Are AGW alarmists just smarter than the rest of us?
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Bonzo:
The "climate change problem" is a figment of a very delusional mind.
Fran:
Then in your view, the vast majority of the educated world is deluded. Hmm
a whole bunch of highly qualified scientists, the evidence of my own eyes, .
. .
Claudius Denk:
Why do you think it is that these supposed, "highly qualified scientists,"
seem to not want to engage any of us in this most prominent public and open
forum in a detailed scientific discussion of the supposed mechanistic
underpinnings of AGW? They seem to have collectively recused themselves
from any such conversation. Instead it seems they've all retreated to
moderated forums like globalchange and Realclimate where the moderators
ensure that no such conversations ever get started. Why do you think this
is, Fran?
Jonathan Kirwan:
My reply is for sci.environment only.
(1) Because no one should be expected to waste their valuable,
trained time on obdurate, irretrievable idiots like you, those who
cannot be bothered even in the least to become informed on any science
or its language.
(2) There are a range of forums already set up, for informed debate
to be encouraged and take place, that they can and do already use and
is a far, far better use of their limited time.
(3) There are much better venues, in those cases where active climate
scientists feel the need to help gain public attention for important
conclusions.
(4) When you get down with pigs, you get up with mud.
Regarding you in particular, there is no reason at all anyone actively
working in the climate science field should engage someone like you;
one who is impervious to any offered education here, hidebound against
suggestions to go get some education elsewhere, unapologizing about
his own sweepingly manifest ignorance, and pigheaded towards even
learning the most basic rudaments of the language of physical science.
You can't even follow the simpler quantitative arguments. There'd be
little point in spending serious time discussing any of it with you --
with the possible exception being that others not so mentally bankrupt
as you might notice.
Claudius Denk:
I"m sorry Jonathan, but what you are saying just doesn't make sense. If
what you're saying is true we would think exactly the opposite would be the
case. If myself and other skeptics were as incompetent as you suggest then
we'd expect you alarmists to be even more eager to engage in a detailed
scientific discussion of the supposed mechanistic underpinnings of AGW.
Because in so doing you alarmist would not only have the perfect opportunity
to educate the greater public in these mechanistic details (unless, of
course, you are suggesting that the public also is too stupid and ignorant
to understand your explanations) and at one and the same time you'd have the
perfect opportunity to expose the supposed incompetence of myself and
skeptics in general.
Of course the possibility exists that you believe that AGW alarmists are the
only ones smart enough to understand the science of AGW. In which case one
can only wonder why you bother to post to a public forum at all.
Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:
I see you didn't want to reply under the thread and chose to do your
disingenuous heading change, as well. Oh, well. Two can play that
game.
><snip>
>My reply is for sci.environment only.
>
>(1) Because no one should be expected to waste their valuable,
>trained time on obdurate, irretrievable idiots like you, those who
>cannot be bothered even in the least to become informed on any science
>or its language.
>
>(2) There are a range of forums already set up, for informed debate
>to be encouraged and take place, that they can and do already use and
>is a far, far better use of their limited time.
>
>(3) There are much better venues, in those cases where active climate
>scientists feel the need to help gain public attention for important
>conclusions.
>
>(4) When you get down with pigs, you get up with mud.
>
>Regarding you in particular, there is no reason at all anyone actively
>working in the climate science field should engage someone like you;
>one who is impervious to any offered education here, hidebound against
>suggestions to go get some education elsewhere, unapologizing about
>his own sweepingly manifest ignorance, and pigheaded towards even
>learning the most basic rudaments of the language of physical science.
>You can't even follow the simpler quantitative arguments. There'd be
>little point in spending serious time discussing any of it with you --
>with the possible exception being that others not so mentally bankrupt
>as you might notice.
>
>Claudius Denk:
>I"m sorry Jonathan, but what you are saying just doesn't make sense.
It is quite sensible.
>If what you're saying is true we would think exactly the opposite would be the
>case.
No.
>If myself
Someone completely unwilling to engage the work required and to hold
off of informed criticism until he is competent and informed.
>and other skeptics
No, knee-jerk deniers.
>were as incompetent as you suggest
There is no doubt of it in your case. You've demonstrated abundantly
a willingness to lie and an inability to wield quantitative language.
It's not a suggestion. It's fact, in your case.
>then we'd expect you alarmists
I'm just a hobbyist, of sorts. Barely able to say, with diffidence,
that I may understand a few things and know that there is a lot I
still don't.
>to be even more eager to engage
I see you've changed the subject. My point was in reply to your
question about scientists. Here you are referring to "you alarmists,"
a group in which you admittedly place me. My lack of desire to treat
your idiotic and willfully ignorant meanderings is based upon OTHER
reasoning than what I gave you above. And if anything, I suspect your
disingenuous personality would make any serious person want to avoid
you.
>in a detailed scientific discussion
In which you are completely unable to even begin to engage. You lack
the ability for even the more prosaic elements of quantitative theory,
even simplified to distortion. I wouldn't know why you'd imagine you
are able to deal with a scientific discussion of any kind.
You won't even admit your ignorance. And learning must start there.
>of the supposed mechanistic underpinnings of AGW.
You couldn't handle it and you wouldn't work to remedy that situation.
So why should a climate scientist waste their valuable time on you?
>Because in so doing you alarmist would not only have the perfect opportunity
>to educate the greater public in these mechanistic details
First off, "mechanistic" is an old word usually used only in modern
times by religious nuts -- in which category I definitely place you. A
more modern term would be 'mechanical.' You expose your education at
the hands of fundamentalists, which I suppose explains a lot about
you.
Second, I was careful in point (3). I didn't suggest that climate
scientists might desire to educate the public on the mechanics of
climate. Education and training costs a great deal in terms of time
and money, as well as commitment, and the public has a lot of other
things to do in their lives than this. That doesn't mean that some
cannot engage it when they've a mind to work hard enough for it. It
just means that a climate scientist cannot expect to set out in public
newsgroup forums to pass along a detailed, accurate, and quantitative
education -- especially to religious nuts as yourself, unwilling to
deal with even so much as the bare rudiments of the language. So, as
I wrote, "there are much better venues, in those cases where active
climate scientists feel the need to help gain public attention for
important conclusions." Note, "important conclusions." I didn't
suggest they'd try to educate on all the details of coming to
independent conclusions -- that takes the educational process and a
lot of sweat to get close to. I said they could pass along their
conclusions. You might note the difference.
Third, if they are trying to work with people who seriously do want to
spend the time and effort in order to gain some small measure, "there
are a range of forums already set up, for informed debate to be
encouraged and take place, that they can and do already use and is a
far, far better use of their limited time." Universities are one such
forum. Peer-review is another. Research institutions are another.
Serving as a successful instrumentation designer might be another. And
so on.
Fourth, as I also wrote, "when you get down with pigs, you get up with
mud." What possible value might a climate scientist achieve engaging
a religious nut like you on a subject you aren't even willing to work
for and are, at every turn, disingenuous and willfully ignorant? The
minimum they might achieve from this is a demonstration that they are
masochists. There is no purchase in that.
>(unless, of
>course, you are suggesting that the public also is too stupid and ignorant
>to understand your explanations)
I've found in some modest teaching at universities that there are very
few people who cannot learn the language, if they struggle hard enough
for it and if there is a decent teacher available. I believe that
most of the public, if they had the time and inclinations, would be
able to acquire an understanding of the details. A great many of them
remain variously ignorant of the details. But that doesn't mean that
they aren't able to learn, when they have the time and inclination to
do so.
Of course, you are a little other than a Dominionist-educated nutcase.
How you have the unmitigated gall to include yourself in any
mainstream is beyond my ken. Your pigheaded idiocy isn't the public's
problem. It's yours.
>and at one and the same time you'd have the
>perfect opportunity to expose the supposed incompetence of myself and
>skeptics in general.
Your incompetence has already been demonstrated so abundantly and so
many different times that it boggles the mind how you can be such a
bald-faced liar and so completely bankrupt as to say such a thing
about yourself. You cloak yourself in the good name of a "skeptic"
when you have no right to even soil the garb, let alone wear it.
>Of course the possibility exists that you believe that AGW alarmists are the
>only ones smart enough to understand the science of AGW.
I've explained all this before and you will continue, of course, to do
your best to ignore any and all of it and to repeat your lies over and
over again.
>In which case one
>can only wonder why you bother to post to a public forum at all.
My motivation is very simple. I'm an interested hobbyist and you are
merely a disingenuous, Dominionist irritation.
Jon
--
Philosophy is written in this grand book - I mean the universe -
which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be
understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and
interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in
the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles,
circles, and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly
impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one
is wandering about in a dark labyrinth. [Galileo, in The Assayer]
harr...@peoplepc.com
"Truth is not an option."
Gris Caravel
=============================================
"Jonathan Kirwan" <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:j721d3dl471a4tmbo...@4ax.com...
Bill Carter
is no reason anyone should actively engage him. And really, if you look
at the menagerie of people like him here there isn't any reason to talk to
them. They aren't here to discuss the issue, its like rewarding a bad
dog for misbehavior.
john fernbach
>
> Of course the possibility exists that you believe that AGW alarmists are the
> only ones smart enough to understand the science of AGW. In which case one
can only wonder why you bother to post to a public forum at all.
------------------------------------
Speaking as an AGW "Alarmist," I want to say that I don't think people
on my side are necessarily smarter.
But I do think that the best AGW believers less emotionally biased and
dishonest than the extreme GW Deniers -- because they don't have
economic interests or ideological positions at stake, at least not to
the same degree.
Caveat: I have to admit this is only true of some of us, and maybe
it's not even true of me.
Some of us, as environmentalists, probably have a pre-existing
tendency to take a catastrophic view of world events -- and that is a
bias. And it may lead some of us -- including me - to wrong
conclusions.
But on the other hand, we don't have a couple of trillion dollars in
capital invested in coal, oil, automoible and airline production, as a
big swath of Western capitalist industry does (and a good piece of
Chinese and Russian and Venezuelan "statist" industry does, too.)
We don't have an obsession with defending the supposedly perfect
results of "free market" capitalism and with opposing every
conceivable instance of government regulation of the market, either.
Which is the case with some of the GW Denialists.
I think it follows that the best of the AGW "alarmists," or at least
the best of the AGW researchers, have examined the case for greenhouse-
gas- driven climate change with more or less open minds.
Whereas we know from media exposes that there are a series of maybe 40
conservative, pretty much libertarian think tanks that have been
getting money from Exxon-Mobil alone (never mind other fossil fuel
producers) to produce propaganda questioning AGW science and the
IPCC's conclusions.
Here we have a clear example of two sources of GW Denialist bias --
Fossil fuel money and free market ideology -- coming together to take
a position on CO2 and climate, pretty much regardless of whether it's
true. And to the extent that the AGW believers aren't getting the oil
industry money and don't have a pathological fear of all govrnment
regulation, they don't have a need to take a position that clashes
with the science.
The best AGW researchers -- again, not all of us, and not necessarily
including me -- haven't thought: "My goodness, my profits are at
stake if fossil fuel use is driving climate change." Or "Hell, my job
is at stake if fossil fuel use is driving climate change." Or "This
CAN'T be happening - because it would disprove the magic of the Free
Market!"
And so I think the best climate researchers have been free to draw
some pretty obvious conclusions.
Of course some of us who applaud the AGW reearchers may have our own
biases, our own economic and emotional and political investments that
we bring to the issue of climate change. When these economic or
emotional investments bias the way we look at the evidence, we're more
likely to make mistakes -- just like the Fossil Fuel shills and the
Free Market ideologues on the other side.
But in any case, your position on AGW or not-AGC is not mostly a
matter of intelligence, I think.
It isn't "Intelligence quotient," or IQ, that causes you to take one
side or the other.
More likely, it's "Emotional Intelligence quotient," or EQ.
When your finances or your job situation or your politics keeps you
from being honest, your EQ declines -- and you make "stupid" mistakes
that really aren't stupid, but are subconsciously purposeful &
deliberate.
john fernbach
Interesting quote from a Bjorn Lomborg editorial in the Wall Street
Journal, which a GW Denialist recently posted in this news group:
"We shouldn't ignore climate change. We should tackle it smartly. We
should
make a 10-fold increase in research to make zero-carbon energy cheaper
in
the future. This would be much more efficient than Kyoto, yet cost
almost 10
times less... "
Lomborg, one of the authorities that the AGW Denialists love to cite
as an advocate for doing nothing on GW, is saying "We shouldn't ignore
climate change. We should tackle it smartly."
Putting Lomborg at odds with what Bonzo and other extreme Denialists
are constantly saying in here about GW supposedly being a hoax or a
fraud.
Maybe we need to start a campaign to get Bonzo and Bawana and Keith
Death Rage and "chemist" to read some Bjorn Lomborg?
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188085421.6...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 25, 1:32 pm, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course the possibility exists that you believe that AGW alarmists are
>> the
>> only ones smart enough to understand the science of AGW. In which case
>> one
> can only wonder why you bother to post to a public forum at all.
> ------------------------------------
> Speaking as an AGW "Alarmist," I want to say that I don't think people
> on my side are necessarily smarter.
No duh. In fact you've proven yourselves incapable of basic logic.
>
> But I do think that the best AGW believers less emotionally biased and
> dishonest than the extreme GW Deniers -- because they don't have
> economic interests or ideological positions at stake, at least not to
> the same degree.
It couldn't be more obvious that exactly the opposite is the truth.
>
> Caveat: I have to admit this is only true of some of us, and maybe
> it's not even true of me.
>
> Some of us, as environmentalists, probably have a pre-existing
> tendency to take a catastrophic view of world events -- and that is a
> bias. And it may lead some of us -- including me - to wrong
> conclusions.
>
> But on the other hand, we don't have a couple of trillion dollars in
> capital invested in coal, oil, automoible and airline production, as a
> big swath of Western capitalist industry does (and a good piece of
> Chinese and Russian and Venezuelan "statist" industry does, too.)
Nor does mose skeptics, you idiot.
>
> We don't have an obsession with defending the supposedly perfect
> results of "free market" capitalism and with opposing every
> conceivable instance of government regulation of the market, either.
> Which is the case with some of the GW Denialists.
Science isn't a political cause.
>
> I think it follows that the best of the AGW "alarmists," or at least
> the best of the AGW researchers, have examined the case for greenhouse-
> gas- driven climate change with more or less open minds.
>
> Whereas we know from media exposes that there are a series of maybe 40
> conservative, pretty much libertarian think tanks that have been
> getting money from Exxon-Mobil alone (never mind other fossil fuel
> producers) to produce propaganda questioning AGW science and the
> IPCC's conclusions.
And billions have gone into funding the pseudo-science of AGW.
Tom Gardner
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188085421.6...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> Of course the possibility exists that you believe that AGW alarmists are
>> the
>> only ones smart enough to understand the science of AGW. In which case
>> one
> can only wonder why you bother to post to a public forum at all.
> ------------------------------------
> Speaking as an AGW "Alarmist," I want to say that I don't think people
> on my side are necessarily smarter.
Have you ever even considered that you are wrong about humans causing GW?
Have you ever even considered that the science is NOT complete? Have you
ever even considered that people that have considered these things are not
stupid and evil? It seems arrogant to dismiss any dissenting voices. True
scientists question, AWGers seem to rant, afraid of loosing some huge tax
payoff or lucrative research grant.
Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
> Claudius Denk:
> I"m sorry Jonathan, but what you are saying just doesn't make sense. If
> what you're saying is true we would think exactly the opposite would be the
> case. If myself and other skeptics were as incompetent as you suggest then
> we'd expect you alarmists to be even more eager to engage in a detailed
> scientific discussion of the supposed mechanistic underpinnings of AGW.
We have.
> Of course the possibility exists that you believe that AGW alarmists are the
> only ones smart enough to understand the science of AGW. In which case one
> can only wonder why you bother to post to a public forum at all.
What then should we be doing besides posting in a public forum?
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Yes. Exactly the opposite is the case. It couldn't be more obvious.
>
>>If myself
>
> Someone completely unwilling to engage the work required and to hold
> off of informed criticism until he is competent and informed.
>
>>and other skeptics
>
> No, knee-jerk deniers.
>
>>were as incompetent as you suggest
>
> There is no doubt of it in your case. You've demonstrated abundantly
> a willingness to lie and an inability to wield quantitative language.
> It's not a suggestion. It's fact, in your case.
>
>>then we'd expect you alarmists
>
> I'm just a hobbyist, of sorts. Barely able to say, with diffidence,
> that I may understand a few things and know that there is a lot I
> still don't.
You've proven yourself almost perfectly igorant about climatology and
science in general. Who do you think you're kidding?
