Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I am the target
0 views
Skip to first unread message
AGWFacts
Feb 5, 2012, 1:13:07 PM2/5/12
to
A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I
am the target
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/02/a-case-study-of-the-tactics-of-climate-change-denial-in-which-i-am-the-target/
Over the years I have pointed out the fallacious arguments of
climate change deniers when they attack legitimate climatologists
like James Hansen and Michael Mann. This is, of course, like
kicking at a bee hive, and whenever I do the comments section of
my posts fill with lots of angry buzzing.
But now, for what I think is the first time, I find myself the
target of an attack. And I have to admit, I welcome it: it’s a
textbook case of denialist sleight of hand, of distraction,
distortion, error, and misdirection.
Stick around for all of this. It’ll be... interesting.
OK, first, here’s the scoop: a few days ago, I wrote a blog post
taking apart two intellectually bankrupt climate change denial
articles, one in the Wall Street Journal, and the other in the
UK’s Daily Mail. Both were claiming that global warming appears to
have stopped in the past few years, a claim which is trivially
easy to show wrong. In fact, I linked to two articles doing just
that: one at Skeptical Science, and another I myself wrote.
Finding actual scientists destroying that claim is not hard at
all; those two links have many more links therein.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/30/while-temperatures-rise-denialists-reach-lower/
In my post about the WSJ and DM, I included a graph. It pretty
clearly shows temperatures rising from 1973 to the present. And
this is where the fun begins.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2012/01/skepticalscience_globalwarming1.jpg
That’s the plot. It’s from a recent, independent study done at
Berkeley, and represents actual, measured, data. Just to be clear,
those points are from weather stations across the globe, and the
method used to collect and analyze those measurements is described
by the Berkeley team themselves (PDF). With me so far?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/21/new-independent-climate-study-confirms-global-warming-is-real/
http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.pdf
Apparently, William Briggs is not with me. He takes very vigorous
exception to the graph in an article he wrote which he titled
"Bad Astronomer Does Bad Statistics: That Wall Street Journal
Editorial." I encourage you to read it, so that you can assure
yourself I am not misrepresenting his arguments in any way.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5138
I found out about this article when I saw a tweet by Dr. Briggs
himself. My first thought was: Uh oh. I sure hope I didn’t make a
math mistake somewhere in my WSJ post! I better read Briggs’
article and see... So I read it.
My next thought after reading his arguments was then: Ho-hum. So?
The mismeasure of an argument
Basically, Briggs accuses me of not understanding statistics, of
not including error bars, of misrepresenting that points in that
plot, of not displaying the plot correctly, and so on ad nauseum.
His biggest claim: that those points aren’t measurements at all,
but estimates.
Here’s the thing: he’s wrong. Those point are in fact
measurements, though they are not raw measurements right off the
thermometers. They have been processed, averaged, in a
scientifically rigorous way to make sure that the statistics
derived from them are in fact solid. The Berkeley team describes
in detail how that was done (PDF), and does actually call them
estimates, but not because they are just guessing, or using some
arcane computer model. They are technically estimates, in the
sense that any measurement is an estimate, but they are really,
really good ones. Greg Laden tears this use of words apart, as
well as pretty much everything else Briggs wrote.
http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-averaging-process.pdf
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/william_m_briggs_has_misunders.php
Oddly, Briggs then goes on to call them "predictions" for some
reason, and that they came from "models", which is just weird.
It’s as if he’s trying to use a word choice that raises doubt
about the measurements. But again he’s wrong. They really are
measurements, not model predictions. At Open Mind, Brigg’s word
choice once again is ripped apart. [Note: Briggs has left a
comment there, further verifying the fact that his use of words is
incorrect.]
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-numerologist-to-the-stars/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-numerologist-to-the-stars/#comment-59152
This reminds me of one of my favorite skeptic jokes. Question: How
many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?
Answer: Four. It doesn’t matter what you call a tail, it’s not a
leg.
There are many other places where Briggs makes mistakes that
render his arguments null; for example, the error bars (what
statisticians usually call "uncertainty") are in fact made
available by the Berkeley team, and are small compared to the
long-term rise in temperature. For another, Briggs says I
should’ve shown the plot going farther into the past, because 1973
was actually a low point. However, that’s completely wrong: it’s
actually a high point! As Deep Climate points out here, this
actually makes the warming trend lower. So in true contrarian
fashion, Briggs is contrary even to himself. It’s bizarre.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-numerologist-to-the-stars/#comment-59147
So really, there goes Briggs’ argument. His main point is wrong,
so we’re done, right?
Well, no. There’s more fun to be had here.
Beside the point
If you read Briggs’ article, you certainly get the impression that
because the graph I use is statistically meaningless (so he
incorrectly claims), then my whole argument about global warming
is wrong.
And this is where I found myself greatly amused, though in a
schadenfreude sort of way.
Think of it this way: if my argument hinged on that graph, and I
removed it, my argument would have no foundation, correct? It
would change the tenor of the entire blog post.
Go look at my article. If you remove that graph from it, what
changes? Nothing. My main point — that the WSJ and DM articles are
wrong, that we have lots of evidence the Earth is warming up, that
9 of the 10 hottest years on record occurred since the year 2000,
that the DM article specifically uses scientific studies and
presents them as if they say the exact opposite of what they
actually say — still stands.
So even if that graph is wrong and misrepresents what I’m saying —
which it does not — it doesn’t matter. In fact, I used that graph
as an illustration, to show how we’re warming up. I never intended
it to be the basis for the argument I was making, just a way of
further showing it. If you read the actual words I wrote,
including the links to many, many articles backing up my position,
you’ll see that Briggs has not refuted a single actual point I
made.
So even if he’s right about that graph, it doesn’t matter. And
he’s not right.
But notice what he’s done. He’s taken what is clearly a minor
point and blown it up as if it’s my main point. He’s used shady
words (predictions, models) to cast aspersions, and to make
someone (me!) look bad. Then, by "refuting" this minor issue he
can then poison the well, strongly implying that all my arguments
are wrong. That’s kind of a big no-no when trying to argue a
point.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/01/briggs-schools-the-bad-astronomer-on-statistics/
But it packages well. Watts Up With That, another denialist blog,
has run with Briggs’ claims about me as well. He also makes the
false claim that warming has stalled, and so on. Note WUWT also
says the signers of the WSJ OpEd are "16 scientists", which isn’t
true: not all are scientists, and only four have actually
published climate science research. And don’t forget about the
article the WSJ refused to print talking about the reality of
global warming, signed by 255 actual scientists.
http://skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/
Oops.
Denialism’s dark mirror
I will admit the irony of this attack amuses me greatly; Briggs
accuses me of many things he himself is doing. That is standard
fare from antiscience group: creationists, global warming deniers,
and alt-medders, for example, all seem to project their own
tactics on the scientists with whom they disagree. Don’t like real
medicine? Accuse scientists of being in the pocket of Big Pharma
(and forget about the millions being made by quacks on useless
"remedies"). Don’t believe in evolution? Accuse scientists of
being too dogmatic. Don’t think global warming is real? Accuse
scientists of misrepresenting the data.
My favorite irony is that a lot of these global warming denialists
take money from fossil fuel interests, but then routinely say to
"follow the money", as if it’s the climatologists who are raking
in the big bucks from shady think tanks with undisclosed
bankrollers. While Briggs points out he gets no money from them,
he asks where my money comes from. Think on this, Dr. Briggs; how
much money would I make if I suddenly turned coat and said global
warming wasn’t real? I’ll guarantee you it would be a lot more
than I make now, probably with a couple of zeroes added to the
end. So that argument falls a wee bit flat here.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/25/five-shots-againt-global-warming-denialism/#bankroll
Like all the others.
Of course, given the comments I’ve seen on my blog, on Briggs’
blog, on Watts Up With That, or in any other blog discussing
global warming, I know how this will go. You can bring up the
major pieces of evidence supporting reality again and again, but
the denialists will ignore them and go after phantoms instead.
