Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Which is more likely...
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Sam Wormley
Apr 24, 2012, 12:24:32 PM4/24/12
to
Which is more likely...
[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds
[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
science
[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds
[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
science
sanebow
Apr 24, 2012, 12:37:06 PM4/24/12
to
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:CsCdnXpK-oFcTgvS...@mchsi.com...
> Which is more likely...
>
> [ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
> scientifically illiterate frauds
>
is more likely,
>
> [ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
> scientifically illiterate frauds
>
as Water Vapor, the dominant component of all the greenhouse gasses, was
left out
R Kym Horsell
Apr 24, 2012, 12:49:58 PM4/24/12
to
1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, only if
they can be trained to substantially improve.
Dunning later drew an analogy with anosognosia in which a person who
suffers a physical disability because of brain injury seems unaware of
or denies the existence of the disability, even for dramatic
impairments such as blindness or paralysis.
Dunning & Kruger & others concluded that the root cause is that, in
contrast to high performers, "poor performers do not learn from
feedback suggesting a need to improve".
Ehrlinger, Joyce; Johnson, Kerri; Banner, Matthew; Dunning, David;
Kruger, Justin (2008). "Why the unskilled are unaware: Further
explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent".
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (105): 98-121.
Sam Wormley
Apr 24, 2012, 1:16:52 PM4/24/12
to
[ ] Climate Scientists understand the role of water vapor in
climate research.
[ ] Climate Scientists ignore an important greenhouse gas.
matt_sykes
Apr 24, 2012, 1:09:57 PM4/24/12
to
with them.
What is compelling is the desperation of you lot as AGW enters its
final death spiral.
Robert Grumbine
Apr 24, 2012, 1:49:58 PM4/24/12
to
1965:
<http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281965%29093%3C0495:EAAMAS%3E2.3.CO%3B2>
<http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281965%29093%3C0769:SCOAGC%3E2.3.CO%3B2>
1969:
<http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281969%29097%3C0739:CATOC%3E2.3.CO%3B2>
1974:
<http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281974%29031%3C0118%3AAPFTAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2>
<http://mirabeli.meteo.furg.br/aulas/MC/SchneiderSH_DickinsonRE_%20Climate_modeling.pdf>
1975:
<https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm7502.pdf>
-- from a simple google scholar search on "climate model" "water vapor", and
limiting to those with material online.
There have been more recent papers on the topic. I'll let the reader investigate
as the notion strikes. The assertion of water vapor being 'left out' of all climate
models has not been true, and is readily verified to not be true, for well
over 40 years.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Bill Snyder
Apr 24, 2012, 2:21:14 PM4/24/12
to
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
bjacoby
Apr 24, 2012, 8:17:44 PM4/24/12
to
On 4/24/2012 12:24 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Which is more likely...
>
> [X] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
> Which is more likely...
>
understands the intricacies of "climate science" FAR better than any
dimbulb astronomy type ever will. Add to that the fact that the
published case for AGW is mostly media based and hence lies. Add to that
the dishonesty of politicians driven by a trillion dollars (at least)
per year in taxes. And add to that the fact that Marvin is honest,
understands logic and the scientific method and you and your's who
probably DO understand what science should be are purposely ignoring
valid scientific methods.
The very FACT that above you are trying to turn a scientific question
into a democratic vote is PROOF that you are ignorant of science and
scientific methods. The fact that your "climate science" "hero" Hansen,
is an astronomer and not a climatologist is MORE proof. The fact that
CO2 is a MINOR atmospheric gas proven to only have a MINOR POSSIBLE
warming effect and the human produced portion of THAT is a minor
fraction shows a purposeful distortion of facts. All you have is some
made-up computer models that haven't made correct predictions yet. And
Marvin has pointed all these things out time and time again. You never
answer them. All you know how to do is say Marvin (or anyone who does
not blindly accept your propaganda) is stooopid. Which is the final
icing on the cake that you are engaged in a political promotion here
that is merely using "science" as a cover.
SHAME ON YOU WORMLEY! That the local community college lets you teach
"classes" shows how dumbed-down American education has become. No wonder
we are bring up the rear in science and math these days.
Bill Snyder
Apr 24, 2012, 8:30:03 PM4/24/12
to
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:17:44 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
>On 4/24/2012 12:24 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Which is more likely...
>>
>> [X] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
>> scientifically illiterate frauds
>>
>> [ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
>> research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
>> and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
>> science
>
>Obviously, Sam, Marvin is FAR more scientifically educated than you
But the dog ate the evidence of it.
> and understands the intricacies of "climate science" FAR better than any
>dimbulb astronomy type ever will.
Dog ate the evidence again.
> Add to that the fact that the published case for AGW is mostly
>media based and hence lies.
Dog.
>Add to that the dishonesty of politicians driven by a trillion dollars (at least)
>per year in taxes.
Bow-wow.
> And add to that the fact that Marvin is honest,
Boy, the dog must've *really* pigged out on that one.
>understands logic and the scientific method
Bad, *bad* little doggie.
>and you and your's who probably DO understand what
>science should be are purposely ignoring
>valid scientific methods.
Dog.
>The very FACT that above you are trying to turn a scientific question
>into a democratic vote
Woof, woof.
>is PROOF that you are ignorant of science and
>scientific methods. The fact that your "climate science" "hero" Hansen,
>is an astronomer and not a climatologist is MORE proof.
Doggie.
>The fact that
>CO2 is a MINOR atmospheric gas proven to only have a MINOR POSSIBLE
>warming effect
Doggie.
>and the human produced portion of THAT is a minor
>fraction shows a purposeful distortion of facts. All you have is some
>made-up computer models that haven't made correct predictions yet.
Doggie, doggie, doggie. Oh, bad bow-wow.
>And Marvin has pointed all these things out time and time again.
And that bad bow-wow gobbled up his evidence every time.
> You never
>answer them. All you know how to do is say Marvin (or anyone who does
>not blindly accept your propaganda) is stooopid. Which is the final
>icing on the cake that you are engaged in a political promotion here
>that is merely using "science" as a cover.
Bad, *bad*, BAD dog!
>SHAME ON YOU WORMLEY! That the local community college lets you teach
>"classes" shows how dumbed-down American education has become. No wonder
>we are bring up the rear in science and math these days.
Nah, it's the dog always eating the kids' homework that's
responsible. I *know* you know how that goes.
wrote:
>On 4/24/2012 12:24 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Which is more likely...
>>
>> [X] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
>> scientifically illiterate frauds
>>
>> [ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
>> research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
>> and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
>> science
>
>Obviously, Sam, Marvin is FAR more scientifically educated than you
> and understands the intricacies of "climate science" FAR better than any
>dimbulb astronomy type ever will.
> Add to that the fact that the published case for AGW is mostly
>media based and hence lies.
>Add to that the dishonesty of politicians driven by a trillion dollars (at least)
>per year in taxes.
> And add to that the fact that Marvin is honest,
>understands logic and the scientific method
>and you and your's who probably DO understand what
>science should be are purposely ignoring
>valid scientific methods.
>The very FACT that above you are trying to turn a scientific question
>into a democratic vote
>is PROOF that you are ignorant of science and
>scientific methods. The fact that your "climate science" "hero" Hansen,
>is an astronomer and not a climatologist is MORE proof.
>The fact that
>CO2 is a MINOR atmospheric gas proven to only have a MINOR POSSIBLE
>warming effect
>and the human produced portion of THAT is a minor
>fraction shows a purposeful distortion of facts. All you have is some
>made-up computer models that haven't made correct predictions yet.
>And Marvin has pointed all these things out time and time again.
> You never
>answer them. All you know how to do is say Marvin (or anyone who does
>not blindly accept your propaganda) is stooopid. Which is the final
>icing on the cake that you are engaged in a political promotion here
>that is merely using "science" as a cover.
>SHAME ON YOU WORMLEY! That the local community college lets you teach
>"classes" shows how dumbed-down American education has become. No wonder
>we are bring up the rear in science and math these days.
responsible. I *know* you know how that goes.
bjacoby
Apr 24, 2012, 8:33:40 PM4/24/12
to
On 4/24/2012 12:49 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> In sci.physics sanebow<spam...@spamless.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Sam Wormley"<swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:CsCdnXpK-oFcTgvS...@mchsi.com...
>>> Which is more likely...
> In sci.physics sanebow<spam...@spamless.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Sam Wormley"<swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:CsCdnXpK-oFcTgvS...@mchsi.com...
>>> Which is more likely...
> Kruger and Dunning argue that for a given skill, incompetent people will:
> 1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
> 2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
> 3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
> 4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, only if
> they can be trained to substantially improve.
Thanks R. Kym. K&D is certainly relevant to your and Wormley's posts.
> 1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
> 2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
> 3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
> 4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, only if
> they can be trained to substantially improve.
Note.
1. Wormley is an Astronomy technician who thinks he's a climate science
physicist. (overestimation)
2. Whenever competent analysis is presented by knowledgeable persons
such as Marvin, Wormley says Marvin or they are ignorant of "climate
science".
3. Wormley thinks that giving "free university" classes to geezers and
dumb-ass teens makes him on the same level as a widely published tenured
full professor. (Failure to recognize inadequacy)
4. Since Wormley cannot be trained to acquire scientific skill due to
his obstinate politics, he will NEVER acknowledge his own lack of skill.
5. Note that all of AGW "arguments" are mostly logical fallacies usually
based on personal attacks of critics. The use of politically loaded
words such as "deniers" PROVES this is not a discussion about science.
It is obviously merely a propaganda war. The constant posts by R. Kym.
suggesting that all critics are "insane" without any medical
justification certainly adumbrates political denigration.
And as for you Kym, we will get around giving you the K&D analysis later.
bjacoby
Apr 24, 2012, 8:40:23 PM4/24/12
to
On 4/24/2012 1:16 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 4/24/12 11:37 AM, sanebow wrote:
>> is more likely,
>> as Water Vapor, the dominant component of all the greenhouse gasses, was
>> left out
> Which is more likely...
>
> [ ] Climate Scientists understand the role of water vapor in
> climate research.
>
> [X] Climate Scientists ignore an important greenhouse gas.
> On 4/24/12 11:37 AM, sanebow wrote:
>> is more likely,
>> as Water Vapor, the dominant component of all the greenhouse gasses, was
>> left out
> Which is more likely...
>
> [ ] Climate Scientists understand the role of water vapor in
> climate research.
>
Wrong question, Worm. How about asking which is TRUE. That can be
answered right from publications. Note correct answer given above.
====
Which is more likely...
[ ] climate scientist sincerely worried about global climate carefully
include all factors into their models.
[ ] "famous" spokespersons for climate science when cornered on the fact
that water vapor is THE significant "greenhouse gas", quickly make up
bogus "feedback" theory* to keep blame on CO2 (which can be taxed)
rather than water vapor(which can't).
* Note positive feedback systems are as a rule quite unstable. No
evidence of such instability has been observed.
Bill Snyder
Apr 24, 2012, 8:56:30 PM4/24/12
to
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:33:40 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
>On 4/24/2012 12:49 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>> In sci.physics sanebow<spam...@spamless.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Sam Wormley"<swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:CsCdnXpK-oFcTgvS...@mchsi.com...
>>>> Which is more likely...
>
>> Kruger and Dunning argue that for a given skill, incompetent people will:
>> 1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
>> 2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
>> 3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
>> 4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, only if
>> they can be trained to substantially improve.
>
>Thanks R. Kym. K&D is certainly relevant to your and Wormley's posts.
>
>Note.
>
>1. Wormley is an Astronomy technician who thinks he's a climate science
>physicist. (overestimation)
Shit-bot always likes to kick off with an ad hominem. Gets him
into the mood.
>2. Whenever competent analysis is presented by knowledgeable persons
>such as Marvin,
Dog ate the evidence that Marvie is knowledgeable, or that he has
ever presented a competent analysis.
> Wormley says Marvin or they are ignorant of "climate
>science".
If it has feathers and can fly, and also likes to swim in the
water, and waddles when it walks, and quacks a lot -- that proves
there's a conspiracy to call it a duck.
>3. Wormley thinks that giving "free university" classes to geezers and
>dumb-ass teens makes him on the same level as a widely published tenured
>full professor. (Failure to recognize inadequacy)
More ad hom. I guess he was losing the mood, there, and needed to
get back in the groove.
