotic. They
> profess that their beliefs define reality rather than the other way
> around.
>
>> The rest have been brainwashed and become damaged
>> goods by the green Bible
>
> Obviously 'damaged goods' refers to the Republicans which fit the
> definition
> of 'mentally ill'. Psychosis is a key indicator. On that score we mgiht
> include hanson and anyone else that exhibits delusional thinking. We need
> to institutionalise them until they can deal with reality and then teach
> them about science.
>
Welcome back, Ian! Your virulent astrological fanaticism is "obviously
damaged goods" which you have recognized as being yourself &
you hoped to cover it up by snipping the section with/about "The green
bible" which shows that enviro-science is to real science what astrology
is to astronomy. So, here it is again for your healing. If you retort it
will signal that you want to have the entire Green Bible reposted instead
of just the link and the excerpts that you have snipped, (reposted here):
Science Fraud Buster
Ousted Pastor 'Completely Heterosexual'
Forced by a gay sex scandal to resign as president of the National
Association of Evangelicals, the Rev. Ted Haggard now feels that after
three weeks of intensive counseling, he is "completely heterosexual,"
says an overseer of the megachurch Mr. Haggard once led.
The church official, the Rev. Tim Ralph, said in an interview
published yesterday by The Denver Post that Mr. Haggard had also told
the board of overseers that his only sexual relationship involving
another man had been with Michael Jones, the onetime Denver prostitute
who exposed that three-year affair last fall. Mr. Jones said then that
he was making it public because Mr. Haggard had acted hypocritically
in promoting a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage.
Mr. Haggard, who as a result of the scandal was ousted by the
overseers in November as senior pastor of New Life Church in Colorado
Springs, broke a three-month silence over the weekend when he
contacted members of the church by e-mail to tell them that he was
healing.
His three weeks of counseling, in Phoenix, felt like "three years'
worth of analysis and treatment," but now "Jesus is starting to put me
back together," Mr. Haggard wrote in the e-mail message, which was
published in The Colorado Springs Gazette on Monday.
"I have spent so much time in repentance, brokenness, hurt and sorrow
for the things I've done and the negative impact my actions have had
on others," he said.
Mr. Haggard could not be reached for comment yesterday. Mr. Ralph
declined through a spokeswoman to comment, and there was no response
to telephone calls and e-mail to another overseer or to a New Life
spokesman. But Mr. Ralph told The Denver Post that Mr. Haggard had
come out of the counseling convinced of his heterosexuality.
"He is completely heterosexual," Mr. Ralph told The Post, adding that
Mr. Haggard's homosexual activity had not been "a constant thing."
Dr. Jack Drescher, a New York psychiatrist who is an expert on issues
of gender and sexuality, said that while it was people's prerogative
to identify their sexual orientation as they wanted, the notion of
being able to change that orientation was "not consistent with
clinical presentations, but totally consistent with theological
belief."
"Some people in the community that Mr. Haggard comes from believe
homosexuality is a form of behavior, a sinful form of behavior based
on certain things in the Bible, and they don't believe you can create
a healthy identity based on sinful behavior," Dr. Drescher said. "So
they define it as a behavior that can be changed, and there is this
thinking that if you control those behaviors enough, heterosexual
attractions will follow."
Mr. Haggard said in his message to New Life members that he and his
wife were taking online courses to get master's degrees in psychology,
and Mr. Ralph told The Post that the oversight board had recommended
to Mr. Haggard that he take up secular work.
digitalmaster
"NobodyYouKnow" <TheVoice...@nowhere.ino> wrote in message
news:5f06a$45c922be$cf703dde$28...@PRIMUS.CA...
to in time with what we believe.
digitalmaster
"NobodyYouKnow" <TheVoice...@nowhere.ino> wrote in message
news:5f06a$45c922be$cf703dde$28...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
you believe.It always amazes me what people will do to promote their concept
of "reality".
Like those who believe in Aryan supremacy.This idea is right out of their
play book.
digitalmaster
"digitalmaster" <digita...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:xiiyh.193$tn3.128@bigfe9...
Reasoned Insanity
Maybe they will believe it when the cause of global warming is proven to be
caused by man and not just part of the planets natural cycle.
Bawana
> <simple_langu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
That will never happen.
no spam
> be caused by man and not just part of the planets natural cycle.
Going to be hard proof when someone tosses in the end of the last ice age.
Seeing as how the planet seems to have warm up quite a bit w/o any human
help then.
kdt...@yahoo.com
l> > Maybe they will believe it when the cause of global warming is
proven to
l> > be caused by man and not just part of the planets natural cycle.
l>
l> Going to be hard proof when someone tosses in the end of the last
ice age.
l> Seeing as how the planet seems to have warm up quite a bit w/o any
human
l> help then.
He admits right here that AGW is not proved by science. That sure is a
lot of public money they spend, to be unable to prove the things that
they preach, and how we should give up our evil ways of CO2 emission,
and follow the true light of AGW into the happiness of cooler
temperatures. Perhaps if we just appropiate a few more billion dollars
for research, they can come up with an actual scientific basis for
their doomsday hysteria.
Where I live, global warmth occurs every summer. Some summers can be
100+, every day for a couple months. It is absolutely critical to most
people to have air conditioning. The proponents of AGW only wish to
make electricity much more expensive in order to curb our use. This is
nonsense to the working class and old people, who already face very
high electric bills for electricity for air conditioning, and already
use minimal energy.
The entitlements of social security benefits and medicare, not to
mention pensions and retirements, are already about to break the
government. There is no room for the government to absorb these higher
cost to the pensioners. The imposition of these bogus controls on CO2
and the plans for it, do not provide any means to reduce the emissions
from electrical production, other than to make the prices so high,
that usage will diminish. Existing plants cannot be modified. It costs
3 times more to build a plant that does not emit CO2, and 2 times as
much to operate. This means it is entirely unfeasable economically to
modify to electrical production which is in compliance.
The cap and trade only means, same CO2 in the air. A bunch of
rigamarole and money exchange with the passing out of the CO2 credits
to eligible companies who can then sell them to the highest bidder:
the electrical power production which must consume fuel.
In the meantime, closing the combustion process and trapping CO2 uses
much more energy. There will be no conservation of energy by enforcing
this ineffieciency on the use of energy. Much more energy is needed to
deliver the same energy to the consumer. Again, the strangulation from
our use of energy according to this bogus and criminal fraud.
Many of these corporations think they may do well, reducing their
production and having 'credits' to sell. But they would find out, in
the real world, they will have to go to work like they have never done
to pay their electric bills. They will not get rich selling these
credits. Who ever told them the plan was for them to get rich and have
a free ride doing it????
The effect of this sucking of the money out of the economy, and the
effects on inflation can only be imagined, since all products require
energy to manufacture and ship.
To evaluate the impact on US industry by situations in European
industry is not valid. European countries, already have a considerable
amount of their industries nationalized, and are very nearly socialist
in many of them. And the phobiacs are on their best behaviour in
attempting to get these controls in the US. Once they get legitimacy
here, they would really begin turning the screws. Even just he
corruption all this government regulation would breed, would be a
great harm to our country.,
Deatherage
Snap Whipcrack..............
no spam
>>> which surveyed 113 members of Congress - 10 Senate Democrats, 48 House
>>> Democrats, 10 Senate Republicans, and 45 House Republicans - about
>>> their positions on global warming.
>>>
>>> The results were startling. Only 13 percent of congressional
>>> Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global
>>> warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats. Moreover,
>>> the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global warming
>>> has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23 percent.
>>>
>> That's because 'man-made' global warming is a myth.
>
What do the laws of physics have to do with computer science? Remember its
all the 'computer models' showing how the world is going to die. Ever heard
of GIGO?
Many years ago I got into a little trouble. I wrote a little computer game
that was fairly easy to win but for some reason my instructor could never
seem to win. The reason was I knew the name he always used when he tested
the programs and wrote it so that anyone using that name could not win.
IOW, I rigged the program to give the results -=I=- wanted. Easy to have a
computer show what you want when you write the program AND pick what data is
entered.
digitalmaster
"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:p7Myh.57$li...@newsfe04.lga...
> no spam wrote:
>>>>> National Journal has released a new "Congressional Insiders Poll,"
>>>>> which surveyed 113 members of Congress - 10 Senate Democrats, 48 House
>>>>> Democrats, 10 Senate Republicans, and 45 House Republicans - about
>>>>> their positions on global warming.
>>>>>
>>>>> The results were startling. Only 13 percent of congressional
>>>>> Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global
>>>>> warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats. Moreover,
>>>>> the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global warming
>>>>> has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23 percent.
>>>>>
>>>> That's because 'man-made' global warming is a myth.
>>> And the laws of physics are suddenly invalid because you said so.
>>
>> What do the laws of physics have to do with computer science?
>
>
> We're pretty darn sure the laws of physics are a pretty good first order
> approximation of the reality meaningful to the discussion of science.
>
> --
> The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org
>
> My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org
>
> Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
>
> http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
I saw a documentary where 50 year old data was loaded into a "computer
model" to predict present climate.It was wrong.I wish I could remember the
name of the show.
kdt...@yahoo.com
> Snap Whipcrack.............. wrote:
>
> > That's because 'man-made' global warming is a myth.
>
> And the laws of physics are suddenly invalid because you said so.
Since when does AGW need valid laws of physics?? This idea of
grenhouse gases was totally invented in classical physics, shown to be
invalid in the development of modern physics, and revived by the
charlatan idiots of climatology and quantum mechanics for their
superstition which they have developed into a full blown religion.
A) In no valid laboratory experiment can it be shown that CO2 or
grenhouse gases can retain heat and cause higher temperature. Only
your hoax exhibit in which the gas is enclosed in specific material
and irradiated with high energy frequencies which the earth does not
emit.