Because if they do acknowledge the actual evidence, they lose.
--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca
am the target
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/02/a-case-study-of-the-tactics-of-climate-change-denial-in-which-i-am-the-target/
Over the years I have pointed out the fallacious arguments of
climate change deniers when they attack legitimate climatologists
like James Hansen and Michael Mann. This is, of course, like
kicking at a bee hive, and whenever I do the comments section of
my posts fill with lots of angry buzzing.
But now, for what I think is the first time, I find myself the
target of an attack. And I have to admit, I welcome it: it’s a
textbook case of denialist sleight of hand, of distraction,
distortion, error, and misdirection.
Stick around for all of this. It’ll be... interesting.
OK, first, here’s the scoop: a few days ago, I wrote a blog post
taking apart two intellectually bankrupt climate change denial
articles, one in the Wall Street Journal, and the other in the
UK’s Daily Mail. Both were claiming that global warming appears to
have stopped in the past few years, a claim which is trivially
easy to show wrong. In fact, I linked to two articles doing just
that: one at Skeptical Science, and another I myself wrote.
Finding actual scientists destroying that claim is not hard at
all; those two links have many more links therein.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/30/while-temperatures-rise-denialists-reach-lower/
In my post about the WSJ and DM, I included a graph. It pretty
clearly shows temperatures rising from 1973 to the present. And
this is where the fun begins.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2012/01/skepticalscience_globalwarming1.jpg
That’s the plot. It’s from a recent, independent study done at
Berkeley, and represents actual, measured, data. Just to be clear,
those points are from weather stations across the globe, and the
method used to collect and analyze those measurements is described
by the Berkeley team themselves (PDF). With me so far?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/21/new-independent-climate-study-confirms-global-warming-is-real/
http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.pdf
Apparently, William Briggs is not with me. He takes very vigorous
exception to the graph in an article he wrote which he titled
"Bad Astronomer Does Bad Statistics: That Wall Street Journal
Editorial." I encourage you to read it, so that you can assure
yourself I am not misrepresenting his arguments in any way.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5138
I found out about this article when I saw a tweet by Dr. Briggs
himself. My first thought was: Uh oh. I sure hope I didn’t make a
math mistake somewhere in my WSJ post! I better read Briggs’
article and see... So I read it.
My next thought after reading his arguments was then: Ho-hum. So?
The mismeasure of an argument
Basically, Briggs accuses me of not understanding statistics, of
not including error bars, of misrepresenting that points in that
plot, of not displaying the plot correctly, and so on ad nauseum.
His biggest claim: that those points aren’t measurements at all,
but estimates.
Here’s the thing: he’s wrong. Those point are in fact
measurements, though they are not raw measurements right off the
thermometers. They have been processed, averaged, in a
scientifically rigorous way to make sure that the statistics
derived from them are in fact solid. The Berkeley team describes
in detail how that was done (PDF), and does actually call them
estimates, but not because they are just guessing, or using some
arcane computer model. They are technically estimates, in the
sense that any measurement is an estimate, but they are really,
really good ones. Greg Laden tears this use of words apart, as
well as pretty much everything else Briggs wrote.
http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-averaging-process.pdf
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/william_m_briggs_has_misunders.php
Oddly, Briggs then goes on to call them "predictions" for some
reason, and that they came from "models", which is just weird.
It’s as if he’s trying to use a word choice that raises doubt
about the measurements. But again he’s wrong. They really are
measurements, not model predictions. At Open Mind, Brigg’s word
choice once again is ripped apart. [Note: Briggs has left a
comment there, further verifying the fact that his use of words is
incorrect.]
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-numerologist-to-the-stars/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-numerologist-to-the-stars/#comment-59152
This reminds me of one of my favorite skeptic jokes. Question: How
many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?
Answer: Four. It doesn’t matter what you call a tail, it’s not a
leg.
There are many other places where Briggs makes mistakes that
render his arguments null; for example, the error bars (what
statisticians usually call "uncertainty") are in fact made
available by the Berkeley team, and are small compared to the
long-term rise in temperature. For another, Briggs says I
should’ve shown the plot going farther into the past, because 1973
was actually a low point. However, that’s completely wrong: it’s
actually a high point! As Deep Climate points out here, this
actually makes the warming trend lower. So in true contrarian
fashion, Briggs is contrary even to himself. It’s bizarre.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-numerologist-to-the-stars/#comment-59147
So really, there goes Briggs’ argument. His main point is wrong,
so we’re done, right?
Well, no. There’s more fun to be had here.
Beside the point
If you read Briggs’ article, you certainly get the impression that
because the graph I use is statistically meaningless (so he
incorrectly claims), then my whole argument about global warming
is wrong.
And this is where I found myself greatly amused, though in a
schadenfreude sort of way.
Think of it this way: if my argument hinged on that graph, and I
removed it, my argument would have no foundation, correct? It
would change the tenor of the entire blog post.
Go look at my article. If you remove that graph from it, what
changes? Nothing. My main point — that the WSJ and DM articles are
wrong, that we have lots of evidence the Earth is warming up, that
9 of the 10 hottest years on record occurred since the year 2000,
that the DM article specifically uses scientific studies and
presents them as if they say the exact opposite of what they
actually say — still stands.
So even if that graph is wrong and misrepresents what I’m saying —
which it does not — it doesn’t matter. In fact, I used that graph
as an illustration, to show how we’re warming up. I never intended
it to be the basis for the argument I was making, just a way of
further showing it. If you read the actual words I wrote,
including the links to many, many articles backing up my position,
you’ll see that Briggs has not refuted a single actual point I
made.
So even if he’s right about that graph, it doesn’t matter. And
he’s not right.
But notice what he’s done. He’s taken what is clearly a minor
point and blown it up as if it’s my main point. He’s used shady
words (predictions, models) to cast aspersions, and to make
someone (me!) look bad. Then, by "refuting" this minor issue he
can then poison the well, strongly implying that all my arguments
are wrong. That’s kind of a big no-no when trying to argue a
point.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/01/briggs-schools-the-bad-astronomer-on-statistics/
But it packages well. Watts Up With That, another denialist blog,
has run with Briggs’ claims about me as well. He also makes the
false claim that warming has stalled, and so on. Note WUWT also
says the signers of the WSJ OpEd are "16 scientists", which isn’t
true: not all are scientists, and only four have actually
published climate science research. And don’t forget about the
article the WSJ refused to print talking about the reality of
global warming, signed by 255 actual scientists.
http://skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/
Oops.
Denialism’s dark mirror
I will admit the irony of this attack amuses me greatly; Briggs
accuses me of many things he himself is doing. That is standard
fare from antiscience group: creationists, global warming deniers,
and alt-medders, for example, all seem to project their own
tactics on the scientists with whom they disagree. Don’t like real
medicine? Accuse scientists of being in the pocket of Big Pharma
(and forget about the millions being made by quacks on useless
"remedies"). Don’t believe in evolution? Accuse scientists of
being too dogmatic. Don’t think global warming is real? Accuse
scientists of misrepresenting the data.
My favorite irony is that a lot of these global warming denialists
take money from fossil fuel interests, but then routinely say to
"follow the money", as if it’s the climatologists who are raking
in the big bucks from shady think tanks with undisclosed
bankrollers. While Briggs points out he gets no money from them,
he asks where my money comes from. Think on this, Dr. Briggs; how
much money would I make if I suddenly turned coat and said global
warming wasn’t real? I’ll guarantee you it would be a lot more
than I make now, probably with a couple of zeroes added to the
end. So that argument falls a wee bit flat here.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/25/five-shots-againt-global-warming-denialism/#bankroll
Like all the others.
Of course, given the comments I’ve seen on my blog, on Briggs’
blog, on Watts Up With That, or in any other blog discussing
global warming, I know how this will go. You can bring up the
major pieces of evidence supporting reality again and again, but
the denialists will ignore them and go after phantoms instead.