>4. Since Wormley cannot be trained to acquire scientific skill due to
>his obstinate politics, he will NEVER acknowledge his own lack of skill.
Ah, so unsuitable politics rules out scientific skill. The
shit-bot would have been right at home in the old USSR, where you
had to watch out for that "bourgeois science"; pity it's dead and
gone. I guess he could always emigrate to China or North Korea.
>5. Note that all of AGW "arguments" are mostly logical fallacies usually
>based on personal attacks of critics.
Better check the fuses in your irony meters, folks.
> The use of politically loaded
>words such as "deniers" PROVES this is not a discussion about science.
>It is obviously merely a propaganda war. The constant posts by R. Kym.
>suggesting that all critics are "insane" without any medical
>justification certainly adumbrates political denigration.
>
>And as for you Kym, we will get around giving you the K&D analysis later.
Shit-bot is on a roll!
wrote:
>On 4/24/2012 12:49 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>> In sci.physics sanebow<spam...@spamless.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Sam Wormley"<swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:CsCdnXpK-oFcTgvS...@mchsi.com...
>>>> Which is more likely...
>
>> Kruger and Dunning argue that for a given skill, incompetent people will:
>> 1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
>> 2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
>> 3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
>> 4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, only if
>> they can be trained to substantially improve.
>
>Thanks R. Kym. K&D is certainly relevant to your and Wormley's posts.
>
>Note.
>
>1. Wormley is an Astronomy technician who thinks he's a climate science
>physicist. (overestimation)
into the mood.
>2. Whenever competent analysis is presented by knowledgeable persons
>such as Marvin,
ever presented a competent analysis.
> Wormley says Marvin or they are ignorant of "climate
>science".
water, and waddles when it walks, and quacks a lot -- that proves
there's a conspiracy to call it a duck.
>3. Wormley thinks that giving "free university" classes to geezers and
>dumb-ass teens makes him on the same level as a widely published tenured
>full professor. (Failure to recognize inadequacy)
get back in the groove.
>4. Since Wormley cannot be trained to acquire scientific skill due to
>his obstinate politics, he will NEVER acknowledge his own lack of skill.
shit-bot would have been right at home in the old USSR, where you
had to watch out for that "bourgeois science"; pity it's dead and
gone. I guess he could always emigrate to China or North Korea.
>5. Note that all of AGW "arguments" are mostly logical fallacies usually
>based on personal attacks of critics.
> The use of politically loaded
>words such as "deniers" PROVES this is not a discussion about science.
>It is obviously merely a propaganda war. The constant posts by R. Kym.
>suggesting that all critics are "insane" without any medical
>justification certainly adumbrates political denigration.
>
>And as for you Kym, we will get around giving you the K&D analysis later.
Rich
Apr 24, 2012, 9:16:29 PM4/24/12
to
Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in news:CsCdnXpK-
oFcTgvSnZ2d...@mchsi.com:
Which is more likely, that "bad humours" cause illness or germs, which
haven't been discovered yet?
oFcTgvSnZ2d...@mchsi.com:
haven't been discovered yet?
R Kym Horsell
Apr 24, 2012, 9:26:24 PM4/24/12
to
In sci.physics Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:33:40 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On 4/24/2012 12:49 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>> In sci.physics sanebow<spam...@spamless.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Sam Wormley"<swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:CsCdnXpK-oFcTgvS...@mchsi.com...
>>>>> Which is more likely...
>>
>>> Kruger and Dunning argue that for a given skill, incompetent people will:
>>> 1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
>>> 2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
>>> 3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
>>> 4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, only if
>>> they can be trained to substantially improve.
>>
>>Thanks R. Kym. K&D is certainly relevant to your and Wormley's posts.
>>
>>Note.
>>
>>1. Wormley is an Astronomy technician who thinks he's a climate science
>>physicist. (overestimation)
>
> Shit-bot always likes to kick off with an ad hominem. Gets him
> into the mood.
...
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:33:40 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On 4/24/2012 12:49 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
>>> In sci.physics sanebow<spam...@spamless.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Sam Wormley"<swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:CsCdnXpK-oFcTgvS...@mchsi.com...
>>>>> Which is more likely...
>>
>>> Kruger and Dunning argue that for a given skill, incompetent people will:
>>> 1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
>>> 2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
>>> 3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
>>> 4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, only if
>>> they can be trained to substantially improve.
>>
>>Thanks R. Kym. K&D is certainly relevant to your and Wormley's posts.
>>
>>Note.
>>
>>1. Wormley is an Astronomy technician who thinks he's a climate science
>>physicist. (overestimation)
>
> Shit-bot always likes to kick off with an ad hominem. Gets him
> into the mood.
The "blind sight" effect ensures he can't see his criticism is just
a ... er .. library-book case of projection.
It's what he does. And as he unconsciously knows, it's what he is.
--
[S]cience debates are done by reference to actual data and not to
one's opinion of another's intelligence. [...]
Hence we've just scientifically proved that the original statement was
correct and that you are naturally stupid. Any questions?
-- "BJA...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net>, 21 Mar 2012 14:49 -0400
R Kym Horsell
Apr 24, 2012, 9:35:34 PM4/24/12
to
In sci.physics Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>> ? ?[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
>>> ? ? ? ?scientifically illiterate frauds
>>>
>>> ? ?[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
>>> ? ? ? ?research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
>>> ? ? ? ?and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
>>> ? ? ? ?science
>>
>>It isnt compelling, hasnt happened, and many other scientists disagree
>>with them.
>>
>>What is compelling is the desperation of you lot as AGW enters its
>>final death spiral.
>
> You dropped way too much acid back in the 60's, didn't you?
The news seems to have been slow to filter through denial HQ
>>It isnt compelling, hasnt happened, and many other scientists disagree
>>with them.
>>
>>What is compelling is the desperation of you lot as AGW enters its
>>final death spiral.
>
> You dropped way too much acid back in the 60's, didn't you?
that climate change is a "dead issue". It was declared such by
our pal BONZO a couple of months ago during a week of activity
that saw hourly nameshifting.
--
Scientists are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I
have no tolerance for ambiguity.
It proves that all science is lies and the only thing we can trust is
right wing rhetoric.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nymshifter], 14 Jan 2011 14:46 +1100
R Kym Horsell
Apr 24, 2012, 9:35:38 PM4/24/12
to
In sci.physics Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:17:44 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On 4/24/2012 12:24 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> Which is more likely...
>>>
>>> [X] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
>>> scientifically illiterate frauds
>>>
>>> [ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
>>> research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
>>> and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
>>> science
>>
>>Obviously, Sam, Marvin is FAR more scientifically educated than you
>
> But the dog ate the evidence of it.
...
> wrote:
>
>>On 4/24/2012 12:24 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> Which is more likely...
>>>
>>> [X] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
>>> scientifically illiterate frauds
>>>
>>> [ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
>>> research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
>>> and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
>>> science
>>
>>Obviously, Sam, Marvin is FAR more scientifically educated than you
>
> But the dog ate the evidence of it.
Isn't this one of them "peel to auth-or-i-tay" things Ben likes to avoid
in case he comes out less than favorably?
--
[Quoting Klaus Rohrich]
As they say, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
-- BONZO [denialist and daily nymshifter], 3 Mar 2008 12:46 +1100
Will Janoschka
Apr 24, 2012, 9:43:36 PM4/24/12
to
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:09:57, matt_sykes <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > ĸ ĸ[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
> > ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸscientifically illiterate frauds
> >
> > ĸ ĸ[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
> > ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸresearch papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
> > ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸand that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
> > ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸscience
Keep up the good work! :)
> > ĸ ĸ[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
> > ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸscientifically illiterate frauds
> >
> > ĸ ĸ[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
> > ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸresearch papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
> > ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸand that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
> > ĸ ĸ ĸ ĸscience
>
> It isnt compelling, hasnt happened, and many other scientists disagree
> with them.
>
> What is compelling is the desperation of you lot as AGW enters its
> final death spiral.
The Reverend James E. Hansen is very unhappy with you!
> It isnt compelling, hasnt happened, and many other scientists disagree
> with them.
>
> What is compelling is the desperation of you lot as AGW enters its
> final death spiral.
Keep up the good work! :)
R Kym Horsell
Apr 24, 2012, 9:40:26 PM4/24/12
to
Well... he had 2 positions on a lot of things. One of them had to be right!
Failing to move to the germ theory resulted in unneeded deaths of mothers
giving birth in European hospitals. Doctors did not see a need
to wash hands between patients, and some even scoffed at the idea
of little invisible things that caused disease. I guess they were denialists.
Next, BONZO says, clinging to the germ theory of disease is a bad thing
because it's like consensus science. The consensus is soooo often out of
step with reality. I guess he was harking back to his first position to close
the circle of logic.
--
The claimed consensus views of hundreds [40,000 pubs?] of climate change
"scientists" are fundamentally erroneous.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nymshifter], 19 Jan 2011 15:29 +1100
Unum
Apr 24, 2012, 10:22:41 PM4/24/12
to
On 4/24/2012 8:35 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> In sci.physics Bill Snyder<bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
>> <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 24, 6:24?pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Which is more likely...
>>>>
>>>> ? ?[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
>>>> ? ? ? ?scientifically illiterate frauds
>>>>
>>>> ? ?[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
>>>> ? ? ? ?research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
>>>> ? ? ? ?and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
>>>> ? ? ? ?science
>>>
>>> It isnt compelling, hasnt happened, and many other scientists disagree
>>> with them.
>>>
>>> What is compelling is the desperation of you lot as AGW enters its
>>> final death spiral.
>>
>> You dropped way too much acid back in the 60's, didn't you?
>
> The news seems to have been slow to filter through denial HQ
> that climate change is a "dead issue". It was declared such by
> our pal BONZO a couple of months ago during a week of activity
> that saw hourly nameshifting.
I am thinking that bonzo lost his funding. Someone in Australia
> In sci.physics Bill Snyder<bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
>> <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 24, 6:24?pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Which is more likely...
>>>>
>>>> ? ?[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
>>>> ? ? ? ?scientifically illiterate frauds
>>>>
>>>> ? ?[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
>>>> ? ? ? ?research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
>>>> ? ? ? ?and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
>>>> ? ? ? ?science
>>>
>>> It isnt compelling, hasnt happened, and many other scientists disagree
>>> with them.
>>>
>>> What is compelling is the desperation of you lot as AGW enters its
>>> final death spiral.
>>
>> You dropped way too much acid back in the 60's, didn't you?
>
> The news seems to have been slow to filter through denial HQ
> that climate change is a "dead issue". It was declared such by
> our pal BONZO a couple of months ago during a week of activity
> that saw hourly nameshifting.
decided he wasn't worth the money.
R Kym Horsell
Apr 24, 2012, 10:50:22 PM4/24/12
to
parts of the coal industry.
He frequently dropped clangers that indicated he "really" ack
various consensus points, in fact used them to attempt to
contradict some of the same points :-) .
And apart from that there was the undisgested regurgitation of
his "info packets". Sometimes with the email addr of those who had
sent him the information. And, of course, sometimes there were other
posters around that made "original" contributions that were word-for-word
the same. So the "invisible network" was being revealed.
And then there was the periodic, daily, and eventually hourly nameshifting.
It tended to piss people off rather than get past their kill files.
Towards the end (although I'm expecting a resurgence) of what seems to
be a 10-year career in denialist posting, BONZO (or various other people
working at the same office) apparently had to boost the ratings
by replying to his own posting a number of times using the same
private IP addr to make it look like a "discussion" was underway.
A couple of people I know in the inner W Syd area say they saw a
couple of people, one of them ID-ed as BONZO, in some bar or pub --
I think it was in Victoria Road -- and the "big one" was planning
some campaign or other. But that was some time back.
From the boasting going on it seems BONZO & whatever pals worked
at his location --allegedly some kind of web-related consultancy
like keyword optimisation or some such -- were receiving the grand
sum of around $300/m for the (assumed) outside work.
But, as you say, it seems to be the contract has finished or been
terminated on some basis -- cost/benefit?
--
Scientist Judith Curry gets bashed by the RC and Climate Progress for
exercising the method of science: scepticism.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nymshifter], 8 Dec 2010 15:42 +1100
[Apparently Curry was "bashed" for things like:]
Liu, J P and Curry, J A, 2010: Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean
and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice.
Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 107, 34, 14987-14992.
matt_sykes
Apr 25, 2012, 2:24:30 AM4/25/12
to
temperature rises and planetary chaos took.....
Bill Snyder
Apr 25, 2012, 9:38:06 AM4/25/12
to
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:35:38 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
<k...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>In sci.physics Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:17:44 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 4/24/2012 12:24 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> Which is more likely...
>>>>
>>>> [X] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
>>>> scientifically illiterate frauds
>>>>
>>>> [ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
>>>> research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
>>>> and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
>>>> science
>>>
>>>Obviously, Sam, Marvin is FAR more scientifically educated than you
>>
>> But the dog ate the evidence of it.
>...
>
>Isn't this one of them "peel to auth-or-i-tay" things Ben likes to avoid
>in case he comes out less than favorably?
You'd think that just by random chance a clueless person trying to
<k...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>In sci.physics Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:17:44 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 4/24/2012 12:24 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> Which is more likely...
>>>>
>>>> [X] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
>>>> scientifically illiterate frauds
>>>>
>>>> [ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
>>>> research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
>>>> and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
>>>> science
>>>
>>>Obviously, Sam, Marvin is FAR more scientifically educated than you
>>
>> But the dog ate the evidence of it.
>...
>
>Isn't this one of them "peel to auth-or-i-tay" things Ben likes to avoid
>in case he comes out less than favorably?
argue would stumble onto a non-fallacy once in a while; but it
never seems to happen. Almost makes you wonder if there's some
bias in the process somewhere.
Sam Wormley
Apr 25, 2012, 11:15:56 AM4/25/12
to
On 4/24/12 7:40 PM, Jacob wrote:
> On 4/24/2012 1:16 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> Which is more likely...
>>
>> [ ] Climate Scientists understand the role of water vapor in
>> climate research.
>>
>> [X] Climate Scientists ignore an important greenhouse gas.
>
>
> Wrong question, Worm. How about asking which is TRUE. That can be
> answered right from publications. Note correct answer given above.
>
Your answer has been duly recorded. Thanks for taking the test.
> On 4/24/2012 1:16 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> Which is more likely...
>>
>> [ ] Climate Scientists understand the role of water vapor in
>> climate research.
>>
>> [X] Climate Scientists ignore an important greenhouse gas.
>
>
> Wrong question, Worm. How about asking which is TRUE. That can be
> answered right from publications. Note correct answer given above.
>
oriel36
Apr 25, 2012, 1:31:10 PM4/25/12
to
sky blue notion that if the world comes together it can control the
planet's temperature within a certain range and anyone who opposes
this proposal is a science fiction denier.
So,what is the more likely -
A - That Western science has collapsed
B - That Western civilization is collapsing
C - That people are coming to their senses to prevent B from happening
through restoring common sense to A
bjacoby
Apr 25, 2012, 3:15:18 PM4/25/12
to
On 4/25/2012 9:38 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:35:38 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
> <k...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>>> But the dog ate the evidence of it.
>> ...
Speaking of dogs...it seems there are a couple of puppies chewing on my
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:35:38 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
> <k...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>>> But the dog ate the evidence of it.
>> ...
pants-leg.
>> Isn't this one of them "peel to auth-or-i-tay" things Ben likes to avoid
>> in case he comes out less than favorably?
>
> You'd think that just by random chance a clueless person trying to
> argue would stumble onto a non-fallacy once in a while; but it
> never seems to happen. Almost makes you wonder if there's some
> bias in the process somewhere.
Kym.
Bill Snyder
Apr 25, 2012, 3:35:35 PM4/25/12
to
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:15:18 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
Meanwhile, you produce no evidence to back up the BS you were
spewing. What a surprise.
wrote:
spewing. What a surprise.
R Kym Horsell
Apr 25, 2012, 4:56:59 PM4/25/12
to
In sci.physics oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
and, further, most people are unable to be trained to fly a 747
due to genetic and developmental factors.
The FBI know who is responsible for these factors, but they've been
ordered by Hoover's zombie -- the one that lives in the base of
the Washington Monument -- to keep a lid on it until our alien
overlords are elected into Congress.
--
>If the scientific consensus [AGW] is wrong, then what's the correct answer?
What is the correct answer to not a question?
It is the same as the answer to your thingy!
-- Will Janoschka, 21 Apr 2012 20:15:15
> On Apr 25, 4:15?pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/24/12 7:40 PM, Jacob wrote:
>>
>> > On 4/24/2012 1:16 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> >> Which is more likely...
>>
>> >> [ ] Climate Scientists understand the role of water vapor in
>> >> climate research.
>>
>> >> [X] Climate Scientists ignore an important greenhouse gas.
>>
>> > Wrong question, Worm. How about asking which is TRUE. That can be
>> > answered right from publications. Note correct answer given above.
>>
>> ? ?Your answer has been duly recorded. Thanks for taking the test.
>> On 4/24/12 7:40 PM, Jacob wrote:
>>
>> > On 4/24/2012 1:16 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> >> Which is more likely...
>>
>> >> [ ] Climate Scientists understand the role of water vapor in
>> >> climate research.
>>
>> >> [X] Climate Scientists ignore an important greenhouse gas.
>>
>> > Wrong question, Worm. How about asking which is TRUE. That can be
>> > answered right from publications. Note correct answer given above.
>>
>
> Global warming is science fiction on an industrial scale,it proposes a
> sky blue notion that if the world comes together it can control the
> planet's temperature within a certain range and anyone who opposes
> this proposal is a science fiction denier.
>
> So,what is the more likely -
>
> A - That Western science has collapsed
>
> B - That Western civilization is collapsing
>
> C - That people are coming to their senses to prevent B from happening
> through restoring common sense to A
That people that have not been trained to fly a 747 can not fly a 747
> Global warming is science fiction on an industrial scale,it proposes a
> sky blue notion that if the world comes together it can control the
> planet's temperature within a certain range and anyone who opposes
> this proposal is a science fiction denier.
>
> So,what is the more likely -
>
> A - That Western science has collapsed
>
> B - That Western civilization is collapsing
>
> C - That people are coming to their senses to prevent B from happening
> through restoring common sense to A
and, further, most people are unable to be trained to fly a 747
due to genetic and developmental factors.
The FBI know who is responsible for these factors, but they've been
ordered by Hoover's zombie -- the one that lives in the base of
the Washington Monument -- to keep a lid on it until our alien
overlords are elected into Congress.
--
>If the scientific consensus [AGW] is wrong, then what's the correct answer?
What is the correct answer to not a question?
It is the same as the answer to your thingy!
-- Will Janoschka, 21 Apr 2012 20:15:15
R Kym Horsell
Apr 25, 2012, 4:57:02 PM4/25/12
to
In sci.physics Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:35:38 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
> <k...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>>In sci.physics Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:17:44 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>On 4/24/2012 12:24 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>> Which is more likely...
>>>>> [X] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
>>>>> scientifically illiterate frauds
>>>>> [ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
>>>>> research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
>>>>> and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
>>>>> science
>>>>Obviously, Sam, Marvin is FAR more scientifically educated than you
>>> But the dog ate the evidence of it.
>>...
>>Isn't this one of them "peel to auth-or-i-tay" things Ben likes to avoid
>>in case he comes out less than favorably?
> You'd think that just by random chance a clueless person trying to
> argue would stumble onto a non-fallacy once in a while; but it
> never seems to happen. Almost makes you wonder if there's some
> bias in the process somewhere.
It's twice as hard when you have to fight against the unwanted facts
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:35:38 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
> <k...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>>In sci.physics Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:17:44 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>On 4/24/2012 12:24 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>> Which is more likely...
>>>>> [X] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
>>>>> scientifically illiterate frauds
>>>>> [ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
>>>>> research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
>>>>> and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
>>>>> science
>>>>Obviously, Sam, Marvin is FAR more scientifically educated than you
>>> But the dog ate the evidence of it.
>>...
>>Isn't this one of them "peel to auth-or-i-tay" things Ben likes to avoid
>>in case he comes out less than favorably?
> You'd think that just by random chance a clueless person trying to
> argue would stumble onto a non-fallacy once in a while; but it
> never seems to happen. Almost makes you wonder if there's some
> bias in the process somewhere.
and also that little guy in your head that's allays trying to screw you up.
Ben knows he's spouting fallacies -- he will even tell you that when
he sees one come in from "outside".
But let's not get on Ben's back too much. It's not his fault. (wink)
A couple years back I looked at all the statements that had been
made by a particular USENET poster and tried to score them
consensus position/"other" (i.e. fallacy, fringe, plain stoooopid) JUST
for the statements that could be evaluated TRUE/FALSE.
Since there were a lot of these statements a little program needed
to be written to go through them all. (It turned out the same things
was repated over and over in different forms).
It turned out there was a huge win for the "other" column.
Something like 80% of the fellow's statements evaluated to
the equivalent of "water is dry" on a vast range of topics
from politics, through economics, philsophy and science to common
sense questions like "if you put a blanket around yourself, do
you generally feel warmer?".
Dunning et al have their ideas of competence about individual skills.
But these ideas were validated on people with way above-average intellect
to start with (90th percentile). I'm afraid if you leave the ivys
and get down in the mud it turns out if someone spouts nonsense
about one area, they likely spout nonsense about many more.
Dunning et al apparently never visited a bar.
--
http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=1907
'Liars say "I am not a crook" rather than "I am honest" '
Liars use short sentences, the past tense and negative statements
Bella DePaula, professor of psychology at the University of Virginia,
has found, in a study of 3,000 people, that the following clues are
the most useful indicators of whether somebody is lying:
# Lack of specific detail - not volunteering names of people and places
# Short answers
# Using the past tense
# Using negative statements ("not a crook" rather than "honest")
# Increased eye contact
# Higher pitched voice
AGWFacts
Apr 25, 2012, 7:38:31 PM4/25/12
to
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:24:32 -0500, Sam Wormley
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which is more likely...
>
> [ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which is more likely...
>
> scientifically illiterate frauds
>
> [ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
> research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
> and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
> science
Damn, that's a tough question. May I thjink about it for a few
>
> [ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
> research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
> and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
> science
hours?
--
"Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie
R Kym Horsell
Apr 25, 2012, 7:47:38 PM4/25/12
to
In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reaklity.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:24:32 -0500, Sam Wormley
> <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Which is more likely...
>>
>> [ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
>> scientifically illiterate frauds
>>
>> [ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
>> research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
>> and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
>> science
>
> Damn, that's a tough question. May I thjink about it for a few
> hours?
Go ahead and take 8 weeks. We wouldn't want any mistakes.
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:24:32 -0500, Sam Wormley
> <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Which is more likely...
>>
>> [ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
>> scientifically illiterate frauds
>>
>> [ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
>> research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
>> and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
>> science
>
> Damn, that's a tough question. May I thjink about it for a few
> hours?
--
[On solving a(Ts+.001)^4 = b(Te+x)^4:]
> [Y]ou can't solve a linear equation or do arithmetic.
What linear equation? Oh! The one with the fourth power
of the intended variable. Linear indeed!
[Only a 15 yo would immediately see that x = (a/b)^(1/4)(Ts+.001)-Te
and that x = .001 Te/Ts approx= 50e-6 K].
-- Will "I'm a true math genius" Janoschka, 25 Apr 2012 12:06:01 -0500
Sam Wormley
Apr 25, 2012, 11:31:49 PM4/25/12
to
On 4/25/12 12:31 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> Global warming is science fiction on an industrial scale,it proposes a
> sky blue notion that if the world comes together it can control the
> planet's temperature within a certain range and anyone who opposes
> this proposal is a science fiction denier.
>
> So,what is the more likely -
>
> A - That Western science has collapsed
>
> B - That Western civilization is collapsing
>
> C - That people are coming to their senses to prevent B from happening
> through restoring common sense to A
There might not be any people left to answer the question.
> Global warming is science fiction on an industrial scale,it proposes a
> sky blue notion that if the world comes together it can control the
> planet's temperature within a certain range and anyone who opposes
> this proposal is a science fiction denier.
