Simple Question for Climate Science Deniers -- What's causing Global Warming?

[Sam Wormley]

Simple Question for Climate Science Deniers -- What's causing Global
Warming?

> http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg

What's causing Global Warming?

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

Huge amounts of hot gas being expelled by Chicken Little, we-are-all-doomed,
control freak, misanthropes.

[Sam Wormley]

Bzzzt! Don't have any idea do you, jimp?

[be...@iwaynet.net]

Hey, Worm, your "hockey stick" is a decade old. Why does your data stop
at the year 2000?

Anyway, it's been established beyond doubt that cow farts cause more
global warming than all man-driven vehicles.

http://carsonspost.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/cow-farts-cause-51-of-global-warming/

[Claudius Denk]

Cherry picking data points is the cause.

It's impossible to measure global temperature, you idiots.

[Androcles]

"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6075111c-9038-430f...@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

==========================================
Not really, the mean temperature is zero Celsius when ice is
in water and it is bloody cold when flying at 30,000 feet or
climbing Everest to 29,000 feet.
The Earth (as a whole) will remain at 273 kelvin until all the ice melts.
Obviously the temperature in the Gulf of Mexico is very different
to the temperature of the Arctic Ocean, and Antactica is necessarily
colder than the Arctic, there being more ice there. But so what?
The real issue is whether Earth radiates more or less energy into
space that it receives from the sun. If more then it gradually cools
and Ice Ages occur. If less then there is less ice. How reflective
the planet is controls the energy flow.

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

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/7/12 1:17 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Simple Question for Climate Science Deniers -- What's causing Global
>>> Warming?
>>>
>>>> http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>>>
>>> What's causing Global Warming?
>>
>> Huge amounts of hot gas being expelled by Chicken Little, we-are-all-doomed,
>> control freak, misanthropes.
>>
>
> Bzzzt! Don't have any idea do you, jimp?

Asked and answered elsewhere, swormley1.

You are not worth my time to answer twice.

Though you would not understand if it were answered a hundred times.

[1/3 of land cooling]

Some simple questions for Climate Alarmists (assuming that the graph
on sciencedaily is correct (and it is not necessarily correct)).

1) What caused the +0.75 deg C of warming between 1814 and 1824 (a
period of only 10 years = one decade).

- How much made-made CO2 was around at the time.

- Don't alarmists keep telling us that present day warming is the
fastest ever, by a large amount?

2) Why does the graph show the earth warming since 1814, long before
there was much man-made CO2?

- What could have been causing this, and why doesn't this cause still
apply today?

3) Why did the earth cool between 1940 and 1970?

- There was lots of mad-made CO2 being produced (all of that
development after world war 2, using lots of coal and oil, and using
it less efficiently than today).

====================================

When Alarmists can provide honest answers to these questions, them
maybe the climate debate can move forward.

[Catoni]

It doesn't matter... I'm enjoying the milder weather . :) And the
plant life is enjoying the small rise in CO2 levels. :)

Now imagine if global temperature levels dropped by three degrees
and CO2 levels dropped to.. let's say... 130ppm.

Do you think it would be a better world ? ?

[welldone]

You're begging the question, asshole.

Earth is NOT warming.
---
--> "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" <--
--> Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net <--

[Marvin the Martian]

So, your argument comes down to an appeal to ignorance fallacy?

Gawd, you have no shame at all, do you?!

Lots of things drive climate change. The best predictive models involve
cosmic rays, orbital cycles, solar variation, and many other factors.

Have a nice day.

[Marvin the Martian]

Since no one has a 100% accurate predictive theory, "I don't know" is the
scientific answer.

Not YOUR answer. You know everything.

[Sam Wormley]

The evidence is mounting, Marvin, that all warmings in the last
3E8 years have been caused by greenhouse gasses. I know this is
not going to set well with you.

[Sam Wormley]

[Will Janoschka]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 22:20:36, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
wrote:

You are correct mostly. It is the tiny details that the stupid
earthlings are arguing. Why must you be such a spoil sport?

[James]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:RZ-dnZRLwpD7YR3S...@mchsi.com

--
con·jec·ture (kÃn jekÆchÃr), n., v., -tured, -tur·ing.
-n.

1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without
sufficient evidence for proof.
2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
3. Obs. the interpretation of signs or omens.
-v.t.
4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to
ensure reliability

[R Kym Horsell]

If true, it would still be AGW wouldn't it?

The size of the domestic world cattle herd is directly related with human population and affluence.

--
[Original thoughts:]
Here's the invention: It's unbreakable computer security.
It's the oldest cypher in the book: A one-time pad.
But modern technology puts it all in a new light!
With a modern thumb drive you can have gigs of messages based on the
space in the drive. You fill the drive with random numbers and you make a copy.
-- "BJA...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net>, 02 Mar 2012 02:45 -0500

[Surfer]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 16:49:15 -0700 (PDT), "1/3 of land cooling"
<skept...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 8, 3:34 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Simple Question for Climate Science Deniers -- What's causing Global
>> Warming?
>>
>> >http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>>
>> What's causing Global Warming?
>
>Some simple questions for Climate Alarmists (assuming that the graph
>on sciencedaily is correct (and it is not necessarily correct)).
>
>1) What caused the +0.75 deg C of warming between 1814 and 1824 (a
>period of only 10 years = one decade).
>

That impression may be an illusion caused by errors in temperature
measurment.

The gray region shows the estimated measurement uncertainty.

That is, actual average land surface temperature could be anywhere
within the gray band.

That means that the temperature in 1814 might have been as warm as
-0.7 and the temperature in 1824 might have cool as -0.7.

So there might actually have been no real change in average land
surface temperature between 1814 and 1824.

[Tunderbar]

There are many factors. Co2 is but one small trace of the whole.

[Marvin the Martian]

Are you a bot? I'm asking because you seem to be picking canned and
irrelevant replies from a list. I point out you're using fallacies and
you reply with a circular logic fallacy.

Open the pod bay doors, Sam.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

So your answer to the simple question: What is causing Global Warming is
a simple and straight forward "man-made CO2 causes it."

Good enough. Now prove it. It's YOUR theory. It's up to YOU to prove it.
The "consensus" among real scientists is that what exactly drives
climate changes is not precisely established. Since you are claiming a
definitive answer through your super-powers, how about using them to
come up with the scientific proof of your assertion.

Note that inundation by media propaganda does not constitute scientific
proof. Scientific American does not publish scientific papers. We'll
wait.

[Marvin the Martian]

The weather is not that much more mild. The surface temperature data that
they're using is known to be garbage.

[R Kym Horsell]

The Central England temp record -- normally running close to NASA's global avg land+sea temp -- certainly is equivocal on the decade.

Doing a TS regression from 1810 to 1830 finds a 92% confidnce and r2
of 10% there was a 0.4C per decade warming, but the plot of residuals is so un-Gaussian my program flags it and switches to a Spearman rather than T-test and finds it fails criticality.

Normally we'd call that a "no change" or, at least, a much smaller change than .75C per decade.

It all goes to show when you cull through the data and are prepared to throw
away 99% of it to prove a point, you can find any pattern you wish -- the denialists "one trick pony act".

--
[Lesson not learned:]
I found this passage interesting: "Due to a quirk in statistical theory,
for any model and any test, statistical 'significance' is guaranteed as
long as you collect enough data. Once the sample size reaches a critical
level [aka small enough compared with dataset], small p-values
practically rain from the data."
-- Bonzo [daily nymshifter], 22 Feb 2012 10:48 +1100

Looking at the period 2000 to 2011 ...
Temperature remains about 58 while CO2 rises from about 369.40 to about
391.57.
My eyeballs tell me there is NO CORRELATION FOR THIS PERIOD!
-- Bonzo [daily coal lobby nymshifter], 21 Feb 2912 01:05 pm

[Peter Webb]

"R Kym Horsell" <kymho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:19743726.82.1333858075638.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pboo1...

_________________________________________________

1. Ummm ... the temperatures from 1810 to 1830 comprise more than 1% of the
average global temperatures since 1810. Are you using your "new statistics"
to calculate this 99% figure?

