Re: EVening News: How to fake climate change.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/19/12 12:39 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:38:58 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/12 1:42 AM, bjacoby wrote:
>>> But wait a minute. Why wasn't it the "warmest year on record"? Well
>>> obviously because of our recent exceptionally warm couple of spring
>>> months the time period was carefully cherry-picked to produce the
>>> so-called "records", Never mind that the weather suddenly turned colder
>>> than normal after that.
>>
>> The energy imbalance is 0.6 W/m^2, therefore, the earth is warming
>> and each year is warmer than the last. The trick is to add up all the
>> warming of the oceans, land, seafloor, ice and atmosphere.
>
> What happened to your '30 year' line of B.S.? I guess that works against
> you in this case, doesn't it?
>
> So you drag out this idiot red herring. Try and change the subject..
>
>> The earth in 2012 will be warmer that the earth in 2011. What part of
>> this basic physics are you not getting, Ben?
>
> uh.... If it was any other person, I'd say that was a typo. But knowing
> you, you're just dumb enough to have intentionally written that.


Marvin, you have been wrong in each of your anti-climate science
claims. It is high time you learn how greenhouse gasses work and
why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.

> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
>

[Uncle Ben]

>  >- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Uncle Ben]

On May 19, 2:29 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dawlish]

On May 19, 10:20 pm, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

Bison benny. Explain the bison...........

[Will Janoschka]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 21:20:32, Uncle Ben <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

> On May 19, 2:29�pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/19/12 12:39 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:38:58 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> > >> On 5/18/12 1:42 AM, bjacoby wrote:
> > >>> But wait a minute. Why wasn't it the "warmest year on record"? Well
> > >>> obviously because of our recent exceptionally warm couple of spring
> > >>> months the time period was carefully cherry-picked to produce the
> > >>> so-called "records", Never mind that the weather suddenly turned colder
> > >>> than normal after that.
> >
> > >> � � The energy imbalance is 0.6 W/m^2, therefore, the earth is warming
> > >> � � and each year is warmer than the last. The trick is to add up all the
> > >> � � warming of the oceans, land, seafloor, ice and atmosphere.
> >
> > > What happened to your '30 year' line of B.S.? �I guess that works against
> > > you in this case, doesn't it?
> >
> > > So you drag out this idiot red herring. Try and change the subject..
> >
> > >> � � The earth in 2012 will be warmer that the earth in 2011. What part of
> > >> � � this basic physics are you not getting, Ben?

From Sam W On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:38:58 -0500 post:

" The earth in 2012 will be warmer that the earth in 2012. What part

of this basic physics are you not getting, Ben?"

Why does Uncle Ben, be a Fake Ben, and try to change history!?

Marvin: in response:

> > > uh.... If it was any other person, I'd say that was a typo. But knowing
> > > you, you're just dumb enough to have intentionally written that.

Sam in relpy, Ignoring Marvins obversation, with no regret, sagt:
> >
> > � �Marvin, you have been wrong in each of your anti-climate science

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 13:29:21 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/19/12 12:39 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:38:58 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/18/12 1:42 AM, bjacoby wrote:
>>>> But wait a minute. Why wasn't it the "warmest year on record"? Well
>>>> obviously because of our recent exceptionally warm couple of spring
>>>> months the time period was carefully cherry-picked to produce the
>>>> so-called "records", Never mind that the weather suddenly turned
>>>> colder than normal after that.
>>>
>>> The energy imbalance is 0.6 W/m^2, therefore, the earth is warming
>>> and each year is warmer than the last. The trick is to add up all
>>> the warming of the oceans, land, seafloor, ice and atmosphere.
>>
>> What happened to your '30 year' line of B.S.? I guess that works
>> against you in this case, doesn't it?
>>
>> So you drag out this idiot red herring. Try and change the subject..
>>
>>> The earth in 2012 will be warmer that the earth in 2011. What part
>>> of this basic physics are you not getting, Ben?
>>
>> uh.... If it was any other person, I'd say that was a typo. But knowing
>> you, you're just dumb enough to have intentionally written that.
>
>
> Marvin, you have been wrong in each of your anti-climate science
> claims. It is high time you learn how greenhouse gasses work and why
> human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.

Hello!? Anyone home? Is it even possible for you to reply to the
questions at hand? Do you have to utter something irrelevant (and already
debunked) in every post?

[Uncle Ben]

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Pardon the accidental posts above.

[Uncle Ben]

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Will, old buddy, what the h... are you talking about?

[Uncle Ben]

> Will, old buddy, what the h... are you talking about?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Will, if you think I am a "fake Ben", look at www.greenba.com for
"Uncle Ben 's pages" about relativity. Or look at www.allexperts.com
for an expert on relativity in physics. Or find a telephone directory
for Schenectady, NY and find Ben A. Green. Or show up on my doorstep
at 607 Wagner Rd., Schenectady NY 12302 and get a free beer.

Uncle Ben

[Androcles]

"Uncle Ben" <bgr...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:88e17ff3-b472-44c7...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

===============================================
You are not a fake Bonehead, you are a very real bonehead. After all,
you can't even count to three... x, x', xi, old expert cretin.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/20/12 3:49 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Watt had found that 58% of the temperature gathering sites were so
> situated that they would produce false warming over time due to the
> "urban heat island" effect. Watt actually went to the temperature
> stations (and others who helped him) and saw how they were situated.
>

Marvin, you must be mistaken (as usual).

> What is Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature?
>
> Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature aims to contribute to a clearer understanding of global warming based on a more extensive and rigorous analysis of available historical data. The study has reviewed data from over 39,000 temperature measurement stations across the globe. This is more than five times the 7,280 stations found in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M) that has served as the focus of many climate studies to date.
>
>
> Why is the work being done by Berkeley Earth important?
>
> Existing data used to show global warming have met with much criticism. The Berkeley Earth project attempts to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses by making available an open record to enable rapid response to further criticism and suggestions. Our results include our best estimate for the global temperature change and our estimates of the uncertainties in the record.
>
> We believe that science is nonpartisan and our interest is in getting a clear view of the pace of climate change in order to help policy makers to evaluate and implement an effective response. In choosing team members, we engage people whose primary interests are finding answers to the current issues and addressing the legitimate concerns of the critics on all sides. None of the scientists involved has taken a public political stand on global warming.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/19/12 3:36 PM, bjacoby wrote:

> On 5/19/2012 1:39 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:38:58 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> So you drag out this idiot red herring. Try and change the subject..
>>

>>> The earth in 2012 will be warmer that the earth in 2012. What part of
>>> this basic physics are you not getting, Ben?
>>

>> uh.... If it was any other person, I'd say that was a typo. But knowing
>> you, you're just dumb enough to have intentionally written that.
>

> <snort>!
>
> This is what happens when you have too many lies going at once. You
> can't keep them straight anymore! I think the part of basic physics I'm
> not "getting" is the part that says two equal numbers have one of them
> larger than the other. Bwahahaha!

