Re: More bad news for alarmists

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/7/12 2:10 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
> As we have seen, the causation between increased atmospheric
> greenhouses gases, such as carbon dioxide, and the global average
> temperature has been well known and fully understood for over a
> century. This is, of course, a "done deal:" an observed fact, not
> in dispute among scientists.
>
> Concerning atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature, the
> figures for year 2011 are now in:
>
> CO2 ppm: 391.57
> Global Average Temperature: +58.136 f (14.52 c)
>
> This means the correlation is +0.001859 stronger for year 2011
> than in year 2010. That is, by year 2010 it was 0.90456 and by
> year 2011 it was 0.90642 --- which the hysterical alarmists cannot
> explain with anything other than "I don't know why it isn't, but
> it isn't CO2!" Yet the world's physicists have explained why, and
> have been doing so for over 170 years.
>
> The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it
> is now more than twice than that between smoking tobacco and lung
> cancer:
>
> 1983 0.47281
> 1984 0.47709
> 1985 0.45130
> 1986 0.47198
> 1987 0.54202
> 1988 0.60647
> 1989 0.62679
> 1990 0.67580
> 1991 0.71290
> 1992 0.69761
> 1993 0.68473
> 1994 0.69754
> 1995 0.72699
> 1996 0.74302
> 1997 0.76602
> 1998 0.78856
> 1999 0.79621
> 2000 0.80385
> 2001 0.82058
> 2002 0.83653
> 2003 0.85106
> 2004 0.86092
> 2005 0.87287
> 2006 0.88202
> 2007 0.89068
> 2008 0.89026
> 2009 0.89728
> 2010 0.90456
> 2011 0.90642
>

Now don't any of you climate science deniers spout off, like
Marvin does, saying that correlation is not causation, because
in this case, CO2 increase *is the cause* of this rapid global
warmup!

[Claudius Denk]

Can you be so kind as to explain to your audience how you calculate
"strength of correlation?" It looks like a bogus quantity to me.

[Dawlish]

Can you be kind enough to analyse and explain the depth of you
delusion, denky?

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 2/7/2012 3:20 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

> Now don't any of you climate science deniers spout off, like
> Marvin does, saying that correlation is not causation, because
> in this case, CO2 increase *is the cause* of this rapid global
> warmup!

HOLY SHIT! It's the old "proof by assertion" again! Damn! That gets us
every time. Come on, all you "deniers", pack up and leave. Wormley has
proved CO2 is the cause by simply saying so (once again). How can you
argue with that? I'm afraid the alarmists won't like us anymore if we
don't accept this "proof". What else can we do but finally give in.
Marvin, you there? Let's go.

[George Webb Jr.]

Correlation is only causation when more guns = less crime.

Unlike the Leftist warmists, we pray to God, not scientists.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
>> The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it
>

> Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.
>

True, but in the case of this global warming, causation is
well understood--CO2 produced by human activity.

BTW, jimp, your manipulation of the "followups to"--How's
that working for you?

[Peter Webb]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2L6dneggp-_6aKzS...@mchsi.com...

> On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it
>>
>> Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.
>>
>
> True, but in the case of this global warming, causation is
> well understood--CO2 produced by human activity.
>

Bullshit. The *only* experimental evidence that additional CO2 causes net
warming is this correlation, and as already agreed correlation does not
prove causation. Take away the correlation and there is no experimental
evidence at all. None.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it
>>
>> Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.
>>
>
> True, but in the case of this global warming,

So "global warming" is a special case?

> BTW, jimp, your manipulation of the "followups to"--How's
> that working for you?

Just fine, swormley1, for you see I use a real news client with a real
news server, which means that after I fix your idiotic Followup-To: headers
that don't adhere the the RFC's, neither complains about how screwed up
they are.

But why would I expect you or any of the other Google posting idiots who
have no clue what Followup-To: is for, or that USENET is ASCII, to have the
slightest clue what I am talking about?

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/7/12 10:57 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
> The *only* experimental evidence that additional CO2 causes net warming

> is this correlation.

Perhaps you would benefit from a bit of climate science basics, Peter.