2. You do realise that if your theory is wrong 1% of the time, it is a wrong
theory? There are many, many experiments where the truth is revealed in only
1% of measurements. How many velocity measurements display relativistic
effects? More than 1% ?

3. Your statistics calculations are, as always, completely inappropriate.
The statement is that the earth's temperature rose. You have tried to
investigate a different claim, which concerns a synthetic measurement of a
trend. You appear to have missed the entire point of the statistics test
that your computer used, which is that the residuals are non-Gaussian - I
guess you don't know what that means, and its implication for attempting to
use these statistical tests. Its like you know the terms of trade of
statistics, and have access to a program which uses them, but you have no
understanding of their meaning. *Exactly* like that.

4. The OP raised several questions about climate "science". I see you chose
not to directly respond to any of them; you appear unwilling to defend your
beliefs scientifically. I am reminded of another thread in this group, "why
are climate alarmists so evasive?".

[Androcles]

"Will Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote in message
news:DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-162.dyn.centurytel.net...

Don't worry about it, morons like the wormlet will go on denying
basic physics evermore, while claiming others "deny science".
The ignorant bastard will ignore anything I say because it knows
I'm right, so you'll have no shortage of sport.

[7]

Sam Wormley wrote:

> Simple Question for Climate Science Deniers -- What's causing Global
> Warming?

We are on an upward solar cycle that has been going up for the last
10,000 years. The pattern itself has saw tooth ripples and
so there are cooling periods and warming periods in between.
But the trend is definitely up even though in a few years we
could be in for 300 year spell of cold weather for which we should
be getting prepared.

CO2 trading is a massive global con adding expense and risks
for the entire human race on fake science.

What we need from you wormly worm is answers on who funds your posts.
There is much danger for humanity in hiding your fake
science and its funding routes as there is inaction in the coming global
cooling scandal.

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/7/12 10:54 PM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
> On 4/7/2012 10:49 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

>> The evidence is mounting, Marvin, that all warmings in the last
>> 3E8 years have been caused by greenhouse gasses. I know this is
>> not going to set well with you.
>
> So your answer to the simple question: What is causing Global Warming is
> a simple and straight forward "man-made CO2 causes it."

Here are some argument is support of what you just said:

> Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's energy balance
> http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html
>
> Sorry, Deniers, Study of True Global Warming Signal Finds Remarkably Steady Rate of Manmade Warming since 1979
> http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/13/388527/deniers-study-true-global-warming-signal-rate-of-manmade-warming/
>
> The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming
> http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming
>
> Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
>

[Sam Wormley]

Here's a way to gauge its relative importance:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/1000px-Radiative-forcings.svg.png
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/8/12 6:00 AM, 7 wrote:
> We are on an upward solar cycle that has been going up for the last
> 10,000 years.

What measurable solar cycle are you referring to?

[G=EMC^2]

On Saturday, April 7, 2012 11:34:57 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Simple Question for Climate Science Deniers -- What's causing Global
> Warming?
>
> > http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>
> What's causing Global Warming?

Venus effect. TreBert

[Bill Snyder]

Marvie does so love the Excluded Middle fallacy. "If you don't
know everything, then you know nothing. If you don't have a 100%
accurate predictive theory of the mass of the Higgs, maybe it's a
million zillion kajillion tonnes. All you're allowed to say, if
somebody asks you the mass, is 'I don't know.'"

Except, of course, that we know it isn't a million zillion
kajillion tonnes, because not knowing everything *isn't* the same
as knowing nothing. Just as not having a "100% accurate
predictive theory" * doesn't keep us from knowing that it's CO2,
and not magic cosmic rays, or Santa's elves, .


* What would it take to qualify as "100% accurate predictive
theory," anyway? We don't even have one of those for something as
simple as rolling dice. But we can be pretty sure that if boxcars
come up more often than 7, something's rotten.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[jmfbahciv]

Sam Wormley wrote:
> Simple Question for Climate Science Deniers -- What's causing Global
> Warming?
>
>> http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>
> What's causing Global Warming?
>

The IPCC paper I read stated that their bias was going to be
based on the assumption that global warming (note the absence
of capital letters in my post) is happening. All of the crap
you have posted here is based on their cant of the topic.
Nobody, who is on this political band wagon, seems to consider
that climate changing is normal.

OTOH, Sam, if the hypothesis you've been regurgitating is true,
there is only one solution to the "problem" and that's to remove
the cause you keep claiminng. Are you really advocating eliminating
billions of people? Do you really want human civilization to
devolve back to hunting and gathering societies? This topic
is in such a mess that I am unable to separate the real science
from the planks in political parties' platforms.

The fact that you have capitalized the G and the W stinks of
politics. the fact that the term "Climate Science Deniers"
is being used as a loaded phrase equivalent to nigger
and commie also stinks of US politics. There is an
advocacy group in Washington D.C. whose sole goal is to
label people, specifically Republicans, as CSDeniers using
their membership of "scientists" as their authority. It
doesn't matter if the event of global warming is occuring
or not occuring; the heads of this group don't care.

/BAH

[Wally W.]

On 8 Apr 2012 14:15:13 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote:

>Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Simple Question for Climate Science Deniers -- What's causing Global
>> Warming?
>>
>>> http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>>
>> What's causing Global Warming?
>>
>
>The IPCC paper I read stated that their bias was going to be
>based on the assumption that global warming (note the absence
>of capital letters in my post) is happening. All of the crap
>you have posted here is based on their cant of the topic.
>Nobody, who is on this political band wagon, seems to consider
>that climate changing is normal.
>
>OTOH, Sam, if the hypothesis you've been regurgitating is true,
>there is only one solution to the "problem" and that's to remove
>the cause you keep claiminng. Are you really advocating eliminating
>billions of people?

Perhaps only those who are less equal than others.

The work to determine who they are has been done:

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/

>Do you really want human civilization to
>devolve back to hunting and gathering societies?

The "new" eutopian model may be Stratos dwellers and Troglytes:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Cloud_Minders

[Will Janoschka]

Same old tired nonsense Sam. Nothing from 300,000,000 years ago?
Just show how CO2 does this warming! You cannot becase it cannot!

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 4/8/2012 9:28 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 4/7/12 10:54 PM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>> On 4/7/2012 10:49 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>> The evidence is mounting, Marvin, that all warmings in the last
>>> 3E8 years have been caused by greenhouse gasses. I know this is
>>> not going to set well with you.
>>
>> So your answer to the simple question: What is causing Global Warming is
>> a simple and straight forward "man-made CO2 causes it."

> Here are some argument is support of what you just said:

<Snip same old Tired propaganda.>

Hey, Low Worm, I'm glad you used the word "arguments" rather than
"evidence". I'll give you a couple of points for honesty this time!

It's actually all quite simple, isn't it?

AGW = NWO.

Here's PROOF!

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/


We all remember the suggestion in the Report from Iron Mountain that
"massive pollution" (and it's "control") would make a dandy substitute
for the "war system", right?

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/7/12 10:54 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> The surface temperature data that
> they're using is known to be garbage.

Cite the evidence that garbage temperature data is being used.

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/8/12 11:30 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> Just show how CO2 does this warming!

Will, are you finally going to read these resources, or are you
a climate science denier who dismisses relevant resources without
reading them?

> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> APS: A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change
> http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
>
> Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html
>
> Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
>
> Introduction to Infrared Radiative Transfer
> http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf
>
> Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
> http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html
>

[Sam Wormley]

Herb, you are more intelligent that many posters here of late!

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

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Looky here; Mr. Arm Waver who pastes in links to "might", "maybe",
and "could be" suddenly wants eveidence.

[R Kym Horsell]

Further on this 1810-1830 red herring.

I've now run the gridding procedure for the stations available at the start of the 19th century. More on that, below.

As per the more recent data, the 50 stations recording around that time together show a warming trend just a little above the long-term average that has been found by various other groups.

Cerntaily there is no final value anywhere like .75C for the decade 1814-1824.