Ben Jacoby -- I call your attention to a bunch of skeptics, their work
and the conclusions:

> 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/
> http://berkeleyearth.org/faq

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/20/12 3:37 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

> On Sat, 19 May 2012 16:36:46 -0400, bjacoby wrote:
>
>> On 5/19/2012 1:39 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:38:58 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> So you drag out this idiot red herring. Try and change the subject..
>>>
>>>> The earth in 2012 will be warmer that the earth in 2012. What part
>>>> of this basic physics are you not getting, Ben?
>>>
>>> uh.... If it was any other person, I'd say that was a typo. But knowing
>>> you, you're just dumb enough to have intentionally written that.
>>
>> <snort>!
>>
>> This is what happens when you have too many lies going at once. You
>> can't keep them straight anymore! I think the part of basic physics I'm
>> not "getting" is the part that says two equal numbers have one of them
>> larger than the other. Bwahahaha!
>

> It is simple if you use Wormley-logic. Man made global warming means this
> year is warmer than every other year. 2012 is a year, so this year is
> warmer than 2012.

Marvin, I know you have trouble understanding some of these postings,
typos and all, so I'll say again:

The *energy imbalance* is 0.6 W/m^2, moreover, the earth is warming
and each year is warmer than the last. The trick is account for all

the warming of the oceans, land, seafloor, ice and atmosphere.

The earth in 2012 will be warmer that the earth in 2011. What part
of this basic physics are you not getting, Marvin?

[Uncle Ben]

> you can't even count to three... x, x', xi, old expert cretin.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Show quoted text -

Dear Androcles (aka John Parker): Thank you for testifying to my
reality. It is truly
an honor to be noticed by the only physicist in the world who is
convinced that
Albert Einstein, in his 1905 paper on relativity, made two algebraic
errors that led
him to have proved that moving rods expand, not contract, and that
moving clocks
run fast, not slow.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 08:24:04 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/19/12 3:36 PM, bjacoby wrote:
>> On 5/19/2012 1:39 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:38:58 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> So you drag out this idiot red herring. Try and change the subject..
>>>
>>>> The earth in 2012 will be warmer that the earth in 2012. What part of
>>>> this basic physics are you not getting, Ben?
>>>
>>> uh.... If it was any other person, I'd say that was a typo. But
>>> knowing you, you're just dumb enough to have intentionally written
>>> that.
>>
>> <snort>!
>>
>> This is what happens when you have too many lies going at once. You
>> can't keep them straight anymore! I think the part of basic physics I'm
>> not "getting" is the part that says two equal numbers have one of them
>> larger than the other. Bwahahaha!
>
> Ben Jacoby -- I call your attention to a bunch of skeptics, their
> work and the conclusions:

What they say they believe, who they say they are, what they say their
motivations are, are not important. What is important is what they did.

They didn't address the issue of bad data that Watt brought out.
They lied saying they addressed Watt's issue when they did not.

[AGWFacts]

That is an excellent question. How does someone go about faking
climate change?

1) The person would have to some how melt generational ice off of
more than 90% the world's glaciers.

2) The person would have to melt long-term ice from Arctic and
Antarctic.

3) The person would have to increase extreme weather events
world-wide.

4) The person would have to force hundreds of species to move
northward from their current habitats.

5) The person would hqave to heath the world's oceans.

Or in other words, to fake climate change, one has to be
all-powerful.


--
"A 'crank' is defined as a man who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8 Nov 1906

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 13:29:21 -0500, Sam Wormley

<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/19/12 12:39 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:38:58 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 5/18/12 1:42 AM, bjacoby wrote:

> >>> But wait a minute. Why wasn't it the "warmest year on record"? Well
> >>> obviously because of our recent exceptionally warm couple of spring
> >>> months the time period was carefully cherry-picked to produce the
> >>> so-called "records", Never mind that the weather suddenly turned colder
> >>> than normal after that.

> >> The energy imbalance is 0.6 W/m^2, therefore, the earth is warming
> >> and each year is warmer than the last. The trick is to add up all the
> >> warming of the oceans, land, seafloor, ice and atmosphere.

> > What happened to your '30 year' line of B.S.? I guess that works against
> > you in this case, doesn't it?
> >
> > So you drag out this idiot red herring. Try and change the subject..

> >> The earth in 2012 will be warmer that the earth in 2011. What part of
> >> this basic physics are you not getting, Ben?

Er, no, Sam. Earth will have absorbed more energy: that does not
equate to an increase in global average temperature.

> > uh.... If it was any other person, I'd say that was a typo. But knowing
> > you, you're just dumb enough to have intentionally written that.

> Marvin, you have been wrong in each of your anti-climate science
> claims. It is high time you learn how greenhouse gasses work and
> why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.
>
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

"Marvin" does not give a shit about being wrong.

[G=EMC^2]

On May 19, 2:29 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam Knowing there is more water in the air means its warmer. End of
story TreBert

[bjacoby]

On 5/20/2012 9:24 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/19/12 3:36 PM, bjacoby wrote:
>> On 5/19/2012 1:39 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:38:58 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> So you drag out this idiot red herring. Try and change the subject..
>>>
>>>> The earth in 2012 will be warmer that the earth in 2012. What part of
>>>> this basic physics are you not getting, Ben?
>>>
>>> uh.... If it was any other person, I'd say that was a typo. But knowing
>>> you, you're just dumb enough to have intentionally written that.
>>
>> <snort>!
>>
>> This is what happens when you have too many lies going at once. You
>> can't keep them straight anymore! I think the part of basic physics I'm
>> not "getting" is the part that says two equal numbers have one of them
>> larger than the other. Bwahahaha!
>
> Ben Jacoby -- I call your attention to a bunch of skeptics, their work
> and the conclusions:

Snip work measuring urban heat island effects by leftists at Berkeley
who took time out from singing the Internationale to produce more
propaganda.

Sam Wormley, I call your attention to some real scientific facts in this
paper:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

CO2 just a MINOR climate effect. QED.

[Androcles]

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

news:03698a2c-b9ad-455f...@s37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

=================================================
Not two algebraic errors, Bonehead. Many more than that... but
you can't count to three.
1) x
2) x'
2 again) xi

[gordo]

They did 2 calculations one with urban areas and one without. That is
addressing the issue.

[Sam Wormley]

So you keep saying, Ben. Tell me, what is causing the rapid
global warming?

[kym horsell]

[Lazy hat] Just for the record, what was the diff?

--
[On relevancy:]
Termites produce more CO2 than the human species.
-- Melvin of Mars@Boulder, 2 Apr 2012 10:21 -0500

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:04:43 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:


> So you keep saying, Ben. Tell me, what is causing the rapid global
> warming?

Now your stuck on that fallacy again; sort of an "inverse" fallacy
fallacy... where you believe you get to make it up if the other side has
no scientific answer.

