Do you think this is normal?
Claudius Denk
> Claudius Denk wrote in message
>
> > Isn't it true, however, that you yourself are unaware of any peer-
> > reviewed and/or experimental evidence that CO2 can/does have a
> > thermal effect on the atmosphere? Be honest. You yourself have
> > no such knowledge, do you?
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> That's it then? The crux of your assertion is that if one does not
> have personal knowledge of the research regarding that which you
> seek to deny then such research does not exist and by extension
> the fact you seek to deny is false? And this because a half dozen
> people on a single forum refuse to do your research for you?
Do you really believe that if there was any real evidence that CO2
could cause atmospheric warming that the AGW proponents wouldn't make
it brain dead simple your you whackjobs to find it? Think about it,
dumbass. Where are all the professionals in this conversation? Why
do you think they steadfastly refuse to discuss any of this in a
public, open forum? Did you ever think this through? Where are
they? Why do they refuse to debate. Us skeptics are not afraid of
open conversation. The proponents, on the otherhand, only communicate
through press releases. Do you think this is normal? Do you know of
any other science that demands such secrecy? They're declaring a
global emergency and they refuse to take questions from the public.
Does this make any sense at all to you?
Marvin the Martian
> Us skeptics are not afraid of open conversation.
Indeed, if it were true that I was going to fry to death by using
petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
billions of folks out of their money, however.
odin
> could cause atmospheric warming that the AGW proponents wouldn't make
> it brain dead simple your you whackjobs to find it?
Most whackjobs can find it here: http://www.realclimate.org/
> Where are all the professionals in this conversation?
At work?
> Why do you think they steadfastly refuse to discuss any of this
> in a public, open forum?
They is busy?
> Did you ever think this through?
Not much need to.
> Why do they refuse to debate.
They is busy?
> Us skeptics are not afraid of open conversation.
Thats the problem.
> The proponents, on the otherhand, only communicate
> through press releases.
Nope... they gots fancy journals and such.
> Do you think this is normal?
Yup.
> Do you know of any other science that demands such secrecy?
Secrecy?
> Does this make any sense at all to you?
Yup.
And Ieven think AGW is hyped and not well understood. But you are an
idiot.
Friar Broccoli
> > Does this make any sense at all to you?
>
> Yup.
>
> And I even think AGW is hyped and not well understood.
For what it is worth - what really worries me is ocean acidification.
> But you are an idiot.
No doubt about that.
odin
> On Mar 31, 12:47 pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Does this make any sense at all to you?
>
> > Yup.
>
> > And I even think AGW is hyped and not well understood.
>
> For what it is worth - what really worries me is ocean acidification.
Yes. Ocean acidification ...and magnetosphere weakening.
Larry
KOdnUz8ksBA6C7W...@giganews.com:
It's much worse than that. Copenhagen wasn't about weather or climate.
Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
necessary.
Copenhagen was about POLITICS, not science. The UN is always about
WORLD Government and taxation.
--
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
Larry
.
odin
> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
Copenhagen? Here is mt take on it: http://www.youtube.com/wikitrix
Mitchell Coffey
> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
>
> > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> >> Us skeptics are not afraid of open conversation.
>
> > Indeed, if it were true that I was going to fry to death by using
> > petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
>
> > IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
> > billions of folks out of their money, however.
>
> It's much worse than that. Copenhagen wasn't about weather or climate.
> Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
> Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
> big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
> necessary.
>
> Copenhagen was about POLITICS, not science. The UN is always about
> WORLD Government and taxation.
Besides, CARBON DiOXIDE never hurt anyone. My Brother-in-Law once
huffed CO2 all day and he seems as normal as before.
Feric Jaggar
Uri Geller
> On Mar 31, 7:53 am, "Moist Lipwig" <n...@all.org> wrote:
>
> > Claudius Denk wrote in message
>
> > > Isn't it true, however, that you yourself are unaware of any peer-
> > > reviewed and/or experimental evidence that CO2 can/does have a
> > > thermal effect on the atmosphere? Be honest. You yourself have
> > > no such knowledge, do you?
>
> > _________________________________________________
>
> > That's it then? The crux of your assertion is that if one does not
> > have personal knowledge of the research regarding that which you
> > seek to deny then such research does not exist and by extension
> > the fact you seek to deny is false? And this because a half dozen
> > people on a single forum refuse to do your research for you?
> Do you really believe that if there was any real evidence that CO2
> could cause atmospheric warming that the AGW proponents wouldn't make
> it brain dead simple your you whackjobs to find it?
You whackjobs don't look for it. That's your problem. It *IS* "brain
dead simple" to find the evidence--- it takes just a minute or two. It
was easy! The fact that you refuse to look speaks volumes about your
anti-science agenda.
Dawlish
> On Mar 31, 1:20�ｿｽpm, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
> > KOdnUz8ksBA6C7WnZ2dnUVZ_qwAA...@giganews.com:
>
> > > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
> > > Indeed, if it were true that I was going to fry to death by using
> > > petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
>
> > > IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
> > > billions of folks out of their money, however.
>
> > Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
> > Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
> > big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
> > necessary.
>
> > WORLD Government and taxation.
>
> Besides, CARBON DiOXIDE never hurt anyone. �ｿｽ> Feric Jaggar- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You must tell the survivors from the Lake Nyos disaster in Cameroon in
1986:
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/mhalb/nyos/nyos.htm
Mitchell Coffey
> On Mar 31, 7:10 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 1:20 pm, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > > Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
> > > KOdnUz8ksBA6C7WnZ2dnUVZ_qwAA...@giganews.com:
>
> > > > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > >> Us skeptics are not afraid of open conversation.
>
> > > > petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
>
> > > > IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
> > > > billions of folks out of their money, however.
>
> > > Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
> > > Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
> > > big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
> > > necessary.
>
> > > WORLD Government and taxation.
>
> > Besides, CARBON DiOXIDE never hurt anyone. > Feric Jaggar- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You must tell the survivors from the Lake Nyos disaster in Cameroon in
> 1986:
>
> http://pagesperso-orange.fr/mhalb/nyos/nyos.htm
POLITICS! Be honest: you can't personally name a SINGLE paper in the
peer-reviewed literature that proves that claim isn't a fraud.
Feric Jaggar
Last Post
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 1:20 pm, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > > Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
> > > KOdnUz8ksBA6C7WnZ2dnUVZ_qwAA...@giganews.com:
>
> > > > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > >> Us skeptics are not afraid of open conversation.
>
> > > > petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
>
> > > > IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
> > > > billions of folks out of their money, however.
>
> > > Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
> > > Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
> > > big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
> > > necessary.
>
> > > WORLD Government and taxation.
>
> > Besides, CARBON DiOXIDE never hurt anyone. > Feric Jaggar
>
> You must tell the survivors from the Lake Nyos disaster in Cameroon in
> 1986:
>
> http://pagesperso-orange.fr/mhalb/nyos/nyos.htm
ø That was from a shortage of oxygen not from too
much CO2. CO2 is an heavy molecule which
clings to the ground, and if there was no wind
blowing, oxygen was blocked and animals and
peoples were smothered. That is not from CO2
poisoning which would require something like
24,000 ppm. At ground level in Nyos it must have
been double that for a very short periods
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes
Dawlish
Fraud? So often this word is bandied about without evidence.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l00341n75m572474/
http://www.ulb.ac.be/sciences/cvl/history.htm
A simple google search.The second reference cites a conference at
which 26 different papers were presented.
If it's a fraud. Cite evidence to show it.
Ernest Major
<722a3325-6408-4f95...@u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Carbon dioxide concentrations as low as 9% can cause death.It is not
lack of oxygen, it is the presence of CO2
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gwk/research/nyos.html
At Lake Nyos, this happened:
Pathological studies - indicated that victims rapidly lost
consciousness and died of CO2 asphyxiation (CO2 concentrations above
about 10% can be lethal). There was no evidence for chemical burns on
victims or survivors as would be expected from volcanic sulfur gases.