B) Stefans law is a law of physics. This states that total radiated
energy or energy through a sq cm, increases as a fourth power to
temperature. Grenhouse theory entirely ignores this law of physics.
1368/4 = 342 - 342/,31 = 235Wm-2 = -19C or -2F. + (,63 x 235) =
57degF.
This is the complete grenhouse thermodynamics.
Only problem is that the average of the energies for the temperatures
is not equat to the energy of average temperature. This is because of
the law of physics known as Stefans law, which grenhouse theory forgot
in it's fabrication of the physics it needs for it's fraudulent
conclusion.
C) All substances have heat capacity. This is the quantity of energy
that must be absorbed by the substance in order to raise it's
temperature. Grenhouse theory has no calculation for the heat capacity
of the earth or ocean. It cannot derive the quantity of heat needed to
melt the ice caps, warm the ocean at all, or even effectively deal
with the heat capacity of the air. Normal dry air at sea level has the
heat capacity of about 29 Joules/mol/degC. Calculate the mass of the
atmosphere, it's molar quantity, multiply by this number for quantity
of heat to raise the temperature of only the atmosphere. Air pressure
is 1/2 at 6 kilometers.
Grenhouse theory does heat capacity in grams to avoid the issue of
heat capacity and molar density in the transfer of heat or
effectualization of temperatures. In fact they rarely refer to the
actual laws of physics or chemistry, and simply fascinate on their
temperature graphs which they cull to their satisfaction, as they
program their computers to give them the result that they want.
D) law of conservation of energy
Grenhouse theory does not regard this law in many ways.
The theory of runaway effect entirely violates this law.
They denote infrared frequencies to produced by dipole and monopole
radiation of the molecule, and as something different than normal
radiation. This is to suit their theory and explain the special
capacities of CO2 that cannot be demonstrated in the laboratory.
But the most simple analyses shows that the motions of the molecules
accounts for the absorption of energy that is the heat capacity. This
includes any supposed vibrations in the bonds of the molecule. There
is no possibility of the energy of the infrared frequencies being the
product of these motions The energy of dipole and monopole radiation,
must be absorbed in kinetic motion and then converted to radiation.
kT = hv at about 40um. @ 300K, hvmax is about 9.7um. The energy of the
motions of the molecules cannot be producing the energy of the
spectral radiation.
You wish to use such terms as 'laws of physics'. These are laws of
nature which in no way depend on the consensus of the climatologists
for their existence. Grenhouse theory is invalid in ANY application of
the laws of physics and this can and will be proved in court.
You should pick up a book on actual chemistry or basic physics
(without QM), and learn what the laws of physics are when you try to
use such big words. The rinky dink bullshit you learned in climatology
is not valid physics or chemistry.
Deatherage
neutr...@gmail.com
Probably not. You can't convince someone of anything if their
paycheque depends on it not being true. BTW: what is _your_ threshold
for proof? Is it directly proportional to the personal inconvenience
of what is being proven?
Hydrogen TRUTH
> You should pick up a book on actual chemistry or basic physics
> (without QM), and learn what the laws of physics are when you try to
> use such big words. The rinky dink bullshit you learned in climatology
> is not valid physics or chemistry.
>
> Deatherage
.... it's about wealth-shifting: Exxon shifts YOUR Wealth to Exxon,
Yes, we got it!
http://ScienceCop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheSunBetrayed
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheCarbonWar
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Cartel+Solar+Patents
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
gdew...@gmail.com
<HydrogenTR...@HydrogenTRUTH.info> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 11:01 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > You should pick up a book on actual chemistry or basic physics
> > (without QM), and learn what the laws of physics are when you try to
> > use such big words. The rinky dink bullshit you learned in climatology
> > is not valid physics or chemistry.
>
> > Deatherage
>
> .... it's about wealth-shifting: Exxon shifts YOUR Wealth to Exxon,
> Yes, we got it!
>
> http://ScienceCop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheSunBetrayedhttp://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheCarbonWarhttp://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Cartel+Solar+Patents
>
> Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
> Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
> Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
We should give Exxon a honest chance to defend their position on the
market. It goes with the up-scaling. They have test facilities the
size of continents, I'm sure they would know what is best for us. :-)
digitalmaster
<neutr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171071027....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
also..you can't convince someone of anything if their paycheck depends on it
being true.
digitalmaster
> digitalmaster wrote:
>> "kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
>> news:p7Myh.57$li...@newsfe04.lga...
>>> no spam wrote:
>>>>>>> National Journal has released a new "Congressional Insiders Poll,"
>>>>>>> which surveyed 113 members of Congress - 10 Senate Democrats, 48
>>>>>>> House
>>>>>>> Democrats, 10 Senate Republicans, and 45 House Republicans - about
>>>>>>> their positions on global warming.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The results were startling. Only 13 percent of congressional
>>>>>>> Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global
>>>>>>> warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats.
>>>>>>> Moreover,
>>>>>>> the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global
>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>> has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23
>>>>>>> percent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's because 'man-made' global warming is a myth.
>>>>> And the laws of physics are suddenly invalid because you said so.
>>>> What do the laws of physics have to do with computer science?
>>> Because the laws of physics were used to design computers?
>>>
>>> We're pretty darn sure the laws of physics are a pretty good first order
>>> approximation of the reality meaningful to the discussion of science.
>>
>> model" to predict present climate.It was wrong.I wish I could remember
>> the name of the show.
>
>
> Did you read the peer reviewed PNAC paper where 30 year old data was used
> to predict the rise in average global temperature through today? It was
> right :
>
> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/39/14288
>
> --
> The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org
>
> My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org
>
> Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
>
> http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
which shows that either
1)someone got a model right
2)someone made a model to fit the data
3)the final results were "adjusted" for land usage effect essentially giving
a predetermined answer.
alanm...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Feb 9, 11:01 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > You should pick up a book on actual chemistry or basic physics
> > (without QM), and learn what the laws of physics are when you try to
> > use such big words. The rinky dink bullshit you learned in climatology
> > is not valid physics or chemistry.
>
> > Deatherage
>
> .... it's about wealth-shifting: Exxon shifts YOUR Wealth to Exxon,
> Yes, we got it!
>
I think you're confusing "Exxon" with "Enron"
http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,02898.cfm
"It's not surprising to most people that Enron delivered truckloads of
money to politicians in an attempt to influence the political process.
What may surprise many, however, is that Enron believed that one of
its main opportunities to make money by gaming the political system
was global warming.
Enron became one of the biggest corporate boosters of the Kyoto global
warming treaty, which would require huge reductions in energy use by
consumers and industry. According to an internal Enron memo, quoted by
The Washington Post, the Kyoto treaty would "do more to promote
Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside
of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and
the United States."
- A. McIntire
Joe Fischer
<digita...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
>>
>> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/39/14288
>
>which shows that either
>1)someone got a model right
>2)someone made a model to fit the data
>3)the final results were "adjusted" for land usage effect essentially giving
>a predetermined answer.
Or that it was a total coincidence,, like a magician
guessing age.
Man may very well be affecting the data measurements,
like the immediate area in big cities and around airports are
definitely warmer, and that is where many if not most surface
data collection points are.
But it is a big world, even the steam and wet condensor
vapor from a gigawatt power plant looks huge from close up,
it is barely visible from 100 miles.
The idea of greenhouse gases dates back to the
1800s, with the myth that without them the Earth would
cool to -200 Celsius. Most models consider the
temperature of the surface to be constant regardless
of the amount of heat of geothermal origin.
Using conditions on Venus as a scare tactic
is foolish, everybody knows that Venus is much
closer to the sun.
Frankly, an independent study starting from
scratch is needed to help validate any existing model.
With all studies starting at the same place with
the same assumptions, it is a waste of resources
because they all get the same answer.
m
Joe Fischer
kdt...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 9, 6:14 pm, "Hydrogen TRUTH" <HydrogenTR...@HydrogenTRUTH.info>
> wrote:> On Feb 9, 11:01 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > You should pick up a book on actual chemistry or basic physics
> > > (without QM), and learn what the laws of physics are when you try to
> > > use such big words. The rinky dink bullshit you learned in climatology
> > > is not valid physics or chemistry.
>
> > > Deatherage
>
> > .... it's about wealth-shifting: Exxon shifts YOUR Wealth to Exxon,
> > Yes, we got it!
>
> (cut)
> I think you're confusing "Exxon" with "Enron"
>
> http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,02898.cfm
>
> "It's not surprising to most people that Enron delivered truckloads of
> money to politicians in an attempt to influence the political process.
> What may surprise many, however, is that Enron believed that one of
> its main opportunities to make money by gaming the political system
> was global warming.
>
global
l> warming treaty, which would require huge reductions in energy use
by
l> consumers and industry. According to an internal Enron memo, quoted
by
l> The Washington Post, the Kyoto treaty would "do more to promote
l> Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative
outside
l> of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe
and
l> the United States."
l> - A. McIntire
Besides, to reduce CO2 emissions requires a reduction in the
efficiency of any energy use and a greater use of fuel for the same
energy delivered. Full abatement of CO2 would use much more energy
just for the neccesities that we cannot reduce. Cutting back on energy
consumption will never reduce emissions more than several parts per
billion if even that much.
In the meantime, CO2 and grenhouse gases in actuality play no role in
the temperature of the earth. The temperature of the earth is
determined by the energy that reaches the surface.
The intitial theory of grenhouse gases is fraudulent in every respect.
It is the corruption of the academic process that has defeated any
valid education in theoretical physics and allows this fraud to
continue.
Deatherage
digitalmaster
>> 1)someone got a model right
>> 2)someone made a model to fit the data
>> 3)the final results were "adjusted" for land usage effect essentially
>> giving a predetermined answer.