>
> So,what is the more likely -
>
> A - That Western science has collapsed
>
> B - That Western civilization is collapsing
>
> C - That people are coming to their senses to prevent B from happening
> through restoring common sense to A
> Ocean acidification on track to be among the worst of the last 300 million years
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/03/ocean-acidification-could-become-worst-in-at-least-300-million-years.ars
>
> The group also examined the several mass extinctions that defined the Mesozoic—the age of dinosaurs. The boundary between the Triassic and Jurassic included a large increase in atmospheric CO2 (adding as much as 1,300 to 2,400 ppm) over a relatively short period of time, perhaps just 20,000 years. The authors write, “A calcification crisis amongst hypercalcifying taxa is inferred for this period, with reefs and scleractinian corals experiencing a near-total collapse.” Again, though, it’s unclear how much of the catastrophe can be blamed on acidification rather than warming.
>
> Finally, we come the big one—The Great Dying. The Permian-Triassic mass extinction (about 252 million years ago) wiped out around 96 percent of marine species. Still, the rate of CO2 released to the atmosphere that drove the dangerous climate change was 10-100 times slower than current emissions.
oriel36
Apr 26, 2012, 3:02:08 AM4/26/12
to
On Apr 26, 4:31 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/25/12 12:31 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > Global warming is science fiction on an industrial scale,it proposes a
> > sky blue notion that if the world comes together it can control the
> > planet's temperature within a certain range and anyone who opposes
> > this proposal is a science fiction denier.
>
> > So,what is the more likely -
>
> > A - That Western science has collapsed
>
> > B - That Western civilization is collapsing
>
> > C - That people are coming to their senses to prevent B from happening
> > through restoring common sense to A
>
> There might not be any people left to answer the question.
>
I will tell you something,there are no people left to answer a simple
> On 4/25/12 12:31 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > Global warming is science fiction on an industrial scale,it proposes a
> > sky blue notion that if the world comes together it can control the
> > planet's temperature within a certain range and anyone who opposes
> > this proposal is a science fiction denier.
>
> > So,what is the more likely -
>
> > A - That Western science has collapsed
>
> > B - That Western civilization is collapsing
>
> > C - That people are coming to their senses to prevent B from happening
> > through restoring common sense to A
>
> There might not be any people left to answer the question.
>
question - what causes the temperatures to go up and down daily within
a 24 hour period day after day !.There's your true apocalypse Sam,the
same modelers who have used science fiction to create a ridiculous
atmosphere of mass hysteria are working off a 1465 rotation/1461 day
imbalance for the planet Earth,something that exists only in their
imagination.
The Earth turns once in 24 hours and within that 24 hour period you
will experience the temperature go up and down,when you and the
modelers come to understand this primary fact then we can,as a
society,pick up the pieces of astronomy and terrestrial sciences that
lie into ruins .
Some people give their life to science,others use science to get a
great lifestyle so when people saw science fiction created on an
industrial scale through climategate,it calls into question many other
topics where layabouts have been having a great lifestyle at the
expense of the wider community.
Sam Wormley
Apr 26, 2012, 8:52:34 AM4/26/12
to
On 4/26/12 2:02 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> I will tell you something,there are no people left to answer a simple
> question - what causes the temperatures to go up and down daily within
> a 24 hour period day after day?
> I will tell you something,there are no people left to answer a simple
> question - what causes the temperatures to go up and down daily within
That's not the subject of this conversation, Gerald.
Surfer
Apr 26, 2012, 9:26:41 AM4/26/12
to
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:22:41 -0500, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
wrote:
>
>I am thinking that bonzo lost his funding. Someone in Australia
>decided he wasn't worth the money.
>
Or he may have become unable to post after the TPG news server went
down.
http://www.techiehq.net/computing/tpg-newsserver-85737.html
wrote:
>
>I am thinking that bonzo lost his funding. Someone in Australia
>decided he wasn't worth the money.
>
down.
http://www.techiehq.net/computing/tpg-newsserver-85737.html
oriel36
Apr 26, 2012, 2:22:53 PM4/26/12
to
day after day so that is how much you know about climate when you go
and propose 1465 rotations in 1461 days to suit your 'theory of
gravity' which historically is at the core of the wayward speculative/
predictive agendas.What people here should read in not Sagan's sky
blue 'Cosmos' but Humboldt's 'Kosmos' which was created with the
specific purpose of putting a stop to a vicious strain of empiricism
that is creating this social/politicial mess -
"This empiricism, the melancholy heritage transmitted to us from
former times, invariably contends for the truth of its axioms with the
arrogance of a narrowminded spirit. Physical philosophy, on the other
hand, when based upon science, doubts because it seeks to investigate,
distinguishes between that which is certain and that which is merely
probable, and strives incessantly to perfect theory by extending the
circle of observation.
"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another—
this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,—is
not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy
engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it
hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of
seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate,
in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external
world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and
seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the
marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive
development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is
disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the
past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard,
either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for
the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object
of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source
from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions."
Homboldt ,Cosmos
When they discovered that the planet wasn't warming they committed the
worse scientific crime of all and shifted the hypothesis from global
warming to 'climate change' even though every schoolboy knows that the
planet's temperature oscillated throughout history.Rather than go back
to the drawing board they became aggressive and created terms like
science fiction denier for guess what Sam,it was science fiction they
were creating that existed only in their heads and computers.
AGWFacts
Apr 26, 2012, 5:49:49 PM4/26/12
to
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:49:58 -0500, Robert Grumbine
<bo...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
> In article <jn6kru$42u$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, sanebow wrote:
> > "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:CsCdnXpK-oFcTgvS...@mchsi.com...
> >> Which is more likely...
> >>
> >> [ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
> >> scientifically illiterate frauds
> Readers interested in the science may start with:
>
> 1965:
> <http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281965%29093%3C0495:EAAMAS%3E2.3.CO%3B2>
> <http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281965%29093%3C0769:SCOAGC%3E2.3.CO%3B2>
>
> 1969:
> <http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281969%29097%3C0739:CATOC%3E2.3.CO%3B2>
>
> 1974:
> <http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281974%29031%3C0118%3AAPFTAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2>
> <http://mirabeli.meteo.furg.br/aulas/MC/SchneiderSH_DickinsonRE_%20Climate_modeling.pdf>
>
> 1975:
> <https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm7502.pdf>
>
> -- from a simple google scholar search on "climate model" "water vapor", and
> limiting to those with material online.
>
> There have been more recent papers on the topic. I'll let the reader investigate
> as the notion strikes. The assertion of water vapor being 'left out' of all climate
> models has not been true, and is readily verified to not be true, for well
> over 40 years.
Thank you; a few weeks ago I listed a few similar links. These
clowns keep insisting climatologists have the wrong value for
water vapor forcing, and at the same time they insist
climatologists ignore water vapor.
<bo...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
> In article <jn6kru$42u$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, sanebow wrote:
> > "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:CsCdnXpK-oFcTgvS...@mchsi.com...
> >> Which is more likely...
> >>
> >> [ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
> >> scientifically illiterate frauds
> > is more likely, as Water Vapor, the dominant component of all
> > the greenhouse gasses, was left out
No climatologist has "left out" water vapor.
> > the greenhouse gasses, was left out
> Readers interested in the science may start with:
>
> 1965:
> <http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281965%29093%3C0495:EAAMAS%3E2.3.CO%3B2>
> <http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281965%29093%3C0769:SCOAGC%3E2.3.CO%3B2>
>
> 1969:
> <http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281969%29097%3C0739:CATOC%3E2.3.CO%3B2>
>
> 1974:
> <http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281974%29031%3C0118%3AAPFTAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2>
> <http://mirabeli.meteo.furg.br/aulas/MC/SchneiderSH_DickinsonRE_%20Climate_modeling.pdf>
>
> 1975:
> <https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm7502.pdf>
>
> -- from a simple google scholar search on "climate model" "water vapor", and
> limiting to those with material online.
>
> There have been more recent papers on the topic. I'll let the reader investigate
> as the notion strikes. The assertion of water vapor being 'left out' of all climate
> models has not been true, and is readily verified to not be true, for well
> over 40 years.
Thank you; a few weeks ago I listed a few similar links. These
clowns keep insisting climatologists have the wrong value for
water vapor forcing, and at the same time they insist
climatologists ignore water vapor.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Apr 27, 2012, 12:14:11 AM4/27/12
to
that's beautiful; you have surpassed teh day-to-day tug-o-war
between teh Denierists, and teh God-am "97-per-centers,"
the Confirmerists, who must predominantly be programmers.
between teh Denierists, and teh God-am "97-per-centers,"
the Confirmerists, who must predominantly be programmers.
oriel36
Apr 27, 2012, 3:09:16 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 5:14 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
look at the bigger picture which produced science fiction on a
militaristic scale.
Behind the superficial arguments,the curtain rises on where the real
lines are drawn in this particular battle and you may find people who
have so far contended with the utterly ridiculous idea of human
control over global temperature shy away from this particular battle
as modelers don't see it as an issue of climate,that is merely
incidental to them,they see it as an attack on the modeling agenda
itself and this is lethal to the 'scientific method' or the vicious
strain of empiricism as Humboldt recognized it to be.
What the climate issue has done is crack open modeling as it has been
done in other areas of science for the reaction to the fact that the
planet has not warmed to any great extent and at variance with the
models was to become more aggressive and take the unbelievable/
unconscionable step of morphing 'global warming' to 'climate change'
thereby undermining every terrestrial science which relies on known
climate change throughout planetary and human history and that is an
intellectual crime whatever way you put it.
The theory of global warming was explaining so many opposite weather
phenomena from drought to floods,from heatwaves to severe cold spells
that it should have alerted people,at least those who value their
intelligence,to the fact that when an ideology lie that explains
everything it also explains nothing as it becomes a vehicle for all
sorts of misdirection and exploitation.This is not the first time it
happened that a group elevated an ideology or a person to a superior
status because it seem to answer everything they wished to
hear,everything from Piltdown man to Nazi doctrine relied on a herd
mentality where the leaders are merely the surface expression of the
movement of a herd in a particular direction and this is why many
people who take a reasonable view on climate would withdraw as it
involves the elevation of Newton and his 'theory of gravity' which
like global warming seemed to answer every possible question.I am not
the first to notice it as an admirer of Humboldt once did -
"To explain: — The Newtonian Gravity — a law of Nature — a law whose
existence as such no one out of Bedlam questions — a law whose
admission as such enables us to account for nine-tenths of the
Universal phænomena — a law which, merely because it does so enable us
to account for these phænomena, we are perfectly willing, without
reference to any other considerations, to admit, and cannot help
admitting, as a law — a law, nevertheless, of which neither the
principle nor the modus operandi of the principle, has ever yet been
traced by the human analysis — a law, in short, which, neither in its
detail nor in its generality, has been found susceptible of
explanation at all — is at length seen to be at every point thoroughly
explicable, provided we only yield our assent to —— what? To an
hypothesis? Why if an hypothesis — if the merest hypothesis — if an
hypothesis for whose assumption — as in the case of that pure
hypothesis the Newtonian law itself — no shadow of à priori reason
could be assigned — if an hypothesis, even so absolute as all this
implies, would enable us to perceive a principle for the Newtonian law
— would enable us to understand as satisfied, conditions so
miraculously — so ineffably complex and seemingly irreconcileable as
those involved in the relations of which Gravity tells us, — what
rational being could so expose his fatuity as to call even this
absolute hypothesis an hypothesis any longer — unless, indeed, he were
to persist in so calling it, with the understanding that he did
so,simply for the sake of consistency in words?"
The issue of modeling climate with computers is not that much
different than modeling planetary dynamics with watches and the
clockwork solar system which is the nearest people hear of the 'theory
of gravity', a mechanical form of reasoning that takes shortcuts and
uses distortions to maintain a conclusion and this is where modelers
receive their artificial confidence as a group.Nobody questions the
hypothesis nor the method by which the conclusions are drawn,they
simply accept an overreaching conclusion that the behavior of objects
at a human level and planetary dynamics are the same thing with no
regard as to the methods and inputs needed to bridge one with the
other,likewise carbon dioxide and global warming and the idea of the
premise exists as the conclusion.
Nobody wants to know about the bigger picture as the skirmish is kept
at the level of graphs and local observations hence there are no real
victories or defeats,just a dull round of assertions and counter-
assertions with no decisive conclusion.To really deal with the matter
requires going back in history and focus on where this vicious form of
empiricism emerged and few could do that,at least as far as I can
tell.
wrote:
> that's beautiful; you have surpassed teh day-to-day tug-o-war
> between teh Denierists, and teh God-am "97-per-centers,"
> the Confirmerists, who must predominantly be programmers.