The overall modeling, with a simple average at the bottom, is thus:

stn-763000.reg:y = -0.338639*x + 629.064
stn-2761200.reg:y = -0.170492*x + 315.779
stn-769000.reg:y = -0.120203*x + 233.449
stn-1242400.reg:y = -0.0997287*x + 189.01
stn-1614000.reg:y = -0.037212*x + 81.8605
stn-1064002.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 9.35999991397063
stn-1086600.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 7.74206351178388
stn-1096200.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 6.3130952298109
stn-1101200.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 8.00515874818204
stn-1103500.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 9.54801582296689
stn-1151800.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 7.91944442857944
stn-1215503.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 6.33769842713243
stn-127103.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 4.9031746070832
stn-1283800.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 11.1099206298767
stn-1605900.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 11.6853174796062
stn-1608000.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 12.7547619117808
stn-618002.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 7.77936510493358
stn-670000.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 8.66349207414758
stn-715000.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 10.6722222867289
stn-719000.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 9.72817460098674
stn-7240800.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 12.1277777006229
stn-7251800.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 9.57564100627907
stn-946902.reg:y = 0.000000*x + 6.98831169297556
stn-2606300.reg:y = 0.0252602*x + -41.1898
stn-316002.reg:y = 0.0390173*x + -62.8805
stn-626000.reg:y = 0.0467674*x + -76.0835
stn-664202.reg:y = 0.0480519*x + -78.7374
stn-248301.reg:y = 0.0531918*x + -90.743
stn-1073900.reg:y = 0.0563448*x + -92.9235
stn-7250404.reg:y = 0.0612561*x + -102.564
stn-306800.reg:y = 0.0654335*x + -111.325
stn-2673000.reg:y = 0.0754946*x + -130.664
stn-333400.reg:y = 0.0803616*x + -136.847
stn-1038400.reg:y = 0.0858352*x + -147.617
stn-1237500.reg:y = 0.0981441*x + -171.715
stn-7250900.reg:y = 0.102946*x + -179.012
stn-4327900.reg:y = 0.199336*x + -334.807
stn-1112000.reg:y = 0.246737*x + -439.765
stn-2642200.reg:y = 0.295503*x + -532.9
stn-7191201.reg:y = 0.574682*x + -1059.31


stn-all.reg:y = 0.046196*x + -75.0374

I.e. exactly as the CET predicted, the average of the 50 stns scattered all
around the world from Boston to Riga is around .45C per decade even going by
the simple average of the models.

But, more accurately, after assigning each stn to its geographic region, averaging for each region, then averaging the regions (essentially weighting each stn by the area of land it represents), the final warming trend is
0.25C per decade.

Now we come to the actual station data.

We can see e.g. that some stations are recording VERY large apparent warming (or cooling trends).

Let's look at one of the big ones -- Riga (stn 2642200).

year avg temp model

1810 5.075 1.96026*
1811 6.79167 2.25576*
1812 4.29167 2.55127
1813 6.09167 2.84677*
1814 0.716667 3.14227
1824 8.8 6.0973*
1825 8.10833 6.3928
1826 8.94167 6.68831
1827 8.13333 6.98381
1828 6.19167 7.27931
1829 3.79167 7.57482*

The "average temp" is just the simplistic non-seasionally adjusted average
of all the data for the year.

Riga is showing a miraculous 2.9C warming per decade. While the T-test says
it is statistically significant at 90%+, the Spearman and residual analysis says something is wrong and we should really reject the finding and call it "no trend".

Looking at the data we see the possible explanation: there is a gap in the record.

We would normally suspect the station has been moved or changed in some way, and the data pre-1824 has a different character from that post-1824.


And now remember what the one trick pony was calling for -- an "analysis" for JUST the years 1814-1824 where RIGA is represented by just the 2 points.

No doubt such trickery is what explains the miracle of .75C per decade that was reported in the OP.

Moral: when the one trick pony calls for you to zero in one just some particular years, or likes to compare data points with a selected year and no other, and particularly encourages "judge by eye" rather than some impartial procedure, then they are invariably trying to be tricky. They have mixed their a prior and a postiori information and culled the data for a pattern that they like and just want to ignore the findings for the dataset as a whole.

Some would call it lying.

Some would call it an admission they really see the known pattern but are just trying to avoid admitting it.

--
[An honest evaluation:]
Peter Webb wrote:
>My proof seems pretty good to me.
But it's not a correct proof.
-- quasi <qu...@null.set>, Wed, 13 Jul 2011 23:19 -0500

[Tom P]

In addition. "1/3rd" should take note that all the data shown on this
graph prior to 1850 is from the Berkeley dataset. From what I have seen
of the data available on line at the BEST site, not only is the data set
extremely small, which accounts for the wide confidence levels, but some
of it is of questionable quality. It is not without reason that the
other data records, HadCRUT, NOAAA etc start from a later date.

[Will Janoschka]

Hiho,
I agree with your assesment of gw, or GW.

Can you give your opinion of just "who" is getting rich,
not from the outcome, but from the controversy itself?

Someone must be promoting this nonsense! -will-

BT: my answer to "What's causing Global Warming?"
is "I donno, nor does anyone else!

[Sam Wormley]

Thanks for your comments.

Whether evolution, cosmology or climate change the methods of
science are used to try to understand how nature works. As far
as the science community is concerned the cause and effect of
global climate change is fairly well understood.

I simply asked deniers of global warming what they think the
cause is. We can all read the responses.

[Peter Webb]

"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:ac63o7d3vpq58t1v9...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 21:28:52 -0500, Marvin the Martian
> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 15:11:13 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/7/12 1:17 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Simple Question for Climate Science Deniers -- What's causing Global
>>>>> Warming?
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> What's causing Global Warming?
>>>>
>>>> Huge amounts of hot gas being expelled by Chicken Little,
>>>> we-are-all-doomed, control freak, misanthropes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Bzzzt! Don't have any idea do you, jimp?
>>
>>Since no one has a 100% accurate predictive theory, "I don't know" is the
>>scientific answer.
>>
>>Not YOUR answer. You know everything.
>
> Marvie does so love the Excluded Middle fallacy. "If you don't
> know everything, then you know nothing. If you don't have a 100%
> accurate predictive theory of the mass of the Higgs, maybe it's a
> million zillion kajillion tonnes. All you're allowed to say, if
> somebody asks you the mass, is 'I don't know.'"
>

But we don't know the mass of the Higgs. We don't even know if it exists. If
somebody asks you the mass of something you don't know even exists the
correct answer probably *is* "I don't know".

> Except, of course, that we know it isn't a million zillion
> kajillion tonnes, because not knowing everything *isn't* the same
> as knowing nothing.
> Just as not having a "100% accurate
> predictive theory" * doesn't keep us from knowing that it's CO2,
> and not magic cosmic rays, or Santa's elves, .

No, that doesn't tell us its CO2.

You should learn a little about the scientific method.

>
>
> * What would it take to qualify as "100% accurate predictive
> theory," anyway? We don't even have one of those for something as
> simple as rolling dice.

Actually we do; statistics makes many theoretical predictions which can be
tested with 100% accuracy. Here's one, for example. As the number of throws
of a dice approaches infinity, the number of "1"s thrown approaches 1/6.
This has been verified many times.

> But we can be pretty sure that if boxcars
> come up more often than 7, something's rotten.
>

Funny, you appear to be trying to make a case that real scientists believe
things which don't predict the outcomes of experiments correctly. You use
throwing dice (and by implication the laws of statistics) as an example. I
hope you see why you are wrong about this example.

More generally, instead of trying to argue that your theory is correct even
if it doesn't correctly predict experimental outcomes, you should either
change your theory so it does, or drop it entirely. Its really the key
requirement of the scientific method, you can't hand wave around the fact
that a theory doesn't work.

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

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Whether evolution, cosmology or climate change the methods of
> science are used to try to understand how nature works. As far
> as the science community is concerned the cause and effect of
> global climate change is fairly well understood.

Lier.

The "science community", whatever that might be, is not in agreement that
that "global climate change" is significant, caused by human activity, or
well understood.

Do I have to post the results of a survey of scientists again?

[Marvin the Martian]

<http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/
surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf>

What's really bad is that when the satellite data disagreed with the
crappy surface temperature data, they made excuses to adjust the
satellite data upwards so it agreed with their bad data by saying the
surface temperature data was definitive.