>
>
> 4)you don't have a clue about science.
>
> --
> The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org
>
> My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org
>
> Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
>
> http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
thinker.
no spam
>>>>> Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global
>>>>> warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats. Moreover,
>>>>> the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global warming
>>>>> has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23 percent.
>>>>>
>>>> That's because 'man-made' global warming is a myth.
>>> And the laws of physics are suddenly invalid because you said so.
>>
>> What do the laws of physics have to do with computer science?
>
>
> We're pretty darn sure the laws of physics are a pretty good first order
> approximation of the reality meaningful to the discussion of science.
Personally I like physics. There is something about science that allows you
to hit things with other things :)
no spam
>>>>> And the laws of physics are suddenly invalid because you said so.
>>>> What do the laws of physics have to do with computer science?
>>> Because the laws of physics were used to design computers?
>>>
>>> We're pretty darn sure the laws of physics are a pretty good first order
>>> approximation of the reality meaningful to the discussion of science.
>>
>> model" to predict present climate.It was wrong.I wish I could remember
>> the name of the show.
>
>
> Did you read the peer reviewed PNAC paper where 30 year old data was used
> to predict the rise in average global temperature through today? It was
> right :
Many years ago I got 100% of a physic lab experment on harmonics because I
set up the equipment correctly and my math came out with the correct answer.
The only problem is to get the right answer I added a step in the math, I
multiplied by 0 (zero) and added the correct answer. Still have that paper
around here somewhere. The point is no one ever saw that my data didn't
support my answer only that I got the answer they were expecting. Any one
who had taken the time to look at my work, much less to put my data into
their own equations, would have seen that something was wrong.
no spam
>> > Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global
>> > warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats. Moreover,
>> > the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global warming
>> > has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23 percent.
>> >
>>
>> Maybe they will believe it when the cause of global warming is proven to
>> be
>> caused by man and not just part of the planets natural cycle.
>
> Probably not. You can't convince someone of anything if their
> paycheque depends on it not being true. BTW: what is _your_ threshold
> for proof? Is it directly proportional to the personal inconvenience
> of what is being proven?
My threshold of proof it the ability of the theory to explain the heating
and cooling of the earth in the past. The end of the beginning and end of
the last ice age, the warming during the 'Viking age', the cooling
afterwards, are just a couple.
Hydrogen TRUTH
What's stopping you? Google is up in the corner of every modern
browser.
Your crap has been debunked already and google has the truth.
.... it's about wealth-shifting: Exxon shifts YOUR Wealth to Exxon,
Yes, we got it!
http://ScienceCop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheSunBetrayed
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheCarbonWar
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Cartel+Solar+Patents
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
neutr...@gmail.com
So, your argument is that because you engaged in scientific fraud and
got away with it that it follows that all climatologists are engaging
in scientific fraud and getting away with it because there is no
oversight? What do you think peer review is, anyway...reading the
paper down at the docks?
no spam
>> >> > The results were startling. Only 13 percent of congressional
>> >> > Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global
>> >> > warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats.
>> >> > Moreover,
>> >> > the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global
>> >> > warming
>> >> > has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23
>> >> > percent.
>>
>> >> Maybe they will believe it when the cause of global warming is proven
>> >> to
>> >> be
>> >> caused by man and not just part of the planets natural cycle.
>>
>> > Probably not. You can't convince someone of anything if their
>> > paycheque depends on it not being true. BTW: what is _your_ threshold
>> > for proof? Is it directly proportional to the personal inconvenience
>> > of what is being proven?
>>
>> My threshold of proof it the ability of the theory to explain the heating
>> and cooling of the earth in the past. The end of the beginning and end
>> of
>> the last ice age, the warming during the 'Viking age', the cooling
>> afterwards, are just a couple.
>
> What's stopping you? Google is up in the corner of every modern
> browser.
>
> Your crap has been debunked already and google has the truth.
Strange I have found nothing about how human's and their actions caused or
ended the last ice age. Can you give the URL you found on that?
>
> .... it's about wealth-shifting: Exxon shifts YOUR Wealth to Exxon,
> Yes, we got it!
If you don't want Exxon to have your money then stop sending it to them.
YOU have that choice. Many people around the world live w/o any thing Exxon
makes. Some of them even live in the US. I'm sure the Amish send very,
very little of their money to Exxon, live like them.
But I'm willing to bet that you rather just have the government do something
and not really bother you that much.
no spam
If you will note even in my example there was oversite, at least two people
had to check my work BEFORE giving it a grade.
You will also note that there are many voices out there saying that the data
showing that humans are causing warming are being misinterpreted, counter
data have been ignored and in some cases the data used are hand picked.
But my point still stands its easy to get the results you want when you are
running the show.
Bawana
> So, your argument is that because you engaged in scientific fraud and
> got away with it that it follows that all climatologists are engaging
> in scientific fraud and getting away with it because there is no
> oversight? What do you think peer review is, anyway...
An ineffective three-tiered system of scientific self-correction is
suggested as the source of increased fraudulent practice. The peer
review system appears not well controlled. The peer review process may
be subject to bias toward recognized name institutions as well as
toward research that is in accord with the referee's views.
Money has a major influence on scientific behavior. As competition for
grants and pressures to produce increase, "doctoring" of data may also
increase. Colleagues are resistant to report perpetrators because the
entire organization may lose credibility or funding.
A disturbing phenomenon that has increasingly crippled mainstream
science: the establishment of a new scientific orthodoxy, i.e. a quasi-
religious belief by leading scientists in the absolute and
unquestionable validity of the basic theories of their field. These
theories are then elevated to "facts" of which any dissenter is
accused of being ignorant, which makes for a convenient, easy
dismissal of any anomalous evidence. Since any such evidence is thus
automatically ineligible for publication in the proper journals, this
lack of documentation is then in turn taken by researchers in the
field as proof that the evidence must be of low scientific value.
Lloyd
Actually there isn't, except what's being bought and paid for. Even
Exxon and Shell now admit AGW is occurring.
> But my point still stands its easy to get the results you want when you are
> running the show.
So thousands of scientists the world over are deliberately engaging in
fraud? Grow up.
Lloyd
> On Feb 12, 10:53 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > So, your argument is that because you engaged in scientific fraud and
> > got away with it that it follows that all climatologists are engaging
> > in scientific fraud and getting away with it because there is no
> > oversight? What do you think peer review is, anyway...
>
> An ineffective three-tiered system of scientific self-correction is
> suggested as the source of increased fraudulent practice. The peer
> review system appears not well controlled. The peer review process may
> be subject to bias toward recognized name institutions as well as
> toward research that is in accord with the referee's views.
>
> Money has a major influence on scientific behavior. As competition for
> grants and pressures to produce increase, "doctoring" of data may also
> increase. Colleagues are resistant to report perpetrators because the
> entire organization may lose credibility or funding.
>
> A disturbing phenomenon that has increasingly crippled mainstream
> science: the establishment of a new scientific orthodoxy, i.e. a quasi-
> religious belief by leading scientists in the absolute and
> unquestionable validity of the basic theories of their field. These
> theories are then elevated to "facts" of which any dissenter is
> accused of being ignorant,
Theories which have been repeatedly tested and not disproven, and so
have been accepted by science, need lots of evidence to refute. Not
your whining.
>which makes for a convenient, easy
> dismissal of any anomalous evidence. Since any such evidence is thus
> automatically ineligible for publication in the proper journals,
Ah, the quack's quack. Science is all a big conspiracy, and if only I
could get my snake oil, cold fusion, polywater, 200-mpg carburetor,
etc., published...
Bawana
Your IPCC temperature takers are bought and paid for, Tturd Packer. An
Inconvenient Truth.
> Even
> Exxon and Shell now admit AGW is occurring.
Big money to be made in carbon trading scams, lardass.
Anthony Matonak
...
> Theories which have been repeatedly tested and not disproven, and so
> have been accepted by science, need lots of evidence to refute. Not
> your whining.
Well, that's the point, isn't it? These theories about the human
source of global warming haven't been proved or generally accepted
by science. Therefore, they don't need lots of evidence to refute.
Is the climate warming? Sure, I don't see glaciers outside my
window and I've been told they were there in the past. Obviously
it's warmer. Are humans the cause? That's still in debate and
it's only been very recently that anyone even suggested it.
Anthony
Bawana
> Theories which have been repeatedly tested and not disproven, and so
> have been accepted by science, need lots of evidence to refute. Not
> your whining.
Lardass, that would fall under:
A disturbing phenomenon that has increasingly crippled mainstream
science: the establishment of a new scientific orthodoxy, i.e. a quasi-
religious belief by leading scientists in the absolute and
unquestionable validity of the basic theories of their field.
These theories are then elevated to "facts" of which any dissenter is
accused of being ignorant, which makes for a convenient, easy
dismissal of any anomalous evidence.
Since any such evidence is thus automatically ineligible for
publication in the proper journals, this lack of documentation is then
in turn taken by researchers in the field as proof that the evidence
must be of low scientific value.
> Ah, the quack's quack. Science is all a big conspiracy,
Nobody said that, psycho-lardass.
Bawana
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
> > Lloyd wrote:
> > ...
> >> Theories which have been repeatedly tested and not disproven, and so
> >> have been accepted by science, need lots of evidence to refute. Not
> >> your whining.
>
> > Well, that's the point, isn't it? These theories about the human
> > source of global warming haven't been proved or generally accepted
> > by science.
>
Certainly not the Co2 fueled agw doomsday theory, kunT.
> and this one is for
> all practical purposes unanimously accepted by science.
That's what you Co2 cult tards keep saying...
Too bad only you Co2 cult tards believe that crap, eh tard?
You have the faith of an evolutionist, kunT.