Two problems with this argument you're making: it's illogical, and
Svensmark explained most of climate change scientifically.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/20/12 9:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

>
> Now your stuck on that fallacy again; sort of an "inverse" fallacy
> fallacy... where you believe you get to make it up if the other side has
> no scientific answer.
>
> Two problems with this argument you're making: it's illogical, and
> Svensmark explained most of climate change scientifically.
>

Svensmark's work is rebutted soundly.

Marvin, it is high time you learn how greenhouse gasses work and

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 22:36:20 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/20/12 9:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>
>> Now your stuck on that fallacy again; sort of an "inverse" fallacy
>> fallacy... where you believe you get to make it up if the other side
>> has no scientific answer.
>>
>> Two problems with this argument you're making: it's illogical, and
>> Svensmark explained most of climate change scientifically.
>>
>>
> Svensmark's work is rebutted soundly.

Not even close.

You have a couple of straw dogs that were rebutted, and one case where
the earth lost it's magnetic field and the spectra of the cosmic ray flux
changed.

If anything Svensmarks theory is stronger than ever.

And that's a funny statement, as AGW doesn't even have a hypothesis to
rebutt!!

> Marvin, it is high time you learn how greenhouse gasses work and why
> human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.

So, does being a smug assed irrational psychopath work for you in your
real life?

[Sam Wormley]

You used to be a competent researcher, but your rejection of the
climate science makes me doubt that you ever achieved anything.

Please read:

[gordo]

"The main result of this study, that the influence of urban areas on
the global land temperature data set is very small, corroborates the
consensus view among climate scientists, including, for example, the
recent paper by Souleymane Fall and others"
"Roger Pielke Sr comments that: "The nearly identical trends etc"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/BEST-October-2011.html

[bjacoby]

On 5/20/2012 11:50 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

> You used to be a competent researcher, but your rejection of the
> climate science makes me doubt that you ever achieved anything.

Oh wow! I thought only crackpot "deniers" did ad hominem attacks, Sam!

> Please read:
>
> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
> >
> > The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> > http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

Please explain what "climate science" is, Sam. It appears that it's
something amateur astronomers do in their spare time.

Sam, you really need to get with the program that CO2 is not any major
cause of climate change even in your bogus computer models:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/img18.html

Sam, you really need to learn some actual science, instead of all that
media propaganda you fill your head with. Please read the following
paper to find some enlightenment:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/20/12 11:22 PM, bjacoby wrote:
> Sam, you really need to get with the program that CO2 is not any major
> cause of climate change

What is the major cause of global warming, Ben?

[kym horsell]

OK. I found some numbers in there. Just wanted to compare with things I've tinkered with.

--
[The hammer did it:]
I am quite sensitive to the concerns of those who promote the issue of climate
change, but I am also skeptical of their statistical modeling methods because
I believe that these are the same problematic methods that have lead to major
world problems in finance.
-- Dan Rice, linkedin.com Statistics & Analytics, Oct 24 12:34 EST 2011

[kym horsell]

Sam, Sam, Sam.

This is like asking an itinerant tinker what the main cause of cooling in a refrigerator is.

--
[On substance vs surface:]
>Did anyone else try to check his "data"?
I did. Nope. Very messy and slow website.
-- SunDancer@Saginaw, 18 May 2012 6:29:45 PM UTC+10

[Marvin the Martian]

What caused the climate change for the 4 billion years before the last
200 years, Sam?

Do you really think your fallacy is a sound argument?

[Bill Snyder]

The extinction of the dinosaurs was not caused by man, so the
extinction of the passenger pigeon could not have been caused by
man.

Truly brilliant.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[erschro...@gmail.com]

1. That's not a paper; it's an on-line petition.
2. The petition has been "signed" by such scientists as a Spice Girl
and the Three Stooges.

Moron.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/21/12 9:50 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> What caused the climate change for the 4 billion years before the last
> 200 years, Sam?

Mostly greenhouse gasses, Marvin! It is high time you learn

how greenhouse gasses work and why human activity is causing
rapid warming of the planet.

[kym horsell]

...

People kill *people* but guns kill pigeons.

--
[Denialist step #4: Get Persecuted!]
These guys are putting the "kill all the deniers" message out there and
looking at the response. If People agree, that's what they want; If they
don't, then they claim it was a joke.
-- Melvin the Marvin@Boulder, 22 Apr 2012

[Bankers/The Rothschilds/etc] want 6.5 billion people dead. I mean, damn, they literally wrote
that in stone for everyone to see! They figure they need half a billion
drones to service them and keep them in the lifestyle of which they are
accustomed.
-- Melbin the Martin, 21 May 2012 1:45:54 PM UTC+10

half of the people are too stupid to live, they will try to kill the
other half that see the end game.
-- BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com>, 21 May 2012 00:48:37 -0400

[Michael Dobony]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 08:31:57 -0600, AGWFacts wrote:

> That is an excellent question. How does someone go about faking
> climate change?
>
> 1) The person would have to some how melt generational ice off of
> more than 90% the world's glaciers.
>
> 2) The person would have to melt long-term ice from Arctic and
> Antarctic.
>
> 3) The person would have to increase extreme weather events
> world-wide.
>
> 4) The person would have to force hundreds of species to move
> northward from their current habitats.
>
> 5) The person would hqave to heath the world's oceans.
>
> Or in other words, to fake climate change, one has to be
> all-powerful.

There is a vast chasm you need to cross between climate change and AGW.
Climate change has existed since the beginning of climate. The issue is not
climate change, but evidence of the unnatural cause of climate change.

[hanson]

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:KPudnf5P3PO3yyfS...@giganews.com...

> On Sun, 20 May 2012 23:42:45 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 5/20/12 11:22 PM, bjacoby wrote:
>>> Sam, you really need to get with the program that
>>> CO2 is not any major cause of climate change
>>

Sam Wormley wrote:
>> What is the major cause of global warming, Ben?
>

Mike Varney, "Marvin the Martian" wrote:
> What caused the climate change for the 4 billion years
> before the last 200 years, Sam?
> Do you really think your fallacy is a sound argument?
>

hanson wrote:
Mikey, your tripe will go nowhere with Sam, nor with any
of the AGWarmists. These "Always Green Wankers" do
not wanna hear that it is their own enviro-hysteria which
is making a "major cause over global warming".
Their obviously commie-political beliefs prevents them
from seeing it.


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[gordo]

We know there is for you. You want an experiment that is impossible to
construct therefore it can't be CO2 from burning fossil fuels. You
won't accept the evidence which leaves you in the comfortable positon
of knowing for certain that all the scientists are wrong and you are
right.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:36:21 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/21/12 9:50 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> What caused the climate change for the 4 billion years before the last
>> 200 years, Sam?
>
> Mostly greenhouse gasses, Marvin!

Ah, circular logic! You are begging the question again, Worm.

It was certainly NOT man made greenhouse gases.

< snip arrogant, haughty and ignorant mindless spam >

[Marvin the Martian]

It has a papers attached (in six different formats) as well as a link to
a mail in petition and not an "on line" petition. The paper has
references and everything that makes up a paper. I know your knowledge of
science is very weak, but dismissing the direct link to the paper by
claiming it doesn't exist is childish.