> Global Warning Podcasts by Professor John Chiang
> http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Directory/Science/Environment/Global-Warming-Podcast/21917
>
> This lower division course introduces global warming as both a scientific and social issue. We will introduce the physical science that sets the stage for the problem, from the basic concepts of climate (carbon cycle, greenhouse effect, climate feedbacks) through to the climate model projections of future climate changes and their impacts. Social scientific perspectives will be integrated throughout, including the history of climate science, the geographical and political-economic implications of fossil fuels and industrial production, and the challenges posed to existing regulatory and governance systems by the current and prospective impacts of global warming. Several guest lecturers will give in-depth reviews of specific topical issues, potential examples being climate models, carbon sequestration, and impacts on public health. We aim to provide students with a solid understanding and information base with which to analyze and evaluate ongoing developments and (often heated) deba
tes surrounding global climate change.
>
> Podcast Website:
> http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978425
>

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 7, 5:26 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 2/7/2012 3:20 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > Now don't any of you climate science deniers spout off, like
> > Marvin does, saying that correlation is not causation, because
> > in this case, CO2 increase *is the cause* of this rapid global
> > warmup!
>
> HOLY SHIT! It's the old "proof by assertion" again! Damn! That gets us
> every time. Come on, all you "deniers", pack up and leave. Wormley has
> proved CO2 is the cause by simply saying so (once again).

No, science says so, and a mass of accumulated data says so. And no
other possible cause is correlated with temp.

When only one cause is correlated with the effect, logic tells us that
cause is almost certainly causing the effect.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 7, 11:57 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2L6dneggp-_6aKzS...@mchsi.com...
>
> > On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org>  wrote:

>
> >>> The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it
>
> >> Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.
>
> >   True, but in the case of this global warming, causation is
> >   well understood--CO2 produced by human activity.
>
> Bullshit. The *only* experimental evidence that additional CO2 causes net
> warming is this correlation, and as already agreed correlation does not
> prove causation. Take away the correlation and there is no experimental
> evidence at all. None.

Huh? That's all you've got for the Big Bang, evolution, etc. You
can't do controlled experiments on any of that.

[AGWFacts]

Obviously.

Causation, as I pointed out, has already been demonstrated--- many
decades ago.


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:09:11 -0600, Sam Wormley
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:10:35 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> >
> > > As we have seen, the causation between increased atmospheric
> > > greenhouses gases, such as carbon dioxide, and the global average
> > > temperature has been well known and fully understood for over a
> > > century. This is, of course, a "done deal:" an observed fact, not
> > > in dispute among scientists.
> > >
> > > Concerning atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature, the
> > > figures for year 2011 are now in:
> > >
> > > CO2 ppm: 391.57
> > > Global Average Temperature: +58.136 f (14.52 c)
> > >
> > > This means the correlation is +0.001859 stronger for year 2011
> > > than in year 2010. That is, by year 2010 it was 0.90456 and by
> > > year 2011 it was 0.90642 --- which the hysterical alarmists cannot
> > > explain with anything other than "I don't know why it isn't, but
> > > it isn't CO2!" Yet the world's physicists have explained why, and
> > > have been doing so for over 170 years.
> > >

> > > The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it

> > Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.

> True, but in the case of this global warming, causation is
> well understood--CO2 produced by human activity.

And it has been well-understood for over 170 years. In year 1926
causation was completely understood.

> BTW, jimp, your manipulation of the "followups to"--How's
> that working for you?

Does not seem to be working. Heee.

[AGWFacts]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:57:32 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2L6dneggp-_6aKzS...@mchsi.com...
> > On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > > On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:10:35 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As we have seen, the causation between increased atmospheric
> > > > greenhouses gases, such as carbon dioxide, and the global average
> > > > temperature has been well known and fully understood for over a
> > > > century. This is, of course, a "done deal:" an observed fact, not
> > > > in dispute among scientists.
> > > >
> > > > Concerning atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature, the
> > > > figures for year 2011 are now in:
> > > >
> > > > CO2 ppm: 391.57
> > > > Global Average Temperature: +58.136 f (14.52 c)
> > > >
> > > > This means the correlation is +0.001859 stronger for year 2011
> > > > than in year 2010. That is, by year 2010 it was 0.90456 and by
> > > > year 2011 it was 0.90642 --- which the hysterical alarmists cannot
> > > > explain with anything other than "I don't know why it isn't, but
> > > > it isn't CO2!" Yet the world's physicists have explained why, and
> > > > have been doing so for over 170 years.
> > > >

> > > > The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it

> >> Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.

