Global warming and the 'settled science' baloney
Yousuf Khan
all of these fields. I thought this write-up was pretty much right on
the money, and though it didn't pull any punches, it didn't go into the
level of ad hominem attacks either. Read the full article at the link.
Yousuf Khan
American Thinker: Global warming and the 'settled science' baloney
"Specifically, the chattering classes have no appreciation of the
following truisms: settled science comes only in the form of physical
laws while the causes behind specific phenomena are sometimes never
definitively settled. And the more complex the system being observed,
the longer it takes to reach a consensus about the causal mechanisms."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/global_warming_and_the_settled.html
hhc...@yahoo.com
Science is not, nor ever will, be determined by a consensus. Science
conclusions are based on measured and verifiable fact.
Harry C,
Surfer
<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>American Thinker: Global warming and the 'settled science' baloney
>"Specifically, the chattering classes have no appreciation of the
>following truisms: settled science comes only in the form of physical
>laws while the causes behind specific phenomena are sometimes never
>definitively settled. And the more complex the system being observed,
>the longer it takes to reach a consensus about the causal mechanisms."
>http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/global_warming_and_the_settled.html
>
The IPCC says:
".......The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling
influences on climate has improved......, leading to very high
confidence that the global average net effect of human activities
since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative
forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m�2....."
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
Cwatters
"Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b2d9927$1...@news.bnb-lp.com...
So why are Venus and Mars the temperatures they are?
7
Well, if you are looking for an AGW compatible answer I have to fiddle some
history, fiddle some maths, fiddle some data, and reveal the final
answer:
Venus is like it is because Humans have inhabited there before
and left to invade Earth. They killed the dinosaurs and pretended
to be our shrew like ancestors and have been globally warming our planet for
hundreds of millions of years.
Now, Mars is a special AGW case. It will be inhabited by humans
and AGW processes will start once they have pissed into
the dry lakes and oceans to make new oceans and glaciers, and
then melt them again by breathing out CO2.
HTH.
Sam Wormley
See: "Principles of Planetary Climate" by R. T. Pierrehumbert
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf
Frank
Article in C&E News recently concluded that the science is good but the
politics are bad. Personally I'm skeptical about a lot of the science.
I read that other planets in our solar system are warming which kinda
blunts the global warming alarmists arguments.
Bill Penrose
> Science is not, nor ever will, be determined by a consensus. Science
> conclusions are based on measured and verifiable fact.
Not true. Scientific conclusions are determined by political
affiliation.
DB
David Bostwick
>On Dec 19 2009, 10:09=A0pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Science is not, nor ever will, be determined by a consensus. =A0Science
>> conclusions are based on measured and verifiable fact.
>
>Not true. Scientific conclusions are determined by political
>affiliation.
>
>DB
You betcha.
tj Frazir
state of new york and the blast will kill 100 mile R and in 30 days the
usa tatonic plate will have moved west 50 miles.
The 45 deg impact 500,000 megaton .
18000 miles from earth is nasa said. But they are morons dont see the
1.4 deg turn past the moon that will be n the nyc horisen at sunset .
Its sister it did orbit hit 16000 years ago and the myans predicted
when the other would hit.
tj Frazir
york
on sept 30 at 9 pm 2017
Martin Brown
> On 12/19/2009 10:25 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> Sorry for the slightly off-topic posting, but it is somewhat related to
>> all of these fields. I thought this write-up was pretty much right on
>> the money, and though it didn't pull any punches, it didn't go into the
>> level of ad hominem attacks either. Read the full article at the link.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>>
>> American Thinker: Global warming and the 'settled science' baloney
>> "Specifically, the chattering classes have no appreciation of the
>> following truisms: settled science comes only in the form of physical
>> laws while the causes behind specific phenomena are sometimes never
>> definitively settled. And the more complex the system being observed,
>> the longer it takes to reach a consensus about the causal mechanisms."
>> http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/global_warming_and_the_settled.html
>>
>
> Article in C&E News recently concluded that the science is good but the
> politics are bad. Personally I'm skeptical about a lot of the science.
The science is settled beyond reasonable doubt. There are details still
to be worked out, but the evidence for it and the physics is clear.
That doesn't prevent deniers for hire working for various mostly US
based ultra right wing think tanks using big tobacco tactics to persuade
the general population to ignore the scientific evidence. Some of the
same practitioners even worked on the keep the suckers smoking campaign.
Their product is to create confusion in the public mind and so doubt
about legitimate science. They are unfortunately all too good at it.
>
> I read that other planets in our solar system are warming which kinda
> blunts the global warming alarmists arguments.
The lying Neocons and dittoheads and their lobbyists love that one.
Other planets in the solar system are in elliptical orbits and for half
of their orbit they are getting nearer to the sun. It is not surprising
that they warm for half the time.
Mars where most of the atmosphere is CO2 and the polar caps are of dry
ice the greenhouse effect has very strong positive feedback. Atmospheric
pressure there changes significantly with the seasons.