The mail in petition is actually on another website. You can see the
first one signed by Edward Teller; maybe you heard of him. You then check
your academic degree and field.

If you cannot even describe the website properly, how can you expect
people to believe that you "refuted it"? And if you describe it wrongly
and deny the obvious truth about the link to the paper and then call
people a "moron" for referring to it, who is the real moron?

[Bill Snyder]

And of course it was peer-reviewed and published, but the dog ate
the evidence of that.

No, on second glance, I find that's not so:

"The article followed the identical style and format of a
contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a
scientific journal,[6] even including a date of publication
("October 26") and volume number ("Vol. 13: 149-164 1999"), but
was not actually a publication of the National Academy. Raymond
Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of
Chicago, said that the article was "designed to be deceptive by
giving people the impression that the article...is a reprint and
has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the article was
full of "half-truths".[14] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the
time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said
that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who
"are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[14]"

"After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences
said in a 1998 news release that "The NAS Council would like to
make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the
National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
or in any other peer-reviewed journal."[15] It also said "The
petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the
Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study
had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our
knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a
potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment
in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the
great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic
surprises."[15]"

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition>

>The mail in petition is actually on another website. You can see the
>first one signed by Edward Teller; maybe you heard of him. You then check
>your academic degree and field.

You can also see, if you're interested, that Edward Teller has
been dead since 2003. So he's unlikely to be on top of the latest
evidence.

>If you cannot even describe the website properly, how can you expect
>people to believe that you "refuted it"? And if you describe it wrongly
>and deny the obvious truth about the link to the paper and then call
>people a "moron" for referring to it, who is the real moron?

You, Marvie. You're dependable that way, if in no other.

[Bill Snyder]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 16:39:36 -0500, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

>The mail in petition is actually on another website. You can see the
>first one signed by Edward Teller; maybe you heard of him.

Oh, and rest assured, folks, that no matter what this might look
like, it is *not* the "appeal to authority" type fallacy. Because
Marvie hates those. Abominates them, despises them, hates 'em
like poison. Just ask him.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/21/12 4:32 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:36:21 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 5/21/12 9:50 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> What caused the climate change for the 4 billion years before the last
>>> 200 years, Sam?
>>
>> Mostly greenhouse gasses, Marvin!
>
> Ah, circular logic! You are begging the question again, Worm.
>
> It was certainly NOT man made greenhouse gases.
>

In the case of this current rapid global warming the evidence is
overwhelming that it is human activity and fossil fuel burning
is driving the rapid global temperature increase.

[bjacoby]

On 5/21/2012 7:19 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

> In the case of this current rapid global warming the evidence is
> overwhelming that it is human activity and fossil fuel burning
> is driving the rapid global temperature increase.

Sam, you really need an education in science. The rapid global warming
has overwhelming evidence that it is caused by U.S. Postal rate increases.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/

> Marvin! It is high time you learn how greenhouse gasses work and
> why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.

Sam, it's high time you started to understand that your fraud and scam
is falling apart and even if it weren't a little pipsqueak like you is
NEVER going to see any of that money like Hansen. You are nothing but a
"useful idiot" to the big dogs running this scheme. Wise up.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 18:19:34 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/21/12 4:32 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:36:21 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/21/12 9:50 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>> What caused the climate change for the 4 billion years before the
>>>> last 200 years, Sam?
>>>
>>> Mostly greenhouse gasses, Marvin!
>>
>> Ah, circular logic! You are begging the question again, Worm.
>>
>> It was certainly NOT man made greenhouse gases.
>>
>>
> In the case of this current rapid global warming the evidence is
> overwhelming

POST HOC.

[Bill Snyder]

BULL SHIT.

And also, DOG ATE YOUR EVIDENCE AGAIN, HUH, MARVIE?

[Sam Wormley]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-hoc_analysis

In the design and analysis of experiments, post-hoc analysis consists
of looking at the data for patterns that were not specified a priori.
It is sometimes called by critics data dredging to evoke the sense
that the more one looks the more likely something will be found.

However, the results are clear:

> Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's energy balance
> http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html
>
> 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/
> http://berkeleyearth.org/faq
>
> 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

[kym horsell]

On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:01:33 AM UTC+10, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/22/12 9:38 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2012 18:19:34 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/21/12 4:32 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:36:21 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 5/21/12 9:50 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> >>>>> What caused the climate change for the 4 billion years before the
> >>>>> last 200 years, Sam?
> >>>>
> >>>> Mostly greenhouse gasses, Marvin!
> >>>
> >>> Ah, circular logic! You are begging the question again, Worm.
> >>>
> >>> It was certainly NOT man made greenhouse gases.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> In the case of this current rapid global warming the evidence is
> >> overwhelming
> >
> > POST HOC.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-hoc_analysis
>
> In the design and analysis of experiments, post-hoc analysis consists
> of looking at the data for patterns that were not specified a priori.
> It is sometimes called by critics data dredging to evoke the sense
> that the more one looks the more likely something will be found.

In a former age we used to distringuish between what was called
"hypothesis testing" and "statistical exploration".

Both are equally valid and have a sound formal basis.

Hypothesis testing is the basic tool we usually learn from K12 -- how
to decide whether 2 population means are the same, e.g.

Statistical exploration is the basis of data mining. It can be done in a very
unsound manner - i.e. just by "looking for patterns in the numbers".
Or it can be done soundly.

As you say, if you don't do it right you will be misled by the answers.
If you test all kinds of possibilities and one of them is found to be
"significantly" associated with your hypothesis there is really no surprise.
SOME pattern is likely to turn up if you look hard enough.

However, it can usually be made statistically sound by adjusting the degrees of freedom in the problem to count all those different possibilities you tried and rejected before you found one that "matched".

One of the rules of thumb for, e.g., the F test when an "all by all"
is done in certain tests is to replace the df num, den by sqrt(num), den.
This essentially adjusts for the e.g. 2^num possibile subsets you tested
before finding one you "liked". It won't show up as significant using
the adjusted df unless it is very very significant as a stand-alone hypothesis.

It should remind the Q physics people of aspects of Q measurement theory.
Turns out classical prob has the same kinds of funny business, too.
If you just do the 1 hypothesis test you are confident at some level
the null is accepted or rejected; if you did a test BEFORE that one and
gained some knowlege about the same thing, the confidence if something different! Somehow what you knew before somehow "affects" (loosly)
the result of the experiment you are about to do now.

> However, the results are clear:
>
> > Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's energy balance
> > http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html
> >
> > 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/
> > http://berkeleyearth.org/faq
> >
> > 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

--
He has a long lists of straw man fallacies to support his fallacy fallacy.
Most of them have false premises, tho'.
-- Marvil the Venusian@Boulder, 18 Mar 2012 07:31 -0500

To "protest too much" is to insist so strongly about something not being true that people begin to suspect maybe it is true.
-- http://www.goenglish.com/ProtestTooMuch.asp

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 21, 10:01 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 5/21/2012 7:19 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > In the case of this current rapid global warming the evidence is
> > overwhelming that it is human activity and fossil fuel burning
> > is driving the rapid global temperature increase.
>
> Sam, you really need an education in science. The rapid global warming
> has overwhelming evidence that it is caused by U.S. Postal rate increases.
>

> http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-...
>

Sorry, a denialist blog is no more "evidence" than your ability to
write is evidence of intelligence.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 21, 5:39 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

Yeah, just not scientific ones.