Because if they do acknowledge the actual evidence, they lose.
--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca
Bret Cahill
Feb 5, 2012, 2:04:11 PM2/5/12
to
> A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I
> am the target
>
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/02/a-case-stud...
> am the target
>
>
> Over the years I have pointed out the fallacious arguments of
> climate change deniers when they attack legitimate climatologists
> like James Hansen and Michael Mann. This is, of course, like
> kicking at a bee hive, and whenever I do the comments section of
> my posts fill with lots of angry buzzing.
>
> But now, for what I think is the first time, I find myself the
> target of an attack. And I have to admit, I welcome it: it’s a
> textbook case of denialist sleight of hand, of distraction,
> distortion, error, and misdirection.
>
> Stick around for all of this. It’ll be... interesting.
>
> OK, first, here’s the scoop: a few days ago, I wrote a blog post
> taking apart two intellectually bankrupt climate change denial
> articles, one in the Wall Street Journal, and the other in the
> UK’s Daily Mail. Both were claiming that global warming appears to
> have stopped in the past few years, a claim which is trivially
> easy to show wrong. In fact, I linked to two articles doing just
> that: one at Skeptical Science, and another I myself wrote.
> Finding actual scientists destroying that claim is not hard at
> all; those two links have many more links therein.
>
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/30/while-tempe...
> Over the years I have pointed out the fallacious arguments of
> climate change deniers when they attack legitimate climatologists
> like James Hansen and Michael Mann. This is, of course, like
> kicking at a bee hive, and whenever I do the comments section of
> my posts fill with lots of angry buzzing.
>
> But now, for what I think is the first time, I find myself the
> target of an attack. And I have to admit, I welcome it: it’s a
> textbook case of denialist sleight of hand, of distraction,
> distortion, error, and misdirection.
>
> Stick around for all of this. It’ll be... interesting.
>
> OK, first, here’s the scoop: a few days ago, I wrote a blog post
> taking apart two intellectually bankrupt climate change denial
> articles, one in the Wall Street Journal, and the other in the
> UK’s Daily Mail. Both were claiming that global warming appears to
> have stopped in the past few years, a claim which is trivially
> easy to show wrong. In fact, I linked to two articles doing just
> that: one at Skeptical Science, and another I myself wrote.
> Finding actual scientists destroying that claim is not hard at
> all; those two links have many more links therein.
>
. . .
> My favorite irony is that a lot of these global warming denialists
> take money from fossil fuel interests, but then routinely say to
> "follow the money", as if it’s the climatologists who are raking
> in the big bucks from shady think tanks with undisclosed
> bankrollers. While Briggs points out he gets no money from them,
> he asks where my money comes from. Think on this, Dr. Briggs; how
> much money would I make if I suddenly turned coat and said global
> warming wasn’t real? I’ll guarantee you it would be a lot more
> than I make now, probably with a couple of zeroes added to the
> end. So that argument falls a wee bit flat here.
>
>
> Like all the others.
>
> Of course, given the comments I’ve seen on my blog, on Briggs’
> blog, on Watts Up With That, or in any other blog discussing
> global warming, I know how this will go. You can bring up the
> major pieces of evidence supporting reality again and again, but
> the denialists will ignore them and go after phantoms instead.
> Because if they do acknowledge the actual evidence, they lose.
>
> --
> "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
> to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- caton...@sympatico.ca
> Like all the others.
>
> Of course, given the comments I’ve seen on my blog, on Briggs’
> blog, on Watts Up With That, or in any other blog discussing
> global warming, I know how this will go. You can bring up the
> major pieces of evidence supporting reality again and again, but
> the denialists will ignore them and go after phantoms instead.
> Because if they do acknowledge the actual evidence, they lose.
>
> --
> "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
Denierism is being attenuated like noise in a correlation based
filter.
Wingers can put out a lot of mutually contradictory nonsense but since
it doesn't correlate it will eventually be overwhelmed by the signal
in the time integral. Tocqueville mentioned something that sounded
like a public opinion lock-in amp back in 1833.
And if they try to get organized -- "just like Hitler" as the
teabaggers are fond of saying -- around a few talking points then
those lies will draw the attention of the climate scientists. Those
lies can then be debunked directly, one by one.
There are ways to speed this process up, especially if you know
something about political science and signal processing.
Bret Cahill
Michael Gordge
Feb 5, 2012, 3:23:56 PM2/5/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ewe're a target of fuck all ewe ignorant twat, now explain, how much
Co2 tax do ewe believe will it take to warm Siberia up from minus 38c
to minus 32c?
MG
Brian Hunt
Feb 5, 2012, 6:14:27 PM2/5/12
to
the global warming theory, do you know of anybody compiling and making
available to the general public? Most of the messaging from this
position seems to be based on secondary suppositions such as we are
burning large amounts of fossil fuels which emits Co2 that has to be
creating global warming. I'd say in general, in my opinion, that the
position should focus on limited resources and sustainability.
Tunderbar
Feb 5, 2012, 7:56:36 PM2/5/12
to
On Feb 5, 12:13 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I
> am the target
>
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/02/a-case-stud...
> A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I
> am the target
>
>
> Over the years I have pointed out the fallacious arguments of
> climate change deniers when they attack legitimate climatologists
> like James Hansen and Michael Mann. This is, of course, like
> kicking at a bee hive, and whenever I do the comments section of
> my posts fill with lots of angry buzzing.
>
> But now, for what I think is the first time, I find myself the
> target of an attack. And I have to admit, I welcome it: it’s a
> textbook case of denialist sleight of hand, of distraction,
> distortion, error, and misdirection.
>
> Stick around for all of this. It’ll be... interesting.
>
> OK, first, here’s the scoop: a few days ago, I wrote a blog post
> taking apart two intellectually bankrupt climate change denial
> articles, one in the Wall Street Journal, and the other in the
> UK’s Daily Mail. Both were claiming that global warming appears to
> have stopped in the past few years, a claim which is trivially
> easy to show wrong. In fact, I linked to two articles doing just
> that: one at Skeptical Science, and another I myself wrote.
> Finding actual scientists destroying that claim is not hard at
> all; those two links have many more links therein.
>
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/30/while-tempe...
> Over the years I have pointed out the fallacious arguments of
> climate change deniers when they attack legitimate climatologists
> like James Hansen and Michael Mann. This is, of course, like
> kicking at a bee hive, and whenever I do the comments section of
> my posts fill with lots of angry buzzing.
>
> But now, for what I think is the first time, I find myself the
> target of an attack. And I have to admit, I welcome it: it’s a
> textbook case of denialist sleight of hand, of distraction,
> distortion, error, and misdirection.
>
> Stick around for all of this. It’ll be... interesting.
>
> OK, first, here’s the scoop: a few days ago, I wrote a blog post
> taking apart two intellectually bankrupt climate change denial
> articles, one in the Wall Street Journal, and the other in the
> UK’s Daily Mail. Both were claiming that global warming appears to
> have stopped in the past few years, a claim which is trivially
> easy to show wrong. In fact, I linked to two articles doing just
> that: one at Skeptical Science, and another I myself wrote.
> Finding actual scientists destroying that claim is not hard at
> all; those two links have many more links therein.
>
>
> In my post about the WSJ and DM, I included a graph. It pretty
> clearly shows temperatures rising from 1973 to the present. And
> this is where the fun begins.
>
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2012/01/skeptica...
> In my post about the WSJ and DM, I included a graph. It pretty
> clearly shows temperatures rising from 1973 to the present. And
> this is where the fun begins.
>
>
> That’s the plot. It’s from a recent, independent study done at
> Berkeley, and represents actual, measured, data. Just to be clear,
> those points are from weather stations across the globe, and the
> method used to collect and analyze those measurements is described
> by the Berkeley team themselves (PDF). With me so far?
>
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/21/new-indepen...