>
Yes I have surpassed it and expect others who are equally confident to
> between teh Denierists, and teh God-am "97-per-centers,"
> the Confirmerists, who must predominantly be programmers.
>
look at the bigger picture which produced science fiction on a
militaristic scale.
Behind the superficial arguments,the curtain rises on where the real
lines are drawn in this particular battle and you may find people who
have so far contended with the utterly ridiculous idea of human
control over global temperature shy away from this particular battle
as modelers don't see it as an issue of climate,that is merely
incidental to them,they see it as an attack on the modeling agenda
itself and this is lethal to the 'scientific method' or the vicious
strain of empiricism as Humboldt recognized it to be.
What the climate issue has done is crack open modeling as it has been
done in other areas of science for the reaction to the fact that the
planet has not warmed to any great extent and at variance with the
models was to become more aggressive and take the unbelievable/
unconscionable step of morphing 'global warming' to 'climate change'
thereby undermining every terrestrial science which relies on known
climate change throughout planetary and human history and that is an
intellectual crime whatever way you put it.
The theory of global warming was explaining so many opposite weather
phenomena from drought to floods,from heatwaves to severe cold spells
that it should have alerted people,at least those who value their
intelligence,to the fact that when an ideology lie that explains
everything it also explains nothing as it becomes a vehicle for all
sorts of misdirection and exploitation.This is not the first time it
happened that a group elevated an ideology or a person to a superior
status because it seem to answer everything they wished to
hear,everything from Piltdown man to Nazi doctrine relied on a herd
mentality where the leaders are merely the surface expression of the
movement of a herd in a particular direction and this is why many
people who take a reasonable view on climate would withdraw as it
involves the elevation of Newton and his 'theory of gravity' which
like global warming seemed to answer every possible question.I am not
the first to notice it as an admirer of Humboldt once did -
"To explain: — The Newtonian Gravity — a law of Nature — a law whose
existence as such no one out of Bedlam questions — a law whose
admission as such enables us to account for nine-tenths of the
Universal phænomena — a law which, merely because it does so enable us
to account for these phænomena, we are perfectly willing, without
reference to any other considerations, to admit, and cannot help
admitting, as a law — a law, nevertheless, of which neither the
principle nor the modus operandi of the principle, has ever yet been
traced by the human analysis — a law, in short, which, neither in its
detail nor in its generality, has been found susceptible of
explanation at all — is at length seen to be at every point thoroughly
explicable, provided we only yield our assent to —— what? To an
hypothesis? Why if an hypothesis — if the merest hypothesis — if an
hypothesis for whose assumption — as in the case of that pure
hypothesis the Newtonian law itself — no shadow of à priori reason
could be assigned — if an hypothesis, even so absolute as all this
implies, would enable us to perceive a principle for the Newtonian law
— would enable us to understand as satisfied, conditions so
miraculously — so ineffably complex and seemingly irreconcileable as
those involved in the relations of which Gravity tells us, — what
rational being could so expose his fatuity as to call even this
absolute hypothesis an hypothesis any longer — unless, indeed, he were
to persist in so calling it, with the understanding that he did
so,simply for the sake of consistency in words?"
The issue of modeling climate with computers is not that much
different than modeling planetary dynamics with watches and the
clockwork solar system which is the nearest people hear of the 'theory
of gravity', a mechanical form of reasoning that takes shortcuts and
uses distortions to maintain a conclusion and this is where modelers
receive their artificial confidence as a group.Nobody questions the
hypothesis nor the method by which the conclusions are drawn,they
simply accept an overreaching conclusion that the behavior of objects
at a human level and planetary dynamics are the same thing with no
regard as to the methods and inputs needed to bridge one with the
other,likewise carbon dioxide and global warming and the idea of the
premise exists as the conclusion.
Nobody wants to know about the bigger picture as the skirmish is kept
at the level of graphs and local observations hence there are no real
victories or defeats,just a dull round of assertions and counter-
assertions with no decisive conclusion.To really deal with the matter
requires going back in history and focus on where this vicious form of
empiricism emerged and few could do that,at least as far as I can
tell.
Robert Grumbine
Apr 27, 2012, 9:49:48 AM4/27/12
to
In article <6kgjp7tt37u19koel...@4ax.com>, AGWFacts wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:49:58 -0500, Robert Grumbine
><bo...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <jn6kru$42u$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, sanebow wrote:
>
[trim]
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:49:58 -0500, Robert Grumbine
><bo...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <jn6kru$42u$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, sanebow wrote:
>
>> > is more likely, as Water Vapor, the dominant component of all
>> > the greenhouse gasses, was left out
>
>> > the greenhouse gasses, was left out
>
>> Readers interested in the science may start with:
>>
>> 1965:
>> <http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281965%29093%3C0495:EAAMAS%3E2.3.CO%3B2>
>> <http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281965%29093%3C0769:SCOAGC%3E2.3.CO%3B2>
>>
>> 1969:
>> <http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281969%29097%3C0739:CATOC%3E2.3.CO%3B2>
>>
>> 1974:
>> <http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281974%29031%3C0118%3AAPFTAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2>
>> <http://mirabeli.meteo.furg.br/aulas/MC/SchneiderSH_DickinsonRE_%20Climate_modeling.pdf>
>>
>> 1975:
>> <https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm7502.pdf>
>>
>> -- from a simple google scholar search on "climate model" "water vapor", and
>> limiting to those with material online.
>>
>> There have been more recent papers on the topic. I'll let the reader investigate
>> as the notion strikes. The assertion of water vapor being 'left out' of all climate
>> models has not been true, and is readily verified to not be true, for well
>> over 40 years.
>
> Thank you; a few weeks ago I listed a few similar links. These
> clowns keep insisting climatologists have the wrong value for
> water vapor forcing, and at the same time they insist
> climatologists ignore water vapor.
After posting, I changed my search to 'general circulation model' from
>>
>> 1965:
>> <http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281965%29093%3C0495:EAAMAS%3E2.3.CO%3B2>
>> <http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281965%29093%3C0769:SCOAGC%3E2.3.CO%3B2>
>>
>> 1969:
>> <http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281969%29097%3C0739:CATOC%3E2.3.CO%3B2>
>>
>> 1974:
>> <http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281974%29031%3C0118%3AAPFTAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2>
>> <http://mirabeli.meteo.furg.br/aulas/MC/SchneiderSH_DickinsonRE_%20Climate_modeling.pdf>
>>
>> 1975:
>> <https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm7502.pdf>
>>
>> -- from a simple google scholar search on "climate model" "water vapor", and
>> limiting to those with material online.
>>
>> There have been more recent papers on the topic. I'll let the reader investigate
>> as the notion strikes. The assertion of water vapor being 'left out' of all climate
>> models has not been true, and is readily verified to not be true, for well
>> over 40 years.
>
> Thank you; a few weeks ago I listed a few similar links. These
> clowns keep insisting climatologists have the wrong value for
> water vapor forcing, and at the same time they insist
> climatologists ignore water vapor.
"climate model". That gets far more hits in the earlier years, including
a 1961 model by Manabe. So, for over 50 years of computer-based climate
modeling water vapor has been included in the radiative transfer.
Since I have a copy at hand, I also checked out L. F. Richardson's
1922 (90 years ago, 1922 is not a typo) book _Weather Prediction by
Numerical Means_. He, too, included water vapor effect on radiative
transfer.
Not only is the claim that climate models ignore water vapor in
radiation not true now, it hasn't been true for at least 50 years,
and perhaps never was. Some weather models have ignored water
vapor on radiation -- but that was because they ignored radiation
entirely. (You can get away with that if your time scales are
short enough and your accuracy standard is low enough -- as it
was in the early days of numerical weather prediction.) But I've
yet to encounter a climate model which has ignored radiation,
or water vapor's effects on radiation.
Special category of its own -- claims that are not only false
now, but which have always been false. Sometimes I make an error
in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. So I can
see making that error and have some sympathy for it. But to
claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
work.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Tunderbar
Apr 27, 2012, 11:31:06 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 24, 11:24 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which is more likely...
>
> [ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
> scientifically illiterate frauds
>
> Which is more likely...
>
> [ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
> scientifically illiterate frauds
>
> [ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
> research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
> and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
> science
"scientifically illiterate frauds"
> research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
> and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
> science
Can you translate this into something that makes sense?
bjacoby
Apr 27, 2012, 12:11:43 PM4/27/12
to
On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
> Special category of its own -- claims that are not only false
> now, but which have always been false. Sometimes I make an error
> in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
> it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. So I can
> see making that error and have some sympathy for it. But to
> claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
> work.
Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time. "True" is simply what "experts"
> Special category of its own -- claims that are not only false
> now, but which have always been false. Sometimes I make an error
> in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
> it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. So I can
> see making that error and have some sympathy for it. But to
> claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
> work.
say it is. So one day the "Theory of Uniformity" is "true" and he next
day it's "nonsense". Somehow I think you've missed something in how
science works. You've defined it as a religion with all the cardinals
deciding what is "true" and what is "not true". You are totally wrong in
this.
As for ignoring water vapor, I wish I'd saved Wormley's standard links
on greenhouse gasses, for one of those papers he uses to "prove" that
CO2 causes global warming says right in the very first paragraph that
water vapor is going to be ignored. And when this was pointed out to
warmists, suddenly they never said such a thing!
Fact is Alarmists have been claiming that CO2 is THE sole source of
global warming since the carbon push began and they CONTINUE to do so.
Even the AGW apologists admit that CO2 is a MINOR effect compared to
water vapor. They try to excuse that by claiming some imaginary
"positive feedback" link between CO2 and water vapor in spite of no
evidence of the instability such a system would necessarily have.
see
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
The major point here, Robert, is that for all the pretending this is a
SCIENTIFIC debate, it is not. It is a POLITICAL campaign. The very
wording of the discussion proves that beyond doubt. So to drag up some
1922 papers to "prove" something only proves that at one time climate
science was science. Now it's politics.
Bill Snyder
Apr 27, 2012, 12:29:39 PM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:11:43 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
>On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
>> Special category of its own -- claims that are not only false
>> now, but which have always been false. Sometimes I make an error
>> in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
>> it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. So I can
>> see making that error and have some sympathy for it. But to
>> claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
>> work.
>
>Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.
That's what's called "science," shit-bot. Newtonian physics had
to give way to the Einsteinian variety. Deal with it. Or don't;
nobody really cares.
> "True" is simply what "experts"
>say it is. So one day the "Theory of Uniformity" is "true" and he next
>day it's "nonsense". Somehow I think you've missed something in how
>science works. You've defined it as a religion with all the cardinals
>deciding what is "true" and what is "not true".
Of course the shit-bot knows it's the evidence that decides that;
he just has to lie about it.
> You are totally wrong in this.
"I punched my straw man, and it fell right over, so you're totally
wrong!"
>As for ignoring water vapor, I wish I'd saved Wormley's standard links
>on greenhouse gasses, for one of those papers he uses to "prove" that
>CO2 causes global warming says right in the very first paragraph that
>water vapor is going to be ignored. And when this was pointed out to
>warmists, suddenly they never said such a thing!
Damn, Marvie's dog can even eat URLs.
>Fact is Alarmists have been claiming that CO2 is THE sole source of
>global warming since the carbon push began and they CONTINUE to do so.
Fact is, shit-bot's lying again.
>Even the AGW apologists admit that CO2 is a MINOR effect compared to
>water vapor.
Heh. Put 100 lb weights on both sides of a balance scale, and it
sits level. Add a one-pound weight on one side, and it swings as
far away from level as you allow it to go, even though that's a
minor change (or a MINOR CHANGE as the shit-bot would phrase it).
> They try to excuse that by claiming some imaginary
>"positive feedback" link between CO2 and water vapor in spite of no
>evidence of the instability such a system would necessarily have.
Shit-bot pretends that positive feedback can never be replaced by
negative.
>see
>http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
>
>The major point here, Robert, is that for all the pretending this is a
>SCIENTIFIC debate, it is not. It is a POLITICAL campaign. The very
>wording of the discussion proves that beyond doubt.
Dog ate every single bit of evidence, though.
> So to drag up some
>1922 papers to "prove" something only proves that at one time climate
>science was science. Now it's politics.