> > True, but in the case of this global warming, causation is
> > well understood--CO2 produced by human activity.

> Bullshit. The *only* experimental evidence that additional CO2 causes net
> warming is this correlation

You mean "causation," idiot, not "correlation." Causation was
determined many decades ago---- before all of us now living were
born.

> and as already agreed correlation does not prove causation.

Nobody said it does.

> Take away the correlation and there is no experimental
> evidence at all. None.

There is over 170 years of experimental (i.e., observational and
computational) evidence. Stings, does it?

[k...@kymhorsell.com]

In sci.physics erschro...@gmail.com <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 7, 11:57?pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:2L6dneggp-_6aKzS...@mchsi.com...
>> > On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>> >> In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> ?wrote:

>> >>> The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it
>> >> Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.

>> > ? True, but in the case of this global warming, causation is
>> > ? well understood--CO2 produced by human activity.

>> Bullshit. The *only* experimental evidence that additional CO2 causes net
>> warming is this correlation, and as already agreed correlation does not
>> prove causation. Take away the correlation and there is no experimental
>> evidence at all. None.
> Huh? That's all you've got for the Big Bang, evolution, etc. You
> can't do controlled experiments on any of that.

Hard to believe, but kooks seem to think a lot of physics that involves
collecting observations and fitting theories to them is not science.
Poor old Kepler. Life wasted. LOL.

--
[Outliars:]
> The global temperature in 1998 was such as outlier,
No. The temperature in 1998 [Webb elsewhere acks 1998 is the max
of the prev 130 data points]
does not deviate markedly from other members of
the sample in which it occurs. In fact several years since then have
experienced virtually identical temperatures (eg 2005).
So by this definition, 1998 was not an outlier at all.
[Even Webb knows 1998 was a once-in-100 year event, and the LOTI just for
the warm-end years 87 to 98 goes 24 33 19 36 36 14 14 21 37 28 37 57 --
so E(y) = 29.7, sd(y) = 11.8, and (57-29.7)/11.8 = 2.3].
-- Peter Webb <r.peter...@gmail.com>, 01 Feb 2012 13:53

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Works just fine as I set the Followup-To: header to be in accordance
with the RFC's, about which you haven't a clue as to either their existance
or content.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/7/12 10:57 PM, Peter Webb wrote:

> Bullshit. The *only* experimental evidence that additional CO2 causes
> net warming is this correlation, and as already agreed correlation does
> not prove causation. Take away the correlation and there is no
> experimental evidence at all. None.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Well documented, Peter! You listen to too many naysayers instead
of looking at the climate science.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:48:43 -0800 (PST), "erschro...@gmail.com"
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 7, 5:26 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> On 2/7/2012 3:20 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> > Now don't any of you climate science deniers spout off, like
>> > Marvin does, saying that correlation is not causation, because
>> > in this case, CO2 increase *is the cause* of this rapid global
>> > warmup!
>>
>> HOLY SHIT! It's the old "proof by assertion" again! Damn! That gets us
>> every time. Come on, all you "deniers", pack up and leave. Wormley has
>> proved CO2 is the cause by simply saying so (once again).
>
>No, science says so, and a mass of accumulated data says so. And no
>other possible cause is correlated with temp.

You haven't heard?

See
http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temperature.html

>
>When only one cause is correlated with the effect, logic tells us that
>cause is almost certainly causing the effect.

But when there are two .... ?