> That’s the plot. It’s from a recent, independent study done at
> Berkeley, and represents actual, measured, data. Just to be clear,
> those points are from weather stations across the globe, and the
> method used to collect and analyze those measurements is described
> by the Berkeley team themselves (PDF). With me so far?
>
>
> Oddly, Briggs then goes on to call them "predictions" for some
> reason, and that they came from "models", which is just weird.
> It’s as if he’s trying to use a word choice that raises doubt
> about the measurements. But again he’s wrong. They really are
> measurements, not model predictions. At Open Mind, Brigg’s word
> choice once again is ripped apart. [Note: Briggs has left a
> comment there, further verifying the fact that his use of words is
> incorrect.]
>
> http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-numerologist-...
> Oddly, Briggs then goes on to call them "predictions" for some
> reason, and that they came from "models", which is just weird.
> It’s as if he’s trying to use a word choice that raises doubt
> about the measurements. But again he’s wrong. They really are
> measurements, not model predictions. At Open Mind, Brigg’s word
> choice once again is ripped apart. [Note: Briggs has left a
> comment there, further verifying the fact that his use of words is
> incorrect.]
>
>
> http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-numerologist-...
>
> This reminds me of one of my favorite skeptic jokes. Question: How
> many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?
>
> Answer: Four. It doesn’t matter what you call a tail, it’s not a
> leg.
>
> There are many other places where Briggs makes mistakes that
> render his arguments null; for example, the error bars (what
> statisticians usually call "uncertainty") are in fact made
> available by the Berkeley team, and are small compared to the
> long-term rise in temperature. For another, Briggs says I
> should’ve shown the plot going farther into the past, because 1973
> was actually a low point. However, that’s completely wrong: it’s
> actually a high point! As Deep Climate points out here, this
> actually makes the warming trend lower. So in true contrarian
> fashion, Briggs is contrary even to himself. It’s bizarre.
>
> http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-numerologist-...
> This reminds me of one of my favorite skeptic jokes. Question: How
> many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?
>
> Answer: Four. It doesn’t matter what you call a tail, it’s not a
> leg.
>
> There are many other places where Briggs makes mistakes that
> render his arguments null; for example, the error bars (what
> statisticians usually call "uncertainty") are in fact made
> available by the Berkeley team, and are small compared to the
> long-term rise in temperature. For another, Briggs says I
> should’ve shown the plot going farther into the past, because 1973
> was actually a low point. However, that’s completely wrong: it’s
> actually a high point! As Deep Climate points out here, this
> actually makes the warming trend lower. So in true contrarian
> fashion, Briggs is contrary even to himself. It’s bizarre.
>
>
> But it packages well. Watts Up With That, another denialist blog,
> has run with Briggs’ claims about me as well. He also makes the
> false claim that warming has stalled, and so on. Note WUWT also
> says the signers of the WSJ OpEd are "16 scientists", which isn’t
> true: not all are scientists, and only four have actually
> published climate science research. And don’t forget about the
> article the WSJ refused to print talking about the reality of
> global warming, signed by 255 actual scientists.
>
> http://skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-pl...
> But it packages well. Watts Up With That, another denialist blog,
> has run with Briggs’ claims about me as well. He also makes the
> false claim that warming has stalled, and so on. Note WUWT also
> says the signers of the WSJ OpEd are "16 scientists", which isn’t
> true: not all are scientists, and only four have actually
> published climate science research. And don’t forget about the
> article the WSJ refused to print talking about the reality of
> global warming, signed by 255 actual scientists.
>
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editori...
>
> Oops.
>
> Denialism’s dark mirror
>
> I will admit the irony of this attack amuses me greatly; Briggs
> accuses me of many things he himself is doing. That is standard
> fare from antiscience group: creationists, global warming deniers,
> and alt-medders, for example, all seem to project their own
> tactics on the scientists with whom they disagree. Don’t like real
> medicine? Accuse scientists of being in the pocket of Big Pharma
> (and forget about the millions being made by quacks on useless
> "remedies"). Don’t believe in evolution? Accuse scientists of
> being too dogmatic. Don’t think global warming is real? Accuse
> scientists of misrepresenting the data.
>
> My favorite irony is that a lot of these global warming denialists
> take money from fossil fuel interests, but then routinely say to
> "follow the money", as if it’s the climatologists who are raking
> in the big bucks from shady think tanks with undisclosed
> bankrollers. While Briggs points out he gets no money from them,
> he asks where my money comes from. Think on this, Dr. Briggs; how
> much money would I make if I suddenly turned coat and said global
> warming wasn’t real? I’ll guarantee you it would be a lot more
> than I make now, probably with a couple of zeroes added to the
> end. So that argument falls a wee bit flat here.
>
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/25/five-shots-...
> Oops.
>
> Denialism’s dark mirror
>
> I will admit the irony of this attack amuses me greatly; Briggs
> accuses me of many things he himself is doing. That is standard
> fare from antiscience group: creationists, global warming deniers,
> and alt-medders, for example, all seem to project their own
> tactics on the scientists with whom they disagree. Don’t like real
> medicine? Accuse scientists of being in the pocket of Big Pharma
> (and forget about the millions being made by quacks on useless
> "remedies"). Don’t believe in evolution? Accuse scientists of
> being too dogmatic. Don’t think global warming is real? Accuse
> scientists of misrepresenting the data.
>
> My favorite irony is that a lot of these global warming denialists
> take money from fossil fuel interests, but then routinely say to
> "follow the money", as if it’s the climatologists who are raking
> in the big bucks from shady think tanks with undisclosed
> bankrollers. While Briggs points out he gets no money from them,
> he asks where my money comes from. Think on this, Dr. Briggs; how
> much money would I make if I suddenly turned coat and said global
> warming wasn’t real? I’ll guarantee you it would be a lot more
> than I make now, probably with a couple of zeroes added to the
> end. So that argument falls a wee bit flat here.
>
>
> Like all the others.
>
> Of course, ...
>
> read more »
Godwin's Law. You lose.
Sam Wormley
Feb 7, 2012, 12:14:07 AM2/7/12
to
On 2/5/12 5:14 PM, Brian Hunt wrote:
> Bret, I'd be curios to see what kind of data is out their supporting
> the global warming theory, do you know of anybody compiling and making
> available to the general public?
Actually global warming is an observation, not a theory.
> Bret, I'd be curios to see what kind of data is out their supporting
> the global warming theory, do you know of anybody compiling and making
> available to the general public?
Brad Guth
Feb 7, 2012, 1:08:39 AM2/7/12
to
channels of science that deductively add up to AGW.
Brian Hunt
Feb 7, 2012, 1:52:05 AM2/7/12
to
of warming and an actual trend? How far back does the data go and who
is collecting the data? Common messaging is that the observations
seem to be heavily based on the amount of ice melting at the poles
right?
Michael Gordge
Feb 7, 2012, 6:42:08 AM2/7/12
to
MG
Errol
Feb 7, 2012, 8:11:43 AM2/7/12
to
BeamMeUpScotty
Feb 7, 2012, 8:59:11 AM2/7/12
to
AGW is a MYTHICAL beast created by society to instil fear and angst into
the population for the purpose of extracting money and control of the
weak minded in society.
We've seen this done before.
--
A little Liberalism like a little alcohol, can be a good thing but when
either of them take control, they become self destructive.
HVAC
Feb 7, 2012, 10:08:26 AM2/7/12
to
those meteorologic scientists have an agenda?".
I replied, "what if their agenda is to go places and report the
findings?" Because that's what the VAST majority of scientists DO.
The fact that a few have altered their findings to garner more
funding is irrelevant. The Earth is warming. Period.
The cause of this warming is another story altogether.
At the end of the day, polluting our planet is not a good thing.
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
HVAC
Feb 7, 2012, 10:14:51 AM2/7/12
to
On 2/7/2012 8:59 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Actually global warming is an observation, not a theory.