However, the skin lesions were in fact attributable to some
combination of the following: (1) exposure to a direct heat source
such as a cooking fire, (2) pressure sores from prolonged lying in a
fixed position, (3) postmortem decomposition, and (4) sores that
predated the event. Observed skin blisters were associated with
extended unconsciousness, similar to symptoms found in comatose drug
overdose patients
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gwk/research/nyos.html
There's a host of other papers and evidence. It was certainly not
fraud; someone must have an agenda to even suggest that (though fraud
in Cameroon is endemic) and the deaths were due to a massive degassing
producing CO2 concentrations at lethal levels. The people died from
CO2, not from a lack of oxygen.
BTW, this has nothing to do with climate change!
Rodjk #613
Yeah, it still tells me that you are uninformed.
Two things:
1. Science does not handle public debates well. The reason? The
general public knows very little about science and are easily swayed.
Ask any biologist who has tried to debate a creationist.
2. Because the info you ask about CO2 has been known for a long long
time and is not an issue. A 7 second search on google brought me to
the American Institute of Physics and this info:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
I have no doubt you have been shown this sort of information before,
and I have no doubt you will not learn anything from reading it.
Perhaps someone else will learn something...
Rodjk #613
Dawlish
> In message
> <722a3325-6408-4f95-9c90-a4899d0b3...@u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe. *>))
Mitchell Coffey
Typical evasion from the global temperature stasis-denial crowd! You
cited the source, it's your obligation to prove it's not fraudulent!
Feric Jaggar
Inez
>
> > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> >> Us skeptics are not afraid of open conversation.
>
> > Indeed, if it were true that I was going to fry to death by using
> > petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
>
> > IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
> > billions of folks out of their money, however.
>
> It's much worse than that. Copenhagen wasn't about weather or climate.
> Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
> Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
> big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
> necessary.
Oh no! Here comes the Kyrgyz Republic's navy to redistribute our
wealth by force! And they're rowing with all their might!
> Copenhagen was about POLITICS, not science. The UN is always about
> WORLD Government and taxation.
>
> --
> "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
>
I'm waiting for the iTampon.
Mitchell Coffey
> On Mar 31, 10:20 am, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
> > KOdnUz8ksBA6C7WnZ2dnUVZ_qwAA...@giganews.com:
>
> > > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > >> Us skeptics are not afraid of open conversation.
>
> > > Indeed, if it were true that I was going to fry to death by using
> > > petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
>
> > > IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
> > > billions of folks out of their money, however.
>
> > It's much worse than that. Copenhagen wasn't about weather or climate.
> > Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
> > Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
> > big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
> > necessary.
>
> Oh no! Here comes the Kyrgyz Republic's navy to redistribute our
> wealth by force! And they're rowing with all their might!
Though you gotta admire navies from those mountainous, land-locked
nations. Sailor's sailors, you gotta say.
Mitchell Coffey
dr yacub
> On Mar 31, 7:10 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 31, 1:20 pm, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > > Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
> > > KOdnUz8ksBA6C7WnZ2dnUVZ_qwAA...@giganews.com:
>
> > > > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > >> Us skeptics are not afraid of open conversation.
>
> > > > petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
>
> > > > IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
> > > > billions of folks out of their money, however.
>
> > > Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
> > > Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
> > > big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
> > > necessary.
>
> > > WORLD Government and taxation.
>
> > Besides, CARBON DiOXIDE never hurt anyone. > Feric Jaggar- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You must tell the survivors from the Lake Nyos disaster in Cameroon in
> 1986:
>
> http://pagesperso-orange.fr/mhalb/nyos/nyos.htm
The Science Of Making Shit Up.
What would you left-turd-sycophant-shit-eaters
do with out it, eh Dogshit?
Mitchell Coffey
Really, really big asteroids.
Mitchell Coffey
Moist Lipwig
news:8eeaad19-be24-4468...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 31, 7:53 am, "Moist Lipwig" <n...@all.org> wrote:
>> Claudius Denk wrote in message
>>
>> > Isn't it true, however, that you yourself are unaware of any peer-
>> > reviewed and/or experimental evidence that CO2 can/does have a
>> > thermal effect on the atmosphere? Be honest. You yourself have
>> > no such knowledge, do you?
>>
>> _________________________________________________
>>
>> That's it then? The crux of your assertion is that if one does not
>> have personal knowledge of the research regarding that which you
>> seek to deny then such research does not exist and by extension
>> the fact you seek to deny is false? And this because a half dozen
>> people on a single forum refuse to do your research for you?
>>
>> your personal ignorance.
>>
>> Regards,
>> _________________________________________________
>
> Do you really believe that if there was any real evidence that CO2
> could cause atmospheric warming that the AGW proponents wouldn't make
> it brain dead simple your you whackjobs to find it? Think about it,
> dumbass. Where are all the professionals in this conversation? Why
> do you think they steadfastly refuse to discuss any of this in a
> public, open forum? Did you ever think this through? Where are
> they? Why do they refuse to debate. Us skeptics are not afraid of
> open conversation. The proponents, on the otherhand, only communicate
> through press releases. Do you think this is normal? Do you know of
> any other science that demands such secrecy? They're declaring a
> global emergency and they refuse to take questions from the public.
> Does this make any sense at all to you?
>
It seems to be your position that the experts aren't here refuting your
assertions because they cannot refute them. You cannot imagine any
other reason they might not be here arguing with you. I have a better
explanation for their absence. Try this on for size: You are a puny,
insignificant worm in the scientific field of climatology. Your uninformed,
willfully ignorant opinion amounts nothing more than a large volume of
warm moist air.
If you want to challange Climatologists on their science I suggest you
address them directly. This is Talk.Origins and climatology is most
certainly off topic.
Regards.
Moist Lipwig
news:9ef46641-78e7-4733...@j1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> much CO2. CO2 is an heavy molecule which
> clings to the ground, and if there was no wind
> blowing, oxygen was blocked and animals and
> peoples were smothered. That is not from CO2
> poisoning which would require something like
> 24,000 ppm. At ground level in Nyos it must have
> been double that for a very short periods
>
http://www.breathing.com/articles/carbon-dioxide.htm
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/carbon+dioxide+narcosis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1365943/
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0300957298000963
http://ep.physoc.org/content/89/4/465.abstract
Newsgroups trimmed
Xavier Onnasis
news:4ebd5f12-cf38-4c4c...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>> Do you really believe that if there was any real evidence that CO2
>> could cause atmospheric warming that the AGW proponents wouldn't
>> make it brain dead simple your you whackjobs to find it?
>
> Most whackjobs can find it here: http://www.realclimate.org/
>
>> Where are all the professionals in this conversation?
>
> At work?
but on those rare occasions when they take a break,
the frequently hang out at (and contribute to)
realclimate.org
>
>> Why do you think they steadfastly refuse to discuss any of this
>> in a public, open forum?
>
> They is busy?
seems to me that http://www.realclimate.org/ is wide open
to the public
and of course if dink the dodo wishes to get into the real
meat of the matter, there's always
http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/
>> Us skeptics are not afraid of open conversation.
>
> Thats the problem.
dink and his band of dodos are pseudo-skeptics at best; if
they could only comprehend the content freely available on
sites like http://www.skepticalscience.com/ they'd be far,
far better able to engage in reasonable discourse
as a wise man once told me: ain't no arguing with ignorance
--
XO
Ognjen
No, no, no. What you should have said is:
"It's not up to the skeptic to provide evidence. If you had any
empirical evidence for your claims, you would have posted it."
And then you follow it with a classic:
"Answer my question, you evasive twit."
It's quite simple, really.
David Hare-Scott
> On Mar 31, 7:53 am, "Moist Lipwig" <n...@all.org> wrote:
>> Claudius Denk wrote in message
>>
>>> Isn't it true, however, that you yourself are unaware of any peer-
>>> reviewed and/or experimental evidence that CO2 can/does have a
>>> thermal effect on the atmosphere? Be honest. You yourself have
>>> no such knowledge, do you?
>>
>> _________________________________________________
>>
>> That's it then? The crux of your assertion is that if one does not
>> have personal knowledge of the research regarding that which you
>> seek to deny then such research does not exist and by extension
>> the fact you seek to deny is false? And this because a half dozen
>> people on a single forum refuse to do your research for you?