"If I don't like it, it doesn't prove a thing." Classic.
wrote:
>On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
>> Special category of its own -- claims that are not only false
>> now, but which have always been false. Sometimes I make an error
>> in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
>> it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. So I can
>> see making that error and have some sympathy for it. But to
>> claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
>> work.
>
>Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.
to give way to the Einsteinian variety. Deal with it. Or don't;
nobody really cares.
> "True" is simply what "experts"
>say it is. So one day the "Theory of Uniformity" is "true" and he next
>day it's "nonsense". Somehow I think you've missed something in how
>science works. You've defined it as a religion with all the cardinals
>deciding what is "true" and what is "not true".
he just has to lie about it.
> You are totally wrong in this.
wrong!"
>As for ignoring water vapor, I wish I'd saved Wormley's standard links
>on greenhouse gasses, for one of those papers he uses to "prove" that
>CO2 causes global warming says right in the very first paragraph that
>water vapor is going to be ignored. And when this was pointed out to
>warmists, suddenly they never said such a thing!
>Fact is Alarmists have been claiming that CO2 is THE sole source of
>global warming since the carbon push began and they CONTINUE to do so.
>Even the AGW apologists admit that CO2 is a MINOR effect compared to
>water vapor.
sits level. Add a one-pound weight on one side, and it swings as
far away from level as you allow it to go, even though that's a
minor change (or a MINOR CHANGE as the shit-bot would phrase it).
> They try to excuse that by claiming some imaginary
>"positive feedback" link between CO2 and water vapor in spite of no
>evidence of the instability such a system would necessarily have.
negative.
>see
>http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
>
>The major point here, Robert, is that for all the pretending this is a
>SCIENTIFIC debate, it is not. It is a POLITICAL campaign. The very
>wording of the discussion proves that beyond doubt.
> So to drag up some
>1922 papers to "prove" something only proves that at one time climate
>science was science. Now it's politics.
Robert Grumbine
Apr 27, 2012, 12:35:52 PM4/27/12
to
In article <Yyzmr.16648$8_6....@newsfe09.iad>, bjacoby wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
>> Special category of its own -- claims that are not only false
>> now, but which have always been false. Sometimes I make an error
>> in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
>> it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. So I can
>> see making that error and have some sympathy for it. But to
>> claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
>> work.
>
> Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time. "True" is simply what "experts"
> say it is. So one day the "Theory of Uniformity" is "true" and he next
> day it's "nonsense". Somehow I think you've missed something in how
> science works. You've defined it as a religion with all the cardinals
> deciding what is "true" and what is "not true". You are totally wrong in
> this.
In science, our best understanding changes over time. If it
> On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
>> Special category of its own -- claims that are not only false
>> now, but which have always been false. Sometimes I make an error
>> in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
>> it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. So I can
>> see making that error and have some sympathy for it. But to
>> claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
>> work.
>
> Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time. "True" is simply what "experts"
> say it is. So one day the "Theory of Uniformity" is "true" and he next
> day it's "nonsense". Somehow I think you've missed something in how
> science works. You've defined it as a religion with all the cardinals
> deciding what is "true" and what is "not true". You are totally wrong in
> this.
were religion, it need not. The IAU 1964 geoid had one shape for
the earth. Our knowledge of the shape of the earth improved over
time, so IAU 64 was replaced by WGS 84. And so forth.
> As for ignoring water vapor, I wish I'd saved Wormley's standard links
> on greenhouse gasses, for one of those papers he uses to "prove" that
> CO2 causes global warming says right in the very first paragraph that
> water vapor is going to be ignored. And when this was pointed out to
> warmists, suddenly they never said such a thing!
> Fact is Alarmists have been claiming that CO2 is THE sole source of
> global warming since the carbon push began and they CONTINUE to do so.
_sole_ source of climate change, over any time span.
In the mean time, what 'carbon push' are you referring to, and
when did that start?
> Even the AGW apologists admit that CO2 is a MINOR effect compared to
> water vapor. They try to excuse that by claiming some imaginary
> "positive feedback" link between CO2 and water vapor in spite of no
> evidence of the instability such a system would necessarily have.
instability. Every electronic device you use relies on that.
> see
> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
From the abstract:
"With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we nd
that water vapour is the dominant contributor ( 50% of the e ect), followed
by clouds ( 25%) and then CO2 with 20%. All other absorbers play only
minor roles."
If you wish to call 20% minor, go ahead. But 20% is markedly
larger than the 2% which shows up in this group.
> The major point here, Robert, is that for all the pretending this is a
> SCIENTIFIC debate, it is not. It is a POLITICAL campaign. The very
> wording of the discussion proves that beyond doubt. So to drag up some
> 1922 papers to "prove" something only proves that at one time climate
> science was science. Now it's politics.
We've known that it is for over 150 years.
Whether atmospheric CO2 has risen over the past 150 years is science,
not politics. It has.
Whether the rise is due to human activity or not is science, not
politics. It is.
Whether climate models include, or have included, water vapor's
effect on radiation is science. They have. As I documented, they've
done so for a long time. Some people lie about this fact.
For all that the Schmidt paper you link to is recent, the ~20%
figure for CO2's contribution to the earth's greenhouse effect is
also an old figure. Ramanathan and Coakley in 1977 or 1978 documented
the contributions for a variety of combinations. I haven't pursued
it, but they are probably not the first either.
What, if anything, someone supports doing after they learn what
our best current scientific understanding is, that is indeed
political. Agreeing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas does not obligate
you to support 'one world government' or any such thing. Certainly
I don't support it even though I do understand that and how CO2
is a greenhouse gas.
R Kym Horsell
Apr 27, 2012, 12:46:42 PM4/27/12
to
In sci.physics Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
...
>> They try to excuse that by claiming some imaginary
>>"positive feedback" link between CO2 and water vapor in spite of no
>>evidence of the instability such a system would necessarily have.
>
> Shit-bot pretends that positive feedback can never be replaced by
> negative.
...
>>"positive feedback" link between CO2 and water vapor in spite of no
>>evidence of the instability such a system would necessarily have.
>
> Shit-bot pretends that positive feedback can never be replaced by
> negative.
My take on this factoid is that climate instability is observed.
THere are 38 mn hits for the term on google. :)
They publish papers in Nature and Science all the time with the term
in the title and abstract.
But "instability" is one of those sciency terms, with lots of ifs
ands and buts. One of the qualifications is the timescale.
Just like water can appear solid at the right timescale,
climate may appear stable or unstable at different timescales.
If you look at the paleo climate record, e.g., it appears to flip
flop between iceball and hothouse in a more-or-less random walk.
The only thing that appears to get it out of "stuck" mode
(for sticking is a property of complex systems -- they call
in "lock in" some places) is an even greater disaster than the
sticking itself. E.g. a small asteroid or iceball meteor airburst.
As to whether the feedback is positive or negative. We kinda expect
positive because in a system with both the positive ones dominate.
And, finally, (and we should have done this to start with since it's
supposed to be sci.*) what is observed?
We know enough that even skeptics like Roy Spencer admit that
CO2 alone could account for around .7C warming in the doubling scenario.
Everyone agrees we've seen .75C already with only 40% more CO2.
I.e. there's a magnification factor of around 3 times.
If you look a little further you can break down the 3x into different
components. Obviousl the 1x is for the CO2. If you look at balloon
data you see for each 1 ppmv of added co2 over time there's been
around 2 ppmv of wv added over the last 50 years. So it seems that
wc accounts for 4 in the overall factor. So various other things
like changes in cloud cover or surface albedo sum to -2 to get us back to 3.
--
It's really a shame you can't understand anything yourself, and have to
depend on others who are equally clueless.
-- Bill Ward, 10 Apr 2012
AGWFacts
Apr 27, 2012, 3:45:09 PM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:49:48 -0500, Robert Grumbine
Even S.G. Callendar in the late 1930s included water vapor in his
projections (Section Two), though he had to infer globally what he
could only measure in a few regions.
http://www.rmets.org/pdf/qjcallender38.pdf
The assertion by denialists that water vapor is "left out" by
climatologists is just.... delusional.
> Since I have a copy at hand, I also checked out L. F. Richardson's
> 1922 (90 years ago, 1922 is not a typo) book _Weather Prediction by
> Numerical Means_. He, too, included water vapor effect on radiative
> transfer.
Exactly so. Leaving out water vapor when studying climate and
weather would be like leaving out atoms when studying chemistry.
Denialists expect us to believe all of the scientists on the
planet who study climate just somehow *MISSED* the fact that they
need to include water vapor.
> Not only is the claim that climate models ignore water vapor in
> radiation not true now, it hasn't been true for at least 50 years,
> and perhaps never was. Some weather models have ignored water
> vapor on radiation -- but that was because they ignored radiation
> entirely. (You can get away with that if your time scales are
> short enough and your accuracy standard is low enough -- as it
> was in the early days of numerical weather prediction.) But I've
> yet to encounter a climate model which has ignored radiation,
> or water vapor's effects on radiation.
>
> Special category of its own -- claims that are not only false
> now, but which have always been false. Sometimes I make an error
> in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
> it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. So I can
> see making that error and have some sympathy for it. But to
> claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
> work.
Just one example will refute the absolute statement, and you have
done so. Well done. :-) F.E. Fowle in year 1918 (Smithson. Misc.
Goll., 63, No.8., given by Callendar) included water vapor in his
atmospheric studies.
--
Denialism: "The employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance
of legitimate debate where there is none."
projections (Section Two), though he had to infer globally what he
could only measure in a few regions.
http://www.rmets.org/pdf/qjcallender38.pdf
The assertion by denialists that water vapor is "left out" by
climatologists is just.... delusional.
> Since I have a copy at hand, I also checked out L. F. Richardson's
> 1922 (90 years ago, 1922 is not a typo) book _Weather Prediction by
> Numerical Means_. He, too, included water vapor effect on radiative
> transfer.
weather would be like leaving out atoms when studying chemistry.
Denialists expect us to believe all of the scientists on the
planet who study climate just somehow *MISSED* the fact that they
need to include water vapor.
> Not only is the claim that climate models ignore water vapor in
> radiation not true now, it hasn't been true for at least 50 years,
> and perhaps never was. Some weather models have ignored water
> vapor on radiation -- but that was because they ignored radiation
> entirely. (You can get away with that if your time scales are
> short enough and your accuracy standard is low enough -- as it
> was in the early days of numerical weather prediction.) But I've
> yet to encounter a climate model which has ignored radiation,
> or water vapor's effects on radiation.
>
> Special category of its own -- claims that are not only false
> now, but which have always been false. Sometimes I make an error
> in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
> it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. So I can
> see making that error and have some sympathy for it. But to
> claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
> work.
done so. Well done. :-) F.E. Fowle in year 1918 (Smithson. Misc.
Goll., 63, No.8., given by Callendar) included water vapor in his
atmospheric studies.
--
Denialism: "The employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance
of legitimate debate where there is none."
AGWFacts
Apr 27, 2012, 3:45:26 PM4/27/12
to
AGWFacts
Apr 27, 2012, 3:46:29 PM4/27/12
to
> > Special category of its own -- claims that are not only false
> > now, but which have always been false. Sometimes I make an error
> > in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
> > it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. So I can
> > see making that error and have some sympathy for it. But to
> > claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
> > work.
> Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.
No. Human understanding of physics change over time.
> > now, but which have always been false. Sometimes I make an error
> > in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
> > it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. So I can
> > see making that error and have some sympathy for it. But to
> > claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
> > work.
> Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.
Why are you objecting to the increase in human knowledge?
> "True" is simply what "experts"
> say it is. So one day the "Theory of Uniformity" is "true" and he next
> day it's "nonsense". Somehow I think you've missed something in how
> science works. You've defined it as a religion with all the cardinals
> deciding what is "true" and what is "not true". You are totally wrong in
> this.
>
> As for ignoring water vapor, I wish I'd saved Wormley's standard links
> on greenhouse gasses, for one of those papers he uses to "prove" that
> CO2 causes global warming says right in the very first paragraph that
> water vapor is going to be ignored. And when this was pointed out to
> warmists, suddenly they never said such a thing!
>
> Fact is Alarmists have been claiming that CO2 is THE sole source of
> global warming since the carbon push began and they CONTINUE to do so.