>
>>to be even more eager to engage
>
> I see you've changed the subject. My point was in reply to your
> question about scientists. Here you are referring to "you alarmists,"
> a group in which you admittedly place me. My lack of desire to treat
> your idiotic and willfully ignorant meanderings is based upon OTHER
> reasoning than what I gave you above. And if anything, I suspect your
> disingenuous personality would make any serious person want to avoid
> you.
>
>>in a detailed scientific discussion
>
> In which you are completely unable to even begin to engage. You lack
> the ability for even the more prosaic elements of quantitative theory,
Quantitative theory? You science whackos crack me up because you just throw
big words around and think you are saying something sophisticated.
> even simplified to distortion. I wouldn't know why you'd imagine you
> are able to deal with a scientific discussion of any kind.
Oh really? Hell, I can't even shame you into addressing a scientific point.
a
>
> You won't even admit your ignorance. And learning must start there.
Science is a process not a conclusion. Like a lot of armchair scientists
you think that since you understand the conclusion that you can forget the
process that underlies it.
>
>>of the supposed mechanistic underpinnings of AGW.
>
> You couldn't handle it and you wouldn't work to remedy that situation.
> So why should a climate scientist waste their valuable time on you?
You can say that again. It seems they don't waste their time on anybody
that isn't part of their captive audience.
>
>>Because in so doing you alarmist would not only have the perfect
>>opportunity
>>to educate the greater public in these mechanistic details
>
> First off, "mechanistic" is an old word usually used only in modern
> times by religious nuts
No, dimwit. The opposite of mechanistic is spiritualistic. It's you AGW
advocates with your perpetual motion machine of a theory that refuse to
address the mechanistic realities that dicate that it is impossible for CO2
to do the things you claim it can do.
-- in which category I definitely place you. A
> more modern term would be 'mechanical.' You expose your education at
> the hands of fundamentalists, which I suppose explains a lot about
> you.
Uh, my main scientific focus is evolutionary theory you retard. I hardly
think this puts me in the company of religious fundamentalists.
>
> Second, I was careful in point (3). I didn't suggest that climate
> scientists might desire to educate the public on the mechanics of
> climate.
Good. Because it's obvious that they do not.
Education and training costs a great deal in terms of time
> and money, as well as commitment, and the public has a lot of other
> things to do in their lives than this. That doesn't mean that some
> cannot engage it when they've a mind to work hard enough for it. It
> just means that a climate scientist cannot expect to set out in public
> newsgroup forums to pass along a detailed, accurate, and quantitative
> education
Then maybe they aren't cut out to be scientists.
-- especially to religious nuts as yourself, unwilling to
> deal with even so much as the bare rudiments of the language. So, as
> I wrote, "there are much better venues, in those cases where active
> climate scientists feel the need to help gain public attention for
> important conclusions." Note, "important conclusions." I didn't
> suggest they'd try to educate on all the details of coming to
> independent conclusions -- that takes the educational process and a
> lot of sweat to get close to. I said they could pass along their
> conclusions.
This is what clergy does, you idiot. Not scientists.
You might note the difference.
>
> Third, if they are trying to work with people who seriously do want to
> spend the time and effort in order to gain some small measure, "there
> are a range of forums already set up, for informed debate to be
> encouraged and take place, that they can and do already use and is a
> far, far better use of their limited time." Universities are one such
> forum. Peer-review is another.
Fact: there is nothing that is peer-reviewed that indicates CO2 can/will
have any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures. The fact that you and
many others want to believe it to be true doesn't make it true.
Research institutions are another.
> Serving as a successful instrumentation designer might be another. And
> so on.
>
> Fourth, as I also wrote, "when you get down with pigs, you get up with
> mud." What possible value might a climate scientist achieve engaging
> a religious nut like you on a subject you aren't even willing to work
> for and are, at every turn, disingenuous and willfully ignorant? The
> minimum they might achieve from this is a demonstration that they are
> masochists. There is no purchase in that.
Jonathan, it couldn't be more obvious that the reason they don't discuss the
science is because they have none. All they have is propaganda. Don't fall
for it.
>
>>(unless, of
>>course, you are suggesting that the public also is too stupid and ignorant
>>to understand your explanations)
>
> I've found in some modest teaching at universities that there are very
> few people who cannot learn the language,
"the language?" I'll stick with English.
if they struggle hard enough
> for it and if there is a decent teacher available. I believe that
> most of the public, if they had the time and inclinations, would be
> able to acquire an understanding of the details. A great many of them
> remain variously ignorant of the details. But that doesn't mean that
> they aren't able to learn, when they have the time and inclination to
> do so.
There are no details, you retard. Just a bunch of dumbasses like yourself
that believe that somebody, somewhere has all the answers.
>
> Of course, you are a little other than a Dominionist-educated nutcase.
> How you have the unmitigated gall to include yourself in any
> mainstream is beyond my ken. Your pigheaded idiocy isn't the public's
> problem. It's yours.
>
>>and at one and the same time you'd have the
>>perfect opportunity to expose the supposed incompetence of myself and
>>skeptics in general.
>
> Your incompetence has already been demonstrated so abundantly and so
> many different timesto engage any of us in this most
prominent public and open forum in a detailed scientific discussion of
the supposed mechanistic underpinnings of AGW?
Why not provide a link. Certainly you don't expect anybody to take your
word on this, do you?
that it boggles the mind how you can be such a
> bald-faced liar and so completely bankrupt as to say such a thing
> about yourself. You cloak yourself in the good name of a "skeptic"
> when you have no right to even soil the garb, let alone wear it.
>
>>Of course the possibility exists that you believe that AGW alarmists are
>>the
>>only ones smart enough to understand the science of AGW.
>
> I've explained all this before and you will continue, of course, to do
> your best to ignore any and all of it and to repeat your lies over and
> over again.
>
>>In which case one
>>can only wonder why you bother to post to a public forum at all.
>
> My motivation is very simple. I'm an interested hobbyist and you are
> merely a disingenuous, Dominionist irritation.
You are the typical scientific whacko. You don't know what you think or why
you think it but you are sure you are right.
>
kwag...@hotmail.com
> On Aug 25, 10:32 am, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>
> > Claudius Denk:
> > I"m sorry Jonathan, but what you are saying just doesn't make sense. If
> > what you're saying is true we would think exactly the opposite would be the
> > case. If myself and other skeptics were as incompetent as you suggest then
> > we'd expect you alarmists to be even more eager to engage in a detailed
> > scientific discussion of the supposed mechanistic underpinnings of AGW.
>
> We have.
Who is this "we"? *You* are Johnny on the spot with rhetoric but
that's about it.
> > Of course the possibility exists that you believe that AGW alarmists are the
> > only ones smart enough to understand the science of AGW. In which case one
> > can only wonder why you bother to post to a public forum at all.
>
> What then should we be doing besides posting in a public forum?
Science furthering your cause, I presume. If only the converted are
smart enough to be converted, your work is done.
kwag...@hotmail.com
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:32:17 -0700, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
Well at least it doesn't cohere with your actions. You certainly
spend a lot of time verbally jousting with the "pigs" for being such a
ivory tower intellectual.
> >If what you're saying is true we would think exactly the opposite would be the
> >case.
>
> No.
Just say "no" to uninformative naysaying. Seriously, if you have a
point make it. What is the point of typing "no?"
> >If myself
>
> Someone completely unwilling to engage the work required and to hold
> off of informed criticism until he is competent and informed.
>
> >and other skeptics
>
> No, knee-jerk deniers.
Utterly craptacular demonizing of your opposition.
> >were as incompetent as you suggest
>
> There is no doubt of it in your case. You've demonstrated abundantly
> a willingness to lie and an inability to wield quantitative language.
> It's not a suggestion. It's fact, in your case.
>
> >then we'd expect you alarmists
>
> I'm just a hobbyist, of sorts. Barely able to say, with diffidence,
> that I may understand a few things and know that there is a lot I
> still don't.
Self-aggrandizing humbleness.
Then why the hell would anyone take their suggestions for informing
public policy? "Hey you, do what I say. Why? Because I said so,
peon! I don't have time to inform your little mind, I'm doing great
things!" In the meantime, little things like the recent reluctant
restatement of past temperatures get forced by non-scientists
investigating peer-reviewed genoo-wine climate science.
> Education and training costs a great deal in terms of time
> and money, as well as commitment, and the public has a lot of other
> things to do in their lives than this.
What I've learned is that when I don't want to get fleeced I need to
educate myself on things I am getting involved in, or as in the case
of AGW, are being foisted upon me.
Very temperate. You come off like a true man of reason.
> >and at one and the same time you'd have the
> >perfect opportunity to expose the supposed incompetence of myself and
> >skeptics in general.
>
> Your incompetence has already been demonstrated so abundantly and so
> many different times that it boggles the mind how you can be such a
> bald-faced liar and so completely bankrupt as to say such a thing
> about yourself. You cloak yourself in the good name of a "skeptic"
> when you have no right to even soil the garb, let alone wear it.
>
> >Of course the possibility exists that you believe that AGW alarmists are the
> >only ones smart enough to understand the science of AGW.
>
> I've explained all this before and you will continue, of course, to do
> your best to ignore any and all of it and to repeat your lies over and
> over again.
>
> >In which case one
> >can only wonder why you bother to post to a public forum at all.
>
> My motivation is very simple. I'm an interested hobbyist and you are
> merely a disingenuous, Dominionist irritation.
>
> Jon
For your stated motivation to be true you sure spilled a lot of
photons on a bunch of rhetorical crap rather than the climate science
schooling you are claiming to be able to provide.
Kurt Lochner
>Because no one should be expected to waste their valuable,
>trained time on obdurate, irretrievable idiots like [me],
>those who cannot be bothered even in the least to become
>informed on any science or its language.
I corrected your spelling for you again.. No charge.
--See subject header for details..
Kurt Lochner
> > But I do think that the best AGW believers less emotionally biased
> > and dishonest than the extreme GW Deniers -- because they don't have
> > economic interests or ideological positions at stake, at least not
> > to the same degree.
>
>It couldn't be more obvious that exactly the opposite is the truth.
*>LOL!<* The irony..
>Science isn't a political cause.
It is with your 'global warming deniers'..
--You're even afraid Al Gore might run for president again..
Jonathan Kirwan
you. I was wondering why it is that you won't even respond to replies
in your own thread but have to rename them to say anything. Just more
of your disingenuousness, I'm sure.
...
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 19:24:04 -0700, <claudi...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
No. You couldn't be more obviously wrong.
>>>If myself
>>
>> Someone completely unwilling to engage the work required and to hold
>> off of informed criticism until he is competent and informed.
>>
>>>and other skeptics
>>
>> No, knee-jerk deniers.
>>
>>>were as incompetent as you suggest
>>
>> There is no doubt of it in your case. You've demonstrated abundantly
>> a willingness to lie and an inability to wield quantitative language.
>> It's not a suggestion. It's fact, in your case.
>>
>>>then we'd expect you alarmists
>>
>> I'm just a hobbyist, of sorts. Barely able to say, with diffidence,
>> that I may understand a few things and know that there is a lot I
>> still don't.
>
>You've proven yourself almost perfectly igorant about climatology and
>science in general. Who do you think you're kidding?
It would be nice if I could be perfect at anything. Sadly, that's not
true.
Your unwillingness to admit your own ignorance is your problem, idiot.
In my case, I've no problem there. I'm a hobbyist. Nothing wrong
with that. And I'm kidding no one, saying so.
You are a liar -- a much more serious problem.
>>>to be even more eager to engage
>>
>> I see you've changed the subject. My point was in reply to your
>> question about scientists. Here you are referring to "you alarmists,"
>> a group in which you admittedly place me. My lack of desire to treat
>> your idiotic and willfully ignorant meanderings is based upon OTHER
>> reasoning than what I gave you above. And if anything, I suspect your
>> disingenuous personality would make any serious person want to avoid
>> you.
>>
>>>in a detailed scientific discussion
>>
>> In which you are completely unable to even begin to engage. You lack
>> the ability for even the more prosaic elements of quantitative theory,
>
>Quantitative theory? You science whackos crack me up because you just throw
>big words around and think you are saying something sophisticated.
The point is, I know, beyond you.
But since you brought up the issue of "mechanistic" and again exposed
yourself for the religious nutcase you are (since that term is used as
code word to differentiate themselves from those who would attempt to
explain the phenomena only by reference to physical or biological
laws), it happens to be about quantitative things. That you imagine
the phrase is something "sophisticated" just shows your own serious
lack of education. Nothing much else.
>> even simplified to distortion. I wouldn't know why you'd imagine you
>> are able to deal with a scientific discussion of any kind.
>
>Oh really? Hell, I can't even shame you into addressing a scientific point.
Said as if you could understand enough to make one. I won't hold my
breath.
>> You won't even admit your ignorance. And learning must start there.
>
>Science is a process not a conclusion.
Hmm. Not that I'd like to admit it, but it's nice to see something we
can tentatively agree on. Of course, I'm sure you mean this in some
way I will later learn means nothing close to the way I'd interpret
it.
>Like a lot of armchair scientists
I'm a hobbyist on this subject. Get with the program.
>you think that since you understand the conclusion that you can forget the
>process that underlies it.
As I've said many times before to you, and get tired of repeating now,
I am able to poke at a thing here and there, dig a little into it, and
discover that the climate scientists have both seen further than I did
and better than I did. There are interesting qualitative details I'd
first thought to ask about in my early reading, where I'd later find
after I'd gone further on that not only had those thoughts been
considered and answered, but some entirely new and very good ones I
hadn't considered were also exposed and dealt with. Of course, there
is a lot more to be studied and thought about. I'm just saying that
I'm not finding any particular holes, yet. Of course, I can't keep up
with all of it or any one useful part of it, being a hobbyist.
I enjoy being honest about all this. It makes such a contrast with
your lying and disingenuousness.
By the way, given your own demonstrated inability at math, though, I'm
darned well sure you cannot even read most of the papers with any
understanding at all, let alone ever hope to criticize one in any
meaningful way. That doesn't mean others couldn't if they wanted to
apply themselves. I know you are going to turn this around, claim you
are just one of the many [when you are a radical Dominionist and
nothing like most folks] and in doing so taint all the rest of most
folks who are reasonable and rational unlike yourself, and then say
this is about someone being smarter than another -- when it is nothing
of the kind. But keep it up. I enjoy the occasional chance to point
out your lying.
>>>of the supposed mechanistic underpinnings of AGW.
>>
>> You couldn't handle it and you wouldn't work to remedy that situation.
>> So why should a climate scientist waste their valuable time on you?
>
>You can say that again. It seems they don't waste their time on anybody
>that isn't part of their captive audience.
If you would correct your many serious flaws and be worth a damn, you
might get to the point where you could manage to say something worth
listening to. Learn the language, for one. Drop the disingenuousness
and the lying, for another. Try to apply yourself well enough to even
just one subject, and the necessary subfields of physics, within the
broad range of climate subjects long enough to be able to deal with
the details. Hell, if you did that I might even listen to you.
It's not about "captive audiences," but about spending precious time
where it counts better. Everyone here can understand that principle
and it's little different for scientists than anyone else. If you
were a plumber, and there was a need for better understanding some
difficult plumbing puzzle, you would rather discuss it with those who
were well informed and well practiced on the existing plumbing theory
as well as the empirical details, long won from experience. On the
other hand, you might very much enjoy teaching others who aren't so
well informed. But you wouldn't take a lot of guff from them before
walking away in disgust.
If you inform yourself well enough to even be able to meaningfully
read a peer reviewed paper on any physical science subject, that would
be a good step. But a relationship is two-way and you need to show
your own willingness to work hard and be able to understand the basic
language before you should imagine better treatment for yourself.
Bridge the gap a little. You might be surprised.
But you would need to change a lot.
In the US post office, they are (or were) willing to hire murderers
and just about anyone committing any crime, once they'd paid their
due. There was ONE crime only they couldn't tolerate. That was
stealing. Demonstrated theft was an unacceptable trait in a US post
office worker.
Like that, if there is only one thing amongst scientists that is a
fatal character flaw, it is lying. What you have demonstrated in
abundance, a pigheaded unwillingness to be honest and open even on the
smaller things and a demonstrated willingness to go to lengths to
cover up and lie about yourself, pretty much puts the nails in your
coffin.
You have no business pretending at garbing yourself in the good name
and cloak of science.
>>>Because in so doing you alarmist would not only have the perfect
>>>opportunity
>>>to educate the greater public in these mechanistic details
>>
>> First off, "mechanistic" is an old word usually used only in modern
>> times by religious nuts
>
>No, dimwit. The opposite of mechanistic is spiritualistic.
Bingo! You just made my point, exactly. Your use of the term in the
context of science tells abundantly where your prejudices lie.
>It's you AGW
>advocates with your perpetual motion machine of a theory that refuse to
>address the mechanistic realities that dicate that it is impossible for CO2
>to do the things you claim it can do.