Tell us about all the grand experiments performed in the 'global
climate science' sphere which have been repeatedly tested and not
disproven.
Tell us about all the successful experiments man-ipulating the global
climate which have been repeatedly tested and not disproven.
> Certainly you
> don't have anything credible in the way of AGW falsification.
Tell us about the successful experiments man-ipulating the global
climate, kunT.
You know...
all the grand experiments performed in the 'global climate science'
sphere which have been repeatedly tested and not disproven.
This is where you lie, cut and run, or do the ad hominem thing.
(and kunT, don't even go to 'climate models')
Bawana
> Theories which have been repeatedly tested and not disproven, and so
> have been accepted by science, need lots of evidence to refute.
There are NO 'Co2 fueled agw theories' that have have been repeatedly
tested and not disproven.
None.
There have been NO successful experiments man-ipulating the global
climate, Lardass.
None.
You know...
No grand experiments performed in the 'global climate science
sphere' which have been repeatedly tested and not disproven.
None, Tturd Packer.
This is where you lie, cut and run, or do the ad hominem thing.
(and lardass, don't even go to 'climate models')
neutr...@gmail.com
Believe it or not, but people often pay less detailed attention to a
grade school science project than to an article in a peer reviewed
article in a professional journal. You got away with it because you
were held to a low standard.
> You will also note that there are many voices out there saying that the data
> showing that humans are causing warming are being misinterpreted, counter
> data have been ignored and in some cases the data used are hand picked.
There are "many voices" that dispute evolution as well. Their numbers
don't add up either.
But for hand picked data...is that like when all the "it's not
happening" shills will measure a "cooling trend" from 1998? If you
measure from either year around it, you get warming.
Like Bob Carters article : " There IS a problem with global warming...
it stopped in 1998"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
But if you look at the actual data, you will notice that 1998 was a
seriously anomaly from the trends making it the absolute WRONG place
to make measurements from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
> But my point still stands its easy to get the results you want when you are
> running the show.
Thats why there's peer review, so that NOBODY is running the show. Or
are you accusing nearly the entire scientific community of engaging in
an organized conspiracy?
neutr...@gmail.com
Glad to see you're not placing your goalposts back at event one....or
are you wanting precise to-the-millidegree-for-every-point-no-error-
bar accuracy?
Found these in less than a minute...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/04/010424072410.htm
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html
Have you ever looked to answer the question on your own?
neutr...@gmail.com
Kettle: I am concerned about changes to your current hue. --Pot
adm
"Bawana" <mrbaw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171395537.3...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 10:53 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> So, your argument is that because you engaged in scientific fraud and
>> got away with it that it follows that all climatologists are engaging
>> in scientific fraud and getting away with it because there is no
>> oversight? What do you think peer review is, anyway...
>
> An ineffective three-tiered system of scientific self-correction is
> suggested as the source of increased fraudulent practice. The peer
> review system appears not well controlled. The peer review process may
> be subject to bias toward recognized name institutions as well as
> toward research that is in accord with the referee's views.
>
> Money has a major influence on scientific behavior. As competition for
> grants and pressures to produce increase, "doctoring" of data may also
> increase. Colleagues are resistant to report perpetrators because the
> entire organization may lose credibility or funding.
>
> A disturbing phenomenon that has increasingly crippled mainstream
> science: the establishment of a new scientific orthodoxy, i.e. a quasi-
> religious belief by leading scientists in the absolute and
> unquestionable validity of the basic theories of their field.
You are confusing theory and faith:
theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or
phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely
accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
faith
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea,
or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
By definition, they are different things.
>These
> theories are then elevated to "facts" of which any dissenter is
> accused of being ignorant, which makes for a convenient, easy
> dismissal of any anomalous evidence. Since any such evidence is thus
> automatically ineligible for publication in the proper journals, this
> lack of documentation is then in turn taken by researchers in the
> field as proof that the evidence must be of low scientific value.
Completely wrong. The whole point of a theory is that it is not a fact.
Anyone with sufficient evidence can prove a theory to be incorrect. This
happens all the time.
Do not confuse science and faith. By their very nature they are
diametrically opposed.
adm
> You have the faith of an evolutionist, kunT.
You appear to have the scientific rigour of a creationist.
Joe Fischer
>So thousands of scientists the world over are deliberately engaging in
>fraud? Grow up.
No, but they are many who simply repeat anything
they read or hear.
The whole concept is based on 1880s technology,
not adequately updated, and the idea of an average
temperature of the surface air being meaningful is
almost laughable.
At this moment there is a 20 degree F temperature
difference in 50 miles along the moving cold front, so
temperature variation of 1 degree F in global data
is hardly scientific.
What is needed is some real experiments
to determine and verify the ability of GH gases to
absorb and emit photonic radiation.
And then develop a mathematical model
of the concept in the real environment, not some
fantasy imagination of what one molecule does
and an imaginary effect of that on a 20 mile thick
atmosphere.
Joe Fischer
Bawana
> Thats why there's peer review,
> so that NOBODY is running the show.
> Or are you accusing nearly the entire scientific
> community of engaging in an organized conspiracy?
Peer review, schmeer review.
If that's all you got, ya got dick!
Here's some stuff for you to ignore, brain in neutral:
Fraud cannot be detected during peer review.
Peer review, in scientific journals, assumes that the article reviewed
has been honestly written, and the process is not designed to detect
fraud. The reviewers usually do not have full access to the data from
which the paper has been written and some elements have to be taken on
trust. It is not usually practical for the reviewer to reproduce the
author's work, unless the paper deals with purely theoretical problems
which the reviewer can follow in a step-by-step manner.
An example is the case of Jan Hendrik Schön, in which a total of
fifteen papers were accepted for publication in the top ranked
journals Nature and Science following the usual peer review process.
All fifteen were found to be fraudulent and were subsequently
withdrawn. The fraud was eventually detected, not by peer review, but
after publication when other groups tried and failed to reproduce the
results of the paper.
"There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial,
no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no
methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate,
too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no
argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified,
and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in
print."
Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical
Association
Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability
to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.
The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream"
theories. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that
contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with
them. At the same time, elite scientists are more likely than less
established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-
prestige journals or publishers. As a result, it has been argued,
ideas that harmonize with the elite's are more likely to see print and
to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary
ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations
regarding scientific revolutions.
According to Dr Tom Jefferson, from the Cochrane Collaboration Methods
Group: "If peer review were a new medicine, it would never get a
licence." As he explains: "Peer-review is generally assumed to be an
important part of the scientific process and is used to assess and
improve the quality of submissions to journals as well as being an
important part of the process of deciding what research is funded.
"But we have found little empirical evidence to support the use of
peer-review as a mechanism to ensure the quality of research
reporting, and there's even more depressing evidence about its value
in deciding what should be funded."
no spam
>> > got away with it that it follows that all climatologists are engaging
>> > in scientific fraud and getting away with it because there is no
>> > oversight? What do you think peer review is, anyway...reading the
>> > paper down at the docks?
>>
>> If you will note even in my example there was oversite, at least two
>> people
>> had to check my work BEFORE giving it a grade.
>>
>> You will also note that there are many voices out there saying that the
>> data
>> showing that humans are causing warming are being misinterpreted, counter
>> data have been ignored and in some cases the data used are hand picked
>>
>
> Exxon and Shell now admit AGW is occurring.
As I have pointed out good companies do what needs to be done to make money.
If they can make the company look good with a few press releases. You will
note that they are also paying people to prove it isn't. Kinda like them
giving money to both political parties.
>
>> But my point still stands its easy to get the results you want when you
>> are
>> running the show.
>
> So thousands of scientists the world over are deliberately engaging in
> fraud? Grow up.
Have you noticed how many people are trying to silence anyone saying they
human caused global warming isn't happening? Ever wonder why that is? It
could be the fact that if it is proven to be a load of crap a lot of them
are going to have a lot of egg on their faces and have no jobs.
BTW, how do you explain the warning about the global cooling that was the
big worry in the 70's? Also how do you explain the end of the ice age? The
little ice age? The medieval warming period? The fact that the temps on
Mars seem to be going up? The fact that glaciers in some parts of the world
appear to be getting bigger? Are you sure the current earth temp is the
correct one? Many, many unanswered questions out there.
>
Joe Fischer
>Theories which have been repeatedly tested and not disproven, and so
>have been accepted by science, need lots of evidence to refute.
Gee, putting the collection of assumptions about
global warming in the same class as a scientific theory
is really hallucinating, surely emory doesn't teach that.
First, the concept of greenhouse gases needs
to be studied in detail, is the idea that long wave
photonics from molecules at all levels of the atmosphere
actually reach the surface valid with certainty?
I doubt if CO2 levels measured by satellites
are wrong, it is the contrived surface air temperature
data assumptions that are way off base.
Maybe you can explain how the Ohio valley
could have average temperatures 8 degrees below
normal for the entire ten years from 1960 to 1969,
and that is somehow meaningful in a world average,
was there some place else that had to be 8 degrees
above normal to maintain a global average?
I don't think so.
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
>You are a blatant liar. Theories don't get 'proved' and this one is for
>all practical purposes unanimously accepted by science. Certainly you
>don't have anything credible in the way of AGW falsification.
You have a biased agenda, theories don't get
disproved either without the whole scientific community
working for years --- trying to DISprove --- them, and
this has not happened with either the global warming
concept or the greenhouse gas ideas.
If the moon had an atmosphere, it would be
warm without greenhouse gases.
Joe Fischer
Bawana
> "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171402611.8...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You have the faith of an evolutionist, kunT.
>
> You appear to have the scientific rigour of a creationist.
Why, thank-you, tardboy.
And I must say, you possess the logic of a six year old retard.