Then the BEST study rehashed the bad data and claimed it was good by
dismissing the UHI effect as being only 1%, which is a flatly wrong
assumption.

You can do bad science like this by accident. This is deliberate fraud.
The surface stations are measuring the urban heat island effect.

[Marvin the Martian]

You've never made a scientific case for CO2 causing the warming. You
can't. All you have is your bag of fallacies and sources that are known
liars and frauds.

Now you're being silly and saying you're right unless someone has a
perfect climate model that says different. Given that all the CO2 climate
models don't even use real PHYSICS, that's funny as hell.

The one predictive model that did work was produced by the Danish, and
they don't even MENTION CO2.

[Marvin the Martian]

What BEST does is take the same crappy data that was used in HadCRUT,
massage it the same way Hansen massaged it, and produced the same stupid
results.

They IGNORED that the data going in was bad. They didn't look at ANY
surface stations. They're strictly "sit on their asses" scientist.

<http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/
surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf>

As a real scientist who gathers data for a living, predicting .1 of a
Kelvin range in temperature due to climate change when you got 2 Kelvins
of error due to UHI, is not just bad science, but amazingly stupid and
incompetent. They spend billions of dollars on sit on their asses
research, but they won't spend anything to fix the transducers!

Why? Because they're fucked up and show what these assholes WANT them to
show, that's why!

And they've used this bad data to attack Svensmark's theory and to adjust
the satellite data. I mean, what the hell! This isn't even crap science,
AGW is bald faced fraud!

[Will Janoschka]

Ok Sam. What is your cause for somthing that may be?

For me It may be:
1. A decrease in ocean emissivity due to oil or dispersants.
2. A decrease in cloud cover, for some undiscoverd reason!
3. A very very slight increase in Sun temperature. (milli-kelvin).

One thing not a reason, the small change in atmospheric CO2.

[Sam Wormley]

Marvin, that's a misunderstanding on your part. Do you not know
how the discrepancy was resolved?

‘The satellites show cooling’–No, they don’t
http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-satellites-show-cooling/
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures_png

Do you not also understand that the surface temperature data is
"in line" with the other global climate change observables such
as ice melting, sea level rise, etc.

[Sam Wormley]

Are all of these liars?

Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic
global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:

>
> NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
> National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
> State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) – http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
> The Royal Society of the UK (RS) – http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
> American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
> American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
> American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
> National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
> American Physical Society (APS): http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
> American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
> Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
>
> There's more!

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/8/12 9:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> You've never made a scientific case for CO2 causing the warming. You
> can't. All you have is your bag of fallacies and sources that are known
> liars and frauds.

What's causing the warming, Marvin?

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/8/12 9:18 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> And they've used this bad data to attack Svensmark's theory and to adjust
> the satellite data. I mean, what the hell! This isn't even crap science,
> AGW is bald faced fraud!

Marvin, that's a misunderstanding on your part. Do you not know
how the discrepancy was resolved?

‘The satellites show cooling’–No, they don’t
http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-satellites-show-cooling/
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures_png

Do you not also understand that the surface temperature data is
"in line" with the other global climate change observables such
as ice melting, sea level rise, etc.

Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic
global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:

>
> NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
> National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
> State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) – http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
> The Royal Society of the UK (RS) – http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
> American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
> American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
> American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
> National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
> American Physical Society (APS): http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
> American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
> Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
>
> There's more!

At some point, Marvin, you should conclude that you have been wrong!

What's causing the global warming, Marvin?

[R Kym Horsell]

Don't bother with the cherry picking.

The only survey we care about is in.

ISI Web of Science indexed 39,177 publications related to climate change
and global warming between 1970 to 2007.

800 PEER REVIEWED Papers Supporting Skepticism of ManMade Global Warming Alarm
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [coal shill & daily nymshifter], 19 Dec 2010 12:51 +1100


I.e. 800/39,177 ~= 2% of publications show skepticism of AGW. And that's
according to a fellow denier so it's bound to be inflated.

We therefore understand of published scientists -- and not just those
necessarily specialising in climate or atmospheric research -- aka the "people who actually count", about 98% are not skeptical of AGW.

Ta ta.

Ask again anytime, I'll post the numbers again.

--
jimp <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>As I keep saying over and over, a heat pump transferers thermal energy
>from one location to another, which means one location gets cooler and
>another location is getting warmer.
>One location gets warmer AND another location get cooler.
[repeats above total of 18 times]
>If you do not have BOTH a location gettting warmer AND a location getting
>cooler at the same time, you do NOT have a heat pump.
Which is exactly what, according to the article, happens with this LED.
-- Richard Tobin <rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, 13 Mar 2012 19:17 +0000 (UTC)

[Peter Webb]

"R Kym Horsell" <kymho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7976197.459.1333945315784.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbag4...

So you are trying to prove that AGW is a popular theory.

That is of course completely irrelevant to the question of whether it is
correct. Many very popular theories - for example the crystal spheres theory
of cosmology, Lamarckian evolution, and many, many others - subsequently
were shown to be completely wrong.

Which is why "popularity" is not part of the scientific method.

You should learn about the scientific method. It is used to determine the
truth or otherwise of a scientific theory. The methods you use - appeal to
authority and popularity - are used for religious theories, not scientific
ones.

Instead of trying to prove that AGW is a popular theory, you should try and
show that it is a correct theory. And if this means a *scientific* theory,
that means using the scientific method.

Hence my suggestion that you learn about the scientific nethod.

HTH

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

R Kym Horsell <kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Lier.
>>
>> The "science community", whatever that might be, is not in agreement that
>> that "global climate change" is significant, caused by human activity, or
>> well understood.
>>
>> Do I have to post the results of a survey of scientists again?
>
> Don't bother with the cherry picking.

Nope, no cherry picking.

> The only survey we care about is in.

Of course you wouldn't care about an unbiased survey.

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

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/12 8:11 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Whether evolution, cosmology or climate change the methods of
>>> science are used to try to understand how nature works. As far
>>> as the science community is concerned the cause and effect of
>>> global climate change is fairly well understood.
>>
>> Lier.
>>
>> The "science community", whatever that might be, is not in agreement that
>> that "global climate change" is significant, caused by human activity, or
>> well understood.
>>
>> Do I have to post the results of a survey of scientists again?

> Are all of these liars?

An irrelevant question in an attempt to deflect from the question at
hand.

I would expect nothing less from you.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:27:58 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 4/8/12 9:01 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 12:24:36 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/7/12 10:54 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>> The surface temperature data that
>>>> they're using is known to be garbage.
>>>
>>> Cite the evidence that garbage temperature data is being used.
>>
>> <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/
>> surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf>
>>
>> What's really bad is that when the satellite data disagreed with the
>> crappy surface temperature data, they made excuses to adjust the
>> satellite data upwards so it agreed with their bad data by saying the
>> surface temperature data was definitive.
>>
>> Then the BEST study rehashed the bad data and claimed it was good by
>> dismissing the UHI effect as being only 1%, which is a flatly wrong
>> assumption.
>>
>> You can do bad science like this by accident. This is deliberate fraud.
>> The surface stations are measuring the urban heat island effect.
>>
>>
> Marvin, that's a misunderstanding on your part. Do you not know how
> the discrepancy was resolved?

So, is there anything about this post of yours that is different from the
last post?

Yes, I know how the "discrepancy" was resolved.

Stop being silly.

[Marvin the Martian]

You are, of course completely correct.

But you have to understand this from the point of view of the
scientifically ignorant; they have no way to determine what the correct
science is. If they go with the majority and the majority is wrong, they
are no worse than the majority. If they go with the minority and the
minority is wrong, then they might look bad.

Actually learning the science is never an option. That makes them look
bad in and of itself, but that's their starting point.

So horsell makes the argument that AGW is popular - the bandwagon
fallacy. It's more of a meta-agw argument than an argument over science.
It's all he gots but it is his argument by gawd and he's sticking to it!