No, it is your clinging frantically to your superstitious ideas and
your refusal, because of that, to engage in learning with seriousness
what science teaches that is the problem here. You are a religious
nutcase. You have some serious prejudices about what science may seem
to say to you about your religious beliefs and because of that you are
unwilling to even try, since will not embrace the idea of setting
aside your a priori superstitious assumptions to even begin for a
moment at it.
Folks like you struggle hard to find the next dark corner that remains
still unlit by science, because they need to find some place for their
superstitions to scatter to and hide as science lights area after
area. Keep running, keep hiding. But note that the corners are fewer
between, and smaller than before. I know it galls you dearly that you
have to run and hide them in order to protect their delicate form.
By the way, just to drive the spike in a little deeper into your sad,
superstitious nature... The processes of science have swept positively
through every single society that has encountered it. Far faster and
more completely than any religion ever has. Religions can merely look
on and pray for the smallest hope to have as much success.
> -- in which category I definitely place you. A
>> more modern term would be 'mechanical.' You expose your education at
>> the hands of fundamentalists, which I suppose explains a lot about
>> you.
>
>Uh, my main scientific focus is evolutionary theory you retard. I hardly
>think this puts me in the company of religious fundamentalists.
It probably does place you squarely there. Of course, I haven't read
your statements on evolution but I fully expect them to be as poorly
informed on the science as the rest of what you write here.
>> Second, I was careful in point (3). I didn't suggest that climate
>> scientists might desire to educate the public on the mechanics of
>> climate.
>
>Good. Because it's obvious that they do not.
They would have little chance, given the narrow, controlled channels
of information that exist to most folks via the media and the woefully
little time of it they could hope to use.
However, there is a little bit available and given enough time and
changes in educational programs at the high school level (I just
helped in a small way here in my local area -- I can assure you that
teachers are taking note and including an increasing amount of very
interesting material and training in their classes these days) I
suspect the public will acquire a much better understanding.
>> Education and training costs a great deal in terms of time
>> and money, as well as commitment, and the public has a lot of other
>> things to do in their lives than this. That doesn't mean that some
>> cannot engage it when they've a mind to work hard enough for it. It
>> just means that a climate scientist cannot expect to set out in public
>> newsgroup forums to pass along a detailed, accurate, and quantitative
>> education
>
>Then maybe they aren't cut out to be scientists.
One has nothing to do with the other.
> -- especially to religious nuts as yourself, unwilling to
>> deal with even so much as the bare rudiments of the language. So, as
>> I wrote, "there are much better venues, in those cases where active
>> climate scientists feel the need to help gain public attention for
>> important conclusions." Note, "important conclusions." I didn't
>> suggest they'd try to educate on all the details of coming to
>> independent conclusions -- that takes the educational process and a
>> lot of sweat to get close to. I said they could pass along their
>> conclusions.
>
>This is what clergy does, you idiot. Not scientists.
One cannot arrive at their own in independent conclusions without
taking the time to become broadly educated on a variety of subjects
related to all this. Few in the public will have the time for all
that.
All of us must accept the authority of those better informed, in those
cases where we are unable or otherwise unwilling to take on the issue
as our own. As I like to say, "having an equal right to an opinion
isn't the same as having a right to an equal opinion." If you want to
earn the right to an equal opinion, you have to work hard for it.
There is no magic, here.
> You might note the difference.
A difference between religion and science is that science doesn't set
out to preserve perfect copies of ancient scriptures and to defend
them against all comers, no matter what, and that anyone can engage
themselves to become comprehensively informed, if they have the
inclination and time for it. Although all humans succumb to the idea
of authority, a sad trait at times, the processes of science work hard
to develop negative feedbacks to counter that tendency. A young
scientist can do little better for themselves than to successfully
take down some great scientific authority or theory. Quite unlike the
case with organized religions, which are simply systems set up to
protect their memes against any challenge and those memes themselves
motivate the organizations to operate that way. Since you say you
know about evolution, this is a classic example of it in operation.
>> Third, if they are trying to work with people who seriously do want to
>> spend the time and effort in order to gain some small measure, "there
>> are a range of forums already set up, for informed debate to be
>> encouraged and take place, that they can and do already use and is a
>> far, far better use of their limited time." Universities are one such
>> forum. Peer-review is another.
>
>Fact: there is nothing that is peer-reviewed that indicates CO2 can/will
>have any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures. The fact that you and
>many others want to believe it to be true doesn't make it true.
Hmm. The fact that you write the above doesn't make you correct about
it. But even my saying this much grants you more credit than you
deserve because it might suggest that this is only a matter of
disagreement between two folks -- one a modest hobbyist and the other
pretending to be a "skeptic." It's not, though. Your assertion is
without any support or backing and, worse, comes from someone who is
quite simply unable to read any physical science with an ounce of
understanding for it. In contrast, though I only claim a very modest
understanding of just a few things and no comprehensive understanding
of any of climate science, I am at least able to wade through a
physical peer-reviewed paper.
You are quite simply wrong on the facts and anyone wishing to find out
differently can do so.
>> Research institutions are another.
>> Serving as a successful instrumentation designer might be another. And
>> so on.
>
>
>
>>
>> Fourth, as I also wrote, "when you get down with pigs, you get up with
>> mud." What possible value might a climate scientist achieve engaging
>> a religious nut like you on a subject you aren't even willing to work
>> for and are, at every turn, disingenuous and willfully ignorant? The
>> minimum they might achieve from this is a demonstration that they are
>> masochists. There is no purchase in that.
>
>Jonathan, it couldn't be more obvious that the reason they don't discuss the
>science is because they have none. All they have is propaganda. Don't fall
>for it.
Bullshit. I've looked into a few details and I've found those few
cases to be well-bolstered and pretty well handled. I sometimes like
to flatter myself and imagine that I might be able to suggest a new
idea, but the reality of it is that where I have taken the time to see
if my "new ideas" were of any use I've instead found them abundantly
dealt with either at that time or soon (as in, within a decade)
afterwards. I've learned a lot about applying ideas I have been
trained for in other fields, but that's about all. I think they are
doing a pretty good job, over all, from what I've poked into.
>>>(unless, of
>>>course, you are suggesting that the public also is too stupid and ignorant
>>>to understand your explanations)
>>
>> I've found in some modest teaching at universities that there are very
>> few people who cannot learn the language,
>
>"the language?" I'll stick with English.
Fine. I'm sure you are just playing on words here, in hopes that it
may find a mark. But the reality is that to be fluent with
quantitative, physical science, and to be able to wade through peer
reviewed physical science papers with much chance at understanding
them well, you will have to learn some math. Otherwise, that lack
gets in your way so much that it becomes almost hopeless.
>> if they struggle hard enough
>> for it and if there is a decent teacher available. I believe that
>> most of the public, if they had the time and inclinations, would be
>> able to acquire an understanding of the details. A great many of them
>> remain variously ignorant of the details. But that doesn't mean that
>> they aren't able to learn, when they have the time and inclination to
>> do so.
>
>There are no details, you retard. Just a bunch of dumbasses like yourself
>that believe that somebody, somewhere has all the answers.
Ah. __Your__ assurances of this carry all the weight they deserve --
none. Keep saying it and I hope you will keep being challenged about
it.
You are wrong, of course. But how to prove a negative? One must
simply go look for themselves at the affirming evidence to the
contrary and see if the weight of that is sufficient to decide you are
the lying idiot I currently take you for.
>> Of course, you are a little other than a Dominionist-educated nutcase.
>> How you have the unmitigated gall to include yourself in any
>> mainstream is beyond my ken. Your pigheaded idiocy isn't the public's
>> problem. It's yours.
>>
>>>and at one and the same time you'd have the
>>>perfect opportunity to expose the supposed incompetence of myself and
>>>skeptics in general.
>>
>>Your incompetence has already been demonstrated so abundantly and so
>>many different times that it boggles the mind how you can be such a
>>bald-faced liar and so completely bankrupt as to say such a thing
>>about yourself. You cloak yourself in the good name of a "skeptic"
>>when you have no right to even soil the garb, let alone wear it.
>prominent public and open forum in a detailed scientific discussion of
>the supposed mechanistic underpinnings of AGW?
>
>Why not provide a link. Certainly you don't expect anybody to take your
>word on this, do you?
It's pretty certain they don't take yours.
>>>Of course the possibility exists that you believe that AGW alarmists are
>>>the only ones smart enough to understand the science of AGW.
>>
>> I've explained all this before and you will continue, of course, to do
>> your best to ignore any and all of it and to repeat your lies over and
>> over again.
>>
>>>In which case one
>>>can only wonder why you bother to post to a public forum at all.
>>
>> My motivation is very simple. I'm an interested hobbyist and you are
>> merely a disingenuous, Dominionist irritation.
>
>You are the typical scientific whacko. You don't know what you think or why
>you think it but you are sure you are right.
As I have repeated before, I'm just an interested hobbyist and you are
merely a disingenuous, Dominionist irritation. Your words carry no
weight, whatsoever. Here or elsewhere.
Fran
> Bonzo:
> The "climate change problem" is a figment of a very delusional mind.
>
> Fran:
> Then in your view, the vast majority of the educated world is deluded. Hmm
> a whole bunch of highly qualified scientists, the evidence of my own eyes, .
> . .
>
Are we smarter than you? By and large, I believe the answer is yes,
but not for the reasons you might suppose, Mr Denk,
It's quite simple. By your reckoning, nobody can really predict
climate and so, according to you, one must admit that those who claim
that the build up of atmospheric GHG inventories will produce greater
climatic volatility and a progressive warming might well be right. One
could not confidently deny that without claiming to be able to predict
an alternate trend.
And unless one is really confident that a prediction is outlandish,
one must seek to foreclose damage. Yet you maintain that one should
await certainty. That is reckless, and therefore stupid. We don't do
that.
But how much stupider would one be if in addition to this, one knew
that doing what would be needed would yield utterly uncontestable
benefits and cost very little? Would one not have to be stupider yet
not to act? Indeed, this is one of the Israeli deniers admits.
Consider this: you are approaching a traffic light at 4AM. There's
nobody about and you wonder if you shouldn't ignore the red. It might
be fine, but the downside would be an outside risk of death.
What do you do? Wait for more evidence?
And you don't even have that level of confidence and that limit on
damage. You are playing with humanity's prospects.
How stupid is that?
Fran
john fernbach
>
> Have you ever even considered that you are wrong about humans causing GW?
I've considered it a little, yes. And there are two answers to this
question:
1. Obviously, humans don't cause ALL global warming, and the best AGW
researchers are now recognizing this, partly as a result of being
goaded by the skeptics/denialists. Methane from non-human sources is
causing some of the current trend, the mainstream climate scientists
believe, and "Milankovitch cycles" or changes in the Earth's orbit,
tilt, etc. had a lot to do with causing previous climate
fluctuations. But the mainstream position is now that humans are
causing most of the warming we're seeing now - and I believe it.
2. If I'm honest, I have to admit that anything I believe might turn
out to be wrong, and my leaders may conceivably be mistaken,
But right now, with some very loud and vocal exceptions, the
mainstream view that humans ARE causing MUCH of THIS cycle of climate
change is really widely accepted -- by the US National Academy of
Sciences, by the editors of Scientific American, by the IPCC crowd, by
NASA scientists, and even by big insurance companies and the corporate
CEOs who belong to the Business Roundtable. Even the Bush
administration is now saying, yeah, this is happening, but we need to
have a "market friendly" way of fixing it.
So - sure, I could be wrong, and my fellow AGWers could be wrong. But
the minority of GW Denialists also could be wrong. And I feel that
the surprising consensus that's coming together on the issue, and
that's supported by a lot of more technically trained people than I
am, is probably right.
> Have you ever even considered that the science is NOT complete?
Sure. Every AGW scientist and popular science writer I've read on
this issue agrees that the science is not complete. Global climate is
way complicated, and we've only been looking at it seriously for
several decades now. However, the IPCC reports -- which have to
reflect some conservative business oriented views on AGW, not just
the
"Green" view -- are getting more and more definitive, more and more
positive about the causation links. And the summer icecap in the
Arctic keeps shrinking, the glaciers around the world keep retreating
(most of them), the average sea level actually has been rising (a
little), and the weather keeps getting stranger. And mostly hotter,
although not everywhere, all the time.
So sure - the science is not complete, but my guess is that we know
enough now to start taking action. Especially on the common sense,
"win win" stuff -- making our cars, houses, and economy a hell of a
lot more energy-efficient, for starters.
Have you
> ever even considered that people that have considered these things are not
> stupid and evil?
Well, I think some of them are dishonest with the public and - even
worse - dishonest with themselves. I think most of us tend to believe
what we want to believe, what's convenient for us, and I think the big
investors and CEOs in the coal and oil industry, especially, don't
find climate science at all convenient and therefore are -- probably
half subconsciously -- blocking it out. OUt of bias.
Ditto with the extreme libertarians who care more about limiting the
growth of big government than they really care about climate, and who
are attacking the majority of the climate scientists for political
reasons -- not because the extreme Rightwingers really know anything.
I do think there are some climate scientists out there, though, who
are skeptical and have intelligent reasons for their skepticism. I
respect those people, but I don't think there are very many of them.
I think the big majority of the people who know something are on the
AGW believers' side.
It seems arrogant to dismiss any dissenting voices.
True, and I see both sides of this debate engaging in that kind of
"arrogance" all the time. I know we do it to you guys, but you guys
do it to us - a lot. Labeling AGW believers and honest climate
researchers as "traitors," "cultists," "eco-nazis," "socialists," and
(in my case, anyway) accusing us of being drunks, "hobos," "queens,"
religious fanatics, anti-religious fanatics - the whole nine yards.
It isn't just the AGW people who are arrogantly dismissing dissent.
Beyond that, though, the media has exposed a Fossil Fuel Industry PR
campaign that's designed to save the profits of the big oil and coal
companies by casting doubt on the emerging AGW science -- designed to
block the US government from acting on the GW threat by endlessly
raising questions about the adequacy of the science.
Other people have electronic links to the expose, I don't. But it was
formulate in the 1990s by a Republican pollster named Fred Luntz, I
believe, who has since said that he's changed his mind on GW. And it
was based partly on the tobacco industry's scientific obfuscation
campaign that sought to keep the government from acknowleding the risk
of cigarettes for decades on end.
And so when you say that AGW believers shouldn't be so "arrogant" as
to dismiss "dissenting voices," I kind of think that you're working
for the cynical bastards in the fossil fuel companies who are just
trying to throw sand in everyone's eyes in order to protect their
profits.
I may be wrong, of course, and you may be totally honest, and you're
right about the importance of not dismissing skeptics. But I think
you're probably pushing an agenda of delay and obfuscation here in
order to confuse the public and paralyze the government, keep it from
dealing with a real threat. So I kind of look at this comment of
yours from two sides at once.
True
> scientists question, AWGers seem to rant, afraid of loosing some huge tax
> payoff or lucrative research grant.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not getting any "huge tax
payoff or lucrative research grant" from what I've written and posted
in here about GW.
What I'm afraid of losing is not personal -- well, except for my own
egotism and self righteousness, anyway.
What I'm afraid we're all going to lose is social and collective --
like, adequate rainfall and good growing seasons for American farmers,
so they don't lose their crops to GW-generated droughts and/or
flooding.
Or like a more or less stable ocean level around the world, so that GW
doesn't end up drowning Bangaladesh and turning maybe 70 million
people into new environmental refugees. I mean, I don't want 70
million homeless people turning up in my neighborhood seeking shelter
and a handout, do you?
And as an Eco-freak, a would-be bunny hugger, I really don't want us
to lose the polar bears because of GW melting the Arctic ice. Ditto
with seeing lakes and ponds dry up in the more arid parts of the
American Midwest and West, causing huge losses in the duck
populations.
And I sure don't want to see the long-term climate change, and the
long-term problems with icecap melting and sea level rise, that would
destroy the world's major cities along the coasts -- New Orleans, of
course, but also London, New York, Miami, LA, Houston, Mumbai,
Shanghai or "Guangzhou," and so on and on.
Right now, anyway, I'm not getting paid a dime for trying to alert
people to AGW risks in order to save the polar bears and the Bengalis
and the big cities and the ducks and the farmers and all. If someone
wants to hire me to do this - great.
But right now my "payoff" is in the mind, in my ego that seeks a sense
of accomplishment and in my superego or conscience that says I should
be acting virtuously.
And I'd guess that a lot of the AGWers you meet in here -- and a lot
of the AGWers who actually are earning money doing research on this
stuff for NGOs or the government -- have similarly mixed motives.
Of course, most of us would love to get paid for being heroes, as we
define being heroes. But what we want to be able to look back on,
when we get to be old and doddery, is the sense that we WERE heroes on
this particular issue when heroes were needed.