Short list of creationist scientists:
* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist,
Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics &
Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance
imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval
Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal
Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology,
Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace &
Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
Is there evidence of discrimination against creation scientists?
* Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview
* Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?
* Do creationists publish in notable refereed journals?
* Bias in higher education
* Peer pressure and truth
* Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-
creationist Discrimination
* Science magazine refuses to hire creationist
* The not-so-Nobel decision
* The tyranny of 'tolerance'
Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?
Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.
Early
*
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Scientific method. However, see also
Culture Wars:
1. Part 1: Bacon vs Ham
2. Part 2: Ham vs Bacon
* Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also
The Galileo 'twist' and The Galileo affair: history or heroic
hagiography?
* Johann Kepler (1571-1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
* Athanasius Kircher (1601-1680) Inventor
* John Wilkins (1614-1672)
* Walter Charleton (1619-1707) President of the Royal College of
Physicians
* Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation
magazine (1623-1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
* Sir William Petty (1623 -1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
* Robert Boyle (1627-1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
* John Ray (1627-1705) Natural history
* Isaac Barrow (1630-1677) Professor of Mathematics
* Nicolas Steno (1631-1686) Stratigraphy
* Thomas Burnet (1635-1715) Geology
* Increase Mather (1639-1723) Astronomy
* Nehemiah Grew (1641-1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
The Age of Newton
* Isaac Newton (1642-1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation
law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the
Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have
accused him of Arianism, but it's likely he held to a heterodox form
of the Trinity-See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian?
Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57-80, 1997)
* Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646-1716) Mathematician
* John Flamsteed (1646-1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder;
Astronomy
* William Derham (1657-1735) Ecology
* Cotton Mather (1662-1727) Physician
* John Harris (1666-1719) Mathematician
* John Woodward (1665-1728) Paleontology
* William Whiston (1667-1752) Physics, Geology
* John Hutchinson (1674-1737) Paleontology
* Johathan Edwards (1703-1758) Physics, Meteorology
* Carolus Linneaus (1707-1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification
system
* Jean Deluc (1727-1817) Geology
* Richard Kirwan (1733-1812) Mineralogy
* William Herschel (1738-1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus
(probably believed in an old-earth)
* James Parkinson (1755-1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
* John Dalton (1766-1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
* John Kidd, M.D. (1775-1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth
compromiser*)
Just Before Darwin
* The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr. Terry Mortenson
* Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) Educator
* William Kirby (1759-1850) Entomologist
* Jedidiah Morse (1761-1826) Geographer
* Benjamin Barton (1766-1815) Botanist; Zoologist
* John Dalton (1766-1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory;
Chemistry
* Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology
(old-earth compromiser*)
* Samuel Miller (1770-1840) Clergy
* Charles Bell (1774-1842) Anatomist
* John Kidd (1775-1851) Chemistry
* Humphrey Davy (1778-1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
* Benjamin Silliman (1779-1864) Mineralogist (old-earth
compromiser*)
* Peter Mark Roget (1779-1869) Physician; Physiologist
* Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
* David Brewster (1781-1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope
(probably believed in an old-earth)
* William Buckland (1784-1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
* William Prout (1785-1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in
an old-earth)
* Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Michael Faraday (1791-1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field
theory, Generator
* Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872) Telegraph
* John Herschel (1792-1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
* Edward Hitchcock (1793-1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* William Whewell (1794-1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
* Joseph Henry (1797-1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
Just After Darwin
* Richard Owen (1804-1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth
compromiser*)
* Matthew Maury (1806-1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably
believed in an old-earth*)
* Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth
compromiser, polygenist*)
* Henry Rogers (1808-1866) Geology
* James Glaisher (1809-1903) Meteorology
* Philip H. Gosse (1810-1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
* Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810-1895) Archeologist
* James Simpson (1811-1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
* James Dana (1813-1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817-1901) Agricultural Chemist
* James Joule (1818-1889) Thermodynamics
* Thomas Anderson (1819-1874) Chemist
* Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819-1900) Astronomy
* George Stokes (1819-1903) Fluid Mechanics
* John William Dawson (1820-1899) Geology (probably believed in an
old-earth*)
* Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902) Pathology
* Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) (WOH) Genetics
* Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry;
Sterilization; Immunization
* Henri Fabre (1823-1915) Entomology of living insects
* William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) Energetics; Absolute
temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the
Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
* William Huggins (1824-1910) Astral spectrometry
* Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
* Joseph Lister (1827-1912) Antiseptic surgery
* Balfour Stewart (1828-1887) Ionospheric electricity
* James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics;
Statistical thermodynamics
* P.G. Tait (1831-1901) Vector analysis
* John Bell Pettigrew (1834-1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
* John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919) Similitude; Model
Analysis; Inert Gases
* Sir William Abney (1843-1920) Astronomy
* Alexander MacAlister (1844-1919) Anatomy
* A.H. Sayce (1845-1933) Archeologist
* John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945) Electronics; Electron tube;
Thermionic valve
The Modern Period
* Dr. Clifford Burdick, Geologist
* George Washington Carver (1864-1943) Inventor
* L. Merson Davies (1890-1960) Geology; Paleontology
* Douglas Dewar (1875-1957) Ornithologist
* Howard A. Kelly (1858-1943) Gynecology
* Paul Lemoine (1878-1940) Geology
* Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology
* Dr. John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
* Edward H. Maunder (1851-1928) Astronomy
* William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939) Archeologist
* William Ramsay (1852-1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element
transmutation
* Charles Stine (1882-1954) Organic Chemist
* Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885-1955) Surgeon
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892-1979) Surgeon
* Dr. Larry Butler, Biochemist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915-1995) Three science doctorates; a
creation science pioneer
* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918-2006), founder of the Institute for
Creation Research.
Bawana
> "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171395537.3...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 10:53 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> So, your argument is that because you engaged in scientific fraud and
> >> got away with it that it follows that all climatologists are engaging
> >> in scientific fraud and getting away with it because there is no
> >> oversight? What do you think peer review is, anyway...
>
> > An ineffective three-tiered system of scientific self-correction is
> > suggested as the source of increased fraudulent practice. The peer
> > review system appears not well controlled. The peer review process may
> > be subject to bias toward recognized name institutions as well as
> > toward research that is in accord with the referee's views.
>
> > Money has a major influence on scientific behavior. As competition for
> > grants and pressures to produce increase, "doctoring" of data may also
> > increase. Colleagues are resistant to report perpetrators because the
> > entire organization may lose credibility or funding.
>
> > A disturbing phenomenon that has increasingly crippled mainstream
> > science: the establishment of a new scientific orthodoxy, i.e. a quasi-
> > religious belief by leading scientists in the absolute and
> > unquestionable validity of the basic theories of their field.
>
> You are confusing theory and faith:
I'm cyrystal clear, tardboy.
I'm just not a member of your cult.
A disturbing phenomenon that has increasingly crippled mainstream
science: the establishment of a new scientific orthodoxy, i.e. a
quasi- religious belief by leading scientists in the absolute and
unquestionable validity of the basic theories of their field.
> <non sequiturs snipped>
> >These theories are then elevated to "facts" of which any
> > dissenter is> accused of being ignorant,
> > which makes for a convenient, easy
> > dismissal of any anomalous evidence.
> > Since any such evidence is thus
> > automatically ineligible for publication in the proper journals, this
> > lack of documentation is then in turn taken by researchers in the
> > field as proof that the evidence must be of low scientific value.
> < snippy pooh >
> Do not confuse science and faith.
Don't you confuse science with faith.
> By their very nature they are
> diametrically opposed.
Yawn.
Yet they coexist in your nonsensical answer.
neutr...@gmail.com
Bawana wrote:
> On Feb 13, 5:27 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Thats why there's peer review,
> > so that NOBODY is running the show.
> > Or are you accusing nearly the entire scientific
> > community of engaging in an organized conspiracy?
>
> Peer review, schmeer review.
> If that's all you got, ya got dick!
I had more, but you removed it.
> Here's some stuff for you to ignore, brain in neutral:
Question...have you EVER posted without including an ad-hom attack?
> Fraud cannot be detected during peer review.
You might want to look at the next section of the wikipedia article
you copied..the one about plagiarism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
I note that you only posted only the section on fraud, while
*ignoring* the rest. I'm not going to pretend that it's a perfect
process, but work is being done to try and improve it...which I guess
you *ignored* as well.
In the end, I'll assume that you are accusing nearly the entire
scientific community of outright conspiracy.
PS: I said nothing about fraud in peer review...fraud happens. But
science is more or less self correcting, in the end, and you can only
get away with fraud for so long. Frankly, I wish global warming was a
fraud...but if wishes were horses, we'd be neck deep in horse shit.
Joe Fischer
>Glad to see you're not placing your goalposts back at event one....or
>are you wanting precise to-the-millidegree-for-every-point-no-error-
>bar accuracy?
>Found these in less than a minute...
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/04/010424072410.htm
>http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html
However neutral you are, the first says man
caused a 2 degree cooling beginning about 1,000
years ago, so that means even with recent warming
it is still one degree cooler than the first 1,000 years
of the calendar. :-)
>Have you ever looked to answer the question on your own?
There is a huge number of conclusions and
very little available data or discussion of the concepts.
I tried to look at one list of local temperatures,
but kept finding isolated cases of observation locations
that were only there for part of the time, and that weights
the data toward the earlier times.
The more a person thinks about the concept
that the averaging of a number of locations should
produce a meaningful number, the more it seems
obvious the idea should be questioned.
Joe Fischer
no spam
I would hope so but I really haven't seen it. As I have pointed out none of
the human caused global warming (HCGW) people care to explain the end of the
ice age.
>
>> You will also note that there are many voices out there saying that the
>> data
>> showing that humans are causing warming are being misinterpreted, counter
>> data have been ignored and in some cases the data used are hand picked.