>
> could cause atmospheric warming that the AGW proponents wouldn't make
> dumbass. Where are all the professionals in this conversation? Why
> do you think they steadfastly refuse to discuss any of this in a
> they? Why do they refuse to debate. Us skeptics are not afraid of
> open conversation. The proponents, on the otherhand, only communicate
> through press releases. Do you think this is normal? Do you know of
> any other science that demands such secrecy? They're declaring a
> global emergency and they refuse to take questions from the public.
> Does this make any sense at all to you?
Do you really believe that if there was any real evidence that sunlight
could cause photosynthesis that the green plant proponents wouldn't make
it brain dead simple your you whackjobs to find it? Think about it,
dumbass. Where are all the professionals in this conversation? Why
do you think they steadfastly refuse to discuss any of this in a
public, open forum? Did you ever think this through? Where are
they? Why do they refuse to debate. Us skeptics are not afraid of
open conversation. The proponents, on the otherhand, only communicate
through press releases. Do you think this is normal? Do you know of
any other science that demands such secrecy? They're declaring a
global emergency and they refuse to take questions from the public.
Does this make any sense at all to you?
David
Michael Siemon
<718c2d7a-ae65-445e...@z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
"heh, heh; he said _asteroids_"; heh, heh."
Steven L.
"Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:78a8d9f9-ed30-4a9a...@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 31, 10:20�am, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> > Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
> > KOdnUz8ksBA6C7WnZ2dnUVZ_qwAA...@giganews.com:
> >
> > > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > >> �Us skeptics are not afraid of open conversation. �
> >
> > > Indeed, if it were true that I was going to fry to death by using
> > > petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
> >
> > > IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
> > > billions of folks out of their money, however.
> >
> > It's much worse than that. �Copenhagen wasn't about weather or climate. �
> > Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
> > Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
> > big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
> > necessary.
>
> Oh no! Here comes the Kyrgyz Republic's navy to redistribute our
> wealth by force! And they're rowing with all their might!
While the Duchy of Grand Fenwick sends ground troops....
-- Steven L.
William Morse
> On Mar 31, 7:53 am, "Moist Lipwig" <n...@all.org> wrote:
>> Claudius Denk wrote in message
>>
>>> Isn't it true, however, that you yourself are unaware of any peer-
>>> reviewed and/or experimental evidence that CO2 can/does have a
>>> thermal effect on the atmosphere? Be honest. You yourself have
>>> no such knowledge, do you?
>> _________________________________________________
>>
>> That's it then? The crux of your assertion is that if one does not
>> have personal knowledge of the research regarding that which you
>> seek to deny then such research does not exist and by extension
>> the fact you seek to deny is false? And this because a half dozen
>> people on a single forum refuse to do your research for you?
>
> Do you really believe that if there was any real evidence that CO2
> could cause atmospheric warming that the AGW proponents wouldn't make
> it brain dead simple your you whackjobs to find it? Think about it,
> dumbass. Where are all the professionals in this conversation? Why
> do you think they steadfastly refuse to discuss any of this in a
> public, open forum? Did you ever think this through? Where are
> they? Why do they refuse to debate. Us skeptics are not afraid of
> open conversation. The proponents, on the otherhand, only communicate
> through press releases. Do you think this is normal? Do you know of
> any other science that demands such secrecy? They're declaring a
> global emergency and they refuse to take questions from the public.
>
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Do you understand what that means? Do you know
what a greenhouse is? Try building one, and see if it gets hot inside,
Then you might have a personal knowledge about CO2.
And we might also talk about the effect of CO2 on ocean acidification.
Maybe you don't have a swimming pool,but if you did you would know that
in addition to adding chlorine to prevent algae growth, you have to add
acid to counteract the increase in pH caused by the breakdown of the
chlorine. Guess what they add in many commercial pools as the acid?
Carbon dioxide.
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
> KOdnUz8ksBA6C7W...@giganews.com:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>
>>> Us skeptics are not afraid of open conversation.
>>
>> Indeed, if it were true that I was going to fry to death by using
>> petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
>>
>> IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
>> billions of folks out of their money, however.
>>
>>
> It's much worse than that. Copenhagen wasn't about weather or climate.
> Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
> Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
> big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
> necessary.
>
> Copenhagen was about POLITICS, not science. The UN is always about
> WORLD Government and taxation.
Yes. The "solution" didn't lower CO2 production by one damned molecule.
But it DID move trillions of dollars out of the US and into communist
China.
It's like having someone wake you up in the middle of the night screaming
your house is on fire, and that you must give him all your money NOW or
you'll burn to death and he never mentions anything about fire hoses or
getting out of the house.
What's amusing is how many stupid bastards fell for it.
William Morse
> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
> KOdnUz8ksBA6C7W...@giganews.com:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>
>>> Us skeptics are not afraid of open conversation.
>> Indeed, if it were true that I was going to fry to death by using
>> petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
>>
>> IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
>> billions of folks out of their money, however.
>>
>
> It's much worse than that. Copenhagen wasn't about weather or climate.
> Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
> Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
> big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
> necessary.
>
> Copenhagen was about POLITICS, not science. The UN is always about
> WORLD Government and taxation.
How do you get to work? Do you perhaps use a road provided by a
government? Do you have Huns that rape your wife,kill your children, and
steal all your goods? Or do you have a government that provides police
protection to prevent that from happening? Do your parents get Social
Security and Medicare? Or do you reject that Government subsidy and pay
for all of those costs yourself? Inquiring minds want to know.
Claudius Denk
> Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 7:53 am, "Moist Lipwig" <n...@all.org> wrote:
> >> Claudius Denk wrote in message
>
> >>> Isn't it true, however, that you yourself are unaware of any peer-
> >>> reviewed and/or experimental evidence that CO2 can/does have a
> >>> no such knowledge, do you?
> >> _________________________________________________
>
> >> have personal knowledge of the research regarding that which you
> >> seek to deny then such research does not exist and by extension
> >> people on a single forum refuse to do your research for you?
>
> > Do you really believe that if there was any real evidence that CO2
> > could cause atmospheric warming that the AGW proponents wouldn't make
> > dumbass. �ｿｽWhere are all the professionals in this conversation? �ｿｽWhy
> > do you think they steadfastly refuse to discuss any of this in a
> > they? �ｿｽWhy do they refuse to debate. �ｿｽUs skeptics are not afraid of
> > open conversation. �ｿｽThe proponents, on the otherhand, only communicate
> > through press releases. �ｿｽDo you think this is normal? �ｿｽDo you know of
> > any other science that demands such secrecy? �ｿｽThey're declaring a
> > global emergency and they refuse to take questions from the public.
> > Does this make any sense at all to you?
>
> CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
"greenhouse gas" is not a scientific term. It's a propagandistic
term.
> Do you understand what that means?
Why don't you explain it to us.
> Do you know
> what a greenhouse is? Try building one, and see if it gets hot inside,
> Then you might have a personal knowledge about CO2.
Really. Well aren't you special.
>
> And we might also talk about the effect of CO2 on ocean acidification.
> Maybe you don't have a swimming pool,but if you did you would know that
> in addition to adding chlorine to prevent algae growth, you have to add
> acid to counteract the increase in pH caused by the breakdown of the
> chlorine. Guess what they add in many commercial pools as the acid?
> Carbon dioxide.
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of any peer-reviewed and/
or experimental evidence that CO2 has a thermal effect on the
atmosphere?
Rob Dekker
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8eeaad19-be24-4468...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>> Claudius Denk wrote in message
>>
>> > Isn't it true, however, that you yourself are unaware of any peer-
>> > reviewed and/or experimental evidence that CO2 can/does have a
>> > no such knowledge, do you?
>>
>> _________________________________________________
>>
>> have personal knowledge of the research regarding that which you
>> seek to deny then such research does not exist and by extension
>> people on a single forum refuse to do your research for you?