>
>> How can you
>> argue with that? I'm afraid the alarmists won't like us anymore if we
>> don't accept this "proof". What else can we do but finally give in.
>> Marvin, you there? Let's go.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 8, 3:47 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:48:43 -0800 (PST), "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

>
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 7, 5:26 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/7/2012 3:20 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >> > Now don't any of you climate science deniers spout off, like
> >> > Marvin does, saying that correlation is not causation, because
> >> > in this case, CO2 increase *is the cause* of this rapid global
> >> > warmup!
>
> >> HOLY SHIT! It's the old "proof by assertion" again! Damn! That gets us
> >> every time. Come on, all you "deniers", pack up and leave. Wormley has
> >> proved CO2 is the cause by simply saying so (once again).
>
> >No, science says so, and a mass of accumulated data says so.  And no
> >other possible cause is correlated with temp.
>
> You haven't heard?
>

> Seehttp://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temper...

No, I haven't heard that a blog by a denialist trumps papers in
scientific journals. Did the voice in your head tell you that?

>
>
>
> >When only one cause is correlated with the effect, logic tells us that
> >cause is almost certainly causing the effect.
>
> But when there are two .... ?

There aren't. Hint: a blog is not a scientific source.

[Peter Webb]

<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8eddec44-28fa-4152...@f5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

____________________________________
Absolute bullshit, and if you think that evolution is no better supported by
experimental evidence than is AGW you need to learn a little bit about
evolution. It is massively supported by independent experimental evidence in
paleontology, epidemiology, animal husbandry, microbiology, genetic
sequencing, taxonomy and species distribution.

You aren't going to prove AGW by claiming that it theory of evolution
doesn't have excellent experimental support. It does. If you don't believe
this, start a new thread where you claim that there is poor of no evidence
for the theory of evolution and I would be delighted to respond. In the mean
time, you are supposed to be providing evidence for AGW, not complaining
that the theory of evolution doesn't have good experimental evidence. It
just shows you as a crank.

[Peter Webb]

"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
news:s7d5j7l3ield81enq...@4ax.com...

No, I mean "correleation".

> Causation was
> determined many decades ago---- before all of us now living were
> born.

No. Unless you can provide evidence.

>
>> and as already agreed correlation does not prove causation.
>
> Nobody said it does.
>
>> Take away the correlation and there is no experimental
>> evidence at all. None.
>
> There is over 170 years of experimental (i.e., observational and
> computational) evidence. Stings, does it?
>

What, specifically?

You are making things up. Again.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:34:04 -0800 (PST), "erschro...@gmail.com"
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 8, 3:47 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:48:43 -0800 (PST), "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
>>
>> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 7, 5:26 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> >> On 2/7/2012 3:20 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> >> > Now don't any of you climate science deniers spout off, like
>> >> > Marvin does, saying that correlation is not causation, because
>> >> > in this case, CO2 increase *is the cause* of this rapid global
>> >> > warmup!
>>
>> >> HOLY SHIT! It's the old "proof by assertion" again! Damn! That gets us
>> >> every time. Come on, all you "deniers", pack up and leave. Wormley has
>> >> proved CO2 is the cause by simply saying so (once again).
>>
>> >No, science says so, and a mass of accumulated data says so.  And no
>> >other possible cause is correlated with temp.
>>
>> You haven't heard?
>>
>> Seehttp://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temper...
>
>No, I haven't heard that a blog by a denialist trumps papers in
>scientific journals. Did the voice in your head tell you that?

I didn't cite that as a scholarly source but as a simple account
suitable for people who had never previously heard of the theory. If
you want to know more (and I assume you don't) look up Svensmark, the
Cern 'Cloud' experiment and related papers. It's all there and its
respectable.

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >When only one cause is correlated with the effect, logic tells us that
>> >cause is almost certainly causing the effect.
>>
>> But when there are two .... ?
>
>There aren't. Hint: a blog is not a scientific source.