We may be wrong and misguided, obviously - anyone can be.
But our motives are probably similar to the motives that lead some
young American men to sign up to fight in Iraq, and that lead some
young "jihadist" Muslim men to go to Iraq to fight them. You want to
feel that your life has made some kind of difference, and some kind of
difference for the good -- however you yourself define the good.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
<snip>
>>> I'm just a hobbyist, of sorts. Barely able to say, with diffidence,
>>> that I may understand a few things and know that there is a lot I
>>> still don't.
You revealed your hobbyist status only after it became obvious that you
couldn't back up your AGW assertions. It's nothing but another evasion
tactic. BTW, the fact that you're a hobbyist doen't prevent you from
quoting the high-priest, experts of your little AGW religious cult. If you
were intellectually honest you would retract your assertions rather than
hiding behind your hobbyist status, you evasive twit.
<snip>
>>> You lack
>>> the ability for even the more prosaic elements of quantitative theory,
>>
>>Quantitative theory? You science whackos crack me up because you just
>>throw
>>big words around and think you are saying something sophisticated.
>
> The point is, I know, beyond you.
This is just another of the many things you, "know," but are unable to
substantiate.
> But since you brought up the issue of "mechanistic" and again exposed
> yourself for the religious nutcase you are (since that term is used as
> code word to differentiate themselves from those who would attempt to
> explain the phenomena only by reference to physical or biological
> laws), it happens to be about quantitative things. That you imagine
> the phrase is something "sophisticated" just shows your own serious
> lack of education. Nothing much else.
Using the word, "quantitative," is not in and of itself a substitute for
presenting a quantitatey explicit explanation. I would think this should be
obvious to you, dimwit.
>
>>> even simplified to distortion. I wouldn't know why you'd imagine you
>>> are able to deal with a scientific discussion of any kind.
>>
>>Oh really? Hell, I can't even shame you into addressing a scientific
>>point.
>
> Said as if you could understand enough to make one. I won't hold my
> breath.
Case in point.
>
>>> You won't even admit your ignorance. And learning must start there.
>>
>>Science is a process not a conclusion.
>
> Hmm. Not that I'd like to admit it, but it's nice to see something we
> can tentatively agree on. Of course, I'm sure you mean this in some
> way I will later learn means nothing close to the way I'd interpret
> it.
>
>>Like a lot of armchair scientists
>
> I'm a hobbyist on this subject. Get with the program.
>
>>you think that since you understand the conclusion that you can forget the
>>process that underlies it.
>
> As I've said many times before to you, and get tired of repeating now,
> I am able to poke at a thing here and there, dig a little into it, and
> discover that the climate scientists have both seen further than I did
> and better than I did. There are interesting qualitative details I'd
> first thought to ask about in my early reading, where I'd later find
> after I'd gone further on that not only had those thoughts been
> considered and answered, but some entirely new and very good ones I
> hadn't considered were also exposed and dealt with. Of course, there
> is a lot more to be studied and thought about. I'm just saying that
> I'm not finding any particular holes, yet. Of course, I can't keep up
> with all of it or any one useful part of it, being a hobbyist.
You suddenly became a humble hobbyist only after it became obvious that you
were unable to substantiate your arrogant assertions.
Sorry, this doesn't make sense. If there time is precious wouldn't they
want to spend it in a forum that can maximize their exposure to the public?
"Real scientists with real scientific agendas--especially agendas the
implications of which involve such dramatic conclusions to man's
future--have no fear of open debate.
> . . . there is only one thing amongst scientists that is a
> fatal character flaw, it is lying.
I agree. And this is the real reason they avoid open debate. They realize
they'd be exposed as liars.
>>> First off, "mechanistic" is an old word usually used only in modern
>>> times by religious nuts
>>
>>No, dimwit. The opposite of mechanistic is spiritualistic.
>
> Bingo! You just made my point, exactly. Your use of the term in the
> context of science tells abundantly where your prejudices lie.
You must be some kind of mental retard.
>
>>It's you AGW
>>advocates with your perpetual motion machine of a theory that refuse to
>>address the mechanistic realities that dicate that it is impossible for
>>CO2
>>to do the things you claim it can do.
>
> No, it is your clinging frantically to your superstitious ideas
I'm not the one making claims here, retard.
<snip>
>>Fact: there is nothing that is peer-reviewed that indicates CO2 can/will
>>have any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures. The fact that you and
>>many others want to believe it to be true doesn't make it true.
>
> Hmm. The fact that you write the above doesn't make you correct about
> it.
I agree. It's your demonstrated inability to dispute it that substatiates
it.
> But even my saying this much grants you more credit than you
> deserve because it might suggest that this is only a matter of
> disagreement between two folks -- one a modest hobbyist and the other
> pretending to be a "skeptic." It's not, though. Your assertion is
> without any support or backing and, worse, comes from someone who is
> quite simply unable to read any physical science with an ounce of
> understanding for it. In contrast, though I only claim a very modest
> understanding of just a few things and no comprehensive understanding
> of any of climate science, I am at least able to wade through a
> physical peer-reviewed paper.
You're proving my point. You've read the peer-reviewed literature and you
still can't substantiate your assertion. Or does your hobbyist status
somehow prevent you from revealing the great truths you've gleaned from your
reading?
<snip>
>>Jonathan, it couldn't be more obvious that the reason they don't discuss
>>the
>>science is because they have none. All they have is propaganda. Don't
>>fall
>>for it.
>
> Bullshit. I've looked into a few details and I've found those few
> cases to be well-bolstered and pretty well handled.
Why don't you relay these details to us? Are they a secret?
I sometimes like
> to flatter myself and imagine that I might be able to suggest a new
> idea, but the reality of it is that where I have taken the time to see
> if my "new ideas" were of any use I've instead found them abundantly
> dealt with either at that time or soon (as in, within a decade)
> afterwards. I've learned a lot about applying ideas I have been
> trained for in other fields, but that's about all. I think they are
> doing a pretty good job, over all, from what I've poked into.
>
>>>>(unless, of
>>>>course, you are suggesting that the public also is too stupid and
>>>>ignorant
>>>>to understand your explanations)
>>>
>>> I've found in some modest teaching at universities that there are very
>>> few people who cannot learn the language,
>>
>>"the language?" I'll stick with English.
>
> Fine. I'm sure you are just playing on words here, in hopes that it
> may find a mark. But the reality is that to be fluent with
> quantitative, physical science, and to be able to wade through peer
> reviewed physical science papers with much chance at understanding
> them well, you will have to learn some math. Otherwise, that lack
> gets in your way so much that it becomes almost hopeless.
I'm not understanding why you are berating me for supposedly not being smart
enough to understand what you refuse to explain.
<snip>
>>There are no details, you retard. Just a bunch of dumbasses like yourself
>>that believe that somebody, somewhere has all the answers.
>
> Ah. __Your__ assurances of this carry all the weight they deserve --
> none. Keep saying it and I hope you will keep being challenged about
> it.
Every word of your evasive reponse further substantiates my point.
>
> You are wrong, of course. But how to prove a negative? One must
> simply go look for themselves at the affirming evidence to the
> contrary and see if the weight of that is sufficient to decide you are
> the lying idiot I currently take you for.
>
>>> Of course, you are a little other than a Dominionist-educated nutcase.
>>> How you have the unmitigated gall to include yourself in any
>>> mainstream is beyond my ken. Your pigheaded idiocy isn't the public's
>>> problem. It's yours.
>>>
>>>>and at one and the same time you'd have the
>>>>perfect opportunity to expose the supposed incompetence of myself and
>>>>skeptics in general.
>>>
>>>Your incompetence has already been demonstrated so abundantly and so
>>>many different times that it boggles the mind how you can be such a
>>>bald-faced liar and so completely bankrupt as to say such a thing
>>>about yourself. You cloak yourself in the good name of a "skeptic"
>>>when you have no right to even soil the garb, let alone wear it.
>
>>prominent public and open forum in a detailed scientific discussion of
>>the supposed mechanistic underpinnings of AGW?
>>
>>Why not provide a link. Certainly you don't expect anybody to take your
>>word on this, do you?
>
> It's pretty certain they don't take yours.
Answer the question you evasive twit: Why not provide a link. Certainly you
don't expect anybody to take your word on this, do you?
>>>>Of course the possibility exists that you believe that AGW alarmists are
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188133558.1...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 26, 3:32 am, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Bonzo:
>> The "climate change problem" is a figment of a very delusional mind.
>>
>> Fran:
>> Then in your view, the vast majority of the educated world is deluded.
>> Hmm
>> a whole bunch of highly qualified scientists, the evidence of my own
>> eyes, .
>> . .
>>
>
> Are we smarter than you? By and large, I believe the answer is yes,
> but not for the reasons you might suppose, Mr Denk,
>
> It's quite simple. By your reckoning, nobody can really predict
> climate and so, according to you, one must admit that those who claim
> that the build up of atmospheric GHG inventories will produce greater
> climatic volatility and a progressive warming might well be right. One
> could not confidently deny that without claiming to be able to predict
> an alternate trend.
I agree. And the same can be said for a global cooling predictions and a
prediction that nothing or nothing significant could happen. Right?
(Answer the question you evasive twit.)
> And unless one is really confident that a prediction is outlandish,
> one must seek to foreclose damage. Yet you maintain that one should
> await certainty. That is reckless, and therefore stupid. We don't do
> that.
Certainty of what? You just, essentially, admitted that have no basis for
not assuming that increases in CO2 might actually result in catastrophic
global cooling. And given the fact that a return to ice age conditions
would, undeniably, have very dramatic implications on human civilization one
can only wonder why you are in denial about this. You don't wish to be
labelled a global cooling denialist now do you?
> But how much stupider would one be if in addition to this, one knew
> that doing what would be needed would yield utterly uncontestable
> benefits and cost very little? Would one not have to be stupider yet
> not to act? Indeed, this is one of the Israeli deniers admits.
>
> Consider this: you are approaching a traffic light at 4AM. There's
> nobody about and you wonder if you shouldn't ignore the red. It might
> be fine, but the downside would be an outside risk of death.
>
> What do you do? Wait for more evidence?
Why not just wait for the light to turn green?
>
> And you don't even have that level of confidence and that limit on
> damage. You are playing with humanity's prospects.
>
> How stupid is that?
Since you base your belief in global warming on lack of evidence to the
contrary one can only wonder why you are not also warning us about the
implications of alien space invaders. Afterall, you have no evidence that
they have not already landed, are living amonst us, and biding their time
for an opportunity to sieze control and enslave the human race. Right?
And then there's the possibility that you are one of them . . .
xnic...@hotmail.com
> How stupid is that?
>
> Fran
Very stupid in the unpleasant little abuse-monger Denk's case.
Jonathan Kirwan
>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote in message
>news:djp1d3pp1kpvkk5r4...@4ax.com...
>
><snip>
>
>>>> I'm just a hobbyist, of sorts. Barely able to say, with diffidence,
>>>> that I may understand a few things and know that there is a lot I
>>>> still don't.
>
>You revealed your hobbyist status only after it became obvious that you
>couldn't back up your AGW assertions.
No, I've always said as much. Go back to my very first posts in this
group, if you like. I've never pretended to be anything I'm not and I
know some of my limitations regarding climate science.
Unlike you, a continual liar to the core.
>It's nothing but another evasion tactic.
Sheesh. Now you are trying to say that being honest is a tactic.
In one way, I suppose, this explains everything about you. In another
way, though, I do sometimes just have to sit in wonder at how it must
be to have a mind so thoroughly and completely muddled as yours.
Scary, that.
>BTW, the fact that you're a hobbyist doen't prevent you from
>quoting the high-priest, experts of your little AGW religious cult. If you
>were intellectually honest you would retract your assertions rather than
>hiding behind your hobbyist status, you evasive twit.
><snip>
If I feel like addressing your questions, I may. In this case, since
you didn't say or ask anything in any honest fashion and since I'm
just another consumer in this group, I feel little need to feed your
silly rants with more than I've already said on the subject -- which
was sufficient as it was. If you want the details, you should be wise
enough to not get them from a hobbyist and instead go get them from
those who know these things well (the accumulated, comprehensive base
of peer-reviewed papers on any question you may have) or from those
whose job it became to digest that knowledge and put it into a
consolidated and digested form for you, the IPCC teams.
Beating me up for pointing you to the sources is just another
indication of your very sad insanity.
Your failing to go read up from the better sources on this and instead
going around pathetically asking hobbyists to tell you about the
science you already (falsely, as in lying over and over about) claim
to understand and to be able to criticize meaningfully, is probably
due to at least two of your manifest and more serious personal
problems: (1) your religious preconceptions which prevent you from
even trying to learn science because you think it is the spawn of the
devil, and (2) your shrill insanity aside from that, and (3) your
inability to deal with any of the language -- which prevents you from
actually attempting to access most of the material with any chance at
understanding it.
You pretend at every turn, it seems. Sadly.
By the way, I am still fascinated by what I suspect is yet another
case of both lying as well as disingenuousness by you. (As if that
should be any surprise.) You lie about having a "scientific focus" of
any kind, including any such thing on evolution. I'm sure you have NO
informed position on the subject, at all. And you are disingenuous in
the way you present that in order to try and suggest that your
position there is any better than it is here. I'm quite sure that if
you have any focus at all on it, your only focus there is how you
disagree with it because it conflicts with your preconceived religious
ideas. Regardless, it cannot be an informed position. You have
already demonstrated no capacity for or interest in science.
Jonathan Kirwan
> at least two
at least two and maybe three
Tom Gardner
Very well said John, I respect your opinion. I don't necessarily agree with
everything. I do not have a concrete position, but I resent being "hustled"
in any direction by incomplete argument and the "Pay no attention to the man
behind the curtain" mentality.
>
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
In the meantime would you like to make a retraction? Wouldn't that be the
intellectually honest thing to do?
> In this case, since
> you didn't say or ask anything in any honest fashion and since I'm
> just another consumer in this group, I feel little need to feed your
> silly rants with more than I've already said on the subject -- which
> was sufficient as it was.
You just admitted you didn't answer the question. Now you're stating that
this is sufficient?
> If you want the details, you should be wise
> enough to not get them from a hobbyist and instead go get them from
> those who know these things well
Who do you suggest? Provide references.
> (the accumulated, comprehensive base
> of peer-reviewed papers on any question you may have) or from those
> whose job it became to digest that knowledge and put it into a
> consolidated and digested form for you, the IPCC teams.
>
> Beating me up for pointing you to the sources
Uh . . . by your own admission you didn't provide any sources.
> is just another
> indication of your very sad insanity.
>
> Your failing to go read up from the better sources
What sources? Provide a citation, you evasive twit.
> on this and instead
> going around pathetically asking hobbyists to tell you about the
> science you already (falsely, as in lying over and over about) claim
> to understand and to be able to criticize meaningfully, is probably
> due to at least two of your manifest and more serious personal
> problems: (1) your religious preconceptions which prevent you from
> even trying to learn science because you think it is the spawn of the
> devil, and (2) your shrill insanity aside from that, and (3) your
> inability to deal with any of the language -- which prevents you from
> actually attempting to access most of the material with any chance at
> understanding it.
>
> You pretend at every turn, it seems. Sadly.
>
> By the way, I am still fascinated by what I suspect is yet another
> case of both lying as well as disingenuousness by you. (As if that
> should be any surprise.) You lie about having a "scientific focus" of
> any kind, including any such thing on evolution. I'm sure you have NO
> informed position on the subject, at all. And you are disingenuous in
> the way you present that in order to try and suggest that your
> position there is any better than it is here. I'm quite sure that if
> you have any focus at all on it, your only focus there is how you
> disagree with it because it conflicts with your preconceived religious
> ideas. Regardless, it cannot be an informed position. You have
> already demonstrated no capacity for or interest in science.
I'm not understanding how your inability to answer questions is, supposedly,
evidence of my incompetence. Please explain.
Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:
><snip>
>Please explain.
This is just like a young child saying "why" to every response they
get. Including to direct answers that are pretty good. I'm sure it
is fun for your childish and idiotic mindset, but it isn't to most
adults. Funny once, you know?
And I don't see the point of going beyond what I've already provided
you (both citations as well as suggestions about the better places for
you to study up.) You aren't competent to read it in detail and, as
is the case in physical science, "everything is in the quantitative
details."
Tell you what. If you learn some math and take a moment to prove to
me that you can wield, say, 1st and 2nd order ordinary differentials
and partials with a little bit of understanding, maybe that will show
me you are willing to work for your knowledge and therefore perhaps
ready to be worth some further effort in return.
Jon
--
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:15:05 -0700, <claudi...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>><snip>
>>Please explain.
>
> This is just like a young child saying "why" to every response they
> get. Including to direct answers that are pretty good. I'm sure it
> is fun for your childish and idiotic mindset, but it isn't to most
> adults. Funny once, you know?