>
> Do you really believe that if there was any real evidence that CO2
> could cause atmospheric warming that the AGW proponents wouldn't make
> do you think they steadfastly refuse to discuss any of this in a
> they? Why do they refuse to debate. Us skeptics are not afraid of
> open conversation. The proponents, on the otherhand, only communicate
> through press releases. Do you think this is normal? Do you know of
> any other science that demands such secrecy? They're declaring a
> global emergency and they refuse to take questions from the public.
> Does this make any sense at all to you?
>
Thanks for the good laugh Denk.
Do you get paid to spit you denial nonsense ?
Because if you are not, you are in serious need of professional help.
Rob
Rob Dekker
"Mitchell Coffey" <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:3f2f6c62-b7c5-4b5e...@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 31, 1:20 pm, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
>>
>> > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>
>>
>> > petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
>>
>> > IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
>> > billions of folks out of their money, however.
>>
>> It's much worse than that. Copenhagen wasn't about weather or climate.
>> Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
>> Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
>> big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
>> necessary.
>>
>> Copenhagen was about POLITICS, not science. The UN is always about
>> WORLD Government and taxation.
>
> huffed CO2 all day and he seems as normal as before.
>
> Feric Jaggar
>
Tadaaaa !!! We have a new denier on the block.
And such wonderful insightful comments right off the bat.
Now if you can only get your own name right, that would be nice.
Rob
Giga2
> On Mar 31, 12:47 pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And I even think AGW is hyped and not well understood.
>
> For what it is worth - what really worries me is ocean acidification.
Why?
>
> > But you are an idiot.
>
> No doubt about that.
I would say it is an interesting point. Why are the scientists so
scared of showing their data, showing their methodologies and engaging
in open debate? Its not because they are too busy, because they are
worried about what is happening to their grip on the public's fear
buttons, and they are discussing that amongst themselves a lot it
seems from the literature. Could it be they just don't have the
answers, other than 'if it isn't co2 what is it?' If the general
public even got a hint that they might be taxed into the Bronze Age
because of 'if it aint co2 we can't imagine what it could be' it would
all end right there.
Giga2
> On Mar 31, 10:03 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 31, 12:47 pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Does this make any sense at all to you?
>
> > > Yup.
>
> > > And I even think AGW is hyped and not well understood.
>
> > For what it is worth - what really worries me is ocean acidification.
>
How is the magnetosphere linked to fossil fuel use BTW?
Giga2
> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
> KOdnUz8ksBA6C7WnZ2dnUVZ_qwAA...@giganews.com:
> --
> "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
>
> Larry
>
> .
LOL. Have you tried it? The Ipad?
Giga2
> On Mar 31, 11:13�ｿｽam, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 7:53 am, "Moist Lipwig" <n...@all.org> wrote:
>
> > > Claudius Denk wrote in message
>
> > > > Isn't it true, however, that you yourself are unaware of any peer-
> > > > reviewed and/or experimental evidence that CO2 can/does have a
> > > > no such knowledge, do you?
>
> > > _________________________________________________
>
> > > have personal knowledge of the research regarding that which you
> > > seek to deny then such research does not exist and by extension
> > > people on a single forum refuse to do your research for you?
>
> > Do you really believe that if there was any real evidence that CO2
> > could cause atmospheric warming that the AGW proponents wouldn't make
> > do you think they steadfastly refuse to discuss any of this in a
> > they? �ｿｽWhy do they refuse to debate. �ｿｽUs skeptics are not afraid of
> > open conversation. �ｿｽThe proponents, on the otherhand, only communicate
> > through press releases. �ｿｽDo you think this is normal? �ｿｽDo you know of
> > any other science that demands such secrecy? �ｿｽThey're declaring a
> > global emergency and they refuse to take questions from the public.
> > Does this make any sense at all to you?
>
> Yeah, it still tells me that you are uninformed.
>
> Two things:
> 1. Science does not handle public debates well. The reason? The
> general public knows very little about science and are easily swayed.
> Ask any biologist who has tried to debate a creationist.
And yet, partly through the efforts of scientists such as Huxley and
even Dawkins, the general public has generally changed from being
creationists to evolutionists, in educated countries.
>
> 2. Because the info you ask about CO2 has been known for a long long
> time and is not an issue. A 7 second search on google brought me to
> the American Institute of Physics and this info:http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
That is a comprehensive site that'll take some time.
Giga2
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Help to become a professional? And get paid.
Paul J Gans
And to answer his other question, why would professionals waste
their time arguing with him?
Of course, we have a professional in a related field who posts
here regularly, but the OP seems not to know that.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Mitchell Coffey
> "Mitchell Coffey" <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote in message
Look, you think being a denier is easy? You think all one requires is
stupidity and a lack of all moral imperatives? Shoot, I wish I had a
dollar for every time some no-account poseur rides into town thinking
he's one bull goose denier just 'cause he's got no science education,
poor punctuation, the ethics of a polecat and nothing between his
ears? Hey! true denial takes WORK!
And, listen, the names the best part.
Feric Jaggar
Mitchell Coffey
Query: When you discovered that both "Giga" and "Giga1" were taken,
what was so important that you just couldn't let go?
Mitchell Coffey
Kermit
What *I want to know is, are you so stupid that you really think
professionals have nothing more interesting or important to do than to
argue with a clown, or are you so stupid that you think sane people
will believe that?
Please provide evidence that 150 years of science is wrong, that
thousands of freshman physical chemistry students have not confirmed
this in the lab, or that you have any idea what you're talking about.
I would be mildly amused to hear why you think the global conspiracy
to fake AGW started in 1859, however. Prescient evil socialism?
Kermit
"We have always been at war with Eurasia"
Claudius Denk
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
I knew you wouldn't answer the questions.
Kermit
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> Indeed, if it were true that I was going to fry to death by using
> petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
>
> IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
> billions of folks out of their money, however.
You won't fry to death.
What might happen:
Die in a conflagration caused by a war.
Live a life of increasing impoverishment, bitterly blaming the liberal
scientist socialists for causing global warming.
Starve. (If you live in a third world country.)
Be moved into a refugee camp if you live in a coastal plain, and die
of dysentary.
Grow to like pork rind-flavored soy chips and reality TV.
Electrocute yourself peeing on a downed power line.
Kermit
Kermit
> KOdnUz8ksBA6C7WnZ2dnUVZ_qwAA...@giganews.com:
>
> > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> >> Us skeptics are not afraid of open conversation.
>
> > Indeed, if it were true that I was going to fry to death by using
> > petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
>
> > IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
> > billions of folks out of their money, however.
>
> Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
> Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
> big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
> necessary.
>
Because the leaders of the big countries want *so much to give their
power away.
Do you have any actual evidence for this? - because it seems counter-
intuitive.
> Copenhagen was about POLITICS, not science. The UN is always about
> WORLD Government and taxation.
>
Really? The UN is about governments interacting at the global level?
I always thought they were about rainbows and unicorns. I am
disillusioned :(
Now I only have to figure out why I should believe paranoid ideologues
who have no science backing them up. talk.origins is a science focused
newsgroup. Do you have any actual, you know, facts? Or do you only
have unsupported political claims that the science is , well,
political in nature?
BTW, I do want to thank you, the Teabaggers, and the Creationists, for
driving the intelligent conservatives away from the Republican party.
I imagine the effect is lessened in countries where right-wing
wackaloons are not generally considered mainstream.
> --
> "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
>
> Larry
>
> .
Kermit
Steven L.
"William Morse" <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hp0vi...@news1.newsguy.com:
That's a bad example.
The greenhouse effect in a greenhouse is due to the trapping of
radiation by the glass.
> And we might also talk about the effect of CO2 on ocean acidification.
> Maybe you don't have a swimming pool,but if you did you would know that
> in addition to adding chlorine to prevent algae growth, you have to add
> acid to counteract the increase in pH caused by the breakdown of the
> chlorine. Guess what they add in many commercial pools as the acid?
> Carbon dioxide.
You don't even need to do that.
To understand how CO2 acidifies water, just drink a bottle of "sparkling
water" like tonic water or seltzer or something.
-- Steven L.