>
> There are "many voices" that dispute evolution as well. Their numbers
> don't add up either.
The same thing there. There are holes in the part of that theory about
everything coming from one ancestor. Yet if you even mention that there are
flaws in the theory no one tries to refute the flaws they only call you
names. The same thing for the HCGW people, they can't/won't answer the
questions.
> But for hand picked data...is that like when all the "it's not
> happening" shills will measure a "cooling trend" from 1998? If you
> measure from either year around it, you get warming.
Personally I'm not sure of a global warming trend but I'm leaning that way.
But I am in NO way convinced that humans have ANYTHING to do with it. Again
I point out the end of the ice age which can not be accounted for by the
HCGW crowd.
>> But my point still stands its easy to get the results you want when you
>> are
>> running the show.
>
> Thats why there's peer review, so that NOBODY is running the show. Or
> are you accusing nearly the entire scientific community of engaging in
> an organized conspiracy?
I just read a story from a scientist who had his paper refused out of hand
because it pointed out the holes in the HCGW theory. Which stories are
going to get the media coverage. The ones that everything is ok or the 'we
are all going to die' stories? Ever notice that you very rarely read a
story in a newspaper telling you how well anything is going? Even when the
stock market hits a record high there is usually a story somewhere about how
the market is poised for a major 'correction'. Good news doesn't sell. And
science that shows things are going ok doesn't get the funding.
How many people would be out of jobs if tomorrow it was proven that oil
actually was still being formed and global warming was going to top out next
week? All those scientist working on H2 projects and the like might have to
get, gasp, jobs.
no spam
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. The theory has to be able to explain the
how warming and cooling of the earth, then AND now are linked to human
activity. Neither of these, nor any other I have found, tell me how the
earth waming and ending the ice is linked to human activity which is the
theory in vogue today. If the earth warmed that much in the past all on its
own then its going to take a lot of evidence to prove it isn't doing it all
on its own now.
>
Bawana
> Bawana wrote:
> > Short list of creationist scientists:
>
> > * Isaac Newton (1642-1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation
> > law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the
> > Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator.
>
No shit, kapt kunT.
Joe Fischer
>I know, it's so weird, I can understand why our elected representatives
>and senators and the president and stuff are having so many problems.
What problems?
>I mean with all those waves and tides and stuff, yet global average sea
>level continues to rise.
Did you expect CO2 emissions to make it fall,
after all, it has risen 30 feet in the last 2000 years.
>It's almost as if atoms are getting into the
>ocean or getting more energetic and stuff.
Is that what is making it so cold here, please
everybody, stop making it cold.
>And where do these carbon
>dioxide molecules come from anyways,
Most of them come from natural processes in
decay of new growth vegetation.
>it's almost as if atoms can't be
>created or destroyed by low energy electronic processes and stuff.
Why should atoms need to be destroyed for
any process to work or not work, is that the best debate
you can come up with?
>Really, reality is just too weird. Better to base policy on the bible.
Bias showing really bad when the religion of
nothingness is interjected.
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> You have a biased agenda, theories don't get
>> disproved either without the whole scientific community
>> working for years --- trying to DISprove --- them, and
>> this has not happened with either the global warming
>> concept or the greenhouse gas ideas.
>
>Einstein falsified classical mechanics in a single paper.
No, he didn't, but he improved knowledge of
heat physics.
>He didn't disprove it, it still works very well.
To some degree of accuracy.
>> If the moon had an atmosphere, it would be
>> warm without greenhouse gases.
>
>Why don't you quantify the radiative properties of a planet with only a
>nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere for us, as opposed to say, a moon with
>only a carbon dioxide atmosphere.
I am looking for a good paper on the process
of greenhouse gases, and haven't found one.
Plus I have found nothing on the theory about
why an average global temperature has any meaning
at all.
But that may be because I don't know how to
use the google search engine to weed out the millions
of newsgroup and blog articles.
Without a meaningful theory that requires the
average global temperature to be stable, there can
be no global warming theory.
And if temperatures can vary by several degrees
on either side of a moving front, then it surely takes more
than that regular deviation to be meaningful, yet the only
number mentioned is 0.6 degrees C, or 1.0 degrees F.
Are temperatures on either side of freezing
weighted with the latent heat of fusion?
The same with the latent heat of vaporization
of various liquids. Or ordinary water vapor phase
changes?
Most of the dialogue pro-GW is at such a
simplistic level, and that makes any serious discussion
swamped by meaningless drivel.
Joe Fischer
Bawana
> Bawana wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 5:27 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Thats why there's peer review,
> > > so that NOBODY is running the show.
> > > Or are you accusing nearly the entire scientific
> > > community of engaging in an organized conspiracy?
>
> > Peer review, schmeer review.
> > If that's all you got, ya got dick!
>
> I had more, but you removed it.
> > Here's some stuff for you to ignore, brain in neutral:
>
> Question...have you EVER posted without including an ad-hom attack?
Many times, tardboy.
You're not going to cry, are you?
> > Fraud cannot be detected during peer review.
>
> You might want to look at the next section of the wikipedia article
> you copied..the one about plagiarism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
I did. It has no bearing on the statement:
Fraud cannot be detected during peer review.
Focus, tard.
> I note that you only posted only the section on fraud, while
> *ignoring* the rest. I'm not going to pretend that it's a perfect
> process,
All of you Co2 doomsday agw cult tards claim peer review as gospel. It
part of your religion.
> but work is being done to try and improve it...which I guess
> you *ignored* as well.
Blah, blah, blah...
Yeah, peer review needs to be peer reviewed.
> In the end, I'll assume that you are accusing nearly the entire
> scientific community of outright conspiracy.
Your assumption is a fraud.
Most of the 'scientific community' is not involed in the Co2 fueled
agw doomsday fraud, tardboy.
Most of the 'scientific community' have more productive things to do
other than taking temperatures, creating graphs, and running around
like chicken littles.
Your lumping 'climate scientists' with "the entire scientific
community" is a fraud.
You left tards keep spewing that nonsense ad nauseum.
You need to use fraud to advance your Co2 doomsday dementia.
> PS: I said nothing about fraud in peer review...fraud happens.
It's a way of life for the small circle of scientists researching Co2
feuled agw.
When the booger eating temperature takers can man-ipulate the global
climate and do repeatable global climate experiments, then
they should join the ranks of real scientists.
Until then, they should languish on the doomsday snake-oil-salesmen
lunatic fringe.
Joe Fischer
>Joe Fischer wrote:
>>>> You have a biased agenda, theories don't get
>>>> disproved either without the whole scientific community
>>>> working for years --- trying to DISprove --- them, and
>>>> this has not happened with either the global warming
>>>> concept or the greenhouse gas ideas.
>
>>> Einstein falsified classical mechanics in a single paper.
>>
>> No, he didn't, but he improved knowledge of
>> heat physics.
>
>Crackpot alert.
You're the crackpot, you are not a group, maybe
not even a lifeform.
Try reading a few books on heat physics, and
try to sort out what parts of the internet is written by
quacks, nuts, and would-be thieves.
Joe Fischer
rpa...@eas.slu.edu
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:15:10 -0500, "digitalmaster"
>
> <digitalmas...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
>
> >>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/39/14288
>
> >which shows that either
> >1)someone got a model right
> >2)someone made a model to fit the data
> >3)the final results were "adjusted" for land usage effect essentially giving
> >a predetermined answer.
>
> Or that it was a total coincidence,, like a magician
> guessing age.
>
> Man may very well be affecting the data measurements,
> like the immediate area in big cities and around airports are
> definitely warmer, and that is where many if not most surface
> data collection points are.
>
> But it is a big world, even the steam and wet condensor
> vapor from a gigawatt power plant looks huge from close up,
> it is barely visible from 100 miles.
>
> The idea of greenhouse gases dates back to the
> 1800s, with the myth that without them the Earth would
> cool to -200 Celsius. Most models consider the
> temperature of the surface to be constant regardless
> of the amount of heat of geothermal origin.
>
This is very wrong! All current generation models include both land
surface and ocean-atmosphere coupling. The land surface models are
complex and factor in the soil temperature at several depths and the
type of vegetation. The type of vegetation is particularly crucial in
the midwest US where fields can either be corn, wheat or soybeans.
Corn is important as a corn field increases the amount of water vapor
in the air during the day. Changing the crop type and/or soil types
and temperatures changes model the results. Pan et. al (2004)
> Using conditions on Venus as a scare tactic
> is foolish, everybody knows that Venus is much
> closer to the sun.
>
> Frankly, an independent study starting from
> scratch is needed to help validate any existing model.
> With all studies starting at the same place with
> the same assumptions, it is a waste of resources
> because they all get the same answer.
> m
> Joe Fischer
If you are interested in doing the "independent study" why don't you
download the source code for the LLNL model or NCAR's CCM3. Verify for
your self that there is nothing funny in the code and then run the
model yourself. The problem is you will get the same results as
everybody else and you don't want those kinds of answer.
Hydrogen TRUTH
> Maybe I didn't make myself clear. The theory has to be able to explain the
> how warming and cooling of the earth, then AND now are linked to human
> activity. Neither of these, nor any other I have found, tell me how the
> earth waming and ending the ice is linked to human activity which is the
> theory in vogue today. If the earth warmed that much in the past all on its
> own then its going to take a lot of evidence to prove it isn't doing it all
> on its own now.
The evidence exists. What's it going to take to make you get a science
education so that you can understand it and let the science convince
you like it has most of the scientists who have looked at it?
neutr...@gmail.com
Bawana wrote:
> On Feb 13, 6:18 pm, "adm" <a...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1171402611.8...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > You have the faith of an evolutionist, kunT.