>as well as a link to
> a mail in petition and not an "on line" petition.

It's an on-line petition. Have you read anything about it?

>The paper has
> references and everything that makes up a paper.

It might seem so to a simple mind.

> I know your knowledge of
> science is very weak, but dismissing the direct link to the paper by
> claiming it doesn't exist is childish.

I know what scientific papers are -- those things in scientific
journals you ignore and dismiss.

>
> The mail in petition is  actually on another website. You can see the
> first one signed by Edward Teller; maybe you heard of him. You then check
> your academic degree and field.

Teller? He's your climate expert?

>
> If you cannot even describe the website properly, how can you expect
> people to believe that you "refuted it"? And if you describe it wrongly
> and deny the obvious truth about the link to the paper and then call
> people a "moron" for referring to it, who is the real moron?

Because the petition is a hoax, a sham. And you fell for it. That
does make you the moron.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 10:01:33 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/22/12 9:38 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 18:19:34 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/21/12 4:32 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:36:21 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/21/12 9:50 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>>>> What caused the climate change for the 4 billion years before the
>>>>>> last 200 years, Sam?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mostly greenhouse gasses, Marvin!
>>>>
>>>> Ah, circular logic! You are begging the question again, Worm.
>>>>
>>>> It was certainly NOT man made greenhouse gases.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> In the case of this current rapid global warming the evidence is
>>> overwhelming
>>
>> POST HOC.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-hoc_analysis
>
> In the design and analysis of experiments, post-hoc analysis consists
> of looking at the data for patterns that were not specified a priori.
> It is sometimes called by critics data dredging to evoke the sense
> that the more one looks the more likely something will be found.

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

Post hoc fallacy.

You're making one of the most basic stupid blunders. No real scientist
would do it.

[Bill Snyder]

But the dog ate the evidence.

[Sam Wormley]

You are so funny, Marvin! Your position on climate science is your
biggest blunder yet!

Marvin, it's high time you learned how greenhouse gasses work and

[bjacoby]

On 5/22/2012 5:53 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:

> You are so funny, Marvin! Your position on climate science is your
> biggest blunder yet!
>
> Marvin, it's high time you learned how greenhouse gasses work and
> why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.

> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
> >
> > The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> > http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

Sam, it's high time you learned that you are worshiping lies and
fairy-tales! CO2 is NOT a major effect.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/img18.html

Sam, even your "positive feedback theory" doesn't boost CO2 to a major
greenhouse effect. If this illustration is wrong please provide the
scientific evidence of it. So far you have not. So far you simply play
deaf and dumb as if this data does not exist. And all your minions do is
call everybody names. They obviously have even less scientific ability
than you seem to.

So what's it going to be Sam, Science or fairy-tales? Tell us.

[Bill Snyder]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:31:27 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

Oh, wow, a *slide*! That sure sews it up. It may be from that
same Petition Project web site, it may have no axis markings and
no error bars and no attribution, and it may make no particular
sense, let alone prove anything, but it's a *slide*. Better
surrender before he brings out the *really* heavy artillery, like
PowerPoint.

[Sam Wormley]

Kind of makes you wonder why Ben is not interested in climate
science. He post here, just to get a response, like it was a
video game. Ben, how come you are not interested on climate
science?

[kym horsell]

It could all be an act. Ben apparently did a minor in theatre. Maybe even tried out in lala. So now he's waiting for callbacks & is here perfecting his kooky denier persona for another go.

--
[On overcompensating:]
A person would have to be INSANE!!!!!!!! to ignore all this dire
scientific data. How can any of you not be worried sick over this?
Science PROVES \[supports, not proves\] this is correct! WAKE UP!
-- Ben Jacoby@wotnoh, 5/5/12 1:38 AM

[Marvin the Martian]

just post the hypothesis in mathematical (or even logical) form, and show
how it predicts.

Science is really very simple. You make a hypothesis, and you test it.

Well, where's the hypothesis, and where is the test.

And please don't just mindlessly lie again and say that there has been
warming for the last 15 years. Even P.D. Jones says that is not true.

< snip Sam's mindless cut and paste spam >

You don't think much, do you?

[Marvin the Martian]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:21:10 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:


> Kind of makes you wonder why Ben is not interested in climate
> science. He post here, just to get a response, like it was a video
> game. Ben, how come you are not interested on climate science?

Why do you tell lies Sam? That's obviously a lie. Your claims of warming
over the last 15 years is a lie - temperatures have been steady. You lie
about having a hypothesis, and you never state it.

[gordo]

Why is it that the last decade has been the warmest since records have
been taken? Dr Jones said nothing about no warming in the last 15
years. Is there some reason that you are out of touch with reality?

[gordo]

Why was the last decade the warmest since records have been taken? It
is going to get warmer again and that is almost a certainty. Your last
dodge will be that climate always changes. In this case the
prediction by scientists is up.

[R Kym Horsell]

With all this projecting of "lies" every few minutes, I trust
Zimmerman(?) et al check that thesis properly.

--
What part of "put the people who disagree with me to death", which is
what [James Hansen] said UNDER OATH TO CONGRESS, did you find to be "honest and caring"?
-- Melvin on Mars@Boulder, 11 May 2012 11:11 am

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware
of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my
opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity
and nature.
-- James Hansen, Congressional briefing, 23 Jun 2008

[bjacoby]

QED.

[bjacoby]

On 5/22/2012 11:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:53:25 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

>> You are so funny, Marvin! Your position on climate science is your
>> biggest blunder yet!

> And please don't just mindlessly lie again and say that there has been
> warming for the last 15 years. Even P.D. Jones says that is not true.
>
> < snip Sam's mindless cut and paste spam>
>
> You don't think much, do you?

Marvin, Sam doesn't need to think. All he and his minions need to do is
parrot his idiocy and denigrate anyone pointed out their errors. And
then do it over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

Propaganda takes no science. Recess name-calling takes no science or
even intelligence. Kids do it just fine. (I can hardly wait until Snider
finds out my shirts have "fag tags" on them!)

The real scientific question of interest, would be if there really are
people on the internet actually so uneducated, so dumb, and so
inexperienced in life that somehow they become convinced that Wormley's
arguments make sense. I personally doubt that anyone can be that
stooopid, but then nobody ever went broke underestimating the
intelligence of the American public.

[Bill Snyder]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 03:52:53 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

Yup. Says it all about the shit you post, really.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/22/12 10:58 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Your claims of warming over the last 15 years is a lie - temperatures have been steady.