Regards,
Martin Brown
tg
> On 12/19/2009 10:25 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> > Sorry for the slightly off-topic posting, but it is somewhat related to
> > all of these fields. I thought this write-up was pretty much right on
> > the money, and though it didn't pull any punches, it didn't go into the
> > level of ad hominem attacks either. Read the full article at the link.
>
> > Yousuf Khan
>
> > American Thinker: Global warming and the 'settled science' baloney
> > "Specifically, the chattering classes have no appreciation of the
> > following truisms: settled science comes only in the form of physical
> > laws while the causes behind specific phenomena are sometimes never
> > definitively settled. And the more complex the system being observed,
> > the longer it takes to reach a consensus about the causal mechanisms."
>
> Article in C&E News recently concluded that the science is good but the
> politics are bad. Personally I'm skeptical about a lot of the science.
>
> I read that other planets in our solar system are warming which kinda
> blunts the global warming alarmists arguments.
By the same reasoning, there can be no harm in imposing a carbon tax,
since we can observe that the economy has crashed numerous times---
just a couple of years ago in fact----even though there has been no
man-made carbon tax at any time in the past.
-tg
David Bostwick
>On Jan 19, 5:21=A0pm, Frank <frankperiodlogu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/19/2009 10:25 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>> > Sorry for the slightly off-topic posting, but it is somewhat related to
>> > all of these fields. I thought this write-up was pretty much right on
>> > the money, and though it didn't pull any punches, it didn't go into the
>> > level of ad hominem attacks either. Read the full article at the link.
>>
>> > Yousuf Khan
>>
>> > American Thinker: Global warming and the 'settled science' baloney
>> > "Specifically, the chattering classes have no appreciation of the
>> > following truisms: settled science comes only in the form of physical
>> > laws while the causes behind specific phenomena are sometimes never
>> > definitively settled. And the more complex the system being observed,
>> > the longer it takes to reach a consensus about the causal mechanisms."
>> >http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/global_warming_and_the_settled...
>>
>> Article in C&E News recently concluded that the science is good but the
>>
>> I read that other planets in our solar system are warming which kinda
>> blunts the global warming alarmists arguments.
>
>By the same reasoning, there can be no harm in imposing a carbon tax,
>since we can observe that the economy has crashed numerous times---
>just a couple of years ago in fact----even though there has been no
>man-made carbon tax at any time in the past.
>
>-tg
Not the same.
Let's see, data destroyed. Plans made to be sure man-made warming doubters
don't get press, and that "tricks" are used. "Typo" in report that says
Everest will be naked several hundred years earlier than the calculations
said. Forty years ago we were going to freeze to death as our cities
were covered in ice. Yeah, no worries. Science is always right, and politics
never enters in.
tg
Bostwick) wrote:
WTF are you talking about? Did you even bother to read the post?
Androcles
"tg" <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:25892bdd-93fd-45f1...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
================================================
There can be no harm in imposing a not-reading-the-post tax,
since we can observe that the economy has crashed numerous times---
just a couple of years ago in fact----even though there has been no
man-made not-reading-the-post tax at any time in the past.
You can be my tax collector.
tg
> "tg" <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
.............zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............
Androcles
.............zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............
================================================
WTF are you talking about? Did you even bother to read the post?
>
David Bostwick
>On Jan 25, 10:09=A0am, david.bostw...@chemistry.gatech.edu (David
>Bostwick) wrote:
>> In article <0e6f9ba3-0669-43c5-925d-d1daa4bfa...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.=
>com>, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jan 19, 5:21=3DA0pm, Frank <frankperiodlogu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On 12/19/2009 10:25 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
> to
>> >> > all of these fields. I thought this write-up was pretty much right o=
>n
>> >> > the money, and though it didn't pull any punches, it didn't go into =
>the
>> >> > level of ad hominem attacks either. Read the full article at the lin=
>k.
>>
>> >> > Yousuf Khan
>>
>> >> > American Thinker: Global warming and the 'settled science' baloney
>> >> > "Specifically, the chattering classes have no appreciation of the
>l
>> >> > laws while the causes behind specific phenomena are sometimes never
>,
>> >> > the longer it takes to reach a consensus about the causal mechanisms=
>.."
>> >> >http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/global_warming_and_the_settled=
>....
>>
>> >> Article in C&E News recently concluded that the science is good but th=
>e
>> >> politics are bad. =3DA0Personally I'm skeptical about a lot of the sci=
>ence.
>>
>> >> I read that other planets in our solar system are warming which kinda
>> >> blunts the global warming alarmists arguments.
>>
>> >By the same reasoning, there can be no harm in imposing a carbon tax,
>> >since we can observe that the economy has crashed numerous times---
>> >just a couple of years ago in fact----even though there has been no
>> >man-made carbon tax at any time in the past.
>>
>> >-tg
>>
>> Not the same.
>>
>
>WTF are you talking about? Did you even bother to read the post?
>
>
Actually, yes. The current warning trend is blamed on man. Economic
conditions are caused by people's decisions, for good or ill. As far as we
know, no one lives on other planets, so conditions there, economic or
climatic, are unlikely to be the effect of man. Since man isn't the cause on
other planets, it's illogical to assume that it's only our fault here.