>
> And I don't see the point of going beyond what I've already provided
> you (both citations as well as suggestions about the better places for
> you to study up.) You aren't competent to read it in detail and, as
> is the case in physical science, "everything is in the quantitative
> details."
>
> Tell you what. If you learn some math and take a moment to prove to
> me that you can wield, say, 1st and 2nd order ordinary differentials
> and partials with a little bit of understanding, maybe that will show
> me you are willing to work for your knowledge and therefore perhaps
> ready to be worth some further effort in return.
Don't you think you'd feel better if you just admitted that you are unable
to provide this explanation?
Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:
Wouldn't you feel better if you'd finally admit you are in no position
to criticize climate scientists?
...
My only claim here is that I can at least read some papers and do so
with a chance at understanding them. I'm not claiming to be able to
replace their work, just that I am a modest hobbyist who can hope to
try and follow some things here and there with some range of
understanding.
Unlike you, a compulsive liar, I don't claim to have comprehensive
knowledge necessary to criticize and instead simply claim something
far more modest (although even that is far beyond your demonstrated
capabilities -- considering your very poor capabilities I can take no
pride in that, either.)
Your burden is so much greater and your lack of capability and
manifest laziness equip you so much more poorly for the task, too.
Your continual lying and disingenuousness only works to hinder any
chance you might have of recognizing your own problems -- required
before there is any chance of remedy. Your superstitions are just
more hindrance, as well. All in all, you stand like an ant at the
foot of Mt. Everest. You've a lot of work ahead. Best get busy.
john fernbach
> "john fernbach" <fernbach1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I don't like getting hustled, either. Which is not to say I always
avoid it, but I don't like it. And the "pay no attention to the man
behind the curtain" issue is real. I think there are "men behind the
curtain" on all kinds of issues, working to manipulate opinions for
all kinds of different issues and causes.
Tom, we may end up being on opposite sides of this GW issue, or maybe
not. But anyway, it's good to be able to communicate with you across
the barricades, so to speak. And thanks for offering what look like
they were honest questions.
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom Gardner
The next ten years will pass very quickly and by then the world will have a
better understanding of Earth's climate. Probably not complete, but better.
In the mean time, it would be prudent for mankind to get serious about it's
energy problems for a variety of reasons; pollution being first and
foremost. I resent acid rain taking back seat to the politics of
questionable AGW.
Tom
> Bonzo:
> The "climate change problem" is a figment of a very delusional mind.
>
> Fran:
> Then in your view, the vast majority of the educated world is deluded. Hmm
> a whole bunch of highly qualified scientists, the evidence of my own eyes, .
Yeah, but the *independent* scientist, the ones that became
independently wealthy working for the tobacco industry trying to
defend them against the myth that tobacco caused millions of cancer
and heart disease deaths are on our side. The rest are corrupted
because they have mortgages so they have to toe the commie UN line.
> . .
>
> Claudius Denk:
> Why do you think it is that these supposed, "highly qualified scientists,"
> seem to not want to engage any of us in this most prominent public and open
> forum in a detailed scientific discussion of the supposed mechanistic
> underpinnings of AGW? They seem to have collectively recused themselves
> from any such conversation. Instead it seems they've all retreated to
> moderated forums like globalchange and Realclimate where the moderators
> ensure that no such conversations ever get started. Why do you think this
> is, Fran?
>
> Jonathan Kirwan:
> My reply is for sci.environment only.
>
> (1) Because no one should be expected to waste their valuable,
> trained time on obdurate, irretrievable idiots like you, those who
> cannot be bothered even in the least to become informed on any science
> or its language.
>
> (2) There are a range of forums already set up, for informed debate
> to be encouraged and take place, that they can and do already use and
> is a far, far better use of their limited time.
>
> (3) There are much better venues, in those cases where active climate
> scientists feel the need to help gain public attention for important
> conclusions.
>
> (4) When you get down with pigs, you get up with mud.
Amen.
>
> Regarding you in particular, there is no reason at all anyone actively
> working in the climate science field should engage someone like you;
> one who is impervious to any offered education here, hidebound against
> suggestions to go get some education elsewhere, unapologizing about
> his own sweepingly manifest ignorance, and pigheaded towards even
> learning the most basic rudaments of the language of physical science.
> You can't even follow the simpler quantitative arguments. There'd be
> little point in spending serious time discussing any of it with you --
> with the possible exception being that others not so mentally bankrupt
> as you might notice.
>
> Claudius Denk:
> I"m sorry Jonathan, but what you are saying just doesn't make sense. If
> what you're saying is true we would think exactly the opposite would be the
> case. If myself and other skeptics were as incompetent as you suggest then
> we'd expect you alarmists to be even more eager to engage in a detailed
> scientific discussion of the supposed mechanistic underpinnings of AGW.
> Because in so doing you alarmist would not only have the perfect opportunity
> to educate the greater public in these mechanistic details (unless, of
> course, you are suggesting that the public also is too stupid and ignorant
> to understand your explanations) and at one and the same time you'd have the
> perfect opportunity to expose the supposed incompetence of myself and
> skeptics in general.
>
> Of course the possibility exists that you believe that AGW alarmists are the
> only ones smart enough to understand the science of AGW. In which case one
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> My only claim here is that I can at least read some papers and do so
> with a chance at understanding them.
Let this be a lesson to you. Science is easy when you don't deal with
facts.
Fran
> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188133558.1...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 26, 3:32 am, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Bonzo:
> >> The "climate change problem" is a figment of a very delusional mind.
>
> >> Fran:
> >> Then in your view, the vast majority of the educated world is deluded.
> >> Hmm
> >> a whole bunch of highly qualified scientists, the evidence of my own
> >> eyes, .
> >> . .
>
> > Are we smarter than you? By and large, I believe the answer is yes,
> > but not for the reasons you might suppose, Mr Denk,
>
> > It's quite simple. By your reckoning, nobody can really predict
> > climate and so, according to you, one must admit that those who claim
> > that the build up of atmospheric GHG inventories will produce greater
> > climatic volatility and a progressive warming might well be right. One
> > could not confidently deny that without claiming to be able to predict
> > an alternate trend.
>
> I agree. And the same can be said for a global cooling predictions and a
> prediction that nothing or nothing significant could happen. Right?
Wrong. That's an outlandish prediction. There's simply no evidentiary
base for it, so we can exclude it.
> (Answer the question you evasive twit.)
Why are you so upset?
>
> > And unless one is really confident that a prediction is outlandish,
> > one must seek to foreclose damage. Yet you maintain that one should
> > await certainty. That is reckless, and therefore stupid. We don't do
> > that.
>
> Certainty of what? You just, essentially, admitted that have no basis for
> not assuming that increases in CO2 might actually result in catastrophic
> global cooling.
I did no such thing. There's no basis for advancing such a hypothesis.
But you are confused, because if that hypothesis were correct we'd
still advocate cutting CO2 emissions. Wouldn't you?
> And given the fact that a return to ice age conditions
> would, undeniably, have very dramatic implications on human civilization one
> can only wonder why you are in denial about this. You don't wish to be
> labelled a global cooling denialist now do you?
>
I need not deny what nobody with any credibility is advancing.
> > But how much stupider would one be if in addition to this, one knew
> > that doing what would be needed would yield utterly uncontestable
> > benefits and cost very little? Would one not have to be stupider yet
> > not to act? Indeed, this is one of the Israeli deniers admits.
>
> > Consider this: you are approaching a traffic light at 4AM. There's
> > nobody about and you wonder if you shouldn't ignore the red. It might
> > be fine, but the downside would be an outside risk of death.
>
> > What do you do? Wait for more evidence?
>
> Why not just wait for the light to turn green?
>
Why? You'd be halting you progress, and wasting fuel. The chances of a
collision would be slim. Surely one should not be swayed by the rough
chance of death?
Seriously, what we who accept the AGW hypothesis are doing is risk/
reward. Proceeding on the assumption that allowing atmospheric GHG
inventories to continue to increase will lead to undesirable impacts
on the biosphere and thus ultimately on us has no significant downside
and a very strong upside, even if thirty years from now, we can see
that we were worrying needlessly. Proceeding on the reverse view has a
devastating downside and virtually no upside and a series of other
negative consiequences, so that even if you guess right and act
accordingly, acting as you suggest would be folly in all cases.
>
>
> > And you don't even have that level of confidence and that limit on
> > damage. You are playing with humanity's prospects.
>
> > How stupid is that?
>
> Since you base your belief in global warming on lack of evidence to the
> contrary
I don't. I base it on the weight of scientific evidence, and the
correspondence of that evidence with what is intuitively reasonable
and observable phenomena in the world -- a combination of deductive
and inductive reasoning. I am strengthened in my view of course by the
knowledge that alternative accounts are implausible and that there
would be a compelling case for implementing policies on this basis
without adherence to the theory. Even some of the denier crowd accept
that.
It is your side that has this problem precisely because you don't
assert a contrary hypothesis to AGW. You just say that one can make no
firm predictions. If you did, you'd be a lot more credible because
you'd have to come up with a corpus of refutable data, models and so
forth. Saying that "all we know about climate is that it changes" as
does Mr Lindzen means you really can't refute what AGW proponents say,
beyong the weak "probably not"; you're probably exaggerating". It's
unsurprising that this is unconvincing.
> one can only wonder why you are not also warning us about the
> implications of alien space invaders. Afterall, you have no evidence that
> they have not already landed, are living amonst us, and biding their time
> for an opportunity to sieze control and enslave the human race. Right?
>
Let me refer you to the topic title you composed:
"Are AGW alarmists just smarter than the rest of us?"
The paragraph above does seem to answer affirmatively. If there
something more "outlandish" to repeat my term, than "aliens" I'm sure
I'd like to know.
> And then there's the possibility that you are one of them
I'm beginning to wonder about you actually. Your lack of interest in
the wellbeing of humanity does suggest that you're not one of us.
Still, Occam's Razor and all that. I figure you're probably just
stupid and putatively reckless.
Fran
Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:08:52 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:51:44 -0700, <claudi...@sbcglobal.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:6vv3d39hgv1u235td...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:15:05 -0700, <claudi...@sbcglobal.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>Please explain.
>>>>
>>>> This is just like a young child saying "why" to every response they
>>>> get. Including to direct answers that are pretty good. I'm sure it
>>>> is fun for your childish and idiotic mindset, but it isn't to most
>>>> adults. Funny once, you know?
>>>>
>>>> And I don't see the point of going beyond what I've already provided
>>>> you (both citations as well as suggestions about the better places for
>>>> you to study up.) You aren't competent to read it in detail and, as
>>>> is the case in physical science, "everything is in the quantitative
>>>> details."
>>>>
>>>> Tell you what. If you learn some math and take a moment to prove to
>>>> me that you can wield, say, 1st and 2nd order ordinary differentials
>>>> and partials with a little bit of understanding, maybe that will show
>>>> me you are willing to work for your knowledge and therefore perhaps
>>>> ready to be worth some further effort in return.
>>>
>>>Don't you think you'd feel better if you just admitted that you are unable
>>>to provide this explanation?
>>
>>Wouldn't you feel better if you'd finally admit you are in no position
>>to criticize climate scientists?
>>
>>...
>>
>>My only claim here is that I can at least read some papers and do so
>>with a chance at understanding them.
>
>Let this be a lesson to you. Science is easy when you don't deal with
>facts.
Silly boy. You are the one needing a lesson and the one claiming so
much and having so little capability to show for all of that. And to
top it off, you are a liar as well. Pretty bad state of affairs for
you.
Jon
Fran
>
> Some of us, as environmentalists, probably have a pre-existing
> tendency to take a catastrophic view of world events -- and that is a
> bias. And it may lead some of us -- including me - to wrong
> conclusions.
>
I see it as less of a predisposition towards looming catastrophe and
more a recognition of the fragility and complexity of the biosphere.
One must take seriously the possibility that radical changes in one or
more of its components, especially components the volatility of which
start positive feedback loops, will have serious consequences for us
humans.
The greater the potential damage, the more careful one must be in
negotiating the roads that could lead there.
What we do know is that during the period when humans evolved and
eventually became who we are today, one set of parameters obtained,
and we can assume that these were, on the whole, to our advantage, or
at worst, workable. Radically changing those parameters puts us in
uncharted waters and, to pursue the metaphor, we ought to be very
careful indeed sailing into waters we don't know, possibly without the
right equipment and without the confidence we can get back safely.
Those uncharted waters not only conatin an atmospheric soup of 500 PPM
CO2 or more, but a whole bunch of other toxics as well. It includes a
life in which crude oil might not be available at anything like
current cost.
Do we really want to gamble with the fate of humanity and assume it
will all be alright when we get there, especially when we have
persuasive reasons for believing otherwise and when there are evident
benefits right now attached to not doing so?
Of course not.You'd have to be stupid or sociopathic to act in this
way.
Fran
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> On Aug 27, 2:56 am, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1188133558.1...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 26, 3:32 am, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> Bonzo:
>> >> The "climate change problem" is a figment of a very delusional mind.
>>
>> >> Fran:
>> >> Then in your view, the vast majority of the educated world is deluded.
>> >> Hmm
>> >> a whole bunch of highly qualified scientists, the evidence of my own
>> >> eyes, .
>> >> . .
>>
>> > Are we smarter than you? By and large, I believe the answer is yes,
>> > but not for the reasons you might suppose, Mr Denk,
>>
>> > It's quite simple. By your reckoning, nobody can really predict
>> > climate and so, according to you, one must admit that those who claim
>> > that the build up of atmospheric GHG inventories will produce greater
>> > climatic volatility and a progressive warming might well be right. One
>> > could not confidently deny that without claiming to be able to predict
>> > an alternate trend.
>>
>> I agree. And the same can be said for a global cooling predictions and a
>> prediction that nothing or nothing significant could happen. Right?
>
> Wrong. That's an outlandish prediction. There's simply no evidentiary
> base for it, so we can exclude it.
You just contradicted yourself. You just admitted that you have no
evidentiary basis of predicting global warming. And not only are you not
excluding it but you are including it.
>
>> (Answer the question you evasive twit.)
>
> Why are you so upset?
>
>>
>> > And unless one is really confident that a prediction is outlandish,
>> > one must seek to foreclose damage. Yet you maintain that one should
>> > await certainty. That is reckless, and therefore stupid. We don't do
>> > that.
>>
>> Certainty of what? You just, essentially, admitted that have no basis
>> for
>> not assuming that increases in CO2 might actually result in catastrophic
>> global cooling.
>
> I did no such thing. There's no basis for advancing such a hypothesis.
You just admitted that you have no basis for advancing the CO2 causes global
warming hypothesis. Read what you wrote. (Oh and by the way, there is just
as much circumstantial evidence of impeding global cooling as there is for
impending global warming.)
> But you are confused, because if that hypothesis were correct we'd
> still advocate cutting CO2 emissions. Wouldn't you?
There was never any confusion on my part in this regard. Yes, cutting CO2
would still be the only anthropogenic remedy.
>
>> And given the fact that a return to ice age conditions
>> would, undeniably, have very dramatic implications on human civilization
>> one
>> can only wonder why you are in denial about this. You don't wish to be
>> labelled a global cooling denialist now do you?
>>
>
> I need not deny what nobody with any credibility is advancing.
So your position is not based on facts or science but on trust in others who
you consider to be credible. Right? (Answer the question you evasive
twit.)
>> > But how much stupider would one be if in addition to this, one knew
>> > that doing what would be needed would yield utterly uncontestable
>> > benefits and cost very little? Would one not have to be stupider yet
>> > not to act? Indeed, this is one of the Israeli deniers admits.
>>
>> > Consider this: you are approaching a traffic light at 4AM. There's
>> > nobody about and you wonder if you shouldn't ignore the red. It might
>> > be fine, but the downside would be an outside risk of death.
>>
>> > What do you do? Wait for more evidence?
>>
>> Why not just wait for the light to turn green?
>>
>
> Why? You'd be halting you progress, and wasting fuel. The chances of a
> collision would be slim. Surely one should not be swayed by the rough
> chance of death?
If you want to take unneccessary risks there little miss thrillseeker then
go ahead. If I'm driving we're waiting for the light to turn green. If
you're driving I'm getting out.
> Seriously, what we who accept the AGW hypothesis are doing is risk/
> reward.
This is an inane statement. Essentially risk/reward is what all biological
creatures do from one moment to the next.
> Proceeding on the assumption
Oh. So you admit that this is just an assumption. Right?
> that allowing atmospheric GHG
> inventories to continue to increase will lead to undesirable impacts
> on the biosphere
And you've essentially conceded that it could have no impact at all. Right?
> and thus ultimately on us has no significant downside
> and a very strong upside,
Absolutely false. Restriction of fossil fuels can only have negative
effects on world economy. The more it's restricted the more the world
plunges into a depression, possibly resulting in the onset of "dark ages."