> >
> > You appear to have the scientific rigour of a creationist.
>
> Why, thank-you, tardboy.
> And I must say, you possess the logic of a six year old retard.
>
> Short list of creationist scientists:
Plagiarized from:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2084
Do you personally agree with their statement that
"The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is
divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are
factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme
authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in
everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual,
religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such
fields as history and science."
and
"The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six
[6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation."
(from their "about us" page"
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/43/
Here's a link to "Project Steve"
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
A list of (currently) 787 people who:
1) Have a Ph.D related to biology, geology, or paleontology.
2) Named Steve (or some Steve derivative)
3) Signed the following statement
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the
biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in
favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry.
Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes
of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution
occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its
occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically
irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited
to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula
of our nation's public schools.
Thats more people _NAMED_STEVE_ who are alive today than on "your"
list, which includes people from times you could be _tortured_ for not
being of the "proper" faith.
Joe Fischer
>On Feb 10, 10:59 am, Joe Fischer <j...@westpointracing.com> wrote:
>> The idea of greenhouse gases dates back to the
>> 1800s, with the myth that without them the Earth would
>> cool to -200 Celsius. Most models consider the
>> temperature of the surface to be constant regardless
>> of the amount of heat of geothermal origin.
>
>This is very wrong! All current generation models include both land
>surface and ocean-atmosphere coupling.
A model is useless without data measurement,
and only more recent data includes complex data,
older models even simplified by assuming heat from
within the Earth is not exchanged or changing.
>The land surface models are
>complex and factor in the soil temperature at several depths and the
>type of vegetation. The type of vegetation is particularly crucial in
>the midwest US where fields can either be corn, wheat or soybeans.
>Corn is important as a corn field increases the amount of water vapor
>in the air during the day. Changing the crop type and/or soil types
>and temperatures changes model the results. Pan et. al (2004)
So now somebody is keeping a record of soil temperature
at varying depths in enough places to matter?
>> Using conditions on Venus as a scare tactic
>> is foolish, everybody knows that Venus is much
>> closer to the sun.
>>
>> Frankly, an independent study starting from
>> scratch is needed to help validate any existing model.
>> With all studies starting at the same place with
>> the same assumptions, it is a waste of resources
>> because they all get the same answer.
>> Joe Fischer
>
>If you are interested in doing the "independent study" why don't you
>download the source code for the LLNL model or NCAR's CCM3. Verify for
>your self that there is nothing funny in the code and then run the
>model yourself.
And that would be an "independent study"? :-)
>The problem is you will get the same results as
>everybody else and you don't want those kinds of answer.
Why do it if it has been done before?
There are without a doubt some very dedicated
scientists involved in studies, but they get drowned out
by those trying to promote the idea, some may be very
seriously concerned with the implications.
I would like to know facts, not models, and it
takes raw data to determine facts, some models even
weight the data for various reasons.
The thing that bothers me the most is the idea
that the sum of even the complex data should be a static
thing if man is not involved.
In much of the winter we can get a lot of Arctic
fronts go through here, or a lot of continental fronts
that come across from the Pacific coast, or a regular
mix of both, and there need be no relationship of one
year with the next.
A lot of natural processes are limited by the
physical law, an object cools faster when it is warmer,
and ozone is produced by UV sunlight.
CO2 is being produced, local temperatures
may be changing, but global averages have no meaning
at all, the Sahara is not going to be ice covered very
soon, and Antarctica is not going to have sand dunes,
but things can change, but probably not much more
than the temperatures in the Ohio valley during the
1960's (about 8 degrees F), and I am not aware of
the reason for that change.
It seems like sea-level rise is the big concern,
and it will likely be a problem that will have to be dealt
with, a lot of other processes can cause sea level to
rise and land to sink, there has to be an explanation
for a thick deposit of salt 3000 feet below Lake Erie,
and the fact that the Petrified Forest in Arizona was
below sea level at one time, but is at 5000 feet or more
elevation now.
If people that don't have a clue would stop
treating it as a conversation piece, maybe it would
go away, there are much bigger concerns, like
trying to stay warm tonight in the areas where an
ice storm has downed power lines and the furnace
will not run without power.
It is very difficult to think about global warming
when the temperature is 20 below and there is 3 meters
of snow.
Joe Fischer
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
> It is very difficult to think about global warming
> when the temperature is 20 below and there is 3 meters
> of snow.
>
> Joe Fischer
Apparently it was just as hard to think when the temperatures were 115
degrees last summer. Is there any temperature where you can think?
.... it's about wealth-shifting: Exxon shifts YOUR Wealth to Exxon,
Yes, we got it!
http://ScienceCop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheSunBetrayed
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheCarbonWar
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Cartel+Solar+Patents
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
neutr...@gmail.com
> On Feb 13, 8:50 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Bawana wrote:
> > > On Feb 13, 5:27 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Thats why there's peer review,
> > > > so that NOBODY is running the show.
> > > > Or are you accusing nearly the entire scientific
> > > > community of engaging in an organized conspiracy?
> >
> > > Peer review, schmeer review.
> > > If that's all you got, ya got dick!
> >
> > I had more, but you removed it.
>
> > > Here's some stuff for you to ignore, brain in neutral:
> >
> > Question...have you EVER posted without including an ad-hom attack?
>
> Many times, tardboy.
> You're not going to cry, are you?
Just curious as to the psychology. I suspect that you haven't, but
have managed to avoid any improvement in your technique. It takes an
amazing mind to be able to practice something and never get any better
at it.
> > > Fraud cannot be detected during peer review.
> >
> > You might want to look at the next section of the wikipedia article
> > you copied..the one about plagiarism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
>
> I did. It has no bearing on the statement:
> Fraud cannot be detected during peer review.
> Focus, tard.
Fraud cannot be detected by my coffee cup either. Fraud happens,
which is why any scientific decisions are not based on any single
paper. The level of collusion required to perpetuate a fraud of the
scale required is frankly staggering.
> > I note that you only posted only the section on fraud, while
> > *ignoring* the rest. I'm not going to pretend that it's a perfect
> > process,
>
> All of you Co2 doomsday agw cult tards claim peer review as gospel. It
> part of your religion.
No, you seem to be the one arguing from the religious position.
> > but work is being done to try and improve it...which I guess
> > you *ignored* as well.
>
> Blah, blah, blah...
> Yeah, peer review needs to be peer reviewed.
Logically, no process can be perfect. You have an objection to making
things better?
> > In the end, I'll assume that you are accusing nearly the entire
> > scientific community of outright conspiracy.
And now, you forget what a "paragraph" is. You're regressing. Much
further, and you'll be reduced to single words.
> Your assumption is a fraud.
>
> Most of the 'scientific community' is not involed in the Co2 fueled
> agw doomsday fraud, tardboy.
>
> Most of the 'scientific community' have more productive things to do
> other than taking temperatures, creating graphs, and running around
> like chicken littles.
>
> Your lumping 'climate scientists' with "the entire scientific
> community" is a fraud.
Well, there's..
IPCC: 90%+ that it's warming up, we are the primary cause, it's going
to be ugly, and there's no avoiding it.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Joint Statement of the Science Academies for all the G8 + Brazil,
China, India:
[We] Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and
increasing
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222
They also endorse the IPCC.
American Meteorology Society:
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
Federal Climate Change Science Program (commissioned by the Bush
administration):
clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to
changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone)
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
You can look the rest of these up for yourself:
American Geophysical Union, endorsed by the American Institute of
Physics
NAS Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
French Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (UK).
Geological Society of America
American Association of State Climatologists
Australian Medical Association
American Chemical Society
And in the interests of fairness, there ins one major scientific
organization that rejects the finding of human influence on the recent
climate:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
> You left tards keep spewing that nonsense ad nauseum.
"Leftist tard" Rupert Murdoch: "I have to admit that until recently I
was somewhat wary of the warming debate. But I believe it is now our
responsibility to take the lead on this issue."
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1785926.htm#transcript
"Leftist tard" Pat Robertson: "But I tell you stay in doors ladies and
gentleman. Stay cool. Get fans or whatever. And the poor, they need
emergency fans and ice to cool down - the number of people dead. I
have not been one who believed in the global warming. But I tell you,
they are making a convert out of me as these blistering summers. They
have broken heat records in a number of cities already this year and
broken all-time records and it is getting hotter and the ice caps are
melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We
really need to address the burning of fossil fuels. If we are
contributing to the destruction of the planet we need to do
[something] about it."
August 3, 2006, 700 Club
"Leftist tard" Ronald Bailey, author of Ecoscam, science editor for
Reason mag.
"Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming
ought to hang it up. All data sets-satellite, surface, and balloon-
have been pointing to rising global temperatures. In fact, they all
have had upward pointing arrows for nearly a decade, but now all of
the data sets are in closer agreement due to some adjustments being
published in three new articles in Science today."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html
> You need to use fraud to advance your Co2 doomsday dementia.
A cobalt-2 doomsday dementia?
> > PS: I said nothing about fraud in peer review...fraud happens.
>
> It's a way of life for the small circle of scientists researching Co2
> feuled agw.
>
> When the booger eating temperature takers
I think you've regressed to preschool...
> can man-ipulate the global
> climate and do repeatable global climate experiments, then
> they should join the ranks of real scientists.
By that logic, astrophysicists are not scientists until they can build
a star. Did you know that one of the major stages of science is
_observation_?
> Until then, they should languish on the doomsday snake-oil-salesmen
> lunatic fringe.
Buddy, you ARE the fringe. Get used to it.
adm
"Bawana" <mrbaw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171414245.2...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 13, 6:18 pm, "adm" <a...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171402611.8...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You have the faith of an evolutionist, kunT.
>
> You appear to have the scientific rigour of a creationist.