This is not scholastic head-butting. This is science (or should be).
Go and do some homework.
>
>

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 8, 6:18 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:8eddec44-28fa-4152...@f5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 7, 11:57 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:2L6dneggp-_6aKzS...@mchsi.com...
>
> > > On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > >> In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > >>> The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it
>
> > >> Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.
>
> > > True, but in the case of this global warming, causation is
> > > well understood--CO2 produced by human activity.
>
> > Bullshit. The *only* experimental evidence that additional CO2 causes net
> > warming is this correlation, and as already agreed correlation does not
> > prove causation. Take away the correlation and there is no experimental
> > evidence at all. None.
>
> Huh?  That's all you've got for the Big Bang, evolution, etc.
> ____________________________________
> Absolute bullshit, and if you think that evolution is no better supported by
> experimental evidence than is AGW you need to learn a little bit about
> evolution.

There are no controlled experiments, just like with AGW. Yes, there's
plenty of evidence just like there is for AGW.


Hint: Your refusal to accept evidence does not mean there is no
evidence.

>It is massively supported by independent experimental evidence in
> paleontology, epidemiology, animal husbandry, microbiology, genetic
> sequencing, taxonomy and species distribution.
>
> You aren't going to prove AGW by claiming that it theory of evolution
> doesn't have excellent experimental support. It does.

Just correlation though -- you can't "prove" causation without doing
controlled experiments.

>If you don't believe
> this, start a new thread where you claim that there is poor of no evidence
> for the theory of evolution and I would be delighted to respond. In the mean
> time, you are supposed to be providing evidence for AGW, not complaining
> that the theory of evolution doesn't have good experimental evidence. It
> just shows you as a crank.

Both have massive amounts of evidence, which is why both theories are
accepted by almost all scientists.

But you're arguing evolution, which is accepted by almost all
scientists, has a lot of evidence behind it (and that's why it's
accepted), but AGW, which is also accepted by almost all scientists,
doesn't have a lot of evidence behind it. In other words, scientists
are fickle.

Do you have anything to back that up?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 8, 11:45 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:34:04 -0800 (PST), "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

>
>
>
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 8, 3:47 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:48:43 -0800 (PST), "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
>
> >> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 7, 5:26 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >> >> On 2/7/2012 3:20 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >> >> > Now don't any of you climate science deniers spout off, like
> >> >> > Marvin does, saying that correlation is not causation, because
> >> >> > in this case, CO2 increase *is the cause* of this rapid global
> >> >> > warmup!
>
> >> >> HOLY SHIT! It's the old "proof by assertion" again! Damn! That gets us
> >> >> every time. Come on, all you "deniers", pack up and leave. Wormley has
> >> >> proved CO2 is the cause by simply saying so (once again).
>
> >> >No, science says so, and a mass of accumulated data says so.  And no
> >> >other possible cause is correlated with temp.
>
> >> You haven't heard?
>
> >> Seehttp://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temper...
>
> >No, I haven't heard that a blog by a denialist trumps papers in
> >scientific journals.  Did the voice in your head tell you that?
>
> I didn't cite that as a scholarly source but as a simple account
> suitable for people who had never previously heard of the theory. If
> you want to know more (and I assume you don't) look up Svensmark, the
> Cern 'Cloud' experiment and related papers. It's all there and its
> respectable.

Uh, first, CERN found gamma rays did NOT produce the large particles
needed to form clouds. Try reading the CERN report rather than what
right-wing web sites say about it.

Second, Svensmark's idea has been refuted by several papers, mainly by
showing there's absolutely no correlation between cosmic rays and
temperature.

Have you actually READ any of the science?

[Peter Webb]

<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7cfb3203-d6b0-4d12...@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 8, 6:18 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8eddec44-28fa-4152...@f5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 7, 11:57 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:2L6dneggp-_6aKzS...@mchsi.com...
>
> > > On 2/7/12 5:44 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > >> In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > >>> The strength of the correlation keeps getting stronger, until it
>
> > >> Most people know that correlation does not prove causation.
>
> > > True, but in the case of this global warming, causation is
> > > well understood--CO2 produced by human activity.
>
> > Bullshit. The *only* experimental evidence that additional CO2 causes
> > net
> > warming is this correlation, and as already agreed correlation does not
> > prove causation. Take away the correlation and there is no experimental
> > evidence at all. None.
>
> Huh? That's all you've got for the Big Bang, evolution, etc.
> ____________________________________
> Absolute bullshit, and if you think that evolution is no better supported
> by
> experimental evidence than is AGW you need to learn a little bit about
> evolution.