Robert Grumbine
>
> "William Morse" <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hp0vi...@news1.newsguy.com:
[trim]
>> CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Do you understand what that means? Do you know
>> what a greenhouse is? Try building one, and see if it gets hot inside,
>> Then you might have a personal knowledge about CO2.
>
> That's a bad example.
>
> The greenhouse effect in a greenhouse is due to the trapping of
> radiation by the glass.
Not even that. It's the physical trapping of hot air (suppressing
convection) that keeps a greenhouse warm.
<http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/08/greenhouse-misnomer.html>
For the experimental demonstration and some consideration of
the climate relevance.
[trim]
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Robert Grumbine
> In talk.origins William Morse <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
[trim]
>>CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Do you understand what that means? Do you know
>>what a greenhouse is? Try building one, and see if it gets hot inside,
>>Then you might have a personal knowledge about CO2.
>
>>And we might also talk about the effect of CO2 on ocean acidification.
>>Maybe you don't have a swimming pool,but if you did you would know that
>>in addition to adding chlorine to prevent algae growth, you have to add
>>acid to counteract the increase in pH caused by the breakdown of the
>>chlorine. Guess what they add in many commercial pools as the acid?
>>Carbon dioxide.
>
> And to answer his other question, why would professionals waste
> their time arguing with him?
>
> Of course, we have a professional in a related field who posts
> here regularly, but the OP seems not to know that.
Shh! Let that poor nameless fool have some peace.
When denk/mcginn first arrived in sci.environment, there were
still a few professionals in relevant fields posting to the group.
He was rather the last straw in ensuring that such a state
ended. (When I first started reading the group, in 1990, there were
many such people, and actual science about the environment sometimes
did get discussed. By the time denk/mcginn arrived, most were gone.
And then there were none.)
He, of course, paid no more attention and gave no more civility
to the professionals than to anybody else. Quite the opposite
in fact.
Jeffrey Turner
>
> Feric Jaggar
Great nom du plume. So obscure.
--Jeff
--
Love consists of overestimating
the differences between one woman
and another. --George Bernard Shaw
Jack Dominey
<d2a37f19-337f-40ad...@l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Giga2 <just...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Why are the scientists so
>scared of showing their data, showing their methodologies and engaging
>in open debate?
Scientists do all those things. With people who understand what
they're talking about. What the scientists don't do is waste their
time arguing with people whose only credentials are ignorance and
political agendas.
--
Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
Giga2
Giga2
> In
> <d2a37f19-337f-40ad-9cc5-95ed99426...@l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Giga2<justho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Why are the scientists so
> >scared of showing their data, showing their methodologies and engaging
> >in open debate?
>
> Scientists do all those things. With people who understand what
> they're talking about.
Preaching to the converted then.
What the scientists don't do is waste their
> time arguing with people whose only credentials are ignorance and
> political agendas.
Are you sure? Doesn't that contradict the earlier part of your post
above. Every human being, pretty much, has a 'political agenda' and
none of us know everything, so we have ignorance.
Inez
> On Mar 31, 5:30�pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 10:20�am, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > > Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
> > > KOdnUz8ksBA6C7WnZ2dnUVZ_qwAA...@giganews.com:
>
> > > > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
> > > > Indeed, if it were true that I was going to fry to death by using
> > > > petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
>
> > > > IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
> > > > billions of folks out of their money, however.
>
> > > It's much worse than that. �Copenhagen wasn't about weather or climate. �
> > > Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
> > > Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
> > > big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
> > > necessary.
>
> > wealth by force! �And they're rowing with all their might!
>
> {snip]
>
> Though you gotta admire navies from those mountainous, land-locked
> nations. �Sailor's sailors, you gotta say.
>
The idea of climate scientists pushing the government around while the
oil companies sit by helplessly is probably more absurd, but the
visual isn't as funny.
odin
I don't recall anyone saying that climate scientists are pushing
governments around. That is obviously false. I think the idea being
put forward is rather that government funding and propaganda leads
climate scientists. After all, Lysenko did not wag the dog. He was
just a tail. I also doubt that oil companies worry about it one way or
the other. Energy consumption will go up as population and economic
development continues, especially in China and India. CO2 will
increase no matter what. They are much more concerned with controlling
oil production via media and war than selling AGW theory. But the
greatest power of all is in world finance. The banking sector is even
more powerful than the energy sector. And they have a lot to gain from
carbon cap and trade. That requires AGW theory. Banks would be the
most likely force behind any government AGW propaganda and scientific
finance.
Mark Isaak
Denk has learned that he can get attention by saying things that are
wrong.
That other AGW deniers do not correct his stupidities, even without other
evidence, is enough to show that they do not want their views to become
sidetracked by reality.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Claudius Denk
wrote:
> In
> <d2a37f19-337f-40ad-9cc5-95ed99426...@l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Giga2 <justho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Why are the scientists so
> >scared of showing their data, showing their methodologies and engaging
> >in open debate?
>
> Scientists do all those things. With people who understand what
> they're talking about. What the scientists don't do is waste their
> time arguing with people whose only credentials are ignorance and
> political agendas.
Your description of scientists is indistinguishable from that of a
clergyman.
Larry
a031a4...@l25g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> I don't recall anyone saying that climate scientists are pushing
> governments around. That is obviously false. I think the idea being
> put forward is rather that government funding and propaganda leads
> climate scientists. After all, Lysenko did not wag the dog. He was
> just a tail. I also doubt that oil companies worry about it one way or
> the other. Energy consumption will go up as population and economic
> development continues, especially in China and India. CO2 will
> increase no matter what. They are much more concerned with controlling
> oil production via media and war than selling AGW theory. But the
> greatest power of all is in world finance. The banking sector is even
> more powerful than the energy sector. And they have a lot to gain from
> carbon cap and trade. That requires AGW theory. Banks would be the
> most likely force behind any government AGW propaganda and scientific
> finance.
>
>
>
A very perceptive observation of the true nature of the AGW religion.
Thomas Paine said of religion in "Age of Reason", in 1794, Part 1, Chapt
1: "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to
terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
There are many new "religions" that can be simply added to this
statement, including AGW.....a "New World Order".....
.
Claudius Denk
Excellent point. Or even more broadly, it is our environmental
heritage that opens the door to those that put forth scarier and
scarier environmental scenarios.
> After all, Lysenko did not wag the dog. He was
> just a tail. I also doubt that oil companies worry about it one way or
> the other.
They have a product to sell and they've learned over the years that
the product sells much better if the company avoids swimming against
cultural trends.
> Energy consumption will go up as population and economic
> development continues, especially in China and India. CO2 will
> increase no matter what. They are much more concerned with controlling
> oil production via media and war than selling AGW theory. But the
> greatest power of all is in world finance. The banking sector is even
> more powerful than the energy sector. And they have a lot to gain from
> carbon cap and trade. That requires AGW theory. Banks would be the
> most likely force behind any government AGW propaganda and scientific
> finance.
Wow, talk about scary scenarios.
If this is the case (and I have to admit, what you're saying here
makes a lot of sense) the fight has just begun.
John Wilkins
<a6b1de7d-bd0c-42b9...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Claudius Denk <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In that science is a human activity? Correct. But humans also play
sport, fight wars, fix cars, do plumbing and bake. It's not that the
actor is a human that makes it what it is, but the way the action is
done as part of a larger process. Science is science not because some
inhuman and unattainable moral or methodological standard is reached,
but because it is a process of correction and observation, explanation
and evaluation. This is not a hallmark of a religion, in general, and
it is a hallmark of global warming research.
And by the way, when are you going to respond to my post about your
half-baked cut and paste on what used to be the consensus of science,
in which you get nearly every example wrong (or you source site does)?
Michael Siemon
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> In article
> <a6b1de7d-bd0c-42b9...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> Claudius Denk <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
> And by the way, when are you going to respond to my post about your
> half-baked cut and paste on what used to be the consensus of science,
> in which you get nearly every example wrong (or you source site does)?
Short answer? never. Blow off any (however reasonable) criticism of
your own position, while trumpeting any total crap pretended critique
of what you don't like. Yeah; that's the ticket. Reality be damned.
josephus
> Giga2<just...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 31, 6:22 pm, odin<odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 31, 10:03 am, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 31, 12:47 pm, odin<odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Does this make any sense at all to you?