>>Why, thank-you, tardboy.
>>And I must say, you possess the logic of a six year old retard.
>>Short list of creationist scientists:
There's no such thing.
>>Is there evidence of discrimination against creation scientists?
No. How can you discriminate against something doesn't exist ?
>Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?
Totally irrelevant.
I suggest you go and buy Dawkins' "God Delusion" and read that for a
thorough grounding in the subject.
adm
> On Feb 13, 6:13 pm, "adm" <a...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1171395537.3...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 12, 10:53 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>
>> >> So, your argument is that because you engaged in scientific fraud and
>> >> got away with it that it follows that all climatologists are engaging
>> >> in scientific fraud and getting away with it because there is no
>> >> oversight? What do you think peer review is, anyway...
>>
>> > An ineffective three-tiered system of scientific self-correction is
>> > suggested as the source of increased fraudulent practice. The peer
>> > review system appears not well controlled. The peer review process may
>> > be subject to bias toward recognized name institutions as well as
>> > toward research that is in accord with the referee's views.
>>
>> > Money has a major influence on scientific behavior. As competition for
>> > grants and pressures to produce increase, "doctoring" of data may also
>> > increase. Colleagues are resistant to report perpetrators because the
>> > entire organization may lose credibility or funding.
>>
>> > A disturbing phenomenon that has increasingly crippled mainstream
>> > science: the establishment of a new scientific orthodoxy, i.e. a quasi-
>> > religious belief by leading scientists in the absolute and
>> > unquestionable validity of the basic theories of their field.
>>
>> You are confusing theory and faith:
>
> I'm cyrystal clear, tardboy.
> I'm just not a member of your cult.
Cult:
A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false,
with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the
guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
And yet you are the one proposing creationism here - which is by definition
a religious viewpoint, which is generally considered to be false extremist
and false.
>
> A disturbing phenomenon that has increasingly crippled mainstream
> science: the establishment of a new scientific orthodoxy, i.e. a
> quasi- religious belief by leading scientists in the absolute and
> unquestionable validity of the basic theories of their field.
>
>> <non sequiturs snipped>
>
>> >These theories are then elevated to "facts" of which any
>> > dissenter is> accused of being ignorant,
>> > which makes for a convenient, easy
>> > dismissal of any anomalous evidence.
>> > Since any such evidence is thus
>> > automatically ineligible for publication in the proper journals, this
>> > lack of documentation is then in turn taken by researchers in the
>> > field as proof that the evidence must be of low scientific value.
>
>> < snippy pooh >
>
>> Do not confuse science and faith.
>
> Don't you confuse science with faith.
>
>> By their very nature they are
>> diametrically opposed.
>
> Yawn.
> Yet they coexist in your nonsensical answer.
Which you snipped as you didn't like it.
I will paraphrase again for you.
Science deals with theories, which are based on available evidence, are
never absolute and are open to be proven incorrect or replaced with superior
theories at any time.
Faith deals with beliving in something that cannot be proven and is taken as
absolute without any evidence.
Go read Dawkins ffs.
Bawana
> Bawana wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 6:18 pm, "adm" <a...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1171402611.8...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > You have the faith of an evolutionist, kunT.
>
> > > You appear to have the scientific rigour of a creationist.
>
> > Why, thank-you, tardboy.
> > And I must say, you possess the logic of a six year old retard.
> Do you personally agree with their statement that
> "The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God.
No, and...
I don't believe that life materialized from a prebiotic soup either.
Both are stories attempting to explain something unknowable.
I have no fucking idea how life on Earth started.
Atheist scientists have no idea how life started on Earth either.
Are you man enough to admit that you have NO idea how life manifested
on earth or are you sticking with an atheist fairy tale?
Both creationists and atheist evolutionists engage in a religious
faith in relation to the origins of life.
The idea that atheist evolutionists make better scientists than
creationists is absurd for that reason.
That's my point, tardboy.
Feel free to inform me of all the atheist evolutionist chemistry tards
that have created life in a lab. It shouldn't take you too long.
<snip>
> Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the
> biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in
> favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry.
> Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes
> of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution
> occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its
> occurrence.
Hmmmmm.
They seem to have left out the part about the origin of life.
Small detail, eh tardboy?
Why is that?
<snip>
> Thats more people _NAMED_STEVE_ who are alive today
> than on "your" list, which includes people from times you
> could be _tortured_ for not being of the "proper" faith.
Lunatic.
Bawana
> Bawana wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 8:50 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Bawana wrote:
> > > > On Feb 13, 5:27 pm, neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Thats why there's peer review,
> > > > > so that NOBODY is running the show.
> > > > > Or are you accusing nearly the entire scientific
> > > > > community of engaging in an organized conspiracy?
>
> > > > Peer review, schmeer review.
> > > > If that's all you got, ya got dick!
>
> > > I had more, but you removed it.
>
> > > > Here's some stuff for you to ignore, brain in neutral:
> > Fraud cannot be detected during peer review.
> > Focus, tard.
>
> Fraud cannot be detected by my coffee cup either. Fraud happens,
> which is why any scientific decisions are not based on any single
> paper. The level of collusion required to perpetuate a fraud of the
> scale required is frankly staggering.
Repetition is the best way for you to learn.
Here's some stuff for you to ignore, brain in neutral:
Fraud cannot be detected during peer review.
Peer review, in scientific journals, assumes that the article reviewed
> > All of you Co2 doomsday agw cult tards claim peer review
> > as gospel. It's part of your religion.
>
> No, you seem to be the one arguing from the religious position.
Good on, tarboy. I'm convinced.
Bawana
> "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171414245.2...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 6:18 pm, "adm" <a...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1171402611.8...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > You have the faith of an evolutionist, kunT.
>
> > You appear to have the scientific rigour of a creationist.
> >>Why, thank-you, tardboy.
> >>And I must say, you possess the logic of a six year old retard.
> >>Short list of creationist scientists:
>
> There's no such thing.
Whatever, tard.
Bawana
> "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> You are confusing theory and faith:
>
> > I'm cyrystal clear, tardboy.
> > I'm just not a member of your cult.
> And yet you are the one proposing creationism here -
No I'm not, tardboy.
You're just too stupid to understand that.
adm
Insults aside, just exactly what is the point that you are trying to get
across ?
Joe Fischer
>These kinds of crackpot pseudo scientific machinations are generally
>referred to as hand waving. But go ahead, if it makes you feel good.
And Al Gore has an advanced degree in climatology?
Joe Fischer
no spam
>>all practical purposes unanimously accepted by science. Certainly you
>>don't have anything credible in the way of AGW falsification.
>
> You have a biased agenda, theories don't get
> disproved either without the whole scientific community
> working for years --- trying to DISprove --- them, and
> this has not happened with either the global warming
> concept or the greenhouse gas ideas.
>
> warm without greenhouse gases.
Such as water vapor?
no spam
So you have evidence that man cause the earth to warm and end the last ice
age? Please post it. We'll be waiting.
Bawana
> "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171457859.1...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 14, 6:04 am, "adm" <a...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> You are confusing theory and faith:
>
> >> > I'm cyrystal clear, tardboy.
> >> > I'm just not a member of your cult.
>
> >> And yet you are the one proposing creationism here -
>
> > No I'm not, tardboy.
>
> > You're just too stupid to understand that.
>
> Insults aside, just exactly what is the point that you are trying to get
> across ?
You're just too stupid to understand.
Evidence:
ME - Short list of creationist scientists:
YOU - There's no such thing.
Whatever, tard.
no spam
> We'll be waiting.
>
> All of you? Or just you?
More proof that global warming can't stand up to close inspection.
adm
That's your opinion - not evidence.
Seeing as creationism is based on the unproven BELIEF that a guiding
intelligence is required to explain the origin and complexity of nature,
whereas science is defined as systemised knowledge derived from
observation, study and experimentation carried out to determine the nature
and principles of what is being studied, how is it possible to have
creationist scientists ? It just doesn't work - holding creationist beliefs
de facto disqualifies you from being a scientist.
Try to answer the question in future, not dodge it.
What's more, your habitual insults and generally sloppy communication
technique tends to indicate that you don't have the mental faculty to be
party to even join the debate in the first place.
neutr...@gmail.com
Joe Fischer wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2007 neutr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Glad to see you're not placing your goalposts back at event one....or
> >are you wanting precise to-the-millidegree-for-every-point-no-error-
> >bar accuracy?
> >Found these in less than a minute...
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/04/010424072410.htm
> >http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html
>
> However neutral you are, the first says man
> caused a 2 degree cooling beginning about 1,000
> years ago, so that means even with recent warming
> it is still one degree cooler than the first 1,000 years
> of the calendar. :-)
That was 2 deg. F over LAND. Specifically, the first article says
"The estimated temperature change in the continental United States as
a result of change from forests to agriculture is up to a 2-degree
Fahrenheit cooling,"
The US is NOT the world. The global average effect, according to the
article, is about -1/2 deg F.
Still net warmth, and an example of how human activities can affect
the climate.
> >Have you ever looked to answer the question on your own?
>
> There is a huge number of conclusions and
> very little available data or discussion of the concepts.
I think you've got a huge blind spot in your research. Get ye to a
research library.
> I tried to look at one list of local temperatures,
> but kept finding isolated cases of observation locations
> that were only there for part of the time, and that weights
> the data toward the earlier times.
Only if you screw up the analysis, which is easy to do if you don't
understand the math.
> The more a person thinks about the concept
> that the averaging of a number of locations should
> produce a meaningful number, the more it seems
> obvious the idea should be questioned.
True, you have to be careful with averaging things. For example, the
average voltage in your wall socket is zero, but will be anywhere
between +170V and -170V at any specific time. Thats why the work is
done (and checked) by professionals.