Marvin, ignores the warming of sea and ice. Marvin also forgets
that one of the last two years was the warmest on record for more
than a century.

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

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/22/12 10:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> And please don't just mindlessly lie again and say that there has been
> warming for the last 15 years. Even P.D. Jones says that is not true.

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

[Falcon]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 08:48:00 -0500
Sam Wormley wrote...

Catastrophic warming.
http://i45.tinypic.com/eiozyu.jpg

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

[Falcon]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 08:46:56 -0500
Sam Wormley wrote...

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/23/12 8:52 AM, Falcon wrote:
>
> Catastrophic warming.
> http://i45.tinypic.com/eiozyu.jpg
>


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

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 22, 6:31 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 5/22/2012 5:53 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > You are so funny, Marvin! Your position on climate science is your
> > biggest blunder yet!
>
> > Marvin, it's high time you learned how greenhouse gasses work and
> > why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.
> >  > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> >  >http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> >  > The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> >  >http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
>
> Sam, it's high time you learned that you are worshiping lies and
> fairy-tales!  CO2 is NOT a major effect.
>
> http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/img18.html

So you believe an on-line petition trumps papers in scientific
journals? Have you been promoted to Moron First Class?

>
> Sam, even your "positive feedback theory" doesn't boost CO2 to a major
> greenhouse effect. If this illustration is wrong please provide the
> scientific evidence of it. So far you have not. So far you simply play
> deaf and dumb as if this data does not exist. And all your minions do is
> call everybody names. They obviously have even less scientific ability
> than you seem to.
>
> So what's it going to be Sam, Science or fairy-tales? Tell us.

Read some science.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

The last 12 months have been the warmest in human history.
The last time a month was below the 20th century average temp was in
1985.

Now, those two facts would tell most sane people the earth is warming.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 23, 9:52 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 08:48:00 -0500
>
> Sam Wormley wrote...
>
> > On 5/22/12 10:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > > And please don't just mindlessly lie again and say that there has been
> > > warming for the last 15 years. Even P.D. Jones says that is not true.
>
> > See:http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>

> Catastrophic warming.http://i45.tinypic.com/eiozyu.jpg

>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)

Oh, the mysterious graph again, with no reference and no source.

Try graphjam.com -- you can all kinds of pretty graphs there.

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

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

> Marvin, ignores the warming of sea and ice. Marvin also forgets
> that one of the last two years was the warmest on record for more
> than a century.

Did you know the Russian Academy of Science has declared global warming
is ending?

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/russische-wissenschaftler-melden-globale-erwaermung-geht-zu-ende/

[bjacoby]

Oh wait, that's just a SLIDE. That can't have any information on it!
Maybe next you'll be posting something really strong like POWER POINT!

(With a tip of the hat to Snider for that idiot slam!)

Sam, why do you lie and then when PROVEN To be a liar you just repeat
the lie as if nobody heard that you are a liar? That temperature record
sure looks FLAT to me! Can you address this problem for us? Or are you
must going to post another link to your "proof" that CO2 is a greenhouse
gas again?

And in any case, as Sam Wormley informed us over and over back when
weather was cold: Weather is not Climate!

[bjacoby]

There is no "bigger picture" Sam. The "picture" is that you Just stated:
(AND I QUOTE)

"Marvin also forgets that one of the last two years was the warmest on
record for more than a century."

So why is the temperature record FLAT? How does a "big picture" change
that? How can you say the last two years are a "hockey stick" when
clearly they are not. Why don't you answer this challenge to your
obvious lies?

Please explain in SCIENTIFIC TERMS the clear discrepancies between THIS:

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

And THIS:

http://i45.tinypic.com/eiozyu.jpg

They can't both be right, can they?

We'll wait.

[Bill Snyder]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 13:26:39 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

>On 5/23/2012 9:52 AM, Falcon wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 23 May 2012 08:46:56 -0500
>> Sam Wormley wrote...
>>>
>>> On 5/22/12 10:58 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>> Your claims of warming over the last 15 years is a lie -
>>>> temperatures have been steady.
>>>
>>> Marvin, ignores the warming of sea and ice. Marvin also forgets that
>>> one of the last two years was the warmest on record for more than a
>>> century.
>>>
>>>> http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>>
>> Catastrophic warming.
>> http://i45.tinypic.com/eiozyu.jpg
>
>Oh wait, that's just a SLIDE. That can't have any information on it!
>Maybe next you'll be posting something really strong like POWER POINT!
>
>(With a tip of the hat to Snider for that idiot slam!)

Sorry, shit-bot, but that one has markings on the axes and
identifies itself as representing GISS data. It doesn't even
qualify as a candidate for the "who do you think you're fooling"
award that you win so often.

[Bill Snyder]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 13:35:13 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

What part of the concept of an "average" are you clowns incapable
of understanding here, shit-bot? I doubt anyone is willing to try
to educate you all the way up from first grade.

[kym horsell]

On Thursday, May 24, 2012 3:50:21 AM UTC+10, Bill Snyder wrote:
[... some rube fails statistics ... ]

> What part of the concept of an "average" are you clowns incapable
> of understanding here, shit-bot? I doubt anyone is willing to try
> to educate you all the way up from first grade.

Mebbe we just turn to our old pal BONZO for a lesson in how not to do it.



[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 [i.e. small enough compared with the 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

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 23, 12:34 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >   Marvin, ignores the warming of sea and ice. Marvin also forgets
> >   that one of the last two years was the warmest on record for more
> >   than a century.
>
> Did you know the Russian Academy of Science has declared global warming
> is ending?
>

> http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/russische-wissenschaftler...

No, EIKE is a denialist site.

The Russian Academy of Sciences signed onto a statement in 2007 which
included this wording:

In 2005, the Academies issued a statement emphasising that climate
change was occurring and could be attributed mostly to human
activities, and calling for efforts to tackle both the causes of
climate change and the inevitable consequences of past and unavoidable
future emissions. Since then the IPCC has published the Working Group
1 part of the Summary for Policymakers of its fourth assessment
report, and further reports are expected later this year from IPCC.
Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 23, 1:35 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 5/23/2012 10:01 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 5/23/12 8:52 AM, Falcon wrote:
>
> >> Catastrophic warming.
> >>http://i45.tinypic.com/eiozyu.jpg
>
> >  > Bigger Picture:
> >  >http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>
> >  > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> >  >http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> >  > The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> >  >http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
>
> There is no "bigger picture" Sam. The "picture" is that you Just stated:
> (AND I QUOTE)
>
> "Marvin also forgets that one of the last two years was the warmest on
> record for more than a century."
>
> So why is the temperature record FLAT?

Why do pigs fly? Oh, they don't?

The preceding 12 months was the hottest 12-month period in human
history.

>How does a "big picture" change
> that? How can you say the last two years are a "hockey stick" when
> clearly they are not. Why don't you answer this challenge to your
> obvious lies?

Why don't you stop making up things?