> Even the AGW apologists admit that CO2 is a MINOR effect compared to
> water vapor. They try to excuse that by claiming some imaginary
> "positive feedback" link between CO2 and water vapor in spite of no
> evidence of the instability such a system would necessarily have.
>
> see
> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
>
> The major point here, Robert, is that for all the pretending this is a
> SCIENTIFIC debate, it is not. It is a POLITICAL campaign. The very
> wording of the discussion proves that beyond doubt. So to drag up some
> 1922 papers to "prove" something only proves that at one time climate
> science was science. Now it's politics.
oriel36
Apr 27, 2012, 4:04:38 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 5:29 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:11:43 -0400, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
true and what was fabricated to make it appear relativity replaced
Newton agenda.
" In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; "Albert Einstein
This would normally be a point of departure for explaining 1905
relativity and on towards the concepts of this era however it is not
true,Newton thoroughly rejected an aether which was the problem in the
mid 19th century when they could no longer bear the clockwork solar
system agenda -
"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken
them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such
matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." Newton
Opticks 1704
There is almost desperation in the mid-19th century as they reached a
conceptual impasse yet couldn't reason their way out of it nor how
they got into it so 50 years later they fabricated an aether and
dumped it back on Newton,as anyone may see,the top right column
reflects Newton's rejection of an aether -
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425
What happens is that a bloc acceptance of a person,theory or ideology
is symbolic of the direction the herd wishes to go rather than
individualistic achievement which stands on its own and is accepted on
it merits.When climategate broke,the herd mentality could isolate the
individuals who once represented the ideology as leaders up to then
and simply move on as if they didn't exist,same with Newton,when he
served his purpose they simply scavenged the parts which were useful
to their purpose and moved on.
It is extremely rare to encounter an individual willing to go back
into history and expose fabrications built on top of other
fabrications yet I did find a few people who faced the difference
between what is true and what is fabricated to be true and especially
Rouse Ball who admitted they couldn't trace the method or the
reasoning from hypothesis to conclusion -
"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical,
but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily
difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the
fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at
his results." W.W.Rouse Ball 1908
In short,relativity did not replace Newton's agenda,it was fabricated
to make it appear that it replaced Newton's physics hence flexible
historical and technical details that a herd is prepared to ignore
just as you are doing now.Don't mistake this as contending with
relativity or Newton,it simply shows a clearer picture of what
actually happened rather than a fabricated history that exists only in
the imagination of those who adopted relativity.
> --
> Bill Snyder
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:11:43 -0400, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
> >> Special category of its own -- claims that are not only false
> >> now, but which have always been false. Sometimes I make an error
> >> in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
> >> it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. So I can
> >> see making that error and have some sympathy for it. But to
> >> claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
> >> work.
>
> >Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.
>
> That's what's called "science," shit-bot. Newtonian physics had
> to give way to the Einsteinian variety. Deal with it. Or don't;
> nobody really cares.
>
>
They really should care because there is a difference between what is
>
> >On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
> >> Special category of its own -- claims that are not only false
> >> now, but which have always been false. Sometimes I make an error
> >> in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
> >> it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. So I can
> >> see making that error and have some sympathy for it. But to
> >> claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
> >> work.
>
> >Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.
>
> That's what's called "science," shit-bot. Newtonian physics had
> to give way to the Einsteinian variety. Deal with it. Or don't;
> nobody really cares.
>
>
true and what was fabricated to make it appear relativity replaced
Newton agenda.
" In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; "Albert Einstein
This would normally be a point of departure for explaining 1905
relativity and on towards the concepts of this era however it is not
true,Newton thoroughly rejected an aether which was the problem in the
mid 19th century when they could no longer bear the clockwork solar
system agenda -
"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken
them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such
matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." Newton
Opticks 1704
There is almost desperation in the mid-19th century as they reached a
conceptual impasse yet couldn't reason their way out of it nor how
they got into it so 50 years later they fabricated an aether and
dumped it back on Newton,as anyone may see,the top right column
reflects Newton's rejection of an aether -
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425
What happens is that a bloc acceptance of a person,theory or ideology
is symbolic of the direction the herd wishes to go rather than
individualistic achievement which stands on its own and is accepted on
it merits.When climategate broke,the herd mentality could isolate the
individuals who once represented the ideology as leaders up to then
and simply move on as if they didn't exist,same with Newton,when he
served his purpose they simply scavenged the parts which were useful
to their purpose and moved on.
It is extremely rare to encounter an individual willing to go back
into history and expose fabrications built on top of other
fabrications yet I did find a few people who faced the difference
between what is true and what is fabricated to be true and especially
Rouse Ball who admitted they couldn't trace the method or the
reasoning from hypothesis to conclusion -
"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical,
but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily
difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the
fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at
his results." W.W.Rouse Ball 1908
In short,relativity did not replace Newton's agenda,it was fabricated
to make it appear that it replaced Newton's physics hence flexible
historical and technical details that a herd is prepared to ignore
just as you are doing now.Don't mistake this as contending with
relativity or Newton,it simply shows a clearer picture of what
actually happened rather than a fabricated history that exists only in
the imagination of those who adopted relativity.
> --
> Bill Snyder
bjacoby
Apr 27, 2012, 4:44:41 PM4/27/12
to
On 4/27/2012 12:35 PM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
> In article<Yyzmr.16648$8_6....@newsfe09.iad>, bjacoby wrote:
> In science, our best understanding changes over time. If it
> were religion, it need not. The IAU 1964 geoid had one shape for
> the earth. Our knowledge of the shape of the earth improved over
> time, so IAU 64 was replaced by WGS 84. And so forth.
You really don't get it, do you? You used the word "true". Words
> In article<Yyzmr.16648$8_6....@newsfe09.iad>, bjacoby wrote:
> In science, our best understanding changes over time. If it
> were religion, it need not. The IAU 1964 geoid had one shape for
> the earth. Our knowledge of the shape of the earth improved over
> time, so IAU 64 was replaced by WGS 84. And so forth.
actually have meanings in science, you know. It's quite different from
politics where words mean only what you SAY they mean... TRUE does not
change. "Best understanding" does change as does your assertions as to
what you said.
>> As for ignoring water vapor, I wish I'd saved Wormley's standard links
>> on greenhouse gasses, for one of those papers he uses to "prove" that
>> CO2 causes global warming says right in the very first paragraph that
>> water vapor is going to be ignored. And when this was pointed out to
>> warmists, suddenly they never said such a thing!
>
> Which paper is that? Link please.
>> Even the AGW apologists admit that CO2 is a MINOR effect compared to
>> water vapor. They try to excuse that by claiming some imaginary
>> "positive feedback" link between CO2 and water vapor in spite of no
>> evidence of the instability such a system would necessarily have.
>
> Its entirely possible to have an amplifying feedback without
> instability. Every electronic device you use relies on that.
subject. The above statement is totally and completely false. I suggest
taking a course on the stability of feedback systems. Feedback is not in
"every electronic device I use" and you don't even make the distinction
between positive and negative feedback.
Have your climate modelers supply us with the Nyquist plot for your
climatological feedback and we can discuss this idiot theory further.
Will Janoschka
Apr 27, 2012, 5:12:45 PM4/27/12
to
I would like to see his idea on how a glasshouse works to protect
young plants from the cold.
Will Janoschka
Apr 27, 2012, 5:54:17 PM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:04:38, oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 27, 5:29ĸpm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:11:43 -0400, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
> >
> > >> ĸ ĸSpecial category of its own -- claims that are not only false
> > >> now, but which have always been false. ĸSometimes I make an error
> > >> see making that error and have some sympathy for it. ĸBut to
> > to give way to the Einsteinian variety. ĸDeal with it. ĸOr don't;
> http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?itempage&seq9&size1&idbm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425
Is there some translation of that?
Some like Snyder, claim "Newtonian physics had to give way to the
Einsteinian variety."
Other,s View Einstein's Relativity as a necessary and useful (but
incomplete) extension of
Newtonian physics to areas not covered by Newton. Newtons's physics
still hold.
Most atmospheric moleclues are not relativistic WRTE. What has
history to do with it?
wrote:
> On Apr 27, 5:29ĸpm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:11:43 -0400, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
> >
> > >> now, but which have always been false. ĸSometimes I make an error
> > >> in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
> > >> it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. ĸSo I can
> > >> see making that error and have some sympathy for it. ĸBut to
> > >> claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
> > >> work.
> >
> > >Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.
> >
> > That's what's called "science," shit-bot. ĸNewtonian physics had
> > >> work.
> >
> > >Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.
> >
> > to give way to the Einsteinian variety. ĸDeal with it. ĸOr don't;
Some like Snyder, claim "Newtonian physics had to give way to the
Einsteinian variety."
Other,s View Einstein's Relativity as a necessary and useful (but
incomplete) extension of
Newtonian physics to areas not covered by Newton. Newtons's physics
still hold.
Most atmospheric moleclues are not relativistic WRTE. What has
history to do with it?
Martin Brown
Apr 28, 2012, 3:30:59 AM4/28/12
to
On 27/04/2012 22:54, Will Janoschka wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:04:38, oriel36<kellehe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 27, 5:29ĸpm, Bill Snyder<bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:11:43 -0400, bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
>>>
>>>>> ĸ ĸSpecial category of its own -- claims that are not only false
>>>>> now, but which have always been false. ĸSometimes I make an error
>>>>> in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
>>>>> it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. ĸSo I can
>>>>> see making that error and have some sympathy for it. ĸBut to
>>>>> claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
>>>>> work.
>>>
>>>> Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.
>>>
>>> That's what's called "science," shit-bot. ĸNewtonian physics had
>>> to give way to the Einsteinian variety. ĸDeal with it. ĸOr don't;
>>> nobody really cares.
>>
>> They really should care because there is a difference between what is
>> true and what was fabricated to make it appear relativity replaced
>> Newton agenda.
>>
>> " In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
>> least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
[very long snip]
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:04:38, oriel36<kellehe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 27, 5:29ĸpm, Bill Snyder<bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:11:43 -0400, bjacoby<bjac...@iwaynet.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
>>>
>>>>> ĸ ĸSpecial category of its own -- claims that are not only false
>>>>> now, but which have always been false. ĸSometimes I make an error
>>>>> in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
>>>>> it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. ĸSo I can
>>>>> see making that error and have some sympathy for it. ĸBut to
>>>>> claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
>>>>> work.
>>>
>>>> Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.
>>>
>>> That's what's called "science," shit-bot. ĸNewtonian physics had
>>> to give way to the Einsteinian variety. ĸDeal with it. ĸOr don't;
>>> nobody really cares.
>>
>> They really should care because there is a difference between what is
>> true and what was fabricated to make it appear relativity replaced
>> Newton agenda.
>>
>> " In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
>> least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
>>
>> In short,relativity did not replace Newton's agenda,it was fabricated
>> to make it appear that it replaced Newton's physics hence flexible
>> historical and technical details that a herd is prepared to ignore
>> just as you are doing now.Don't mistake this as contending with
>> relativity or Newton,it simply shows a clearer picture of what
>> actually happened rather than a fabricated history that exists only in
>> the imagination of those who adopted relativity.
>
> Is there some translation of that?
Unlikely. Oriel36 is a well known netkook who doesn't do math and posts
>> In short,relativity did not replace Newton's agenda,it was fabricated
>> to make it appear that it replaced Newton's physics hence flexible
>> historical and technical details that a herd is prepared to ignore
>> just as you are doing now.Don't mistake this as contending with
>> relativity or Newton,it simply shows a clearer picture of what
>> actually happened rather than a fabricated history that exists only in
>> the imagination of those who adopted relativity.
>
> Is there some translation of that?
more or less the same rant against modern science at every opportunity.
No chance he will ever learn anything so don't waste your time.
Feed to the Shannonizer and you will find it is almost invariant under
random rearrangement of the words - a sure sign of a netkook.
> Some like Snyder, claim "Newtonian physics had to give way to the
> Einsteinian variety."
gravitational fields Newtonian dynamics is the limiting case of of the
more complete theory of Einstein's relativity. Newtonian dynamics is a
lot easier to work with which is why we still teach it in schools first.
>
> Other,s View Einstein's Relativity as a necessary and useful (but
> incomplete) extension of
> Newtonian physics to areas not covered by Newton. Newtons's physics
> still hold.
At low speeds their predictions are pretty much indistinguishable.