There are no controlled experiments, just like with AGW.

________________________________
So, now you are changing your claim. And I did not ask for "controlled
experiments". You stated that there is no more evidence for evolution than
there is for AGW. There is not.

Yes, there's
plenty of evidence just like there is for AGW.

______________________________
Ridiculous.

Hint: Your refusal to accept evidence does not mean there is no
evidence.

>It is massively supported by independent experimental evidence in
> paleontology, epidemiology, animal husbandry, microbiology, genetic
> sequencing, taxonomy and species distribution.
>
> You aren't going to prove AGW by claiming that it theory of evolution
> doesn't have excellent experimental support. It does.

Just correlation though -- you can't "prove" causation without doing
controlled experiments.

_________________________________________
Total and absolute bullshit. Firstly, you are inventing the fact that you
were asked to "prove causation", or that somehow I am asking for "controlled
experiments", I have not done that either. . I am not. I am simply asking
for "evidence that additional CO2 on balance warms the earth", a far simpler
thing I would have thought.

>If you don't believe
> this, start a new thread where you claim that there is poor of no evidence
> for the theory of evolution and I would be delighted to respond. In the
> mean
> time, you are supposed to be providing evidence for AGW, not complaining
> that the theory of evolution doesn't have good experimental evidence. It
> just shows you as a crank.


Both have massive amounts of evidence, which is why both theories are
accepted by almost all scientists.

____________________________________
That's simply not true, and not your original claim. Your original claim was
that AGW was as well proven experimentally as evolution, and that is simply
rubbish. You can compare yourself to this as much as you like, but AGW comes
off looking very bad indeed in comparison. Where are the indendent
verifications of core parts of the theory as are found for evolution in

paleontology, epidemiology, animal husbandry, microbiology, genetic

sequencing, taxonomy and species distribution? Well?

But you're arguing evolution, which is accepted by almost all
scientists, has a lot of evidence behind it (and that's why it's
accepted), but AGW, which is also accepted by almost all scientists,
doesn't have a lot of evidence behind it. In other words, scientists
are fickle.

Do you have anything to back that up?

__________________________________________
Well, the fickle bit is something you said. The only thing in that which I
said is that AGW doesn't have a lot of evidence to back it up (in fact it
has none, other than correlation). And to prove me wrong, you simply show me
the experimental evidence that additional CO2 warms the planet.

[Eric Stevens]

I've been following it for years. The thing about science is that
nobody has the last word. Svensmark never claimed that he did. Here is
what Svensmark has to say about the current state of affairs:
http://tinyurl.com/6ur92x2

"The correlations that have been found so far are on long time
scales star formation rates (million of years). On shorter time
scales solar modulation of cosmic rays. Numerous proxies of climate
seems to be correlated with changes in cosmic rays (14C or 10Be for
example) – stalagmites, ice-rafted debris, tree-rings, corals etc."

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Feb 9, 4:03 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:42:34 -0800 (PST), "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

I repeat, have you read any of the scientific papers?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

Controlled experiments are the only way you can establish causation.

>
>  Yes, there's
> plenty of evidence just like there is for AGW.
> ______________________________
> Ridiculous.
>

Have you read any scientific journals?

> Hint:  Your refusal to accept evidence does not mean there is no
> evidence.
>
> >It is massively supported by independent experimental evidence in
> > paleontology, epidemiology, animal husbandry, microbiology, genetic
> > sequencing, taxonomy and species distribution.
>
> > You aren't going to prove AGW by claiming that it theory of evolution
> > doesn't have excellent experimental support. It does.
>
> Just correlation though -- you can't "prove" causation without doing
> controlled experiments.
> _________________________________________
> Total and absolute bullshit. Firstly, you are inventing the fact that you
> were asked to "prove causation", or that somehow I am asking for "controlled
> experiments", I have not done that either. . I am not. I am simply asking
> for "evidence that additional CO2 on balance warms the earth", a far simpler
> thing I would have thought.

Have you read any scientific journals?