[jmfbahciv]

Wally W. wrote:

> On 8 Apr 2012 14:15:13 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>>Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> Simple Question for Climate Science Deniers -- What's causing Global
>>> Warming?
>>>
>>>> http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>>>
>>> What's causing Global Warming?
>>>
>>
>>The IPCC paper I read stated that their bias was going to be
>>based on the assumption that global warming (note the absence
>>of capital letters in my post) is happening. All of the crap
>>you have posted here is based on their cant of the topic.
>>Nobody, who is on this political band wagon, seems to consider
>>that climate changing is normal.
>>
>>OTOH, Sam, if the hypothesis you've been regurgitating is true,
>>there is only one solution to the "problem" and that's to remove
>>the cause you keep claiminng. Are you really advocating eliminating
>>billions of people?
>

> Perhaps only those who are less equal than others.
>
> The work to determine who they are has been done:
>
> http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/

>
>
>>Do you really want human civilization to
>>devolve back to hunting and gathering societies?
>

> The "new" eutopian model may be Stratos dwellers and Troglytes:
>
> http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Cloud_Minders

Nope. Since the people who do the real work in this world will
be dead, nothing will get produced. Trade will stop within
50 years. There won't be anyone to make nor create wealth,
including all the high-tech devices and software. There won't
be any way to distribute any of this. High tech uses the same
means for distribution as foodstuffs and everything required to
produce that food.

People rioting will destroy all the rest.

/BAH

[jmfbahciv]

Note that I did not mention warming. Climate changes. I still
don't see evidence of warming nor cooling. There isn't enough
data (these changes occur over millenia, not decades).

>
> Can you give your opinion of just "who" is getting rich,
> not from the outcome, but from the controversy itself?

it got started when Al Gore went to Europe to test his Presidential
platform. One the strongest responses he got had to do with
environment and anti-nuclear groups. He carried this back
to his candidacy. At some point, and I didn't write it down
on the calendar, I got the distinct impression that the 99th
monkey believed that 1) global warming existed; 2) it was caused
by the first world countries and 3) it was a problem that could
be quickly fixed. Note that soon after science funding was
awarded based on adressing this fiction. There was quite a bit
of conversation in this newsgroup talking about that.

>
> Someone must be promoting this nonsense! -will-

It's now in the loop-back phase where all output becomes
input. I don't see an end to this one becuase it can't
be tested nor will results show up for centuries.

As for who is making money now. You could start by tracing the
who is getting the millions and billions from the Fed. I've heard
of one company who got pots of money and then declared bankruptcy.
Look at any anti-oil rhetoric and what's not happening with that
sector of the economy. Notice all the rules and regulations which
are coming out of the non-elective agencies of the Fed. government.

>
> BT: my answer to "What's causing Global Warming?"
> is "I donno, nor does anyone else!

Why isn't it Cooling? Note that the description has been
changed by the preachers of this religion to "Change". that
happened (what?) about 3 years ago?

/BAH

[Bill Snyder]

Nope. We know damn' well it's not a million zillion kajillion
tonnes, no matter how many bullshit artists claim the only allowed
answer is "I KNOW NOSSINK,"

>
>> Except, of course, that we know it isn't a million zillion
>> kajillion tonnes, because not knowing everything *isn't* the same
>> as knowing nothing.
>> Just as not having a "100% accurate
>> predictive theory" * doesn't keep us from knowing that it's CO2,
>> and not magic cosmic rays, or Santa's elves, .
>
>No, that doesn't tell us its CO2.
>
>You should learn a little about the scientific method.

Irony meter for sale, strictly as-is.

>> * What would it take to qualify as "100% accurate predictive
>> theory," anyway? We don't even have one of those for something as
>> simple as rolling dice.
>
>Actually we do; statistics makes many theoretical predictions which can be
>tested with 100% accuracy. Here's one, for example. As the number of throws
>of a dice approaches infinity, the number of "1"s thrown approaches 1/6.
>This has been verified many times.
>
>
>> But we can be pretty sure that if boxcars
>> come up more often than 7, something's rotten.
>>
>
>Funny, you appear to be trying to make a case that real scientists believe
>things which don't predict the outcomes of experiments correctly. You use
>throwing dice (and by implication the laws of statistics) as an example. I
>hope you see why you are wrong about this example.

Nope. We have a mathematical theory of the probabilities of
throwing dice, and it works perfectly well, even though it isn't a
"100% accurate predictive theory."

>More generally, instead of trying to argue that your theory is correct even
>if it doesn't correctly predict experimental outcomes, you should either
>change your theory so it does, or drop it entirely. Its really the key
>requirement of the scientific method, you can't hand wave around the fact
>that a theory doesn't work.

So we should flush probability theory in its entirety. Right,
shit-bot.

[Sam Wormley]

What's causing the observed global warming, jimp?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Apr 8, 9:07 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Bill Snyder" <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote in message

>
> news:ac63o7d3vpq58t1v9...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 21:28:52 -0500, Marvin the Martian
> > <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 15:11:13 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>

> >>> On 4/7/12 1:17 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>  wrote:

> >>>>> Simple Question for Climate Science Deniers -- What's causing Global
> >>>>> Warming?
>
> >>>>>>http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>
> >>>>> What's causing Global Warming?
>
> >>>> Huge amounts of hot gas being expelled by Chicken Little,
> >>>> we-are-all-doomed, control freak, misanthropes.
>
> >>>    Bzzzt! Don't have any idea do you, jimp?
>
> >>Since no one has a 100% accurate predictive theory, "I don't know" is the
> >>scientific answer.
>
> >>Not YOUR answer. You know everything.
>
> > Marvie does so love the Excluded Middle fallacy.  "If you don't
> > know everything, then you know nothing.  If you don't have a 100%
> > accurate predictive theory of the mass of the Higgs, maybe it's a
> > million zillion kajillion tonnes.  All you're allowed to say, if
> > somebody asks you the mass, is 'I don't know.'"
>
> But we don't know the mass of the Higgs. We don't even know if it exists. If
> somebody asks you the mass of something you don't know even exists the
> correct answer probably *is* "I don't know".

Actually we know its mass within a quite small range.

Do you know the exact value of pi? No? Does that mean it might be
1256.5?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Apr 8, 10:15 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote:

> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Simple Question for Climate Science Deniers -- What's causing Global
> > Warming?
>
> >>http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>
> > What's causing Global Warming?
>

> The IPCC paper I read stated that their bias was going to be
> based on the assumption that global warming (note the absence
> of capital letters in my post) is happening.

Yes, and the SuperConducting Super Collider is based on the assumption
that matter consists of particles. Biology is based on the assumption
that there are things called genes. Etc.

>  All of the crap
> you have posted here is based on their cant of the topic.
> Nobody, who is on this political band wagon, seems to consider
> that climate changing is normal.

Like nobody considers the earth to be 6000 years old.

[Uncle Ben]

On Apr 7, 11:34 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Simple Question for Climate Science Deniers -- What's causing Global
> Warming?
>
> >http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>
> What's causing Global Warming?

Only further research will give a sure answer, but a plausible cause
is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and perhaps other sources of non-
radiative forcing. The PDO index was quite high over the period
1970-2000. Spencer calculates that about 75% of the rise in that
period is due to the PDO. Ref. his "blunder book," p. 115. The same
cause accounts for the 1940 period of unuisual warming.

Unfortunately, there is little current research on non-radiative
forcings.

Uncle Ben

[Peter Webb]

"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message

news:u0o5o75qbtp7quklg...@4ax.com...

Ummm ... we don't even know it exists.

Nobody knows how much it weighs.

If somebody tells you they do, they are lying.

>>
>>> Except, of course, that we know it isn't a million zillion
>>> kajillion tonnes, because not knowing everything *isn't* the same
>>> as knowing nothing.
>>> Just as not having a "100% accurate
>>> predictive theory" * doesn't keep us from knowing that it's CO2,
>>> and not magic cosmic rays, or Santa's elves, .
>>
>>No, that doesn't tell us its CO2.
>>
>>You should learn a little about the scientific method.
>
> Irony meter for sale, strictly as-is.
>

Because if you did, you would understand the relationship between theory and
experiment.