>>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Actually global warming is an observation, not a theory.
>>
>
>
>
> We call those theories.... until you have the proof.
Prove what? That the recorded temperatures are real?
> AGW is a MYTHICAL beast created by society to instil fear and angst into
> the population for the purpose of extracting money and control of the
> weak minded in society.
mean temp. is rising. It is what is is.
Denying it is just stupid.
We can argue the cause(s). The facts speak for themselves.
> We've seen this done before.
BeamMeUpScotty
Feb 7, 2012, 10:25:30 AM2/7/12
to
On 2/7/2012 10:14 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 2/7/2012 8:59 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually global warming is an observation, not a theory.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We call those theories.... until you have the proof.
>
>
> Prove what? That the recorded temperatures are real?
>
>
>> AGW is a MYTHICAL beast created by society to instil fear and angst into
>> the population for the purpose of extracting money and control of the
>> weak minded in society.
>
>
> No. Observations and temperature reading worldwide show that the Earth's
> mean temp. is rising. It is what is is.
People world wide believe in God and we have the data showing that NO
> On 2/7/2012 8:59 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually global warming is an observation, not a theory.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We call those theories.... until you have the proof.
>
>
> Prove what? That the recorded temperatures are real?
>
>
>> AGW is a MYTHICAL beast created by society to instil fear and angst into
>> the population for the purpose of extracting money and control of the
>> weak minded in society.
>
>
> No. Observations and temperature reading worldwide show that the Earth's
> mean temp. is rising. It is what is is.
culture has ever proven there is NO God.
>
> Denying it is just stupid.
>
> We can argue the cause(s). The facts speak for themselves.
Drowning Polar bears?
Ice melting?
Ocean level rise?
CO2?
You connect all those and call it proof, I say maybe proof that you
don't know how to extrapolate and use the DATA you are mining.
>> We've seen this done before.
virgin will make the world a better place.
Brad Guth
Feb 7, 2012, 10:56:49 AM2/7/12
to
GW and AGW obfuscation:, and denial of being in denial, works every
time, as quantitative physics that interact with on another, but not
always for the greater good.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/45a69518da54748e?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/be280373c5f7e04c?hl
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/740b288d63bc201f?
On Feb 5, 12:15 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget_prt.htm
: The researchers concluded that the 0.58 watts per square meter
: imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced
: to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to
: equilibrium. They say the most recent measurements put CO2
: levels at 392 parts per million and those concentrations are
: expected to keep rising.
:
: Scientists have been refining calculations of the Earth's energy
: imbalance for years, but NASA researchers say their newest
: estimate is an improvement because they had access to better
: measurements of ocean temperature.
:
: --
“According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues,
the 0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
future.”
So, what part of the quantitative .58 w/m2 or 2.96e14 watt global
imbalance are you buying or not buying into?
296 TW of AGW doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local drought and/or
weather extremes are either draining your bank account or killing
you. Are you and other pretend-Atheist, that only seem to act/react
exactly like Semites, favoring an ice-free Earth?
Obviously the rich and powerful could care less how much climate
change or weather severity (hot, cold or stormy) is taking place,
because they get to relocate as often and as far away from the really
nasty stuff as they like (using their private yachts and business jets
none the less), and usually not even having to pay an extra cent in
taxes because they’ll find a way of writing it off as another one of
their business expenses. On the other hand, the middle and lower
caste seems to be directly in harms way of GW and AGW consequences.
In fact, it seems the rich and powerful desire as much GW and AGW as
they can muster or allowing others to create, as another way of
culling the lower 95% of us, thereby sucking away at our savings and
making it look as though only nature was responsible for killing us
off.
-
Once again our resident redneck FUD-master (aka Hagar) is constipated
from eating too much of his deep-fried roadkill, and damn proud of it
and the methane cloud that always follows wherever he goes.
On Feb 5, 9:20 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: And to think it all had its start in the 70s, with the dreaded
: Global Cooling doomsday scenario gang ... and the idiots
: insist it is Global Warming, ooops . Climate Change,
: ooopsy-daisy ... Global Climate Disruption
:
http://news.yahoo.com/snow-forces-heathrow-cancel-half-flights-143250...
: Bwahahahahaaa ...
Then we always have this other intellectual flatulence that’ll further
justify any amount of pollution and environmental disruption as a good
thing.
On Feb 6, 3:40 am, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Yes, I keep "telling" people that!! - MOST of the argument
: here is purely personal opinion backed up by "more" personal
: opinions by pseudo-scientists, mostly working outside their
: fields of expertise anyway. Their contrived arguments are
: supposed to impress just because they *may* be scientists of
: some other sort than Climate! Further, what effect does
: photosynthesis have on climate change? It should reduce
: planetary warming because it converts CO2 into O2. ALL
: plants use photosynthesis to live. The planet is working away
: to rectify any mistakes we, or any other thing, may make to
: cause global warming. Panic over!
: Harry Merrick.
Oddly, it seems we’ve deforested and paved over quite enough, as well
as making the average density of diatoms not 10% of what they used to
be, in that converting CO2 back into O2 just isn’t happening to the
extent that Henry Merrick thinks is happening. However, surface
erosion has accelerated and the chemicals plus metallicity
artificially added to the global surface, ground water and atmospheric
environment has never been greater, and it’s only getting worse.
It seems warming up another significant part of this planet puts more
water vapor into the atmosphere (at least that's physics-101), and
weather/storm extremes do not happen due to global cooling, but you
mainstreamers can go right ahead and pretend otherwise.
Global dimming via multiple natural and artificial methods will
usually not cause a global cooling trend, unless you're talking about
an extremely large and volumetric dosage of heavy or extremely dense
and sulfuric volcanic output that would have to be sustained at
perhaps ten fold normal levels for several years (not just for any few
months or even a year might not be sufficient).
Objective measurements of the continuing ice volume losses is also
hard to keep ignoring, but I’m sure if anyone can it’ll have to be the
likes of our Hagar and his fellow ZNRs that are in perpetual denial
about damn near everything. Seasonal snow and ice hardly counts, but
you can always make any seasonal affected area look like another ice-
age, just like our NASA/Apollo era made our physically dark moon look
so monochromatic of pastels offering only light grays that were also
oddly inert for such a naked terrain that was nicely eroded down to
only soft rolling hills, and not the least bit metallicity worthy, or
even the least bit UV reactive, much less anticathode worthy. In
other words the Apollo moon was acting as though it were metallicity
deficient.
-
Once again our favorite resident redneck ZNR clown has us rolling on
the floor, laughing our silly butts off. Apparently his home-
schooling stopped bothering to teach him basic math, science and
reading comprehension as of grade three when his puberty kicked in,
and that scared the other little kids that were all of 6 years
younger.
On Feb 2, 4:34 pm, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*******************************************
: We all know that you are retarded, so here it is again, for the
: umpteenth time. If you add up all the chemicals that the average
: of 10 active volcanoes belch into the atmosphere, and add to that
: the natural evaporation of ocean bound methane, plus the 10,000
: plus "smokers" or "chimneys' along the oceanic rifts, you may
: find, much to your chagrin, that the contribution from automobile
: exhausts, airplanes and powerplants is merely a drop in the bucket
: of that fictional Global Warming pollution we are supposedly the
: root of.
: Unfortunately, having your head buried deep within your colon
: doesn't help you to see things very clearly, as evidenced by the
: supposed structures you see on Venus ... pure shit.
Your redneck ZNR approved planet as apparently having no tipping
points and unlimited resources plus ample roadkill and free deep-
fryers for everyone, is noted. In other words, you're saying that
without us humans mass consuming, burning, exploding, excavating,
polluting and exploiting everything in sight (above and below ground
plus indiscriminate harvesting throughout all oceans), as well as
simply venting or spilling whatever as much and often as we like,
whereas without us humans the natural geothermal and atmospheric
energy budget and the chemical plus diversity of raw elements and
biological genetic diversity balance for our Eden environment would be
all out of whack. Got it! (Earth is obviously going cryogenic at any
moment, and needs another fresh restart after the next great thaw)
Silly me, I didn't know that having an artificially made acidic and
carcinogenic atmosphere was actually a good thing, along with
increased soot and raw methane for added global dimming and solar
heating.