Economic conditions are another matter, so you can't use one to support the
other.
Maybe a better question is what drove the glaciers back, and what stopped the
Little Ice Age? I know, coal stopped the LIA, and fire stopped the glaciers.
>
>> Let's see, data destroyed. =A0Plans made to be sure man-made warming doub=
>ters
>> don't get press, and that "tricks" are used. =A0"Typo" in report that say=
>s
>> Everest will be naked several hundred years earlier than the calculations
>> said. =A0Forty years ago we were going to freeze to death as our cities
>> were covered in ice. =A0Yeah, no worries. =A0Science is always right, and=
> politics
>> never enters in.
>
And I see you skipped this part.
tg
Bostwick) wrote:
And we all know that 'man' isn't people.
Are you suffering from a brain injury or something like that? You
don't appear to be capable of writing a coherent paragraph.
-tg
Androcles
-tg
===================================
And we all know that tg is a brain-injured cretin and not a man or
a people, as he has so ably just demonstrated.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
J. Clarke
His were fine--you simply seem to be trying to ignore the point and now
you're starting personal attacks.
<plonk>
David Bostwick
>On Jan 25, 5:09=A0pm, david.bostw...@chemistry.gatech.edu (David
>Bostwick) wrote:
>> In article <25892bdd-93fd-45f1-b37a-52c7bbdaa...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.=>> >On Jan 25, 10:09=3DA0am, david.bostw...@chemistry.gatech.edu (David
>> >Bostwick) wrote:
>> >> In article <0e6f9ba3-0669-43c5-925d-d1daa4bfa...@21g2000vbh.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D>> >> >On Jan 19, 5:21=3D3DA0pm, Frank <frankperiodlogu...@comcast.net> wrot=
>e:
>> >> >> On 12/19/2009 10:25 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>ted=3D
>> > to
>> >> >> > all of these fields. I thought this write-up was pretty much righ=
>t o=3D
>> >n
>> >> >> > the money, and though it didn't pull any punches, it didn't go in=
>to =3D
>> >the
>> >> >> > level of ad hominem attacks either. Read the full article at the =
>lin=3D
>> >k.
>>
>> >> >> > Yousuf Khan
>>
>> >> >> > American Thinker: Global warming and the 'settled science' balone=
>y
>> >> >> > "Specifically, the chattering classes have no appreciation of the
>ica=3D
>> >l
>> >> >> > laws while the causes behind specific phenomena are sometimes nev=
>er
>> >> >> > definitively settled. And the more complex the system being obser=
>ved=3D
>> >,
>> >> >> > the longer it takes to reach a consensus about the causal mechani=
>sms=3D
>> >.."
>> >> >> >http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/global_warming_and_the_sett=
>led=3D
>> >....
>>
>> >> >> Article in C&E News recently concluded that the science is good but=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> politics are bad. =3D3DA0Personally I'm skeptical about a lot of th=
>e sci=3D
>> >ence.
>>
>> >> >> I read that other planets in our solar system are warming which kin=
>da
>> >> >> blunts the global warming alarmists arguments.
>>
>> >> >By the same reasoning, there can be no harm in imposing a carbon tax,
>> >> >since we can observe that the economy has crashed numerous times---
>> >> >just a couple of years ago in fact----even though there has been no
>> >> >man-made carbon tax at any time in the past.
>>
>> >> >-tg
>>
>> >> Not the same.
>>
>> >WTF are you talking about? Did you even bother to read the post?
>>
>> conditions are caused by people's decisions, for good or ill.
>
>And we all know that 'man' isn't people.
>
Eh?
>Are you suffering from a brain injury or something like that? You
>don't appear to be capable of writing a coherent paragraph.
>
>-tg
>
>
OK, don't answer the questions if you don't want to. Ad hominem attacks are
just a way to put up a smoke screen, hoping people won't notice the lack of
an answer.
Now go look up "synonym" in the dictionary, Wikipedia, or your favorite
reference.
>
>> =A0As far as we
>> know, no one lives on other planets, so conditions there, economic or
>> climatic, are unlikely to be the effect of man. =A0Since man isn't the ca=
>use on
>> other planets, it's illogical to assume that it's only our fault here. =
>=A0
>> Economic conditions are another matter, so you can't use one to support t=
>he
>> other.
>>
>> Maybe a better question is what drove the glaciers back, and what stopped=
> the
>> Little Ice Age? =A0I know, coal stopped the LIA, and fire stopped the gla=
>ciers.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Let's see, data destroyed. =3DA0Plans made to be sure man-made warming=
> doub=3D
>> >ters
>> >> don't get press, and that "tricks" are used. =3DA0"Typo" in report tha=
>t say=3D
>> >s
>> >> Everest will be naked several hundred years earlier than the calculati=
>ons
>> >> said. =3DA0Forty years ago we were going to freeze to death as our cit=
>ies
>> >> were covered in ice. =3DA0Yeah, no worries. =3DA0Science is always rig=
>ht, and=3D