>
>>> * What would it take to qualify as "100% accurate predictive
>>> theory," anyway? We don't even have one of those for something as
>>> simple as rolling dice.
>>
>>Actually we do; statistics makes many theoretical predictions which can be
>>tested with 100% accuracy. Here's one, for example. As the number of
>>throws
>>of a dice approaches infinity, the number of "1"s thrown approaches 1/6.
>>This has been verified many times.
>>
>>
>>> But we can be pretty sure that if boxcars
>>> come up more often than 7, something's rotten.
>>>
>>
>>Funny, you appear to be trying to make a case that real scientists believe
>>things which don't predict the outcomes of experiments correctly. You use
>>throwing dice (and by implication the laws of statistics) as an example. I
>>hope you see why you are wrong about this example.
>
> Nope. We have a mathematical theory of the probabilities of
> throwing dice, and it works perfectly well, even though it isn't a
> "100% accurate predictive theory."

Well, yes it is.

I even gave you an example of a theoretical prediction it makes which is
100% accurate. It concerned the limit of the ratio of 1's thrown as the
number of throws increases. Perhaps you are really stupid and you didn't
understand it when I explained it to you. Yes, that must be it.

>
>>More generally, instead of trying to argue that your theory is correct
>>even
>>if it doesn't correctly predict experimental outcomes, you should either
>>change your theory so it does, or drop it entirely. Its really the key
>>requirement of the scientific method, you can't hand wave around the fact
>>that a theory doesn't work.
>
> So we should flush probability theory in its entirety. Right,
> shit-bot.
>

No, you appear to be the one who doesn't believe that the laws of
probability and statistics are not 100% accurate. I'm the guy who believes
in them, remember?

BTW, found that experimental evidence that additional CO2 will on balance
warm the atmosphere yet?

ROFL.

[Peter Webb]

<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a221d2dd-9864-454d...@n19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

___________________________________
So you don't know actually know what it is? OK.

Do you know the exact value of pi? No?

_________________________________
Yes.

Does that mean it might be
1256.5?

___________________________________
No. Its not.

[Bill Snyder]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 01:03:29 +1000, "Peter Webb"

More shit from the Shit-bot in Chief. Ho hum.

[Androcles]

"Uncle Ben" <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8c3dff2b-c219-4e6f...@d4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

============================================
What's causing Global Cooling, Bonehead?

[Tunderbar]

On Apr 8, 8:30 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/7/12 10:49 PM, Tunderbar wrote:
>
> > On Apr 7, 10:34 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>  wrote:

> >> Simple Question for Climate Science Deniers -- What's causing Global
> >> Warming?
>
> >>>http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>
> >> What's causing Global Warming?
>

> > There are many factors. Co2 is but one small trace of the whole.
>
>    Here's a way to gauge its relative importance:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-fo...
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Wow. Wikipedia. How sciency.

[Will Janoschka]

Sam Wormley posting the same old fraudulent crap over and over
causes whatever fraudulent global warming that Sam speaks of.

He did drop one that called him on his lies!!

[Will Janoschka]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:03:29, "Peter Webb" <r.peter...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> BTW, found that experimental evidence that additional CO2 will on balance
> warm the atmosphere yet?
>
> ROFL.
>

None found!! None looked for, nor has any workable theory been
proposed
to test That woud take effort, and that effort, would cause global
worming,
so we must not try! Think of the children!

Beside changing measurements willy-nilly to fit their desires, when
correlations are challanged as claimed proofs, the CO2ists change
that line to "covariances suggest", and get on with their merry fraud.

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

What "observed global warming", swormley?

Current data seems to indicate that warming is slowing, if not stopped.

What's causing that, swormley?

[Bill Snyder]

Says the loon who says he's learned to multiply, but forgot in the
process how to add or subtract.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 4/9/2012 9:58 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:

> What's causing the observed global warming, jimp?

There is no "observed" global warming thses days, Swormley. We note the
data you always post stops at the year 2000 (please note it's more than
a decade later and "observed" climate change doesn't see to support any
"hockystick" since then) is suspect at best.

But this question you are harping on is valid. What DOES cause...well,
let's call it "climate change", shall we?...climate change?

I'm thinking you need some science lessons from your own side of the
debate.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014287.shtml

Note that CO2 is listed as 20% of a "cause" while H2O is listed as 80%.
Comes right from the unquestionable science at NASA!

So what causes "climate change"? Simple, worm, H2O. Learn some science!

-----

And what drives this push to blame CO2 for climate change? Now that is
an even MORE interesting question. In this case it's all about politics.

AGW = NWO : Is the equation that works here. And here is the proof
right from your usual irrefutable journal:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/


There is nothing left to "debate" on this topic.

------

[Will Janoschka]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 01:07:44, "Peter Webb" <r.peter...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>
> "Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
> news:ac63o7d3vpq58t1v9...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 21:28:52 -0500, Marvin the Martian
> > <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 15:11:13 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 4/7/12 1:17 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> >>>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>> Simple Question for Climate Science Deniers -- What's causing Global
> >>>>> Warming?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What's causing Global Warming?
> >>>>

> >>>> Huge amounts of hot gas being expelled by Chicken Little,
> >>>> we-are-all-doomed, control freak, misanthropes.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Bzzzt! Don't have any idea do you, jimp?
> >>
> >>Since no one has a 100% accurate predictive theory, "I don't know" is the
> >>scientific answer.
> >>
> >>Not YOUR answer. You know everything.
> >
> > Marvie does so love the Excluded Middle fallacy. "If you don't
> > know everything, then you know nothing. If you don't have a 100%
> > accurate predictive theory of the mass of the Higgs, maybe it's a
> > million zillion kajillion tonnes. All you're allowed to say, if
> > somebody asks you the mass, is 'I don't know.'"
> >
>
> But we don't know the mass of the Higgs. We don't even know if it exists. If
> somebody asks you the mass of something you don't know even exists the
> correct answer probably *is* "I don't know".
>
>

> > Except, of course, that we know it isn't a million zillion
> > kajillion tonnes, because not knowing everything *isn't* the same
> > as knowing nothing.
> > Just as not having a "100% accurate
> > predictive theory" * doesn't keep us from knowing that it's CO2,
> > and not magic cosmic rays, or Santa's elves, .
>
> No, that doesn't tell us its CO2.
>
> You should learn a little about the scientific method.
>
>
> >
> >

> > * What would it take to qualify as "100% accurate predictive
> > theory," anyway? We don't even have one of those for something as
> > simple as rolling dice.
>
> Actually we do; statistics makes many theoretical predictions which can be
> tested with 100% accuracy. Here's one, for example. As the number of throws
> of a dice approaches infinity, the number of "1"s thrown approaches 1/6.
> This has been verified many times.
>
>
> > But we can be pretty sure that if boxcars
> > come up more often than 7, something's rotten.
> >
>
> Funny, you appear to be trying to make a case that real scientists believe
> things which don't predict the outcomes of experiments correctly. You use
> throwing dice (and by implication the laws of statistics) as an example. I
> hope you see why you are wrong about this example.
>

> More generally, instead of trying to argue that your theory is correct even
> if it doesn't correctly predict experimental outcomes, you should either
> change your theory so it does, or drop it entirely. Its really the key
> requirement of the scientific method, you can't hand wave around the fact
> that a theory doesn't work.
>

> > --
> > Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
>

Peter, OT comment: The singular of dice is die you must
throw only "a die" to come up with "1", but you must have
many dice to throw as "a die" will come to approach a
shape of a sphere as the number of throws of that one die
approaches infinity and the meaning of "1" dissapears.

Is there a large market for very a tough die that can
be thrown a number of times approaching infinity?
Always looking for a new business opportunity!

Do you have an hourly rate for a die thrower?
'Lotsa people out'ta work, that have more skill
than any climatologist. -will-

[be...@iwaynet.net]

I have a BETTER way to gauge relative importance:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014287.shtml

An actual "scientific paper" Right from NASA! In fact, Sam, you've
posted this link yourself! But apparently you've never read your own posts.

According to NASA scientists:
CO2 = 20% (probably over-estimated)
H2O = 80% !

Hence, CO2 is minor cause no matter HOW one "models" it.
This is YOUR link, Sam!

How about a "Hydrogen footprint tax" applied right to everyone's water
bill to save the world?

[Will Janoschka]

Yes, that is when it changed from Global Warming to Climate Change.