Silly me again, for having not appreciated Canada burning their raw
(unprocessed) natural gas in order to get that toxic oil out of their
mucky sand (all at a net energy loss), was actually a very good thing
that couldn’t have been done any better, or sooner.
After all, who the hell doesn’t need more arsenic, mercury, lead,
sulfur and CO in their mostly coal fired industrial and civilian
environment, along with the extra soot, methane, radioisotopes like
radium and radon in order to balance out the extra NOx, CO and CO2.
I didn’t know that by venting massive volumes of raw natural gas along
with helium which tends to displace and/or destabilizes our protective
O3/ozone layer, was yet another perfectly good thing that needed to be
done.
I also didn’t realize that we can never have enough plutonium plus so
many other secondary lethal fission elements for feeding our
skullduggery and WMD frenzy.
I mean, who the hell doesn’t need several thousand tonnes of spent
reactor fuel at risk of losing its cool, which of course wouldn’t even
be an issue if it were spent thorium reactor fuel.
I honestly didn't know that having acidic and toxic fresh water
(surface and deep aquifers artificially polluted) was yet another
super good thing that mother nature needed our help with.
I didn't know that getting rid of that pesky Greenland ice-cap wasn't
yet another super good idea that can’t happen soon enough. (after all,
most of Florida was supposed to be underwater)
I didn't realize the thousands of complex specie extinctions was yet
another good thing we humans have caused or at the very least
expedited, because who the hell needs them other forms of complex
life.
I didn't realize that custom engineered virus and lethal microbials
was just the best ever ticket that Earth couldn't possibly manage
without our help.
I also didn’t realize that Corexit plus numerous other industrial
chemicals as molecular hydrocarbon modifiers and perfectly worthy of
causing genetic mutations was perfectly healthy for us and most other
species.
I certainly didn't realize that lower caste starvation and wars (bogus
or real) because of economic disparities, energy deficiencies
contrived via hoarding or banishment, extensive drought and weather
extremes plus failing crops was all such a good thing in order to
justify global inflation that you and your buddies see nothing wrong
with.
Silly old me, to think that our mutually perpetrated cold-war(s) and
the likes of 9/11 wasn’t a good thing. I mean, what would we have
done otherwise with our spare time and trillions of our hard earned
loot if the US and USSR hadn’t created the likes of North Korea and
Israel to begin with.
So, you’re good with as many dead Jews as possible, as long as only
white Zionist Jews either do their own killing, or cause others to do
the killings in order to justify their subsequent revenge killings by
provoking others?
How about your devout kosher support of the global ethnic culling, in
order to get rid of 6.5 billion humans, and for keeping the global
population always under the “Georgia Guidestones” specified 500
million. Would you care to further elaborate on its kosher approved
redneck authority? (at least so far, all of the Usenet/newsgroup
contributors that act/react exactly like Zionists/Jews, haven’t had
one bad word to say against “The Age of Reason” by yet another
pseudonym that’s hiding himself and his associations)
Don’t get me wrong, as I’m not suggesting a planet like Earth would
not be a whole lot better off under one world government with a common
language and having to host considerably fewer of us, as only highly
educated wizards that’ll each get to know all there is to know, much
like having only a few species of ants could be interesting if these
were hybrid or intelligent engineered enough in order to accomplish
the same jobs as the 12000 species had been accomplishing as of long
before humans even existed.
http://www.antark.net/ant-species/
Perhaps the fewer organic species the better. I mean, why stop at
restricting the variations and population of humans, such as who the
hell needs oxygen from diatoms and their storage of CO2? Imagine our
discovering another Earth that had only one selected species of highly
intelligent humans, and having no other complex forms of organic life,
of which we wouldn’t be allowed to visit or interact with this planet
because everything about our less than 500 million would likely kill
them.
If there were a selection of 100 human species of five million each,
would this be sufficient biological diversity to insure our survival?
Isn’t sustaining the wide diversity of terrestrial life kind of good
biodiversity insurance against our extinction?
Is it imperative that we all think exactly alike, just so that
rednecks like our Hagar can sleep at night?
Notice that our Hagar the commander and chief warlord and resident
hatemonger of Usenet/newsgroups hasn’t specified a common world
religion or his faith-based policy that’s sufficiently redneck
approved. Perhaps those Hagar Guidestones will make this perfectly
clear.
Of course the extremely nearby planet Venus is not without any number
of GW faults and consequences that are pretty much all natural and
doing a fine job, of keeping that planet cooler than it otherwise
might be if the full 2650 w/m2 of sunlight was allowed to get down to
its active geothermally heated surface. Some terrestrial scientists
actually want us to try putting a few million tonnes of sulfur into
our upper atmosphere, for accomplishing the same reflective cooling
effect, except lacking atmospheric buoyancy is why it will not stay up
there, and the end result would likely be much worse off.
Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
“Guth Venus”, at 1:1, then 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
time, as quantitative physics that interact with on another, but not
always for the greater good.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/45a69518da54748e?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/be280373c5f7e04c?hl
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/740b288d63bc201f?
On Feb 5, 12:15 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget_prt.htm
: The researchers concluded that the 0.58 watts per square meter
: imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced
: to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to
: equilibrium. They say the most recent measurements put CO2
: levels at 392 parts per million and those concentrations are
: expected to keep rising.
:
: Scientists have been refining calculations of the Earth's energy
: imbalance for years, but NASA researchers say their newest
: estimate is an improvement because they had access to better
: measurements of ocean temperature.
:
: --
: "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...
: and CO2 levels to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm."
: -- caton...@sympatico.ca
: and CO2 levels to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm."
“According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues,
the 0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
future.”
So, what part of the quantitative .58 w/m2 or 2.96e14 watt global
imbalance are you buying or not buying into?
296 TW of AGW doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local drought and/or
weather extremes are either draining your bank account or killing
you. Are you and other pretend-Atheist, that only seem to act/react
exactly like Semites, favoring an ice-free Earth?
Obviously the rich and powerful could care less how much climate
change or weather severity (hot, cold or stormy) is taking place,
because they get to relocate as often and as far away from the really
nasty stuff as they like (using their private yachts and business jets
none the less), and usually not even having to pay an extra cent in
taxes because they’ll find a way of writing it off as another one of
their business expenses. On the other hand, the middle and lower
caste seems to be directly in harms way of GW and AGW consequences.
In fact, it seems the rich and powerful desire as much GW and AGW as
they can muster or allowing others to create, as another way of
culling the lower 95% of us, thereby sucking away at our savings and
making it look as though only nature was responsible for killing us
off.
-
Once again our resident redneck FUD-master (aka Hagar) is constipated
from eating too much of his deep-fried roadkill, and damn proud of it
and the methane cloud that always follows wherever he goes.
On Feb 5, 9:20 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: And to think it all had its start in the 70s, with the dreaded
: Global Cooling doomsday scenario gang ... and the idiots
: insist it is Global Warming, ooops . Climate Change,
: ooopsy-daisy ... Global Climate Disruption
:
http://news.yahoo.com/snow-forces-heathrow-cancel-half-flights-143250...
: Bwahahahahaaa ...
Then we always have this other intellectual flatulence that’ll further
justify any amount of pollution and environmental disruption as a good
thing.
On Feb 6, 3:40 am, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Yes, I keep "telling" people that!! - MOST of the argument
: here is purely personal opinion backed up by "more" personal
: opinions by pseudo-scientists, mostly working outside their
: fields of expertise anyway. Their contrived arguments are
: supposed to impress just because they *may* be scientists of
: some other sort than Climate! Further, what effect does
: photosynthesis have on climate change? It should reduce
: planetary warming because it converts CO2 into O2. ALL
: plants use photosynthesis to live. The planet is working away
: to rectify any mistakes we, or any other thing, may make to
: cause global warming. Panic over!