>
> Please explain in SCIENTIFIC TERMS the clear discrepancies between THIS:
>
> http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>
> And THIS:
>
> http://i45.tinypic.com/eiozyu.jpg

Why don't you tell us where this came from?

>
> They can't both be right, can they?

Obviously. The one with no attribution, no source, no reference --
why would you trust that?


>
> We'll wait.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/23/12 12:35 PM, bjacoby wrote:

>
> So why is the temperature record FLAT? How does a "big picture" change
> that? How can you say the last two years are a "hockey stick" when
> clearly they are not. Why don't you answer this challenge to your
> obvious lies?
>
> Please explain in SCIENTIFIC TERMS the clear discrepancies between THIS:
>
> http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
>
> And THIS:
>
> http://i45.tinypic.com/eiozyu.jpg
>
> They can't both be right, can they?
>
> We'll wait.

Data from about 1 million ocean temperature profiles show that the
ocean has been taking up heat at a rate of 0.6 W/m2 (averaged over
the full surface of the Earth) for the period 1993–2003.

Ref: http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/willis_jgr_04.pdf

The energy imbalance is 0.6 W/m^2, therefore, the earth is warming
and each year is warmer than the last. The trick is to add up all
the warming of the oceans, land, seafloor, ice and atmosphere.

The earth in 2012 will be warmer that the earth in 2011. What part
of this basic physics are you not getting, Ben?

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

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

> Ref: http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/willis_jgr_04.pdf
>
> The energy imbalance is 0.6 W/m^2, therefore, the earth is warming
> and each year is warmer than the last. The trick is to add up all
> the warming of the oceans, land, seafloor, ice and atmosphere.
>
> The earth in 2012 will be warmer that the earth in 2011. What part
> of this basic physics are you not getting, Ben?

The Russian Academy of Science has declared global warming is ending.

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/russische-wissenschaftler-melden-globale-erwaermung-geht-zu-ende/

[Bill Ward]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:06:46 -0700, kym horsell wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 9:21:10 AM UTC+10, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 5/22/12 5:46 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:

>> > On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:31:27 -0400, bjacoby<bja...@iwaynet.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 5/22/2012 5:53 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> >>

>> >>> You are so funny, Marvin! Your position on climate science is your
>> >>> biggest blunder yet!
>> >>>

>> >>> Marvin, it's high time you learned how greenhouse gasses work and
>> >>> why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.
>> >>

>> >>> > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
>> >>> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
>> >>> > http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
>> >>

>> >> Sam, it's high time you learned that you are worshiping lies and
>> >> fairy-tales! CO2 is NOT a major effect.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/img18.html
>> >>

>> >> Sam, even your "positive feedback theory" doesn't boost CO2 to a
>> >> major greenhouse effect. If this illustration is wrong please
>> >> provide the scientific evidence of it. So far you have not. So far
>> >> you simply play deaf and dumb as if this data does not exist. And
>> >> all your minions do is call everybody names. They obviously have
>> >> even less scientific ability than you seem to.
>> >>
>> >> So what's it going to be Sam, Science or fairy-tales? Tell us.
>> >

>> > Oh, wow, a *slide*! That sure sews it up. It may be from that same
>> > Petition Project web site, it may have no axis markings and no error
>> > bars and no attribution, and it may make no particular sense, let
>> > alone prove anything, but it's a *slide*. Better surrender before he
>> > brings out the *really* heavy artillery, like PowerPoint.
>> >
>> >
>> >

>> Kind of makes you wonder why Ben is not interested in climate
>> science. He post here, just to get a response, like it was a video
>> game. Ben, how come you are not interested on climate science?
>

> It could all be an act. Ben apparently did a minor in theatre. Maybe
> even tried out in lala. So now he's waiting for callbacks & is here
> perfecting his kooky denier persona for another go.

Now there's a fine example of projection from Horsell the poseur.

[Marvin the Martian]

I would point out that public school systems have not taught logic since
before my day, and I remember Eisenhower as President. The plan was to
teach logic as part of English and essay writing. If you didn't go to a
Catholic school or didn't pick up a book and study logic on your own, you
don't have a clue and can't even tell if your arguments are unsound.

Most people cannot tell a sound argument from an unsound one.

Now I would point to the science grades of high school students. If
science were a requirement about half of the students would not pass high
school. As a representative sample, I offer Washington State(1). That's
for a HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL of competence, and that isn't very high at all,
and lately it is gone to hell.

There are a lot of people out there who learned logic from television -
that logic is being unemotional like "Mister Spock". Further, they don't
even have a grasp of high school level science. Lastly, consider that
half of all the people out there have a below average intelligence.

And consider that Lloyd Parker even "teaches" chemistry at some junior
college out there, and how little he knows even about chemistry.

So, can they be fooled by Wormley, or even that missing link fellow,
Snider? Oh hell yes! The masses of folks are totally dependent upon
having others tell them what to think, so "appeal to authority" and
"bandwagon" fallacies are quite effective.

The only saving grace is that many of them noticed that they were
freezing their asses off when Al Gore was screaming global warming, and
that AGW is entirely a left wing political cause. They also can see what
the AGW politicians want to do with AGW as the excuse: raise taxes and
force people back into a stone age lifestyle. Fallacies yes, but their
popular conclusion is correct even if based on a fallacies.

Our own arguments are ineffective. The average person cannot follow them
at all. Wormley, Snider, and Parker have no hope of following them even
as we point out to them the errors of the folks who are telling them what
to think.


(1) <http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx?year=2010-11>

[Marvin the Martian]

Which is "land surface area" and not mean global temperature. Land
surface temps are based on badly situated weather stations, 58% of which
SHOULD show UHI effects more closely correlated to fossil fuel lose than
climate change.

And even so, this does not disprove what P.D. Jones said about mean
global temperature. It is irrelevant.

Do you know what "relevant" is, Wormley?

[Marvin the Martian]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 08:59:06 -0700, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:


> The last 12 months have been the warmest in human history.

It is clear you do not know the difference between T and dT/dt.

The "never before fallacy" is a form of the post hoc fallacy.

As usual, you not only use unsound logic you use a false premise. It is
clear they fudged the data from the CRU e-mails. For one, the Medieval
and Roman warm periods were much warmer than today, so the "warmest in
human history" line is a damned lie you're telling.

And your temperature data comes from using surface weather stations that
are known to not follow the scientific protocol developed to place them,
and they SHOULD show UHI effects.

[Marvin the Martian]

Yes, and now the peak of the maximum is the rate of change of the maximum.

No student of calculus would mistake T evaluated at dT/dt = 0 for a high
value of dT/dt, save for Wormley and Parker.

It gets old.

[Marvin the Martian]

You know what's funny, is that I actually read journals. You seem to be
ignorant of how much crap gets published. I have an AIP conference
proceeding 228 on my shelf. Do you know what that implies using your
"everything published is gospel" belief?

You'd have to be a putz to think that everything that gets published is
god's own gospel. I've seen who does the peer reviews, and it isn't
usually the prof who the paper was given to.