> Other,s View Einstein's Relativity as a necessary and useful (but
> incomplete) extension of
> Newtonian physics to areas not covered by Newton. Newtons's physics
> still hold.
Newtonian dynamics is subsumed by Einstein's relativity as a limiting
case when v << c.
It is a lot easier to use Newtonian dynamics when they are applicable
and the accuracy of the answer it gives is adequate.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
oriel36
Apr 28, 2012, 3:48:57 AM4/28/12
to
On Apr 27, 10:54 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:04:38, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
> > > >> now, but which have always been false. ÿSometimes I make an error
> > > >> see making that error and have some sympathy for it. ÿBut to
> > > to give way to the Einsteinian variety. ÿDeal with it. ÿOr don't;
> >http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?itempage&seq9&size1...
The commentary from the mid 19th century was actually killing two
birds with one stone and without knowing it,you are proving both of
these points .The herd mentality generally relies on maintaining a
conclusion front and center so that if global warming is linked to
carbon dioxide for a long enough period of time,people will be unable
to imagine anything other than their actions are causing global
warming,it is the same with relativity/Newton,the fabricated story is
so part of your thinking that it is impossible to imagine that Newton
rejected an aether and you simply ignore what Newton said and the
difficulties they had in the mid 19th century with it -
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425
The astronomical equivalent of 2+2=4 is that the Earth turns once in
24 hours with all the effects experienced within that period
reflecting the daily motion of the Earth yet in this dystopian
society,and because their modeling require it,they argue against the
24 hour day keeping in step with daily rotation and while it is all
too easy to refer this to the fictional novel based on Nazi
doctrine,we most certainly live in an era where, astronomically, 2+2=5
and all that goes along with that dysfunctional correlation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5
Global warming causes floods and droughts,global warming causes
heatwaves and severe cold snaps,if global warming is not happening
then it is climate change in which case global warming does happen and
that is why I felt Humboldt statement is important -
"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another—
this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,—is
not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy
engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it
hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of
seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate,
in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external
world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and
seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the
marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive
development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is
disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the
past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard,
either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for
the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object
of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source
from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions."
Homboldt ,Cosmos
The resolution of this myopic view which links climate to carbon
dioxide is always the same just as Humboldt realized,a widening of
perspectives and throwing the windows open to allow conceptual fresh
air in to the current opinions based on assertions and counter
assertions.It is how intelligent and reasonable people acted and
dearly required right now -
"When we wish to correct with advantage and to show another that he
errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that
side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to
him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he
sees that he was not mistaken and that he only failed to see all
sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does
not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that
man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err
in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are
always true."
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/pascal/pensees-a.html#SECTION
I
Pascal outlines most of what went wrong as mathematicians inserted
themselves in astronomy and terrestrial sciences.
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:04:38, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 5:29ÿpm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:11:43 -0400, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
> > > >> ÿ ÿSpecial category of its own -- claims that are not only false
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 5:29ÿpm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:11:43 -0400, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
> > > >> now, but which have always been false. ÿSometimes I make an error
> > > >> in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
> > > >> it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. ÿSo I can
> > > >> see making that error and have some sympathy for it. ÿBut to
> > > >> claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
> > > >> work.
>
> > > >Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.
>
> > > That's what's called "science," shit-bot. ÿNewtonian physics had
> > > >> work.
>
> > > >Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.
>
> > > to give way to the Einsteinian variety. ÿDeal with it. ÿOr don't;
birds with one stone and without knowing it,you are proving both of
these points .The herd mentality generally relies on maintaining a
conclusion front and center so that if global warming is linked to
carbon dioxide for a long enough period of time,people will be unable
to imagine anything other than their actions are causing global
warming,it is the same with relativity/Newton,the fabricated story is
so part of your thinking that it is impossible to imagine that Newton
rejected an aether and you simply ignore what Newton said and the
difficulties they had in the mid 19th century with it -
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425
The astronomical equivalent of 2+2=4 is that the Earth turns once in
24 hours with all the effects experienced within that period
reflecting the daily motion of the Earth yet in this dystopian
society,and because their modeling require it,they argue against the
24 hour day keeping in step with daily rotation and while it is all
too easy to refer this to the fictional novel based on Nazi
doctrine,we most certainly live in an era where, astronomically, 2+2=5
and all that goes along with that dysfunctional correlation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5
Global warming causes floods and droughts,global warming causes
heatwaves and severe cold snaps,if global warming is not happening
then it is climate change in which case global warming does happen and
that is why I felt Humboldt statement is important -
"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another—
this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,—is
not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy
engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it
hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of
seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate,
in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external
world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and
seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the
marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive
development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is
disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the
past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard,
either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for
the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object
of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source
from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions."
Homboldt ,Cosmos
dioxide is always the same just as Humboldt realized,a widening of
perspectives and throwing the windows open to allow conceptual fresh
air in to the current opinions based on assertions and counter
assertions.It is how intelligent and reasonable people acted and
dearly required right now -
"When we wish to correct with advantage and to show another that he
errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that
side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to
him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he
sees that he was not mistaken and that he only failed to see all
sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does
not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that
man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err
in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are
always true."
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/pascal/pensees-a.html#SECTION
I
Pascal outlines most of what went wrong as mathematicians inserted
themselves in astronomy and terrestrial sciences.
oriel36
Apr 28, 2012, 4:46:42 AM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28, 8:30 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> It would be more accurate to say that at low velocities and in weak
> gravitational fields Newtonian dynamics is the limiting case of of the
> more complete theory of Einstein's relativity. Newtonian dynamics is a
> lot easier to work with which is why we still teach it in schools first.
> Martin Brown
All you are doing is chanting voodoo and a long way away from genuine
empiricists like Rouse Ball who accurately reflected the situation
after relativity emerged -
"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical,
but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily
difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the
fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at
his results. The reason why it was presented in a geometrical form
appears to have been that the infinitesimal calculus was then unknown,
and, had Newton used it to demonstrate results which were in
themselves opposed to the prevalent philosophy of the time, the
controversy as to the truth of his results would have been hampered by
a dispute concerning the validity of the methods used in proving
them." W.W.Rouse Ball 1908
The situation in 1905 was that Newton rejected an aether although they
somehow managed to fabricate a new 'revolutionary' approach by using
the texts of Newton against itself to such an extent that they could
dump aether on Newton as 'absolute space' .The current morphing of
'global warming' into 'climate change' is many,many,many magnitudes
worse than the fabrications which make it appear that relativity is a
better form of Newton's agenda,what it does represent is a bigger can
of worms and all protected by chanting voodoo in the hope that nobody
spots it.
Call me what you will,a person who can state that 2+2=4 in the
astronomical sense that the Earth turns once in 24 hours
has,unfortunately due to extremely low standards,the superior view to
those who can't state that fact.Humboldt knew the vicious form of
empiricism you practice must be met head on so deal with it son.
wrote:
> It would be more accurate to say that at low velocities and in weak
> gravitational fields Newtonian dynamics is the limiting case of of the
> more complete theory of Einstein's relativity. Newtonian dynamics is a
> lot easier to work with which is why we still teach it in schools first.
All you are doing is chanting voodoo and a long way away from genuine
empiricists like Rouse Ball who accurately reflected the situation
after relativity emerged -
"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical,
but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily
difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the
fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at
appears to have been that the infinitesimal calculus was then unknown,
and, had Newton used it to demonstrate results which were in
themselves opposed to the prevalent philosophy of the time, the
controversy as to the truth of his results would have been hampered by
a dispute concerning the validity of the methods used in proving
them." W.W.Rouse Ball 1908
The situation in 1905 was that Newton rejected an aether although they
somehow managed to fabricate a new 'revolutionary' approach by using
the texts of Newton against itself to such an extent that they could
dump aether on Newton as 'absolute space' .The current morphing of
'global warming' into 'climate change' is many,many,many magnitudes
worse than the fabrications which make it appear that relativity is a
better form of Newton's agenda,what it does represent is a bigger can
of worms and all protected by chanting voodoo in the hope that nobody
spots it.
Call me what you will,a person who can state that 2+2=4 in the
astronomical sense that the Earth turns once in 24 hours
has,unfortunately due to extremely low standards,the superior view to
those who can't state that fact.Humboldt knew the vicious form of
empiricism you practice must be met head on so deal with it son.
Robert Grumbine
Apr 28, 2012, 2:19:28 PM4/28/12
to
In article <SyDmr.60997$T5.5...@newsfe13.iad>, bjacoby wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 12:35 PM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
>> In article<Yyzmr.16648$8_6....@newsfe09.iad>, bjacoby wrote:
>> In science, our best understanding changes over time. If it
>> were religion, it need not. The IAU 1964 geoid had one shape for
>> the earth. Our knowledge of the shape of the earth improved over
>> time, so IAU 64 was replaced by WGS 84. And so forth.
>
> You really don't get it, do you? You used the word "true". Words
> actually have meanings in science, you know. It's quite different from
> politics where words mean only what you SAY they mean... TRUE does not
> change. "Best understanding" does change as does your assertions as to
> what you said.
If you wish to deal in TRUE by that sense, you're not interested
> On 4/27/2012 12:35 PM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
>> In article<Yyzmr.16648$8_6....@newsfe09.iad>, bjacoby wrote:
>> In science, our best understanding changes over time. If it
>> were religion, it need not. The IAU 1964 geoid had one shape for
>> the earth. Our knowledge of the shape of the earth improved over
>> time, so IAU 64 was replaced by WGS 84. And so forth.
>
> You really don't get it, do you? You used the word "true". Words
> actually have meanings in science, you know. It's quite different from
> politics where words mean only what you SAY they mean... TRUE does not
> change. "Best understanding" does change as does your assertions as to
> what you said.
in science at all. Science never has TRUE. Only mathematics and
religion have that.
>>> As for ignoring water vapor, I wish I'd saved Wormley's standard links
>>> on greenhouse gasses, for one of those papers he uses to "prove" that
>>> CO2 causes global warming says right in the very first paragraph that
>>> water vapor is going to be ignored. And when this was pointed out to
>>> warmists, suddenly they never said such a thing!
>>
>> Which paper is that? Link please.
>
> Go ask Wormley-bot. They are "his" links.
try to guess what paper said it or where.
>>> Even the AGW apologists admit that CO2 is a MINOR effect compared to
>>> water vapor. They try to excuse that by claiming some imaginary
>>> "positive feedback" link between CO2 and water vapor in spite of no
>>> evidence of the instability such a system would necessarily have.
>>
>> Its entirely possible to have an amplifying feedback without
>> instability. Every electronic device you use relies on that.
>
> Obviously, you haven't any idea what you are talking about on this
> subject. The above statement is totally and completely false. I suggest
> taking a course on the stability of feedback systems. Feedback is not in
> "every electronic device I use" and you don't even make the distinction
> between positive and negative feedback.
amplify a signal, they'd be useless. Different fields have different
senses for defining 'positive' feedback. In some, it's merely that
there's a gain greater than 1. That's why I said amplifying feedback
rather than positive feedback.
> Have your climate modelers supply us with the Nyquist plot for your
> climatological feedback and we can discuss this idiot theory further.
encounter a linear climate model, I'll give it a go.
Marvin the Martian
May 4, 2012, 10:34:22 AM5/4/12
to
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:38:31 -0600, AGWFacts wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:24:32 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
Indeed you may 'thjink' (sic) for as many hours as you like.
WE all know you (and the worm) don't know shit about science, thus Worm's
irrelevant meta-arguments and non-science appeal to you.
Don't let Ivar Giaever get in your muddled "thjink", you might kill your
last neuron.
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:24:32 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Which is more likely...
>>
>> [ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
>> scientifically illiterate frauds
>>
>> [ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
>> research papers make a very compelling case for AGW, and that
>> Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate science
>
> Damn, that's a tough question. May I thjink about it for a few hours?
>
>> Which is more likely...
>>
>> [ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
>> scientifically illiterate frauds
>>
>> [ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
>> research papers make a very compelling case for AGW, and that
>> Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate science
>
Indeed you may 'thjink' (sic) for as many hours as you like.
WE all know you (and the worm) don't know shit about science, thus Worm's
irrelevant meta-arguments and non-science appeal to you.
Don't let Ivar Giaever get in your muddled "thjink", you might kill your
last neuron.
0 new messages