: Harry Merrick.
Oddly, it seems we’ve deforested and paved over quite enough, as well
as making the average density of diatoms not 10% of what they used to
be, in that converting CO2 back into O2 just isn’t happening to the
extent that Henry Merrick thinks is happening. However, surface
erosion has accelerated and the chemicals plus metallicity
artificially added to the global surface, ground water and atmospheric
environment has never been greater, and it’s only getting worse.
It seems warming up another significant part of this planet puts more
water vapor into the atmosphere (at least that's physics-101), and
weather/storm extremes do not happen due to global cooling, but you
mainstreamers can go right ahead and pretend otherwise.
Global dimming via multiple natural and artificial methods will
usually not cause a global cooling trend, unless you're talking about
an extremely large and volumetric dosage of heavy or extremely dense
and sulfuric volcanic output that would have to be sustained at
perhaps ten fold normal levels for several years (not just for any few
months or even a year might not be sufficient).
Objective measurements of the continuing ice volume losses is also
hard to keep ignoring, but I’m sure if anyone can it’ll have to be the
likes of our Hagar and his fellow ZNRs that are in perpetual denial
about damn near everything. Seasonal snow and ice hardly counts, but
you can always make any seasonal affected area look like another ice-
age, just like our NASA/Apollo era made our physically dark moon look
so monochromatic of pastels offering only light grays that were also
oddly inert for such a naked terrain that was nicely eroded down to
only soft rolling hills, and not the least bit metallicity worthy, or
even the least bit UV reactive, much less anticathode worthy. In
other words the Apollo moon was acting as though it were metallicity
deficient.
-
Once again our favorite resident redneck ZNR clown has us rolling on
the floor, laughing our silly butts off. Apparently his home-
schooling stopped bothering to teach him basic math, science and
reading comprehension as of grade three when his puberty kicked in,
and that scared the other little kids that were all of 6 years
younger.
On Feb 2, 4:34 pm, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*******************************************
: We all know that you are retarded, so here it is again, for the
: umpteenth time. If you add up all the chemicals that the average
: of 10 active volcanoes belch into the atmosphere, and add to that
: the natural evaporation of ocean bound methane, plus the 10,000
: plus "smokers" or "chimneys' along the oceanic rifts, you may
: find, much to your chagrin, that the contribution from automobile
: exhausts, airplanes and powerplants is merely a drop in the bucket
: of that fictional Global Warming pollution we are supposedly the
: root of.
: Unfortunately, having your head buried deep within your colon
: doesn't help you to see things very clearly, as evidenced by the
: supposed structures you see on Venus ... pure shit.
Your redneck ZNR approved planet as apparently having no tipping
points and unlimited resources plus ample roadkill and free deep-
fryers for everyone, is noted. In other words, you're saying that
without us humans mass consuming, burning, exploding, excavating,
polluting and exploiting everything in sight (above and below ground
plus indiscriminate harvesting throughout all oceans), as well as
simply venting or spilling whatever as much and often as we like,
whereas without us humans the natural geothermal and atmospheric
energy budget and the chemical plus diversity of raw elements and
biological genetic diversity balance for our Eden environment would be
all out of whack. Got it! (Earth is obviously going cryogenic at any
moment, and needs another fresh restart after the next great thaw)
Silly me, I didn't know that having an artificially made acidic and
carcinogenic atmosphere was actually a good thing, along with
increased soot and raw methane for added global dimming and solar
heating.
Silly me again, for having not appreciated Canada burning their raw
(unprocessed) natural gas in order to get that toxic oil out of their
mucky sand (all at a net energy loss), was actually a very good thing
that couldn’t have been done any better, or sooner.
After all, who the hell doesn’t need more arsenic, mercury, lead,
sulfur and CO in their mostly coal fired industrial and civilian
environment, along with the extra soot, methane, radioisotopes like
radium and radon in order to balance out the extra NOx, CO and CO2.
I didn’t know that by venting massive volumes of raw natural gas along
with helium which tends to displace and/or destabilizes our protective
O3/ozone layer, was yet another perfectly good thing that needed to be
done.
I also didn’t realize that we can never have enough plutonium plus so
many other secondary lethal fission elements for feeding our
skullduggery and WMD frenzy.
I mean, who the hell doesn’t need several thousand tonnes of spent
reactor fuel at risk of losing its cool, which of course wouldn’t even
be an issue if it were spent thorium reactor fuel.
I honestly didn't know that having acidic and toxic fresh water
(surface and deep aquifers artificially polluted) was yet another
super good thing that mother nature needed our help with.
I didn't know that getting rid of that pesky Greenland ice-cap wasn't
yet another super good idea that can’t happen soon enough. (after all,
most of Florida was supposed to be underwater)
I didn't realize the thousands of complex specie extinctions was yet
another good thing we humans have caused or at the very least
expedited, because who the hell needs them other forms of complex
life.
I didn't realize that custom engineered virus and lethal microbials
was just the best ever ticket that Earth couldn't possibly manage
without our help.
I also didn’t realize that Corexit plus numerous other industrial
chemicals as molecular hydrocarbon modifiers and perfectly worthy of
causing genetic mutations was perfectly healthy for us and most other
species.
I certainly didn't realize that lower caste starvation and wars (bogus
or real) because of economic disparities, energy deficiencies
contrived via hoarding or banishment, extensive drought and weather
extremes plus failing crops was all such a good thing in order to
justify global inflation that you and your buddies see nothing wrong
with.
Silly old me, to think that our mutually perpetrated cold-war(s) and
the likes of 9/11 wasn’t a good thing. I mean, what would we have
done otherwise with our spare time and trillions of our hard earned
loot if the US and USSR hadn’t created the likes of North Korea and
Israel to begin with.
So, you’re good with as many dead Jews as possible, as long as only
white Zionist Jews either do their own killing, or cause others to do
the killings in order to justify their subsequent revenge killings by
provoking others?
How about your devout kosher support of the global ethnic culling, in
order to get rid of 6.5 billion humans, and for keeping the global
population always under the “Georgia Guidestones” specified 500
million. Would you care to further elaborate on its kosher approved
redneck authority? (at least so far, all of the Usenet/newsgroup
contributors that act/react exactly like Zionists/Jews, haven’t had
one bad word to say against “The Age of Reason” by yet another
pseudonym that’s hiding himself and his associations)
Don’t get me wrong, as I’m not suggesting a planet like Earth would
not be a whole lot better off under one world government with a common
language and having to host considerably fewer of us, as only highly
educated wizards that’ll each get to know all there is to know, much
like having only a few species of ants could be interesting if these
were hybrid or intelligent engineered enough in order to accomplish
the same jobs as the 12000 species had been accomplishing as of long
before humans even existed.
http://www.antark.net/ant-species/
Perhaps the fewer organic species the better. I mean, why stop at
restricting the variations and population of humans, such as who the
hell needs oxygen from diatoms and their storage of CO2? Imagine our
discovering another Earth that had only one selected species of highly
intelligent humans, and having no other complex forms of organic life,
of which we wouldn’t be allowed to visit or interact with this planet
because everything about our less than 500 million would likely kill
them.
If there were a selection of 100 human species of five million each,
would this be sufficient biological diversity to insure our survival?
Isn’t sustaining the wide diversity of terrestrial life kind of good
biodiversity insurance against our extinction?
Is it imperative that we all think exactly alike, just so that
rednecks like our Hagar can sleep at night?
Notice that our Hagar the commander and chief warlord and resident
hatemonger of Usenet/newsgroups hasn’t specified a common world
religion or his faith-based policy that’s sufficiently redneck
approved. Perhaps those Hagar Guidestones will make this perfectly
clear.