> even if thirty years from now, we can see
> that we were worrying needlessly.
Its the mitigation effects that could result in the death of millions that
is the problem.
> Proceeding on the reverse view has a
> devastating downside
Nonsense. You have no evidence that CO2 can have any impact at all. You're
just talking out your ass.
> and virtually no upside and a series of other
> negative consiequences,
The upside would be not uneccessarily plunging the world economy into a
depression, you idiot.
> so that even if you guess right and act
> accordingly, acting as you suggest would be folly in all cases.
Why?
>
>>
>>
>> > And you don't even have that level of confidence and that limit on
>> > damage. You are playing with humanity's prospects.
>>
>> > How stupid is that?
>>
>> Since you base your belief in global warming on lack of evidence to the
>> contrary
>
> I don't.
You do. You just admitted as much in this very post.
> I base it on the weight of scientific evidence, and the
> correspondence of that evidence with what is intuitively reasonable
> and observable phenomena in the world -- a combination of deductive
> and inductive reasoning.
If this is the case then why do you not present arguments in this respect.
All you do is propagandize. I've not once seen you actually approach the
scientific details of this issue in an intellectually honest manner. For
example, in this very same post you admitted that you base your belief in
AGW on the opinions of others that you consider credible. Only a
propagandist and/or a fool would claim to have arguments based on, "a
combination of deductive and inductive reasoning," and then refuse to
present these arguments for all to see.
> I am strengthened in my view of course by the
> knowledge that alternative accounts are implausible
Why not provide references so that we know what you are talking about.
Surely you don't expect us to take your word on any of this. Do you? Oh,
and keep in mind, we don't have direct access to your imagination.
> and that there
> would be a compelling case for implementing policies on this basis
> without adherence to the theory. Even some of the denier crowd accept
> that.
I think you are just plain delusional. You haven't established a premise
and already you're wanting to influence policy decisions.
>
> It is your side that has this problem precisely because you don't
> assert a contrary hypothesis to AGW.
Oh, get over yourself you pompous ass. Any idiot can formulate a hypothesis
that is contrary to AGW.
> You just say that one can make no
> firm predictions.
Why not quote me directly, and in context, you muddleheaded twit.
> If you did, you'd be a lot more credible because
> you'd have to come up with a corpus of refutable data,
Refutable data? What is this. Data is data. It's not a hypothesis. Only
hypotheses are refutable tor irrretuble.
> models and so
> forth. Saying that "all we know about climate is that it changes" as
> does Mr Lindzen means you really can't refute what AGW proponents say,
Uh . . . I suppose. And you can't refute what believers in Bigfoot say
either.
> beyong the weak "probably not"; you're probably exaggerating". It's
> unsurprising that this is unconvincing.
>
>
>> one can only wonder why you are not also warning us about the
>> implications of alien space invaders. Afterall, you have no evidence
>> that
>> they have not already landed, are living amonst us, and biding their time
>> for an opportunity to sieze control and enslave the human race. Right?
>>
>
> Let me refer you to the topic title you composed:
>
> "Are AGW alarmists just smarter than the rest of us?"
>
> The paragraph above does seem to answer affirmatively. If there
> something more "outlandish" to repeat my term, than "aliens" I'm sure
> I'd like to know.
>
>> And then there's the possibility that you are one of them
>
> I'm beginning to wonder about you actually. Your lack of interest in
> the wellbeing of humanity
I'm sure you have more than enough for the both of us.
> does suggest that you're not one of us.
> Still, Occam's Razor and all that. I figure you're probably just
> stupid and putatively reckless.
Trust me, honey, Occam's razor does not help the AGW cause. Why don't you
try to actually apply Occam's razor.
Fran
I'm just going to say this once.
Go back and reread what I said, slowly. If you still claim that it
means the above, you are either trolling or unable to understand plain
English. In either case, I can't help you, which rather answers your
original question.
It's laughable that a person of such limited perspicacity would
presume to lecture us on science, of all things.
> > and virtually no upside and a series of other
> > negative consiequences,
>
> The upside would be not uneccessarily plunging the world economy into a
> depression, you idiot.
>
Nonsense. A spike in oil prices is far more milkely to do that. Why
are you posting if you understand so little, even about basic
economics.
> > so that even if you guess right and act
> > accordingly, acting as you suggest would be folly in all cases.
>
> Why?
>
>
>
> >> > And you don't even have that level of confidence and that limit on
> >> > damage. You are playing with humanity's prospects.
>
> >> > How stupid is that?
>
> >> Since you base your belief in global warming on lack of evidence to the
> >> contrary
>
> > I don't.
>
> You do. You just admitted as much in this very post.
>
> > I base it on the weight of scientific evidence, and the
> > correspondence of that evidence with what is intuitively reasonable
> > and observable phenomena in the world -- a combination of deductive
> > and inductive reasoning.
>
> If this is the case then why do you not present arguments in this
> respect.
Because these have been presented and republished repeatedly. No good
purpose would be served by me offering them up one more time. In the
course of this post, you have variously failed to understand, or
misrepresented my position on a number of occasions, even though what
I've claimed was utterly plain. That doesn't augur well for your
ability to handle rather more complex matters.
> All you do is propagandize. I've not once seen you actually approach the
> scientific details of this issue in an intellectually honest manner. For
> example, in this very same post you admitted that you base your belief in
> AGW on the opinions of others that you consider credible. Only a
> propagandist and/or a fool would claim to have arguments based on, "a
> combination of deductive and inductive reasoning," and then refuse to
> present these arguments for all to see.
>
You ignore the possibility that I don't beleive your question is
genuine, and that the motivation on your part is simply to have us
engage you in some silly game of flaming cyber ping pong.
> > I am strengthened in my view of course by the
> > knowledge that alternative accounts are implausible
>
> Why not provide references so that we know what you are talking about.
See above.
> Surely you don't expect us to take your word on any of this. Do you?
I couldn't care less, frankly. You are either stupid or trolling. I
suppose you could just be some conspiracy nut or have some interest in
the fossil fuel industry, but really, why would I worry?
The debate on these matters is over. Nobody with any credibility
shares your view. Although one can yet hear the dogs barking, the
caravan has long moved on.
> Oh,
> and keep in mind, we don't have direct access to your imagination.
>
No need. Go read a refereed journal on the matter.
> > and that there
> > would be a compelling case for implementing policies on this basis
> > without adherence to the theory. Even some of the denier crowd accept
> > that.
>
> I think
No, you don't. You just mouth drivel.
> you are just plain delusional. You haven't established a premise
> and already you're wanting to influence policy decisions.
>
>
You can't be that thick, can you?
>
> > It is your side that has this problem precisely because you don't
> > assert a contrary hypothesis to AGW.
>
> Oh, get over yourself you pompous ass. Any idiot can formulate a
> hypothesis
> that is contrary to AGW.
>
Any idiot can but you can't? Gosh, you really are determined to prove
your stupidity. Then again, that was your original hypothesis.
> > You just say that one can make no
> > firm predictions.
>
> Why not quote me directly, and in context,
Because it's not necessary.
> you muddleheaded twit.
>
That's all you have - schoolyard taunts.
> > If you did, you'd be a lot more credible because
> > you'd have to come up with a corpus of refutable data,
>
> Refutable data? What is this. Data is data. It's not a hypothesis. Only
> hypotheses are refutable tor irrretuble.
>
No, data are also refutable. One can show that they were not gathered
accurately, or that the process involved data bias.
> > models and so
> > forth. Saying that "all we know about climate is that it changes" as
> > does Mr Lindzen means you really can't refute what AGW proponents say,
>
> Uh . . . I suppose. And you can't refute what believers in Bigfoot say
> either.
>
>
>
>
>
<snip>>
> >> And then there's the possibility that you are one of them
>
> > I'm beginning to wonder about you actually. Your lack of interest in
> > the wellbeing of humanity
>
> I'm sure you have more than enough for the both of us.
>
Perhaps, but in this as in all things, I'm an egalitarian.
> > does suggest that you're not one of us.
> > Still, Occam's Razor and all that. I figure you're probably just
> > stupid and putatively reckless.
>
> Trust me, honey,
A buffoon who imagines he can cover it up by being condescending --
how utterly banal!
> Occam's razor does not help the AGW cause.
On the contrary, it serves us well.
> Why don't you
> try to actually apply Occam's razor
I already have, but you are either trolling or to stupid to work it
out.
You wonder why people don't bother as often as you'd like? There's
your answer. You aren't willing or able to hold a serious discussion.
Fran
Fran
That's what I'm finding out. I started off believing him stupid, and I
haven't toally discarded that idea, but I'm now more inclined to the
view that he is a troll.
Every troll has to pick out something that will get people's
attention. This is it for him.
Fran
Kurt Lochner
>
>"obvious crank" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
__>
> >Let this be a lesson to you. Science is easy when you don't
> >deal with facts.
>
> Silly boy. You are the one needing a lesson and the one claiming so
> much and having so little capability to show for all of that. And to
> top it off, you are a liar as well. Pretty bad state of affairs for
> you.
I see that Claudia is again 'projecting' his/her inadequacies..
--The subject header says it all, ironically..
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
If you are not willing to stand by your words then maybe you'd like to
make a retraction? Or maybe you'd like to clarify your postion.
>
> It's laughable that a person of such limited perspicacity would
> presume to lecture us on science, of all things.
You AGW whackos are so predictable. It's like it never even occurs to
you to deal with these issues in an intellectually honest manner.
>
> > > and virtually no upside and a series of other
> > > negative consiequences,
>
> > The upside would be not uneccessarily plunging the world economy into a
> > depression, you idiot.
>
> Nonsense. A spike in oil prices is far more milkely to do that. Why
> are you posting if you understand so little, even about basic
> economics.
Same difference. The world economy is highly dependent on oil, you
mental retard. If you socialist eco-nazis got ahold on the economy
(not that there's any realistic chance of such occurring) the black
market price of oil would go through the roof.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > so that even if you guess right and act
> > > accordingly, acting as you suggest would be folly in all cases.
>
> > Why?
>
> > >> > And you don't even have that level of confidence and that limit on
> > >> > damage. You are playing with humanity's prospects.
>
> > >> > How stupid is that?
>
> > >> Since you base your belief in global warming on lack of evidence to the
> > >> contrary
>
> > > I don't.
>
> > You do. You just admitted as much in this very post.
>
> > > I base it on the weight of scientific evidence, and the
> > > correspondence of that evidence with what is intuitively reasonable
> > > and observable phenomena in the world -- a combination of deductive
> > > and inductive reasoning.
>
> > If this is the case then why do you not present arguments in this
> > respect.
>
> Because these have been presented and republished repeatedly.
Provide references. I've seen nothing but propaganda. You are
confused and/or deluded--like all AGW whackos.
> No good
> purpose would be served by me offering them up one more time. In the
> course of this post, you have variously failed to understand, or
> misrepresented my position on a number of occasions, even though what
> I've claimed was utterly plain. That doesn't augur well for your
> ability to handle rather more complex matters.
Hah! You AGW retards are incapable of anything but parroting back
vague rhetoric. You are delusional.
>
> > All you do is propagandize. I've not once seen you actually approach the
> > scientific details of this issue in an intellectually honest manner. For
> > example, in this very same post you admitted that you base your belief in
> > AGW on the opinions of others that you consider credible. Only a
> > propagandist and/or a fool would claim to have arguments based on, "a
> > combination of deductive and inductive reasoning," and then refuse to
> > present these arguments for all to see.
>
> You ignore the possibility that I don't beleive your question is
> genuine, and that the motivation on your part is simply to have us
> engage you in some silly game of flaming cyber ping pong.
Put up or shut up, jackass.
>
> > > I am strengthened in my view of course by the
> > > knowledge that alternative accounts are implausible
>
> > Why not provide references so that we know what you are talking about.
>
> See above.
Evasive twit.
>
> > Surely you don't expect us to take your word on any of this. Do you?
>
> I couldn't care less, frankly. You are either stupid or trolling. I
> suppose you could just be some conspiracy nut or have some interest in
> the fossil fuel industry, but really, why would I worry?
You are so lost in your delusions it hardly matters.
>
> The debate on these matters is over.
Really. Provide references to this debate. Go ahead. What are you
waiting for?
> Nobody with any credibility
> shares your view. Although one can yet hear the dogs barking, the
> caravan has long moved on.
This is how people with religious beliefs talk.
>
> > Oh,
> > and keep in mind, we don't have direct access to your imagination.
>
> No need. Go read a refereed journal on the matter.
Provide a reference and a direct quote, you evasive twit.
>
> > > and that there
> > > would be a compelling case for implementing policies on this basis
> > > without adherence to the theory. Even some of the denier crowd accept
> > > that.
>
> > I think
>
> No, you don't. You just mouth drivel.
>
> > you are just plain delusional. You haven't established a premise
> > and already you're wanting to influence policy decisions.
>
> You can't be that thick, can you?
Science is easy when you don't have to deal with facts.
> > > It is your side that has this problem precisely because you don't
> > > assert a contrary hypothesis to AGW.
>
> > Oh, get over yourself you pompous ass. Any idiot can formulate a
> > hypothesis
> > that is contrary to AGW.
>
> Any idiot can but you can't? Gosh, you really are determined to prove
> your stupidity. Then again, that was your original hypothesis.
>
> > > You just say that one can make no
> > > firm predictions.
>
> > Why not quote me directly, and in context,
>
> Because it's not necessary.
Yeah, you propagandist regularly ignore standard journalistic
practices.
>
> > you muddleheaded twit.
>
> That's all you have - schoolyard taunts.
>
> > > If you did, you'd be a lot more credible because
> > > you'd have to come up with a corpus of refutable data,
>
> > Refutable data? What is this. Data is data. It's not a hypothesis. Only
> > hypotheses are refutable tor irrretuble.
>
> No, data are also refutable. One can show that they were not gathered
> accurately, or that the process involved data bias.
The data is readily available to the public at large, you mental
retard.
>
> > > models and so
> > > forth. Saying that "all we know about climate is that it changes" as
> > > does Mr Lindzen means you really can't refute what AGW proponents say,
>
> > Uh . . . I suppose. And you can't refute what believers in Bigfoot say
> > either.
>
> <snip>>
>
> > >> And then there's the possibility that you are one of them
>
> > > I'm beginning to wonder about you actually. Your lack of interest in
> > > the wellbeing of humanity
>
> > I'm sure you have more than enough for the both of us.
>
> Perhaps, but in this as in all things, I'm an egalitarian.
That's nice, honey. Now why don't you go out into you garden to tend
to your daisies and leave us adults to discuss these things.
>
> > > does suggest that you're not one of us.
> > > Still, Occam's Razor and all that. I figure you're probably just
> > > stupid and putatively reckless.
>
> > Trust me, honey,
>
> A buffoon who imagines he can cover it up by being condescending --
> how utterly banal!
>
> > Occam's razor does not help the AGW cause.
>
> On the contrary, it serves us well.
>
> > Why don't you
> > try to actually apply Occam's razor
>
> I already have,
References? (If nothing else it should be good for a few laughs.)
> but you are either trolling or to stupid to work it
> out.
>
> You wonder why people don't bother as often as you'd like? There's
> your answer. You aren't willing or able to hold a serious discussion.
You've proven yourself incapable of addressing these topics in an
intellectually honest manner.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> On Aug 25, 10:32 am, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>
> > Claudius Denk:
> > I"m sorry Jonathan, but what you are saying just doesn't make sense. If
> > what you're saying is true we would think exactly the opposite would be the
> > case. If myself and other skeptics were as incompetent as you suggest then
> > we'd expect you alarmists to be even more eager to engage in a detailed
> > scientific discussion of the supposed mechanistic underpinnings of AGW.
>
References?
>
> > Of course the possibility exists that you believe that AGW alarmists are the
> > only ones smart enough to understand the science of AGW. In which case one
> > can only wonder why you bother to post to a public forum at all.
>
> What then should we be doing besides posting in a public forum?
You should address issues in an intellectually honest manner, you
evasive twit.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
know, like facts.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Maybe you can help Fran with the initial question:
Fran:
Then in your view, the vast majority of the educated world is
deluded. Hmm
a whole bunch of highly qualified scientists, the evidence of my own
eyes, .
. .
Claudius Denk:
Server 13
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1188217123.6...@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 25, 7:05 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 25, 10:32 am, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> [ . . . ]
>>
>> > Claudius Denk:
>> > I"m sorry Jonathan, but what you are saying just doesn't make sense.
>> > If
>> > what you're saying is true we would think exactly the opposite would be
>> > the
>> > case. If myself and other skeptics were as incompetent as you suggest
>> > then
>> > we'd expect you alarmists to be even more eager to engage in a detailed
>> > scientific discussion of the supposed mechanistic underpinnings of AGW.