>>>
>>>
>>>>> And I even think AGW is hyped and not well understood.
>>>
>>>> For what it is worth - what really worries me is ocean acidification.
>>>
>>> Yes. Ocean acidification ...and magnetosphere weakening.
>>
>> How is the magnetosphere linked to fossil fuel use BTW?
>
> Don't underestimate AGWs.
> With a little "fudge factor" they can trick most everything in convenience.
>
> LOL
>
says the fellow that does not understand the math. the fudge factor is
the simplification that makes solutions possible. it true in all kinds
of real processes. so you assume that establishing standard is fudging.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings
josephus
dense does not answer question, he has not goa any stinkin' answers
and he dont want to know any stinkin' answers.
Giga2
> In article
> <a6b1de7d-bd0c-42b9-8f59-19a45f414...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 1, 10:59 am, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid>
> > wrote:
> > > In
> > > <d2a37f19-337f-40ad-9cc5-95ed99426...@l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >Giga2<justho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >Why are the scientists so
> > > >scared of showing their data, showing their methodologies and engaging
> > > >in open debate?
>
> > > Scientists do all those things. With people who understand what
> > > they're talking about. What the scientists don't do is waste their
> > > time arguing with people whose only credentials are ignorance and
> > > political agendas.
>
> > Your description of scientists is indistinguishable from that of a
> > clergyman.
>
> In that science is a human activity? Correct. But humans also play
> sport, fight wars, fix cars, do plumbing and bake. It's not that the
> actor is a human that makes it what it is, but the way the action is
> done as part of a larger process. Science is science not because some
> inhuman and unattainable moral or methodological standard is reached,
> but because it is a process of correction and observation, explanation
> and evaluation. This is not a hallmark of a religion, in general, and
> it is a hallmark of global warming research.
Lol, you just said they won't debate, yourself!
Robert Grumbine
Not sure that he did, but no matter.
You think that debate is about correction? About observation?
Explanation? Evaluation? Nonsense. Debate is about rigidly
and endlessly adhering to a fixed position, whether by defending
that one, or by attacking all others.
Science is quite different from debate on exactly that point.
Science, or, more generally, discussion, requires that you _not_
be unalterably committed to a point. At the end of a scientific
discussion, both parties will have changed their ideas some.
At the end of a debate, the arguers position is exactly what it
was when they started.
That's why creationists, and other science deniers, like debate.
Claudius Denk
> In article
> <a6b1de7d-bd0c-42b9-8f59-19a45f414...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 1, 10:59 am, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid>
> > wrote:
> > > In
> > > <d2a37f19-337f-40ad-9cc5-95ed99426...@l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Giga2 <justho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >Why are the scientists so
> > > >scared of showing their data, showing their methodologies and engaging
> > > >in open debate?
>
> > > Scientists do all those things. With people who understand what
> > > they're talking about. What the scientists don't do is waste their
> > > time arguing with people whose only credentials are ignorance and
> > > political agendas.
>
> > Your description of scientists is indistinguishable from that of a
> > clergyman.
>
> In that science is a human activity? Correct. But humans also play
> sport, fight wars, fix cars, do plumbing and bake. It's not that the
> actor is a human that makes it what it is, but the way the action is
> done as part of a larger process. Science is science not because some
> inhuman and unattainable moral or methodological standard is reached,
> but because it is a process of correction and observation, explanation
> and evaluation. This is not a hallmark of a religion, in general, and
> it is a hallmark of global warming research.
You are delusional and evasive. No real scientist would let a
politician speak for them. Yet in this one discipline all the
scientist that support AGW refuse to discuss their underlying
rationale publicly.
Sometimes when people act like they have something to hide it's
because . . . they have something to hide.
> And by the way, when are you going to respond to my post about your
> half-baked cut and paste on what used to be the consensus of science,
> in which you get nearly every example wrong (or you source site does)?
I vaguely recall seeing it.
Paul J Gans
Well, reality be damned has certain advantages. One gets to
wish for striped unicorns as pets, an ET in your closet, and
eternal springtime.
Besides, it didn't work out too badly for GWBush.
Reality? Just say NO.
[Newsgroups trimmed]
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Robert Grumbine
> On Mar 31, 2:54 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 5:30 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 31, 10:20 am, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
>> > > KOdnUz8ksBA6C7WnZ2dnUVZ_qwAA...@giganews.com:
[trim]
>> > Oh no! Here comes the Kyrgyz Republic's navy to redistribute our
>> > wealth by force! And they're rowing with all their might!
>>
>> {snip]
>>
>> Though you gotta admire navies from those mountainous, land-locked
>> nations. Sailor's sailors, you gotta say.
>>
> The idea of climate scientists pushing the government around while the
> oil companies sit by helplessly is probably more absurd, but the
> visual isn't as funny.
Maybe not to folks who don't have my experience with climate
scientists and government, but, trust me, I'm going to steal it.
Many a meeting I've been to where it'd be a great laugh line,
much better than the Kyrghyz navy.
Mitchell Coffey
You're not very good at trolling, did you know that?
Mitchell Coffey
Claudius Denk
wrote:
> josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Josephus stated:
the fudge factor is the simplification that makes solutions possible.
Dear Josephus,
April Fools day was yesterday.
CD
Mitchell Coffey
Ah! I stand corrected. I'd assumed you'd applied for "Giga" first.
Finding that taken, you'd gone for second best, "Giga1". Yet that
too, by my assumption, had been accounted for. But I was evidently
misapprehended, start-to-finish. So, if I may ask, what was it that
drew you to "Giga2" above all else? Old family name?
Mitchell Coffey
Giga2
I used to be called Giga then changed it to Giga2 when I moved to
Google groups. I didn't even choose Giga as a name actually. I thought
I was naming the account for my own reference, while using the Outlook
express wizard. I was using Giganews to access usenet at the time, so
just wrote Giga so I could differentiate it. Anyway there you go.
Jack Dominey
<c81b07de-bedf-4ebc...@i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Giga2 <just...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 1 Apr, 18:59, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> In
>> <d2a37f19-337f-40ad-9cc5-95ed99426...@l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>What the scientists don't do is waste their
>> time arguing with people whose only credentials are ignorance and
>> political agendas.
>
>Are you sure? Doesn't that contradict the earlier part of your post
>above. Every human being, pretty much, has a 'political agenda' and
>none of us know everything, so we have ignorance.
Yes, I am.
No, it doesn't.
Did the phrase "only credentials" confuse you?
dr yacub
More than a bit retarded you are, eh josepussy?
The perfect demonkrap.
> josepussy
>
> --
> I go sucking doggie dick in the summer
> and eat people shit all the winter
> Its not what you shove in your ass that gets you in trouble
> Its what O'bumbler says aint so. -- Josh Billings
Kleuskes & Moos
Well...
You've made your intellectual level exceedingly clear.
Thanks for that.
josephus
> josephus<dog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
>>> Giga2<just...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 31, 6:22 pm, odin<odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 31, 10:03 am, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 31, 12:47 pm, odin<odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does this make any sense at all to you?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I even think AGW is hyped and not well understood.
>>>>>
>>>>>> For what it is worth - what really worries me is ocean acidification.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Ocean acidification ...and magnetosphere weakening.
>>>>
>>>> How is the magnetosphere linked to fossil fuel use BTW?
>>>
>>> Don't underestimate AGWs.
>>> With a little "fudge factor" they can trick most everything in convenience.
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>> says the fellow that does not understand the math. the fudge factor is
>> the simplification that makes solutions possible. it true in all kinds
>> of real processes. so you assume that establishing standard is fudging.
>
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
>
ok do you know why the distance to earth form the sun in AU is
1.00000003 ? it is because we divide all big numbers by some constant.
it is called a scaling factor.
Giga2
> In
>
> Giga2<justho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On 1 Apr, 18:59, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> >> In
> >> <d2a37f19-337f-40ad-9cc5-95ed99426...@l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >What the scientists don't do is waste their
> >> time arguing with people whose only credentials are ignorance and
> >> political agendas.