Thanks for your input.

It is not "Cooling" only because the Reverend and friend of Al Gore,
James Hansen, (of NASA and the Church of the Anthropogenic)
says it is "Warming".

The CO2 part seems to be highly supported by the natural gas
producers that wish that the coal producers did not have a lock
on the fuel for electric power generation. What I cannot figure out
is why the gas producers will not offer competitive 50-75 year
contracts for fuel to the utilities like the coal and railroad folk
do.

Do the gas folk really want the gov to establish new "regulations"
that will eventually drive up the price of thier fuel also?

Do you think the lobbyists are playing both ends against the middle?

[Uncle Ben]

(If you are cold, dear John, ask your nurse to bring you another
blanket with your next dose of aricept.)

Androcles, friends, denies that he is has severe senile dementia, but
he believes that there is a
smallest number greater than zero, and that a bug on the rim of a
turntable experiences tangential
acceleration. Ask him yourself.

Uncle Ben

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Apr 9, 11:51 am, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012> wrote:

> "Uncle Ben" <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8c3dff2b-c219-4e6f...@d4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 7, 11:34 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Simple Question for Climate Science Deniers -- What's causing Global
> > Warming?
>
> > >http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>
> > What's causing Global Warming?
>
> Only further research will give a sure answer, but a plausible cause
> is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and perhaps other sources of non-
> radiative forcing.

Did this just start 150 years ago? And why has it been positive for
so long?

>The PDO index was quite high over the period
> 1970-2000. Spencer calculates that about 75% of the rise in that
> period is due to the PDO. Ref. his "blunder book," p. 115.  The same
> cause accounts for the 1940 period of unuisual warming.
>
> Unfortunately, there is little current research on non-radiative
> forcings.
>
> Uncle Ben
> ============================================
> What's causing Global Cooling, Bonehead?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm

Look at Fig. 2.

If X isn't even correlated with Y, X cannot be a cause of Y.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

Two different things. The natural GH that's been here for years, and
the added one of the last 100 or so years.

I bet a 5th grader knows the difference between the two.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Apr 9, 1:55 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 4/9/2012 9:58 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > What's causing the observed global warming, jimp?
>
> There is no "observed" global warming thses days, Swormley.

Sorry, you don't get to make up things.

>We note the
> data you always post stops at the year 2000 (please note it's more than
> a decade later and "observed" climate change doesn't see to support any
> "hockystick" since then) is suspect at best.

Gee, I wonder why almost all of science says otherwise?

>
> But this question you are harping on is valid. What DOES cause...well,
> let's call it "climate change", shall we?...climate change?
>
> I'm thinking you need some science lessons from your own side of the
> debate.
>
> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014287.shtml
>
> Note that CO2 is listed as 20% of a "cause" while H2O is listed as 80%.
> Comes right from the unquestionable science at NASA!

Once again, you're cofusing the natural GH that's been here for
millenia (of which H2O is the main cause) with the added GH effect of
the last 100-150 years (of which CO2 is the main cause, as it's
increased and water vapor has not).

Really, this is pretty basic stuff.

>
> So what causes "climate change"?  Simple, worm, H2O. Learn some science!
>
> -----
>
> And what drives this push to blame CO2 for climate change? Now that is
> an even MORE interesting question. In this case it's all about politics.
>
> AGW = NWO :   Is the equation that works here. And here is the proof
> right from your usual irrefutable journal:
>

> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective...

>
> There is nothing left to "debate" on this topic.
>
> ------

No, there isn't. The science is incontrovertible. Yet you deny it.
Like denying the earth goes around the sun, or atoms. Yet you think
you know more science than all the world's scientists.

"Unskilled and Unaware." Google it.

[Androcles]

"Uncle Ben" <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message

news:759fcb26-9f85-44cb...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

=============================================

You still don't know the difference between a definition and
a belief, do you, Bonehead?

Bonehead, friends, denies he is a gullible fool but he believes
"We establish by definition that "the ``time'' required by light
to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel
from B to A" because his tin god told him so and anything
his tin god says must be true.

As for a bug on the rim of a turntable, Bonehead doesn't know
the difference between velocity and acceleration.

What's causing Global Cooling, Uncle Bonehead?
The answer is radiation, Bonehead. Try to remember it.

[R Kym Horsell]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:20:26 AM UTC+10, Bill Snyder wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 12:11:31 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
> Janoschka) wrote:

....

> Says the loon who says he's learned to multiply, but forgot in the
> process how to add or subtract.

...

Apart from basic arithmetic, I thought auld Vill just didn't get the difference
between temperature and energy density.

It's quite amazing a robot can learn to run stephan-boltzman *one* way, but fail to run it back the *other* way to get a temperature again.

Well he did say (somewhere) his mistake was admitting he had made a mistake;
he'd made several (including that one).

--
The slow rise of sea level is caused by rain. Water transfer the soil to see.
The acceleration during the last 50 years is caused by using gas and oil
instead of coal. Gas and oil are changed into water during combustion.
So the slow or the accelerated rise of sea level is not a problem.
-- Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl>, 28 May 2011 09:50 +0200

A milli-kelvin change the sun temperature would result in a 1 kelvin change in earth temperature.
Please do the numbers, so as, to prove to yourself, that Hansens claims are Political BS.
Logic does not work against Political BS!
-- Will Janoschka, 1 Mar 2012 7:18 PM

[ala]

"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message

news:u0o5o75qbtp7quklg...@4ax.com...

.
>
> So we should flush probability theory in its entirety. Right,
> shit-bot.
>

sounds GOOOT
can't wait

[Peter Webb]

"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message

news:5ev5o715aet7hfta4...@4ax.com...

Funny, you found nothing that you disagreed with.

You religious kooks really don't want to discuss the science, do you?

[Peter Webb]

"R Kym Horsell" <kymho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:10102004.3.1334017959604.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pboa5...

Perhaps you can tell us what the current rate of global warming actually is.
A definition would be a good starting point. Then, if the rate is greater
than zero, the earth is warming, and if its less than zero, the earth is
cooling.

So, how is the "current rate of warming calculated", and what is it?

[Peter Webb]

<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4efbd055-4c0f-4949...@w17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 9, 1:55 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 4/9/2012 9:58 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > What's causing the observed global warming, jimp?
>
> There is no "observed" global warming thses days, Swormley.

Sorry, you don't get to make up things.

___________________________________________
OK, tell us the current rate of warming and how it is calculated. It should
then be a simple mechanical procoedure to see if global warming is currently
occurring.

>We note the
> data you always post stops at the year 2000 (please note it's more than
> a decade later and "observed" climate change doesn't see to support any
> "hockystick" since then) is suspect at best.


Gee, I wonder why almost all of science says otherwise?

_________________________________________
Says "what", exactly? That the earth is currently warming? What does that
statement mean as a scientific statement - how id the current rate of

warming calculated, and what is it?


>

> But this question you are harping on is valid. What DOES cause...well,
> let's call it "climate change", shall we?...climate change?
>
> I'm thinking you need some science lessons from your own side of the
> debate.
>
> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014287.shtml
>
> Note that CO2 is listed as 20% of a "cause" while H2O is listed as 80%.
> Comes right from the unquestionable science at NASA!

Once again, you're cofusing the natural GH that's been here for
millenia (of which H2O is the main cause) with the added GH effect of
the last 100-150 years (of which CO2 is the main cause, as it's
increased and water vapor has not).

Really, this is pretty basic stuff.

___________________________________________________
So is defining your terms. If you claim the earth is curently warming, you
need to define what that means, so people can test if it is true.

>
> So what causes "climate change"? Simple, worm, H2O. Learn some science!
>
> -----
>
> And what drives this push to blame CO2 for climate change? Now that is
> an even MORE interesting question. In this case it's all about politics.
>
> AGW = NWO : Is the equation that works here. And here is the proof
> right from your usual irrefutable journal:
>
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective...
>
> There is nothing left to "debate" on this topic.
>
> ------

No, there isn't. The science is incontrovertible. Yet you deny it.
Like denying the earth goes around the sun, or atoms. Yet you think
you know more science than all the world's scientists.