>>
>> We have.
>
> References?
Any paper on GW.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Server 13
Jonathan Kirwan
>Maybe you should find a hobby that doesn't involve complex things, you
>know, like facts.
The mere words of a sad, incompetent idiot projecting onto others his
own inadequacies.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 05:23:00 -0700, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 02:57:33 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 19:41:58 -0700, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:08:52 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:51:44 -0700, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
> >>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkir...@easystreet.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:6vv3d39hgv1u235td...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:15:05 -0700, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
It must be frustrating to be so sure you are right and so completely
unable to say how or why.
Jonathan Kirwan
The only thing I've indicated any certainty about is your demonstrated
lack of skill on any topic related to science -- but that's only
because of the abundant evidence you've left here. And yes, your
perseverations at lying and disingenuousness and your unwillingness to
remedy your own dire problems might be frustrating. But you make a
pleasant, effortless (because of your own unwillingness to show any
capability of your own) example to others. So please stick around for
more.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:50:52 -0700, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >It must be frustrating to be so sure you are right and so completely
> >unable to say how or why.
>
> The only thing I've indicated any certainty about is your demonstrated
> lack of skill on any topic related to science -- but that's only
> because of the abundant evidence you've left here.
Well then why don't you refer to it directly? Wouldn't this be the
intellectually honest approach? I think you've cried wolf too many
times. You're whining is falling on deaf ears. Seriously, you need
to go back through our conversations and see if you can demonstrate my
supposed, "lack of skill on any topic related to science." You'll
note that I had no trouble at all doing that to you. That's why I'm
so effective in this NG. I use my opponents words against them. Why
don't you turn the tables on me and do the same?
> And yes, your
> perseverations at lying and disingenuousness
Then, by all mean, make your case. Expose my supposed lies for all to
see. What are you waiting for?
> and your unwillingness to
> remedy your own dire problems might be frustrating. But you make a
> pleasant, effortless (because of your own unwillingness to show any
> capability of your own) example to others. So please stick around for
> more.
You come off as so completely incapable of address the issue that I
can only think you must, in actuality, be James Hansen.
Be honest. Did I get it right? Is that you James?
Jonathan Kirwan
>>>It must be frustrating to be so sure you are right and so completely
>>>unable to say how or why.
>>
>>The only thing I've indicated any certainty about is your demonstrated
>>lack of skill on any topic related to science -- but that's only
>>because of the abundant evidence you've left here.
>Well then why don't you refer to it directly? Wouldn't this be the
>intellectually honest approach?
No one needs it, for one. The other is that I'm not inclined to work
that hard just because you are such an idiot. I'm lazy when it comes
to you. No surpise.
>I think you've cried wolf too many times.
This is definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I'm
only responding to your inane replies. You want better, deliver
better.
>You're whining is falling on deaf ears.
In your case, yes I already know that. Of course, you cannot speak
for others.
>Seriously, you need
>to go back through our conversations and see if you can demonstrate my
>supposed, "lack of skill on any topic related to science." You'll
>note that I had no trouble at all doing that to you. That's why I'm
>so effective in this NG. I use my opponents words against them. Why
>don't you turn the tables on me and do the same?
You only need provide a single example to disprove me. I would need
to compile a comprehensive list. But others can judge for themselves
and I'm comfortable there. Especially, since your burden is so much
lighter on this narrow point. Provide a single example of your skill
at understanding the quantitative details of any particular issue of
climate science. In other words, your ability to be comprehensive in
scope and quantitative in detailed calculations given particulars.
That's all it takes. But I won't hold my breath.
>>And yes, your
>>perseverations at lying and disingenuousness and your unwillingness to
>>remedy your own dire problems might be frustrating. But you make a
>>pleasant, effortless (because of your own unwillingness to show any
>>capability of your own) example to others. So please stick around for
>>more.
><snip>
>Be honest.
As if you ever were capable of it, liar.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Maybe you should take more vitamins.
>
>>I think you've cried wolf too many times.
>
> This is definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I'm
> only responding to your inane replies. You want better, deliver
> better.
It's regrettable that my interaction here with you did not meet with your
expecations, however high or low they may be.
Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:
><snip>
>> No one needs it, for one. The other is that I'm not inclined to work
>> that hard just because you are such an idiot. I'm lazy when it comes
>> to you. No surpise.
>
>Maybe you should take more vitamins.
Wouldn't make any difference. You don't earn serious thought in
reply.
>>>I think you've cried wolf too many times.
>>
>> This is definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I'm
>> only responding to your inane replies. You want better, deliver
>> better.
>
>It's regrettable that my interaction here with you did not meet with your
>expecations, however high or low they may be.
Again disingenuously putting words in my mouth. "You want better,
deliver better." This has nothing to do with expectations.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
z
The what-climate-change folks think people who believe in AGW think
they are smarter than the what-climate-change folks. And they're
correct about that, people who believe in AGW DO think they are
smarter than the what-climate-change folks. And they are also correct
about that.
Jonathan Kirwan
>Why do you think it is that these supposed, "highly qualified
>scientists,"seem to not want to engage any of us in this most prominent public and
>open forum in a detailed scientific discussion of the supposed mechanistic
Keep up your religious use of words, idiot. Makes you look as dumb as
you are.
>underpinnings of AGW?
You keep asking the same things and my answers won't change. Read
back. I already addressed this in some detail. You just don't like
it. So find someone else to ask.
>They seem to have collectively recused themselves from any such conversation.
Asked and answered, already.
>Instead it seems they've all retreated
>to moderated forums like globalchange and Realclimate where the moderators
>ensure that no such conversations ever get started.
RealClimate is an excellent place where you can get informed criticism
addressed. They WILL respond to INFORMED criticism. The fact that
you can't present any is your problem, not theies.
>Why do you think this is, Fran?
Ah. Good. The idiot is deciding to ask someone else.
Talk-n-Dog
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:53:36 -0700, claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>> Why do you think it is that these supposed, "highly qualified
>> scientists,"seem to not want to engage any of us in this most prominent public and
>> open forum in a detailed scientific discussion of the supposed mechanistic
>
> Keep up your religious use of words, idiot. Makes you look as dumb as
> you are.
Is this the religion of science or the science of religion?
--
http://OutSourcedNews.com
Our constitution protects criminals, drunks and U.S. Senators. Which at
times are, one and the same...
The problem with the global warming theory, is that a theory is like a
bowl of ice-cream, it only takes a little dab of bullshit to ruin the
whole thing. - Gump That -
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:53:36 -0700, claudi...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>>Why do you think it is that these supposed, "highly qualified
>>scientists,"seem to not want to engage any of us in this most prominent
>>public and
>>open forum in a detailed scientific discussion of the supposed mechanistic
>
> Keep up your religious use of words, idiot. Makes you look as dumb as
> you are.
Why do you think it is that these supposed, "highly qualified
scientists,"seem to not want to engage any of us in this most prominent
public and open forum in a detailed scientific discussion of the supposed
theoretical aspects of the global warming premise?
>>underpinnings of AGW?
>
> You keep asking the same things and my answers won't change. Read
> back. I already addressed this in some detail. You just don't like
> it. So find someone else to ask.
I know your answers won't change. I just like watching you squirm. It
makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over. And that's important because where I
live it's cold all the time. Thank you for your participation.
>>They seem to have collectively recused themselves from any such
>>conversation.
>
> Asked and answered, already.
I think you said they are too busy to talk to us. I think you also
mentioned something to the effect that they were disinclined to communicate
with people that they did not consider to be their intellectual equals on
this subject and they were otherwise disinclined to teaching, educating or
even informing members of the public on these issues.
I should mention, your comments don't ring true to me. I don't believe
these scientists are as arrogant and snobbish as you paint them to be. I
also don't think they are as lacking in gratitude as you suggest. I'm sure
that they are generally anything but unwilling to assist any member of the
public to get a better understanding of the scientific details of
climatology (and related disciplines).
>>Instead it seems they've all retreated
>>to moderated forums like globalchange and Realclimate where the moderators
>>ensure that no such conversations ever get started.
>
> RealClimate is an excellent place where you can get informed criticism
> addressed.
Really? Do you think that if I send them them these questions they will not
censur it? Wanna bet?
> They WILL respond to INFORMED criticism. The fact that
> you can't present any is your problem, not theies.
There you go again trying to paint them as arrogant snobs. You
misrepresentt them, IMO. There must be some other reason why these
supposed, "highly qualified scientists,"seem to not want to engage any of us
in this most prominent public and open forum in a detailed scientific
discussion of the supposed theoretical aspects of the global warming
premise. What you're saying just doesn't make sense.
What do you think this other reason might be?
Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:
><snip>
>> RealClimate is an excellent place where you can get informed criticism
>> addressed.
>
>Really? Do you think that if I send them them these questions they will not
>censur it? Wanna bet?
You couldn't manage informed criticism.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote
> Have you ever even considered that you are wrong about humans causing GW?
Quite impossible, since GW is as firmly established by science as gravity
and is a measured fact.
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote
> Have you ever even considered that the science is NOT complete?
Meaningless. Science has never been complete you pathetic Moron.
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote
> Have you ever even considered that people that have considered these
> things are not stupid and evil?
Well, when you deny reality you are either one or the other, or both.
Which are you Tom?
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote
> It seems arrogant to dismiss any dissenting voices.
And laughable that someone as ignorant as yourself think they know more
about science than the vast, vast majority of the worlds scientists.
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote
> True scientists question, AWGers seem to rant, afraid of loosing some
> huge tax payoff or lucrative research grant.
And now Tom morphs the conversation from science to politics, and money
grubbing.
For Christ Sake, he makes brooms man. He knows all there is to know about
Science.
Ahahahahahahahahaahha..
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote
> The next ten years will pass very quickly and by then the world will have
> a better understanding of Earth's climate.
Yup, and I will be sharpening my RepubliKKKan throat slitting knife.
How about you Tom?
Tom Gardner
"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
news:frkMi.1432$9F1...@read1.cgocable.net...
Threaten me with your "Throat slitting Knife? Why not bring your "Light
Saber", little boy? Bringing your "knife" to a gun fight? Gee, you're
smart! See ya' at 500 meters! Your sophomoric posting is so sad, either
you're a twelve year-old on mommy's 'puter or an unemployable welfare moron
troll in your dirty underwear. Which is it?
talk-...@talk-n-dog.com
> Bonzo:
> The "climate change problem" is a figment of a very delusional mind.
>
> Then in your view, the vast majority of the educated world is deluded. Hmm
> . .
>
> Claudius Denk:
> Why do you think it is that these supposed, "highly qualified scientists,"
> seem to not want to engage any of us in this most prominent public and open
> forum in a detailed scientific discussion of the supposed mechanistic
> from any such conversation. Instead it seems they've all retreated to
> moderated forums like globalchange and Realclimate where the moderators
> is, Fran?
>
> Jonathan Kirwan:
> My reply is for sci.environment only.
>
> (1) Because no one should be expected to waste their valuable,
> trained time on obdurate, irretrievable idiots like you, those who
> cannot be bothered even in the least to become informed on any science
> or its language.
>
> (2) There are a range of forums already set up, for informed debate
> to be encouraged and take place, that they can and do already use and
> is a far, far better use of their limited time.
>
> (3) There are much better venues, in those cases where active climate
> scientists feel the need to help gain public attention for important
> conclusions.
>
> (4) When you get down with pigs, you get up with mud.
>
> Regarding you in particular, there is no reason at all anyone actively
> working in the climate science field should engage someone like you;
> one who is impervious to any offered education here, hidebound against
> suggestions to go get some education elsewhere, unapologizing about
> his own sweepingly manifest ignorance, and pigheaded towards even
> learning the most basic rudaments of the language of physical science.
> You can't even follow the simpler quantitative arguments. There'd be
> little point in spending serious time discussing any of it with you --
> with the possible exception being that others not so mentally bankrupt
> as you might notice.
>
> Claudius Denk:
> I"m sorry Jonathan, but what you are saying just doesn't make sense. If
> what you're saying is true we would think exactly the opposite would be the
> case. If myself and other skeptics were as incompetent as you suggest then
> scientific discussion of the supposed mechanistic underpinnings of AGW.
> Because in so doing you alarmist would not only have the perfect opportunity
> to educate the greater public in these mechanistic details (unless, of
> course, you are suggesting that the public also is too stupid and ignorant
> to understand your explanations) and at one and the same time you'd have the
> perfect opportunity to expose the supposed incompetence of myself and
> skeptics in general.
>
> Of course the possibility exists that you believe that AGW alarmists are the
> only ones smart enough to understand the science of AGW. In which case one
> can only wonder why you bother to post to a public forum at all.
They did get it right on in the seventies when they predicted an Ice
age...
hanson
VD Scotty is funny when he Scuttles his Nutts... AHAHAHA
>
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:%ZkMi.1329$ua4....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>> The next ten years will pass very quickly and by then the world will
>>> have a better understanding of Earth's climate.
>>
> Scuttle Nutts aka "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" aka VD Scotty
<Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
> news:frkMi.1432$9F1...@read1.cgocable.net...
>> How about you Tom?
>
> Threaten me with your "Throat slitting Knife? Why not bring your "Light
> Saber", little boy? Bringing your "knife" to a gun fight? Gee, you're
> smart! See ya' at 500 meters! Your sophomoric posting is so sad, either
> you're a twelve year-old on mommy's 'puter or an unemployable welfare
> moron troll in your dirty underwear. Which is it?
ahahaha... Tom, you maybe right on your latter guess about him.
Here's some beef on this possibly tax-evading US expatriate,
"Scott Nudds aka Vendicar Decarian aka VD Scotty aka
"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com>
continues to Scuttle his Nutts as he goes into overkill after he did
"ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans" LynchTheB...@AngryMob.com
in his hope to "exterminate the American State" which is after
VD Scotty for taxes VD Scotty ows to the IRS from when VD
Scotty went bankrupt and fled across the border into Canada.
Isn't that the source/cause of your intense unhappiness, Scotty?
>
[VD Scotty's global views]
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote Absolutely Nothing... Meanwhile as the
> Globe Contines to warm, [VD Scotty gets
> scared shitless over the weather and laments that] George
> Bush forgets which country he's in... [which is very important to
> VD Scotty who said "Here I am, a brain the size of a planet"]
>
[hanson]
... ahahaha... ahahahaha...VD you must refer to your
Hydrocephalus by your "brain the size of a planet"
that harbors your "warped and tiny mind"... ahahaha..
>
VD say he has a warped, tiny mind:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/40f408cb5aac9bc0?hl=en&
>
They said: "Scuttle Nutts, Fuck off Moron":
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/e181bb55b07fb268?hl=en&
>
and more fun from Scuttle Nutts:
>
"Harley" <Co...@Mont.com> wrote in message
news:46e5d1b3$0$22902$8826...@unlimited.teranews.com...
> Harry Reed on CNN just announced Bin Laden claims to have
> 5 nukes, and he said his number one target was Montreal
> Canada.... I was shocked...shocked I tell you. -- Harley
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHA... So, UBL doesn't like the "warped, tiny mind"
of Scott Nudds aka Vendicar Decarian aka VD Scotty aka
"ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans" LynchTheBushTria...@AngryMob.com
& "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com>
who lives near Montreal Canada and who had lovelingly posted:
>
::VD:: "I wish Osama BinLaden a happy 50th-ish birthday."
>
ahahaha.. Nuddley see, now the chicken are come'n home
to roost. You now have double trouble...(1) from your hated
AmeriKKKa which does not send your welfare check in time,
AND (2) from your beloved chief Ass-venter UBL who wants
to nuke your ass... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... ahahahaha...
See, Nuddley, what comes around goes around!... ahaha..
>
Scott Nudds Birthdays wishes to Osama Ben laden:
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/e714b09109934cbc?hl=en&
>
VD Scotty's Green Bible & its enviro Theology
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/70ed6372eccc32ba
>
** Environmentalism is for $$$$$$$, the environment is the come-on **
>
*** Environmentalism "makes the Rich richer and the Poor poorer!" ***
Cleopatra_Enterprise_Institute-Queen_of-DeNile
> "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
Tom - hear, hear.
Don't know what your views are on AGW, CO2 etc - but you're mostly
right about "HangEveryRepublikkan."
Dumb, obnoxious kid -- sophomoric in the worst sense. "Unemployable
welfare moron" strikes me as nasty elitist rhetoric, but "dirty
underwear" sounds about right.
Unless Hang is an agent provacateur, and is really working for the
fossil fuel companies to give environmentalists a bad reputation.
Which is possible, I think - but probably he's just got a personality
disorder. Too bad, really.