>
> >Are you sure? Doesn't that contradict the earlier part of your post
> >above. Every human being, pretty much, has a 'political agenda' and
> >none of us know everything, so we have ignorance.
>
> Yes, I am.
> No, it doesn't.
> Did the phrase "only credentials" confuse you?
Your right, my extreme-views-filter may have kicked in.
William Morse
> In article <8vednXYRC9_PIinW...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. wrote:
>> "William Morse" <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:hp0vi...@news1.newsguy.com:
>
> [trim]
>
>>> CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Do you understand what that means? Do you know
>>> what a greenhouse is? Try building one, and see if it gets hot inside,
>>> Then you might have a personal knowledge about CO2.
>> That's a bad example.
>>
>> The greenhouse effect in a greenhouse is due to the trapping of
>> radiation by the glass.
>
> Not even that. It's the physical trapping of hot air (suppressing
> convection) that keeps a greenhouse warm.
>
> <http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/08/greenhouse-misnomer.html>
>
> For the experimental demonstration and some consideration of
> the climate relevance.
>
> [trim]
>
But it's not even that simple. It is well known that if you want to
minimize energy loss from a building, you should cover the windows at
night. Why? Because otherwise they will lose energy by radiation to the
dark sky, which is at a considerably lower temperature than the window.
But how can this be if the glass doesn't transmit infrared? The answer
(as I understand it) is that it absorbs infrared, transfers infrared,
and emits infrared.
And the greenhouse effect is not due _solely_ to the physical trapping
of hot air. If that were the case any closed structure would be a
greenhouse. What we need for a greenhouse is a structure that admits
more radiation energy than it emits. Which seems to me to be a very good
definition of a greenhouse gas. The science is not the same, but the
analogy is apt. Just my two cent.
Paul J Gans
You've pointed out one of the technical problems in explaining
the situation. As you said above, infrared absorbers are also
infrared emitters. But if you are dealing with CO2 molecules in
the gas phase, then, as you know, the incident IR is from the
ground below. But the reradiated IR is reradiated, to a first
approximation, in all directions. So at the first absorption,
about half the radiation goes back down to the earth while
the other half goes in a random upward direction.
And then that radiation is absorbed by another CO2 molecule
and half is reradiated upward, where the same thing happens,
and half downward, where again it is absorbed and reradiated.
Summing all this up, the thickness of the layer of CO2 is
important, but in any event half the IR is reflected back
to the earth. In most cases the fraction reflected back
is even greater. And then there is the complication of
a CO2 molecule losing energy via collision with another
molecule in the atmosphere...
All of this can be worked out with paper and pencil to an
amazing degree. The result is what is observed; the CO2
acts to trap radiation.
The problem of discussing all this with perfectly intelligent
normal folks is that the sheer complexity of the situation can
make them doubters. The fact that all the science was worked
out 100 years or so ago makes no difference to them. This is
a well understood area, which doesn't make it easy to explain
in great detail.
It is akin to trying to explain why two neutral atoms (think
argon or helium) attract each other when brought close enough
together. The effect is real. The detailed explanation
is long and tedious. What is usually said is that it is
a "quantum mechanical effect", which is really not a detailed
answer at all.
aganunitsi
> >>> "William Morse" <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
The CO2 also does another very important activity upon absorbing IR
radiation - it moves more (thermal increase). There's a *chance* that
an electron, upon absorbing an IR photon, will emit an IR photon. But
the greater chance is that, first, the electron cloud will expand,
thus creating movement in a system of air molecules as CO2 molecules
push out their elbows.
dr yacub
Yep, shit-eater
Paul J Gans
First, the absorption of radiation will not, in itself, change the
translational motion of the molecule to any real extent. What it
does is change the electron distribution within the molecule.
There is a chance of "deactivation" by collision. This will increase
the motion of the molecules and raise the temperature. But the
amount of this versus reradiation depends on several things, among
which is the density of molecules in that region of the atmosphere.
So one thing may happen near the surface, quite another at high
altitutes.
As far as CO2 molecules pushing out their elbows, that won't
happen. The expansion is small and the average distance between
molecules is (relatively) large and gets larger as the density
of the atmosphere decreases.
But the details here don't matter. If the energy does not escape
from the earth, then in the end the earth's temperature goes up.
William Morse
when talking about the dangers of CO2, precisely because the science is
less complicated, or at least I can make it seem less complicated. In
middle class US, most people at least know that if you have a swimming
pool you have to add acid to counteract the increase in pH from adding
hypochlorite. When I tell them that many commercial pools use CO2 as the
acid, it is something they can easily look up. So far there hasn't been
enough focus on ocean acidification for those who profit from emitting
CO2 to have mounted a campaign of obfuscation.
J. J. Lodder
Not really. These are rotation-vibration bands.
The IR sets the molecule spinning, or vibrating, or both.
> There is a chance of "deactivation" by collision. This will increase
> the motion of the molecules and raise the temperature. But the
> amount of this versus reradiation depends on several things, among
> which is the density of molecules in that region of the atmosphere.
In collisions rotational or vibrational energy may be transformed
into translational energy.
The inverse proces of course also occurs.
So the matter shuldn't be discussed
in terms of single IR photons doing this or that.
All one should say is: CO2 molecules absorb IR,
CO2 molecules re-radiate IR.
> So one thing may happen near the surface, quite another at high
> altitutes.
Right. It is a complicated problem
that requires a lot of work to solve properly.
(which of course has been done long ago,
with the well known conclusion)
> As far as CO2 molecules pushing out their elbows, that won't
> happen. The expansion is small and the average distance between
> molecules is (relatively) large and gets larger as the density
> of the atmosphere decreases.
>
> But the details here don't matter. If the energy does not escape
> from the earth, then in the end the earth's temperature goes up.
Right. There really is no room for a: 'this is to hard for me to follow
so it can't be true' kind of attitude,
Jan
josephus
josephus
--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings
mrbawana2u
>
> TROLLING, [?]
Well, stop it, ya' salad-eatin'-arhat. What it is, Mama! What it is, Mama. Right On!
Steven L.
"William Morse" <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hp110...@news2.newsguy.com:
> Larry wrote:
> > Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
> > KOdnUz8ksBA6C7W...@giganews.com:
> >
> >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >>
> >>> Us skeptics are not afraid of open conversation.
> >> Indeed, if it were true that I was going to fry to death by using
> >> petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
> >>
> >> IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
> >> billions of folks out of their money, however.
> >>
> >
> > It's much worse than that. Copenhagen wasn't about weather or climate.
> > Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
> > Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
> > big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
> > necessary.
> >
> > Copenhagen was about POLITICS, not science. The UN is always about
> > WORLD Government and taxation.
>
> How do you get to work? Do you perhaps use a road provided by a
> government? Do you have Huns that rape your wife,kill your children, and
> steal all your goods? Or do you have a government that provides police
> protection to prevent that from happening? Do your parents get Social
> Security and Medicare? Or do you reject that Government subsidy and pay
> for all of those costs yourself? Inquiring minds want to know.
Bad analogy.
One can be appreciative of the services provided by one's *national*
government, without wanting a global regime imposed.
There are some of us who don't buy this "citizen of the world" crap.
-- Steven L.
Kermit
> On Apr 1, 5:00�pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 2:54 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Mar 31, 10:20 am, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
>
> > > > > > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > > > >> Us skeptics are not afraid of open conversation.
>
> > > > > > Indeed, if it were true that I was going to fry to death by using
> > > > > > petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
>
> > > > > > IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
> > > > > > billions of folks out of their money, however.
>
> > > > > It's much worse than that. Copenhagen wasn't about weather or climate.
> > > > > Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
> > > > > Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
> > > > > big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
> > > > > necessary.
>
> > > > wealth by force! And they're rowing with all their might!
>
> > > {snip]
>
> > > Though you gotta admire navies from those mountainous, land-locked
> > > nations. Sailor's sailors, you gotta say.
>
> > The idea of climate scientists pushing the government around while the
> > oil companies sit by helplessly is probably more absurd, but the
> > visual isn't as funny.