>
> >If you don't believe
> > this, start a new thread where you claim that there is poor of no evidence
> > for the theory of evolution and I would be delighted to respond. In the
> > mean
> > time, you are supposed to be providing evidence for AGW, not complaining
> > that the theory of evolution doesn't have good experimental evidence. It
> > just shows you as a crank.
>
> Both have massive amounts of evidence, which is why both theories are
> accepted by almost all scientists.
> ____________________________________
> That's simply not true, and not your original claim. Your original claim was
> that AGW was as well proven experimentally as evolution, and that is simply
> rubbish.

So why do almost all scientists support it?

>You can compare yourself to this as much as you like, but AGW comes
> off looking very bad indeed in comparison.

So why do almost all scientists support it?

> Where are the indendent
> verifications of core parts of the theory as are found for evolution in
> paleontology, epidemiology, animal husbandry, microbiology, genetic
> sequencing, taxonomy and species distribution? Well?

Have you read any scientific journals?

>
> But you're arguing evolution, which is accepted by almost all
> scientists, has a lot of evidence behind it (and that's why it's
> accepted), but AGW, which is also accepted by almost all scientists,
> doesn't have a lot of evidence behind it.  In other words, scientists
> are fickle.
>
> Do you have anything to back that up?
> __________________________________________
> Well, the fickle bit is something you said. The only thing in that which I
> said is that AGW doesn't have a lot of evidence to back it up (in fact it
> has none, other than correlation). And to prove me wrong, you simply show me
> the experimental evidence that additional CO2 warms the planet.

No, you've said evolution has a lot of evidence to back it up, and AGW
does not. But almost all scientists accept both. So you're saying
scientists just randomly choose which theories to support.

[Eric Stevens]

Of course I have. Had you read any relevant papers before you made
your claim "no other possible cause is correlated with temp"?

If you had, your claim about"no other possible cause ... " is
dishonest. If you hadn't then you had better go away and read some.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Peter Webb]

<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebffb639-5d3e-44ca...@m5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

____________________________________
If you don't believe that evolution is "caused" by "natural selection", or
that this connection has not been "established", start a thread on why you
don't believe in evolution through natural selection. In the mean time, you
are supposed to be providing evidence for AGW theories, not complaining that
you don't believe that evolution through natural selection has been
established.

>
> Yes, there's
> plenty of evidence just like there is for AGW.
> ______________________________
> Ridiculous.
>

Have you read any scientific journals?

___________________________________
Provide some experimental evidence - any experimental evidence - that

additional CO2 warms the planet.

> Hint: Your refusal to accept evidence does not mean there is no
> evidence.
>

Hint: The fact that you have provided no evidence probably does mean you
don't know of any.

> >It is massively supported by independent experimental evidence in
> > paleontology, epidemiology, animal husbandry, microbiology, genetic
> > sequencing, taxonomy and species distribution.
>
> > You aren't going to prove AGW by claiming that it theory of evolution
> > doesn't have excellent experimental support. It does.
>
> Just correlation though -- you can't "prove" causation without doing
> controlled experiments.
> _________________________________________
> Total and absolute bullshit. Firstly, you are inventing the fact that you
> were asked to "prove causation", or that somehow I am asking for
> "controlled
> experiments", I have not done that either. . I am not. I am simply asking
> for "evidence that additional CO2 on balance warms the earth", a far
> simpler
> thing I would have thought.

Have you read any scientific journals?

_____________________________________
So, have you got any scientific evidence that additional CO2 on balance
warms the earth? If so, why won't you tell us what it is?

>
> >If you don't believe
> > this, start a new thread where you claim that there is poor of no
> > evidence
> > for the theory of evolution and I would be delighted to respond. In the
> > mean
> > time, you are supposed to be providing evidence for AGW, not complaining
> > that the theory of evolution doesn't have good experimental evidence. It
> > just shows you as a crank.
>
> Both have massive amounts of evidence, which is why both theories are
> accepted by almost all scientists.
> ____________________________________
> That's simply not true, and not your original claim. Your original claim
> was
> that AGW was as well proven experimentally as evolution, and that is
> simply
> rubbish.