Tom Gardner
"Cleopatra_Enterprise_Institute-Queen_of-DeNile" <fernba...@yahoo.com>
wrote in message
news:1191348460.7...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Thank you for your understanding my retort to a vicious attack. Where I
stand? I'm an outdoorsman and spend considerable time fishing in wilderness
areas. I've seen the damage done by acid rain and REAL pollution that I
believe should take president over AGW until more calm science is done. But
why wait? Build Nuke plants...LOTS of them! A big pollution problem goes
away, CO2 goes way down, cheap power fosters cheap electric cars, more
pollution goes away, more CO2 goes away...and I catch more fish! Did you
see where Hillary wants to give $5k to every baby born? What if she gave
$5k to every electric car owner? Subsidize desired behavior do not tax
undesirable behavior. These idiots that just want to grab money and power
piss me off!
Paul E. Lehmann
John does not understand logic and reason. He is
an admitted AGW Religious Fundamentalist.
He can not comprehend that there are those of us
who are interested in the real environmental
issues and think of AGW as a diversion.
Tom Gardner
"Paul E. Lehmann" <som...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:vdSdnTBu5PVvep_a...@comcast.com...
<snip>
> John does not understand logic and reason. He is
> an admitted AGW Religious Fundamentalist.
>
> He can not comprehend that there are those of us
> who are interested in the real environmental
> issues and think of AGW as a diversion.
Actually, I respect John, but I think he's wrong. Compared to some of the
insane people, John is rational. This whole NG is moot and exists only for
entertainment value...and BOY are they entertaining!
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
>> "Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote
>>> The next ten years will pass very quickly and by then the world will
>>> have a better understanding of Earth's climate.
> "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote
>> Yup, and I will be sharpening my RepubliKKKan throat slitting knife.
>>
>> How about you Tom?
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote
> Threaten me with your "Throat slitting Knife? Why not bring your "Light
> Saber", little boy?
Am I threatening you? Shit Sucker.. You aren't even referred to in the
above refreence now are you? Dung Eater.
When it is clear that your kind have caused irreperable harm we will come
knocking. Well, knocking RepubliKKKan doors down and executing you fucking
losers on your front lawns for committing crimes against humanity.
I guarantee it.
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote
> Bringing your "knife" to a gun fight?
Oh, look the cowboys have guns. So we will start by burning them out of
their homes, or taking them while they ride in an elevator, run them off the
road into the side of a bridge, etc. etc. etc. But mostly your kind will be
decorating trees along the side of the road.
I guarantee it.
"Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote
> Your sophomoric posting is so sad, either you're a twelve year-old on
> mommy's 'puter or an unemployable welfare moron troll in your dirty
> underwear. Which is it?
Neither of course. But we all know that you are a Shit Sucking
RepubliKKKan Moron from a nation of morons. A nation that is collapsing
about you and one which will can not now, provide security for the average
AmeriKKKan let alone RepubliKKKan Dung Eaters like yourself.
No doubt you will try to scurry under a rock and hide, like the vermin you
are.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
> who are interested in the real environmental
> issues and think of AGW as a diversion.
Financial Times FT.comSearch FT.comThursday Sep 27 2007
Washington changes its tune on climate
Published: September 27 2007 21:28 | Last updated: September 27 2007 21:28
The world must cut emissions or sacrifice the planet, Condoleezza Rice, US
secretary of state, told a meeting of governments on Thursday, in the most
strongly worded statement on global warming yet made by the US
administration.
She told representatives of 16 governments gathered for talks on climate
change
in Washington: "It is our responsibility as global leaders to forge a new
international consensus on how to solve climate change?.?.?.?If we stay on
our
present path, we face an unacceptable choice: either we sacrifice global
economic growth to secure the health of our planet or we sacrifice the
health of
our planet to continue with fossil-fuelled growth."
She asked the governments present, which account for more than 80 per cent
of
the world's greenhouse gas emissions, to agree a long-term goal on emissions
reduction, establish mid-term targets for the same and to help develop
markets
for low-carbon technologies.
Her words reflected how far US rhetoric on climate change has moved in the
past
six months.
President George W. Bush, who rejected the Kyoto protocol, had previously
called
into question the state of scientific knowledge on global warming, and the
US
has been seen by other governments as holding up progress on international
talks.
His decision to host a meeting of big emitters took the world by
surprise.The
two-day meeting, which finishes on Friday, is intended to be the first in a
series whose conclusions will next year be included in the United Nations
process on finding a successor to the Kyoto protocol when its main
provisions
expire in 2012.
Despite the newly warm rhetoric on the climate, however, stark differences
remain between the US and other countries which are unlikely to be resolved
in
this meeting. For instance, the US did not table a proposal for what the
long-term goal on emissions cuts should be, suggesting that it sees the
issue of
emissions targets as contentious.
Yvo de Boer, executive director of the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change, told the Financial Times: "It's difficult to organise a meeting to
ask
others to come up with proposals but not make one yourself."
Mr de Boer said that despite differences, the US decision to hold a meeting
was
"a very useful, positive contribution" to international progress on tackling
climate change.
He told the meeting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
UN-convened body of the world's leading climate scientists, had concluded
that
emissions needed to peak in 10-15 years and be halved by 2050, compared with
1990 levels.
Another point of contention is whether reduction goals should be set by
international treaty, such as a successor to the Kyoto protocol, or at a
national level.
Ms Rice indicated that goals on emissions cuts should be set at a national
level
rather than being international in scope.
She said: "Every country will make its own decisions, reflecting its own
needs
and its own interests [and] tackle climate change in the ways that they deem
best".
The US also favours voluntary targets for cuts rather than legally binding
commitments.
But the UN argues that the best way to cut emissions is through a market in
carbon dioxide, which would put a price on emissions and enable poor
countries
to gain access to finance for clean technology, and which, for its proper
working, would require medium- and long-term legally binding commitments to
cut
emissions.
"Voluntary targets are a waste of time," Phil Clapp, president of the
National
Environmental Trust, a US lobby group, said.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
> On Aug 25, 10:05 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 25, 10:32 am, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Claudius Denk:
>> > I"m sorry Jonathan, but what you are saying just doesn't make sense.
>> > If
>> > what you're saying is true we would think exactly the opposite would be
>> > the
>> > case. If myself and other skeptics were as incompetent as you suggest
>> > then
>> > we'd expect you alarmists to be even more eager to engage in a detailed
>> > scientific discussion of the supposed mechanistic underpinnings of AGW.
>>
<kwag...@hotmail.com> wrote..
> Who is this "we"? *You* are Johnny on the spot with rhetoric but
> that's about it.
You can include me in that list. I usually spend my time pointing out
that you are a Shit Sucking, Scientifically Illiterate KKKonservative Loser.
But from time to time I have explained to the the feble minded the science
behind the observed warming.
Your responses have always been either lacking, incoherent, or based on
pure, unadulterated KKKonservative Ignorance and lies.
Are we having fun yet?
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
<talk-...@TALK-N-dog.com> wrote
> They did get it right on in the seventies when they predicted an Ice
> age...
No one in the scientific community predicted the imminent onset of an ice
age back in teh 70's.
For the last 15 years, we in the scientific community have been asking you
Liars to provide references to such warnings printed in Scientific Journals
of the period, but you Liars can't seem to find any.
For 15 years you KKKonservative Liars have been telling the same lie, over
and over and over again.
And for that I will see you executed for crimes against humanity.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Of course the possibility exists that you believe that AGW alarmists are
> the only ones smart enough to understand the science of AGW.
Oh the average grade 5 student is smart enough.
So either you and your denialist brethren are dumber than the average 10
year old, or you are willfully ignorant or willfully lying.
Which is it Denk? Are you an ignorant KKKonservative Shit Sucker, or are
you just a corrupt lump of KKKonservative excrement?
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> No duh. In fact you've proven yourselves incapable of basic logic.
How the fuck would you know? In another thread you just referred to least
squares curve fitting as "voo doo".
Ahhhhhh... The highly edjamakated Denk.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Quantitative theory? You science whackos crack me up because you just
> throw big words around and think you are saying something sophisticated.
FYI Number 42: April 6, 2004
AIP Endorsement of American Geophysical Union Climate Change Statement
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a
position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical
Union (AGU) Council in December 2003. AGU is one of ten Member Societies of
the American Institute of Physics. The statement follows:
"Human Impacts on Climate
"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These
effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's
history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences
cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures
observed during the second half of the 20th century.
"Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations
of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons
and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution,
increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A
particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be
rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following
rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.
"Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the
mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more
than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates
that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for
hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will
cause global surface climate to be warmer.
"The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some
aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur,
exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take
place. In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions.
Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there will
be greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice will
melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea
levels. The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes
in water supply as well as flood and drought patterns. There will be
considerable regional variations in the resulting impacts.
"Scientists' understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for
global climate change has greatly improved during the last decade, including
better representation of carbon, water, and other biogeochemical cycles in
climate models. Yet, model projections of future global warming vary,
because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity,
greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate
concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in
climate models. Actions that decrease emissions of some air pollutants will
reduce their climate effects in the short term. Even so, the impacts of
increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would remain.
"The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states
as an objective the ' . . . stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations
in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.' AGU believes that no single threshold
level of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere exists at which the
beginning of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system
can be defined. Some impacts have already occurred, and for increasing
concentrations there will be increasing impacts. The unprecedented increases
in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on
climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future,
constitute a real basis for concern.
"Enhanced national and international research and other efforts are
needed to support climate related policy decisions. These include
fundamental climate research, improved observations and modeling, increased
computational capability, and very importantly, education of the next
generation of climate scientists. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to
participate in climate research, education, scientific assessments, and
policy discussions. AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy
discussions and decision-making be based upon objective assessment of
peer-reviewed research results.
"Science provides society with information useful in dealing with
natural hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and drought, which improves
our ability to predict and prepare for their adverse effects. While
human-induced climate change is unique in its global scale and long
lifetime, AGU believes that science should play the same role in dealing
with climate change. AGU is committed to improving the communication of
scientific information to governments and private organizations so that
their decisions on climate issues will be based on the best science.
"The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to
that change. Scientific research is required to improve our ability to
predict climate change and its impacts on countries and regions around the
globe. Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful
effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g.,
slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices),
technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and
finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme
events."
Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
American Institute of Physics
f...@aip.org
(301) 209-3095
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
Dating Back To 1850, Residue From Forest Fires Darkened Snow Caused
Increased Absorption Of Sunlight
The researchers analyzed black carbon levels in ice from Greenland, covering
the last 215 years. They found that the older soot samples contained
vanillic acid, an indicator of burning conifer trees. (AP / file)
(AP) Around the middle of the 19th century the Arctic took a sooty turn for
the worse, according to researchers studying how humans have affected the
climate.
Soot can darken the snow, causing it to absorb sunlight, warm up and melt.
That, in turn, can add to local climate warming by exposing darker ground
which absorbs energy from the sun that the white snow would have reflected.
Ice cores from before about 1850 show most soot came from forest fires. But
since then, black soot in the snow has increased several times over and most
now comes from industrial activities, according to a paper in Thursday's
online edition of the journal Science.
In a separate paper in that journal, a team of British researchers forecast
that climate warming will slow for about a decade, then bound back to
record-setting temperatures.
That group added new detail to improve the accuracy of complex computer
models that calculate changes in weather and climate to come up with their
new outlook.
The soot study was done by a team led by Joseph R. McConnell of the Desert
Research Institute in Reno, Nevada.
The researchers analyzed black carbon levels in ice from Greenland, covering
the last 215 years.
They found that the older soot samples contained vanillic acid, an indicator
of burning conifer trees.
In the more recent years the soot was seven times more common and contained
a larger concentration of non-ocean sulfur, an indicator of industrial
emissions.
Soot concentrations peaked in 1906-1910 and remained high for decades.
Sulfur emissions declined following the Clean Air Act in 1970, they noted.
In the early 20th century the Arctic warmed more than anywhere else on
Earth, Richard B. Alley of the California Institute of Technology observes
in a commentary on the report, noting a "broad correspondence between the
soot peak and the observed warming."
Doug M. Smith and colleagues at the British Meteorological Office produced
the improved climate model.
They added the effects of natural climate changes, such as the El Nino
phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean, fluctuations in ocean circulation and
anomalies in ocean heat content to their computer models. In general,
climate models have focused on the impact of outside factors such as solar
radiation, atmospheric aerosols and greenhouse gases.
The new outlook calls for a slowdown in warming for the next few years, but
then an increase again.
They forecast that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than
1998, the warmest year to date according to the Met Office. The U.S.
National Climate Data Center ranked 2005 in a virtual tie with 1998.
The arctic soot research was supported by the U.S. National Science
Foundation, the Desert Research Institute, Office of Naval Research and
NASA. The climate forecasters were supported by the United Kingdom
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the U.K. Government
Meteorological Research Programme.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Maybe you should take more vitamins.
Ancient Fossil Evidence Supports Carbon Dioxide As Driver Of Global
Warming
A team of American and Canadian scientists has devised a
new way to study Earth's past climate by analyzing the chemical
composition of ancient marine fossils. The first published tests with the
method further support the view that atmospheric CO2 has contributed to
dramatic climate variations in the past, and strengthen projections that
human CO2 emissions could cause global warming.
In the current issue of the journal Nature, geologists and environmental
scientists from the California Institute of Technology, the University of
Ottawa, the Memorial University of Newfoundland, Brock University, and the
Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve report the results of a
new method for determining the growth temperatures of carbonate fossils
such as shells and corals. This method looks at the percentage of rare
isotopes of oxygen and carbon that bond with each other rather than being
randomly distributed through their mineral lattices.
Because these bonds between oxygen-18 and carbon-13 form in greater
abundance at low temperatures and lesser abundance at higher temperatures,
a precise measurement of their concentration in a carbonate fossil can
quantify the temperature of seawater in which the organisms lived. By
comparing this record of temperature change with previous estimates of
past atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the study demonstrates a strong
coupling of atmospheric temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations
across one of Earth's major environmental shifts.
According to Rosemarie Came, a postdoctoral scholar in geochemistry at
Caltech and lead author of the article, only about 60 parts per million of
the carbonate molecular groups that make up the mineral structures of
carbonate fossils are a combination of both oxygen-18 and carbon-13, but
the amount varies predictably with temperature. Therefore, knowing the age
of the sample and how much of these exotic carbonate groups are present
allows one to create a record of the planet's temperature through time.
"This clumped-isotope method has an advantage over previous approaches
because we're looking at the distribution of rare isotopes inside a single
shell or coral," Came says. "All the information needed to study the
surface temperature at the time the animal lived is stored in the fossil
itself."
In this way, the method contrasts with previous approaches that require
knowledge of the chemistry of seawater in the distant past--something that
is poorly known.
The study contrasts the growth temperatures of fossils from two times in
the distant geological past. The Silurian period, approximately 400
million years ago, is thought to have been a time of highly elevated
atmospheric CO2 (more than 10 times the modern concentration), and was
found by the researchers to be a time of exceptionally warm shallow-ocean
temperatures--nearly 35 degrees C. In contrast, the Carboniferous period,
roughly 300 million years ago, appears to have been characterized by far
lower levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (similar to modern values) and
had shallow marine temperatures similar to or slightly cooler than
today-about 25 degrees C. Thus, the draw-down of atmospheric CO2 coincided
with strong global cooling.
"This is a huge change in temperature," says John Eiler, a professor of
geochemistry at Caltech and a coauthor of the study. "It shows that carbon
dioxide really has been a powerful driver of climate change in Earth's
past."
The title of the Nature paper is "Coupling of surface temperatures and
atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Paleozoic era." The other
authors are Jan Veizer of the University of Ottawa, Karem Azmy of Memorial
University of Newfoundland, Uwe Brand of Brock University, and Christopher
R. Weidman of the Waquoit National Estuarine Research Reserve,
Massachusetts.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Certainty of what? You just, essentially, admitted that have no basis for
> not assuming that increases in CO2 might actually result in catastrophic
> global cooling. And given the fact that a return to ice age conditions
> would, undeniably, have very dramatic implications on human civilization
> one can only wonder why you are in denial about this. You don't wish to
> be labelled a global cooling denialist now do you?
The possibilities are catastrophic warming; Large scale variability; Or
gradual warming to a burification point in the chaotic system at which point
the climate state changes either Catastrophic cooling, warming, or
variability.
The models show that Cooling is unlikely unless the Atlantic Conveyor
shuts down, which is possible, but also considered unlikely within the short
term over which the warming issue will be tackled.
So which of the above three catastrophies do you select as the fate of the
biosphere?
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Why do you think it is that these supposed, "highly qualified
> scientists,"
> seem to not want to engage any of us in this most prominent public and
> open
> forum in a detailed scientific discussion of the supposed mechanistic
> underpinnings of AGW?
For the same reason they don't wrestle pigs.