>
> I don't recall anyone saying that climate scientists are pushing
> governments around. That is obviously false. I think the idea being
> put forward is rather that government funding and propaganda leads
> climate scientists. After all, Lysenko did not wag the dog. He was
> just a tail. I also doubt that oil companies worry about it one way or
> the other. Energy consumption will go up as population and economic
> development continues, especially in China and India. CO2 will
> increase no matter what. They are much more concerned with controlling
> oil production via media and war than selling AGW theory. But the
> greatest power of all is in world finance. The banking sector is even
> more powerful than the energy sector. And they have a lot to gain from
> carbon cap and trade. That requires AGW theory. Banks would be the
> most likely force behind any government AGW propaganda and scientific
> finance.
Right...
Because the financial giants can't think of any other way to get money
to pass thru their hands, so they have proposed a complex science
which will be revealed as a fraud when it continues to fail to come to
pass(1), and have bribed all the climatologists, fluid dynamics
physicists, ecologists, and oceanographers to fake it. Also, they
expect the oil, gas, and auto industries to go down without a fight.
Sure, that's not crazy paranoid.
Uh-uh.
<backs out of room, slowly>
(1) Except of course, it is coming to pass.
Kermit
P.S. Netiquette requires me to point out that your multi-national
conspiracy involving millions of people offers no supporting evidence.
Kermit
> "William Morse" <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:hp110...@news2.newsguy.com:
>
>
>
> > Larry wrote:
> > > Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
>
> > >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > >>> �Us skeptics are not afraid of open conversation.
> > >> Indeed, if it were true that I was going to fry to death by using
> > >> petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
>
> > >> IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
> > >> billions of folks out of their money, however.
>
> > > It's much worse than that. �Copenhagen wasn't about weather or climate.
> > > Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
> > > Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
> > > big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
> > > necessary.
>
> > > Copenhagen was about POLITICS, not science. �The UN is always about
> > > WORLD Government and taxation.
>
> > How do you get to work? Do you perhaps use a road provided by a
> > government? Do you have Huns that rape your wife,kill your children, and
> > steal all your goods? Or do you have a government that provides police
> > protection to prevent that from happening? Do your parents get Social
> > Security and Medicare? Or do you reject that Government subsidy and pay
> > for all of those costs yourself? Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> Bad analogy.
>
> One can be appreciative of the services provided by one's *national*
> government, without wanting a global regime imposed.
Who's talking about a global government, except US paranoid right-
wingers?
But global problems are going to require international co-operation
and global action.
Ever hear of treaties?
>
> There are some of us who don't buy this "citizen of the world" crap.
>
> -- Steven L.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:20:27 +0000, Larry wrote:
> > Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in news:-
> > KOdnUz8ksBA6C7WnZ2dnUVZ_qwAA...@giganews.com:
>
> >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:13:13 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> >>> �Us skeptics are not afraid of open conversation.
>
> >> Indeed, if it were true that I was going to fry to death by using
> >> petroleum products, I would be very interested to know about it.
>
> >> IT's total bullshit being spouted by a bunch of liars trying to bilk
> >> billions of folks out of their money, however.
>
> > It's much worse than that. �Copenhagen wasn't about weather or climate.
> > Copenhagen was about the implementation of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, as Lord
> > Monckton pointed out in the fine print, to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH from the
> > big countries, like the USA/UK/EU to the 3rd world, by force if
> > necessary.
>
> > Copenhagen was about POLITICS, not science. �The UN is always about
> > WORLD Government and taxation.
>
No one expects it to. The most dramatic solution offered at Copenhagen
would have only slowed down the increase in CO2.
Of course, you knew that, but if you have any say in it, this strawman
will never again disturb the dreams of another SUV salesman.
> But it DID move trillions of dollars out of the US and into communist
> China.
>
Hell, we in the US have been doing that for years.
> It's like having someone wake you up in the middle of the night screaming
> your house is on fire, and that you must give him all your money NOW or
> you'll burn to death and he never mentions anything about fire hoses or
> getting out of the house.
>
> What's amusing is how many stupid bastards fell for it.
Actually, it's like folks who would rather die than go to the doctor,
because they don't want to hear unpleasant news - even though knowing
about a problem, as soon as possible, gives the patient the best
chance for dealing with it.
Histrionics aside, are you ever going to offer evidence besides Glen
Beck whiteboards?
Kermit
Kermit
> On Apr 1, 10:15�pm, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <a6b1de7d-bd0c-42b9-8f59-19a45f414...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 1, 10:59�am, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > > > In
> > > > <d2a37f19-337f-40ad-9cc5-95ed99426...@l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > Giga2 <justho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >Why are the scientists so
> > > > >scared of showing their data, showing their methodologies and engaging
> > > > >in open debate?
>
> > > > Scientists do all those things. �With people who understand what
> > > > they're talking about. �What the scientists don't do is waste their
> > > > time arguing with people whose only credentials are ignorance and
> > > > political agendas.
>
> > > clergyman.
>
> > In that science is a human activity? Correct. But humans also play
> > sport, fight wars, fix cars, do plumbing and bake. It's not that the
> > actor is a human that makes it what it is, but the way the action is
> > done as part of a larger process. Science is science not because some
> > inhuman and unattainable moral or methodological standard is reached,
> > but because it is a process of correction and observation, explanation
> > and evaluation. This is not a hallmark of a religion, in general, and
> > it is a hallmark of global warming research.
>
> You are delusional and evasive. �No real scientist would let a
> politician speak for them. �Yet in this one discipline all the
> scientist that support AGW refuse to discuss their underlying
> rationale publicly.
No, they prefer doing science to debating with mindless idiots.
Plenty of scientists have discussed this subject, and still are, but
folks like you are not interested in learning, nor in any dialog. I
have given you links to evidence, which you ignore, and you repeat
claims in your next post that "there is no evidence". There clearly is
no evidence that can educate you.
I will give lurkers some links to scientists who explain this for any
reasonable and literate person:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php
>
> Sometimes when people act like they have something to hide it's
> because . . . they have something to hide.
>
> > And by the way, when are you going to respond to my post about your
> > half-baked cut and paste on what used to be the consensus of science,
> > in which you get nearly every example wrong (or you source site does)?
>
> I vaguely recall seeing it.
But you will not answer him, will you?
Kermit
odin
> On Apr 1, 5:23�pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
They have thought of many scams to get money to pass through their
hands, not just false science.
They have also used lies, wars, corruption, false media, nationalism,
racism, fear, narcotics, false flags, nepotism, cronyism, torture,
rape, sabotage, religion, education, law, astroturfing, false history,
fiat money, colonialism, murder, to name a few.
> which will be revealed as a fraud when it continues to fail to come to
> pass(1)...
We will never know. If it gets worse, they will say that they told you
it would get worse. If it stays the same or gets better, they will say
that it would have been worse if they had not warned us that it would
get worse. Its like when people argue that invading Iraq really
worked, because we have not had a repeat of 9/11. Nobody asks why we
had hundreds of years before that without a similar incident. Besides,
we are talking about the next 100 years to see changes. If the climate
cools, as it has over the last few years, the just say that it is a
longer term trend that is the issue. But by then there will be a new
scam and nobody will ever wonder what happened to the AGW theory by
then if it does not pan out. Can you name a 100 year old controversy
that has anyone talking nowadays? When I was a kid, it was all about
the Red Scare. And that has been replaced. Nobody thinks about whether
the commies ever were a real problem or not. Now its all about Al-
Qaeda. A hundred years from now it will be the Ziontologists in
Iceland that are out to get us. It�s just a fear treadmill to control
people.
>... and have bribed all the climatologists, fluid dynamics
> physicists, ecologists, and oceanographers to fake it. Also, they
> expect the oil, gas, and auto industries to go down without a fight.
This works without explicit bribing. In fact explicit bribing would
destroy the scam. All the Trofim Lysenko underlings went along with
nonsense. Were they bribed? Jim Jones devotees went along with
nonsense. Were they bribed? Joseph McCarthy? Adolf Hitler?