So why do almost all scientists support it?

___________________________________
You are supposed to be telling me that. Don't you know?

>You can compare yourself to this as much as you like, but AGW comes
> off looking very bad indeed in comparison.

So why do almost all scientists support it?

___________________________
I don't even know if almost all scientists support it. I doubt that most
scientists have ever been asked.

> Where are the indendent
> verifications of core parts of the theory as are found for evolution in
> paleontology, epidemiology, animal husbandry, microbiology, genetic
> sequencing, taxonomy and species distribution? Well?

Have you read any scientific journals?

_____________________________
So, you don't have this kind of experimental evidence for AGW, and that's
why you aren't posting it?

>
> But you're arguing evolution, which is accepted by almost all
> scientists, has a lot of evidence behind it (and that's why it's
> accepted), but AGW, which is also accepted by almost all scientists,
> doesn't have a lot of evidence behind it. In other words, scientists
> are fickle.
>
> Do you have anything to back that up?
> __________________________________________
> Well, the fickle bit is something you said. The only thing in that which I
> said is that AGW doesn't have a lot of evidence to back it up (in fact it
> has none, other than correlation). And to prove me wrong, you simply show
> me
> the experimental evidence that additional CO2 warms the planet.

No, you've said evolution has a lot of evidence to back it up, and AGW
does not.

__________________________________
I said that.

But almost all scientists accept both. So you're saying
scientists just randomly choose which theories to support.

___________________________________
No, I said that evolution has a huge amount of supporting evidence - and I
listed some of the principle areas - but the theory that additional CO2
will on balance warm the atmosphere has none. You still have provided zero
evidence that additional CO2 warms the planet, despite my repeated requests
for same, in crank style you just continually avoid the question.

[AGWFacts]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:30:51 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:46:19 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:09:11 -0600, Sam Wormley
> > <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >

> > > BTW, jimp, your manipulation of the "followups to"--How's
> > > that working for you?
> >
> > Does not seem to be working. Heee.

> Works just fine as I set the Followup-To: header to be in accordance
> with the RFC's, about which you haven't a clue as to either their existance
> or content.

You want sci.physics to be free of physics. net.k00k


--
"I am not ignorant simply because I choose to believe one
theory over another." -- Madison Murphy

[AGWFacts]

Svensmark was demonstrated wrong over a decade ago, but his
assertions were never taken as valid by any scientist: what he
claimed would happen has never een seen happening, and what was
observed for many decades was and is contrary to his claims.

Sources:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611000691

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solar_Irradiance.txt

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solrad.jpg

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Climax.jpg

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Solar_Brightness_Too_Weak_To_Explain_Global_Warming_999.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42

> > Cern 'Cloud' experiment and related papers. It's all there and its
> > respectable.

CERN says the opposite, and also says Eric Stevens is full of
shit. Sources:

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Archive/Cern_study_gives_insight_into_cloud_formation.html?cid=30994792

> Uh, first, CERN found gamma rays did NOT produce the large particles
> needed to form clouds. Try reading the CERN report rather than what
> right-wing web sites say about it.

CERN emphatically stressed that the CLOUD experiment showed the
exact opposite of what FOX "News" ordered its obeyers to believe.

> Second, Svensmark's idea has been refuted by several papers, mainly by
> showing there's absolutely no correlation between cosmic rays and
> temperature.

The hypothesis was rejected even before the correlation divereged
and ended.

> Have you actually READ any of the science?

His answer is "Yes! On FOX 'News!'"

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:30:51 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> wrote:
>

<snip huge pile of previously snipped irrelevant crap pasted back in by
the illierate moron>

>> Works just fine as I set the Followup-To: header to be in accordance
>> with the RFC's, about which you haven't a clue as to either their existance
>> or content.
>
> You want sci.physics to be free of physics. net.k00k

I want sci.pyhics posts to have physics content.

You want sci.physics to be your private blog to post any crap you feel like
posting.

Constantly pasting back in irrelevant crap previously snipped shows
yow have some severe brain chemical problems that require professional
diagnosis.