__________________________________________________
He probably just thinks he knows more about this that *you* do, which is
very likely correct. You don't appear to know anything about the subject. If
the think the erath is currently warming, you really need to explain what
that means in terms of temperature data. Until you do that, any statement
you make which refers to global warming at a particular time is meaningless.
Which is a lot of your statements, hence by belief you know very litle about
the subject. You can't even tell us what the statement "the earth is
currently warming" is even supposed to mean.

"Unskilled and Unaware." Google it.

__________________________________________
Perhaps if you made an attempt to define the terms that you use, so they at
least *look* like scientific statements?

[R Kym Horsell]

On Monday, April 9, 2012 3:17:13 PM UTC+10, (unknown) wrote:
...
> Of course you wouldn't care about an unbiased survey.

Who would bother if we have surveyed the entire population anyway?

--
[I see nu-theen... I know nu-THEEN!]
Please, don't bother dumbing [your explanation] down, despite your
implication of the contrary, I am far from being a "statistics illiterate".
-- Peter Webb <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com>, 1 Feb 2012 12:54 +1100

[H]ow is the "current rate of warming calculated", and what is it?
-- Peter Webb, 10 Apr 2012 4.20pm AEST

[Peter Webb]

"R Kym Horsell" <kymho...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:31109892.1000.1334041369695.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbvs10...

Just looked at this post, and noticed a quote from me at the the end.

Does this mean you are going to answer the question I asked?

How is the "current rate of warming calculated", and what is it?

Why won't you tell us?

[Marvin the Martian]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 08:58:23 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 4/9/12 12:19 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> On 4/8/12 8:11 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> Whether evolution, cosmology or climate change the methods of
>>>>> science are used to try to understand how nature works. As far
>>>>> as the science community is concerned the cause and effect of
>>>>> global climate change is fairly well understood.
>>>>
>>>> Lier.
>>>>
>>>> The "science community", whatever that might be, is not in agreement
>>>> that that "global climate change" is significant, caused by human
>>>> activity, or well understood.
>>>>
>>>> Do I have to post the results of a survey of scientists again?
>>
>>> Are all of these liars?

>>
>> An irrelevant question in an attempt to deflect from the question at
>> hand.
>>
>> I would expect nothing less from you.
>>
>>
>>

> What's causing the observed global warming, jimp?

Here's two questions for you:

Do you feel that if the answer is "we don't know", that somehow proves
your claim of AGW?

Do you know what an appeal to ignorance fallacy is?

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

And a third question:

Did you know that if you constantly speak in fallacies, people will think
you're a putz?

[Marvin the Martian]

Wikipedia is crap when it comes to AGW. Do a websearch on the William
Connolley scandal. He's some ignorant asswipe from RealClimate who was
slandering people who didn't believe in AGW, rewriting articles with AGW
propaganda, removing entire articles (500 of them!) that contradicted AGW,
and banning anyone who wrote an article doubting AGW.

Wikipedia is run by a bunch of left wing kool-aide drinking jackasses who
are using the website as a propaganda tool. It is only a useful resource
on subjects that the left wing doesn't care about.

They had to throw Connolley under the bus, but they have other morons
working there who are doing the same thing.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

Bet you'd love conservapedia. Be sure to read their entry on
evolution, where is says only atheists believe in evolution.

[Bill Snyder]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:01:54 -0500, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 09:05:44 -0700, Tunderbar wrote:
>
>> On Apr 8, 8:30 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/7/12 10:49 PM, Tunderbar wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Apr 7, 10:34 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> >> Simple Question for Climate Science Deniers -- What's causing Global
>>> >> Warming?
>>>
>>> >>>http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>>>
>>> >> What's causing Global Warming?
>>>
>>> > There are many factors. Co2 is but one small trace of the whole.
>>>
>>>    Here's a way to gauge its relative importance:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-
>fo...
>>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
>>
>> Wow. Wikipedia. How sciency.
>
>Wikipedia is crap when it comes to AGW. Do a websearch on the William
>Connolley scandal. He's some ignorant asswipe from RealClimate

"William Michael Connolley (born 12 April 1964) is a British
software engineer, writer, and blogger on climatology. Until
December 2007 he was Senior Scientific Officer in the Physical
Sciences Division in the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System
project at the British Antarctic Survey, where he worked as a
climate modeller. After this he became a software engineer for
Cambridge Silicon Radio."

Of course, according to Marvie, climate modelers are ignorant
asswipes by definition, since they never seem to agree with him
and his little friends.

>who was
>slandering people who didn't believe in AGW, rewriting articles with AGW
>propaganda, removing entire articles (500 of them!) that contradicted AGW,
>and banning anyone who wrote an article doubting AGW.

'Connolley began editing Wikipedia in 2003[17] and served as a
Wikipedia administrator from 2006 until 2009.[18] He has been
cited and quoted in the media regarding these activities,
especially with respect to his editing in the area of climate
change. He was cited by Nature magazine, in their December 2005
review of the reliability of Wikipedia, as an example of an expert
who edits Wikipedia.[19] Nature quoted Connolley, in 2006, as
saying that "some scientists have become frustrated with
Wikipedia" but that "conflict can sometimes result in better
articles".[20] In July 2006, a New Yorker article described him as
briefly becoming "a victim of an edit war over the entry on global
warming", in which a sceptic repeatedly "watered down" the
article's explanation of the greenhouse effect.[21] Connolley told
the magazine that Wikipedia "gives no privilege to those who know
what they’re talking about".[21] Various books have cited
Connolley as an example of how expert editors on Wikipedia are
given "no more credence" than anonymous editors of the
site.[22][23][24] In 2007, The Sunday Times of London ran an
interview of author Andrew Keen that discussed Connolley and his
Wikipedia editing. It identified Connolley as "an expert on global
warming", stating: "After trying to correct inaccuracies Connolley
was accused of trying to remove 'any point of view which does not
match his own'. Eventually he was limited to making just one edit
a day." The article stated that Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee
"gave no weight to [Connolley's] expertise, and treated him with
the same credibility as his anonymous opponent."'

So Marvie's about as accurate as we expect of him.

>Wikipedia is run by a bunch of left wing kool-aide drinking jackasses who
>are using the website as a propaganda tool. It is only a useful resource
>on subjects that the left wing doesn't care about.

It's a tool of the Illuminati, Marvie. Or maybe it's the Reptoids
or the Trilateral Commission that are to blame this week; it's so
hard to keep track of all those conspiracies.

>They had to throw Connolley under the bus, but they have other morons
>working there who are doing the same thing.

<snicker>

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

R Kym Horsell <kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 9, 2012 3:17:13 PM UTC+10, (unknown) wrote:
> ...
>> Of course you wouldn't care about an unbiased survey.
>
> Who would bother if we have surveyed the entire population anyway?

A very ignorant answer on oh so many levels.

[Marvin the Martian]

Your rich fantasy life and willingness to tell lies based on your
imagination only shows what an irrational putz you really are.

You can't even address the evidence that Wikipedia is a propaganda rag.

Idiot. You don't know the first thing about science. You're a disgrace.

[Bill Snyder]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:31:31 -0500, Marvin the Martian

Obviously, Marvie doesn't realize that his dog ate the evidence
again, so we never saw it.

>Idiot. You don't know the first thing about science. You're a disgrace.

My, what a compelling argument. Marvie's excelled himself this
time.

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 17:28:29, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/8/12 11:30 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > Just show how CO2 does this warming!
>
> Will, are you finally going to read these resources, or are you
> a climate science denier who dismisses relevant resources without
> reading them?
>
> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
> >
> > APS: A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change
> > http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
> >
> > Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
> > http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
> > http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html
> >
> > Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
> > http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
> >
> > Introduction to Infrared Radiative Transfer
> > http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf
> >
> > Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
> > http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html
> >

Same old shit thar you have not read!

[be...@iwaynet.net]

Sure, Bill. Everybody is a believer in conspiracies. Lucky you aren't.
You've never seen a politician lie or get greedy or suddenly get
amazingly rich (you probably never even heard of Algore). There are no
politicians in jail. They are just 100% public servants on our side!

> <snicker>

Don't you EVER manage to say anything beyond the 5th grade?

potty-mouthed idiot.