You'd think, from the "letters" part of the journals, that you'd know
that there was some dispute with many of the published articles. But I
guess you didn't understand that.

And lastly, we know from the CRU e-mails that the entire peer review
process in the field of climatology has been gamed, just to fool fools
like you.

Sorry, Parker, to do science you can't do it by what gets published, what
you think is consensus, or any other such nonscience. You actually have
to DO the science.

[Marvin the Martian]

So, you're saying that your getting your silly little mantra from a paper
which fails to define "the system" properly.

And, of course, you have no idea what that means. Well, it means that
they're making the presumption that the only source of heat is from the
sun, and that there is no such thing as deep ocean currents and the heat
in that water.

'k.

[Falcon]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 06:36:09 -0500
Marvin the Martian wrote...

>
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 17:15:16 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 5/23/12 12:35 PM, bjacoby wrote:
> >
> >
> >> So why is the temperature record FLAT? How does a "big picture" change
> >> that? How can you say the last two years are a "hockey stick" when
> >> clearly they are not. Why don't you answer this challenge to your
> >> obvious lies?
> >>
> >> Please explain in SCIENTIFIC TERMS the clear discrepancies between
> >> THIS:
> >>
> >> http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/10/111021144716-large.jpg
> >>
> >> And THIS:
> >>
> >> http://i45.tinypic.com/eiozyu.jpg
> >>
> >> They can't both be right, can they?
> >>
> >> We'll wait.
> >
> >
> > Data from about 1 million ocean temperature profiles show that the
> > ocean has been taking up heat at a rate of 0.6 W/m2 (averaged over

> > the full surface of the Earth) for the period 1993?2003.

> >
> > Ref: http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/willis_jgr_04.pdf
> >
> > The energy imbalance is 0.6 W/m^2, therefore, the earth is warming
> > and each year is warmer than the last. The trick is to add up all the
> > warming of the oceans, land, seafloor, ice and atmosphere.
> >
> > The earth in 2012 will be warmer that the earth in 2011. What part of
> > this basic physics are you not getting, Ben?
>
> So, you're saying that your getting your silly little mantra from a paper
> which fails to define "the system" properly.
>

[..]

He's also cited an old 2004 (i.e. pre-ARGO) article as evidence that:
the earth is warming, that each year is warmer than the last, and that
2012 will be warmer than 2011. I guess that's the way modern climate
science works these days.

What happened to the good old days when all that mattered was what was
happening to global surface temperatures? What changed? Oh yes, I
remember now ... The planet stopped playing.

http://i49.tinypic.com/1zgdh1x.jpg

[Marvin the Martian]

Yeah. It disagrees with "experiment", and as Feynman said...

"In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we
guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would
be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the
result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience,
compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees
with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to
science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It
does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or
what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is
all there is to it."

[Bill Snyder]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 04:36:53 -0500, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 May 2012 08:59:06 -0700, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> The last 12 months have been the warmest in human history.
>
>It is clear you do not know the difference between T and dT/dt.
>
>The "never before fallacy" is a form of the post hoc fallacy.
>
>As usual, you not only use unsound logic you use a false premise. It is
>clear they fudged the data from the CRU e-mails.

But the dog ate the clearness.

>For one, the Medieval
>and Roman warm periods were much warmer than today, so the "warmest in
>human history" line is a damned lie you're telling.

But the dog ate all the evidence of how warm they were.

>And your temperature data comes from using surface weather stations that
>are known to not follow the scientific protocol developed to place them,
>and they SHOULD show UHI effects.

But the dog ate the evidence.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/24/12 4:15 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Most people cannot tell a sound argument from an unsound one.

Uh... Marvin... Do you realize you are describing yourself?

Marvin! It is high time you learned how greenhouse gasses work

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/24/12 6:36 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> And, of course, you have no idea what that means. Well, it means that
> they're making the presumption that the only source of heat is from the
> sun, and that there is no such thing as deep ocean currents and the heat
> in that water.

Oh, major malfunction, Marvin. Magic heat source in ocean currents?
Try to remember that radioactivity generated heat in the earth's
interior is diminishing with respect to time.

Marvin! It is high time you learned how greenhouse gasses work
and why human activity is causing rapid warming of the planet.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/24/12 4:19 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> Which is "land surface area" and not mean global temperature. Land
> surface temps are based on badly situated weather stations, 58% of which
> SHOULD show UHI effects more closely correlated to fossil fuel lose than
> climate change.
>
> And even so, this does not disprove what P.D. Jones said about mean
> global temperature. It is irrelevant.
>
> Do you know what "relevant" is, Wormley?

Marvin read the references:

> 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/
> http://berkeleyearth.org/faq
>

[bjacoby]

On 5/23/2012 11:58 AM, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:

> So you believe an on-line petition trumps papers in scientific
> journals? Have you been promoted to Moron First Class?

Reference papers are listed. But one would have to know how to read. The
only thing I've seen from you and Wormley are what you call scientific
papers but are actually puff pieces in Scientific American or the
Washington post. When I supplied an actual paper (from NASA) you've all
ignored it and pretend it doesn't exist. Since you are all willfully
blind you are all obviously promoted to anonymous morons first class.

>> Sam, even your "positive feedback theory" doesn't boost CO2 to a major
>> greenhouse effect. If this illustration is wrong please provide the
>> scientific evidence of it. So far you have not. So far you simply play
>> deaf and dumb as if this data does not exist. And all your minions do is
>> call everybody names. They obviously have even less scientific ability
>> than you seem to.
>>
>> So what's it going to be Sam, Science or fairy-tales? Tell us.
>
> Read some science.

Please define the term: Moron First Class. Pleases show me the SCIENCE
that shows CO2 is THE major cause of global climate change. You can't
because there is no such science. So you call people "morons" because
they simply ask for scientific proof. You are a fraud. It's as simple as
that. Show us the PROOF that CO2 is THE major cause of global warming.
"what else could it be?" is NOT proof!

Lies are not science.

[Bill Snyder]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:10:49 -0400, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

>On 5/23/2012 11:58 AM, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>

>Please define the term: Moron First Class.

Look in a mirror.

> Pleases show me the SCIENCE
>that shows CO2 is THE major cause of global climate change.

He's only posted references a few hundred times now. Or at least
it seems like a few hundred.

>You can't because there is no such science.

"I see NOSSINK! I know NOSSINK!"

>So you call people "morons" because they simply ask for scientific proof.

There is no proof in science. There is only preponderance of
evidence (which you pretend doesn't exist, purely and simply
because you don't like it).

>You are a fraud. It's as simple as
>that. Show us the PROOF that CO2 is THE major cause of global warming.
>"what else could it be?" is NOT proof!

There's a known mechanism by which CO2 affects temperature. The
nature of it means that the more CO2, the more warming. There's a
known increase in CO2. And "I don't LIKE it, Mommy!" is not a
disproof, nor is rejection of Occam's Razor going to win you many
debating points.

>Lies are not science.

But that won't impede you from sticking them into a discussion of
science every time you post.