Of course the extremely nearby planet Venus is not without any number
of GW faults and consequences that are pretty much all natural and
doing a fine job, of keeping that planet cooler than it otherwise
might be if the full 2650 w/m2 of sunlight was allowed to get down to
its active geothermally heated surface. Some terrestrial scientists
actually want us to try putting a few million tonnes of sulfur into
our upper atmosphere, for accomplishing the same reflective cooling
effect, except lacking atmospheric buoyancy is why it will not stay up
there, and the end result would likely be much worse off.
Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
“Guth Venus”, at 1:1, then 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Santim Vah
Feb 7, 2012, 11:32:05 AM2/7/12
to
The cause of this warming is another story altogether.
Bollocks, the causes of the rapid warming are clear as day, are proven
scietifically through detailed observations and climate sciences, and
it is not the sun.
What's difficult is projecting into the future and what might be the
effects.
The challenge is exactly why almost every govt met in Rio decades ago
and created the IPCC to advise the worlds govts with scientifically
based analysis and predictions if possible.
Every out-year projection made so far has been found to be too
conservative, as well as the effects.
The only reason this is not so clear to the average man on the street
(and dumb politicians & journalists are as below average as one can
get) is because of the lies and the BS and hot air of raving nutters
not in touch with reality and incapable of understanding the science
or the observations with a clear head.
Santim Vah
Feb 7, 2012, 11:45:12 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 8, 12:59 am, BeamMeUpScotty
RE
Which makes you a mythical fool of the first order.
The PROOF is there, how simple si that.
You either cannot comprehend it, or more likely refuse to even LOOK AT
IT.
Thankfully your BS opinion is utterly irrelevant and worthless.
<shrug>
www.realclimate.org
Very likely, meaning above 95% probability, you won't spend longer
than 5 mintues on this site becasue you and so many others won't be
able to deal with the fact that you won't be able to understand a
word, and rather than fel like an ignorant fool you'll be straight
back here on newsgrups pushing the same old hot air crap.
Let me guess, you're an american right?
<sheesh>
They should change the nations name to the United States of Morons
We call those theories.... until you have the proof.
--
Which makes you a mythical fool of the first order.
The PROOF is there, how simple si that.
You either cannot comprehend it, or more likely refuse to even LOOK AT
IT.
Thankfully your BS opinion is utterly irrelevant and worthless.
<shrug>
www.realclimate.org
Very likely, meaning above 95% probability, you won't spend longer
than 5 mintues on this site becasue you and so many others won't be
able to deal with the fact that you won't be able to understand a
word, and rather than fel like an ignorant fool you'll be straight
back here on newsgrups pushing the same old hot air crap.
Let me guess, you're an american right?
<sheesh>
They should change the nations name to the United States of Morons
Santim Vah
Feb 7, 2012, 11:36:19 AM2/7/12
to
educate yourself
http://www.realclimate.org/
stop wasting your time by staying off newsgroups if you want to truly
learn something
HVAC
Feb 7, 2012, 12:39:34 PM2/7/12
to
On 2/7/2012 10:25 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>> No. Observations and temperature reading worldwide show that the Earth's
>> mean temp. is rising. It is what is is.
>
> People world wide believe in God and we have the data showing that NO
> culture has ever proven there is NO God.
What does a belief in god have to do with temp readings?
>
>> No. Observations and temperature reading worldwide show that the Earth's
>> mean temp. is rising. It is what is is.
>
> People world wide believe in God and we have the data showing that NO
> culture has ever proven there is NO God.
>> Denying it is just stupid.
>
> Denying God is just stupid
readings and compare their results. This repeatability
is what separates science from religion.
>> We can argue the cause(s). The facts speak for themselves.
>
> What facts?
>
> Drowning Polar bears?
>
> Ice melting?
>
> Ocean level rise?
>
> CO2?
Again, I deal with facts, not political avarice nor prejudice.
> You connect all those and call it proof, I say maybe proof that you
> don't know how to extrapolate and use the DATA you are mining.
All *I* said was that globally, temperatures are rising.
>>> We've seen this done before.
>
> Yes it is a false God and you want us to believe that sacrificing a
> virgin will make the world a better place.
BeamMeUpScotty
Feb 7, 2012, 1:09:25 PM2/7/12
to
On 2/7/2012 12:39 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 2/7/2012 10:25 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>> No. Observations and temperature reading worldwide show that the Earth's
>>> mean temp. is rising. It is what is is.
>>
>> People world wide believe in God and we have the data showing that NO
>> culture has ever proven there is NO God.
>
>
> What does a belief in god have to do with temp readings?
It's all just DATA.
> On 2/7/2012 10:25 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>> No. Observations and temperature reading worldwide show that the Earth's
>>> mean temp. is rising. It is what is is.
>>
>> People world wide believe in God and we have the data showing that NO
>> culture has ever proven there is NO God.
>
>
> What does a belief in god have to do with temp readings?
>
>
>>> Denying it is just stupid.
>>
>> Denying God is just stupid
>
>
> With one huge difference...Anyone can go and take temp
> readings and compare their results. This repeatability
> is what separates science from religion.
>
consensus" A consensus is what religion seeks.
>>> We can argue the cause(s). The facts speak for themselves.
>>
>> What facts?
>>
>> Drowning Polar bears?
>>
>> Ice melting?
>>
>> Ocean level rise?
>>
>> CO2?
>
>
> I was discussing temperature readings from around the globe.
> Again, I deal with facts, not political avarice nor prejudice.
>
you.... And you know that most of the worlds temps were not accurate and
not consistently working/reporting and that the USA was one place you
have a somewhat consistent and working temperature data set....
So 2/3 of the earth is water and you have no 1800 data for that and the
land areas were mostly lacking except the USA and Europe, so there is
lets say 50% of the remaining 1/3 so you are using 1/6 of the planet to
extrapolate the global temperatures? We didn't even go to the
Antarctic and take the temperature until after 1900 did we? The coldest
place on the planet and you have no data but you can tell us the global
temperature?
each time you take a hit on the area or the quality of data you lose
credibility.
So far you want us to all agree that you have accurate temperature data
when in fact the plus or minus error spread is huge.
Then you apply that data to recent data from a satellite....?
If you had HIGH QUALITY DATA and it was from 90% of the planet surface I
might accept your data and give weight to your theory, but you don't and
I can't.
HVAC
Feb 7, 2012, 2:52:04 PM2/7/12
to
On 2/7/2012 1:09 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>>>
>>> People world wide believe in God and we have the data showing that NO
>>> culture has ever proven there is NO God.
>>
>>
>> What does a belief in god have to do with temp readings?
>
> It's all just DATA.
Well, I've got data that says that temperatures are rising.
>
>>>
>>> People world wide believe in God and we have the data showing that NO
>>> culture has ever proven there is NO God.
>>
>>
>> What does a belief in god have to do with temp readings?
>
> It's all just DATA.
What data do you have on god?
HVAC
Feb 7, 2012, 2:57:45 PM2/7/12
to
On 2/7/2012 11:32 AM, Santim Vah wrote:
>
>>
>> The cause of this warming is another story altogether.
>>
>> At the end of the day, polluting our planet is not a good thing.
>>
>> --
>>
>
>
>>
>> The cause of this warming is another story altogether.
>>
>> At the end of the day, polluting our planet is not a good thing.
>>
>> --
>>
>
> RE
> The cause of this warming is another story altogether.
>
> Bollocks, the causes of the rapid warming are clear as day, are proven
> scietifically through detailed observations and climate sciences, and
> it is not the sun.
OK. Let's say that you are correct.
> The cause of this warming is another story altogether.
>
> Bollocks, the causes of the rapid warming are clear as day, are proven
> scietifically through detailed observations and climate sciences, and
> it is not the sun.
How do we fix it and how much will it cost ME?
PS- I have the solutions, but you would go bugshit if you heard them.
Santim Vah
Feb 7, 2012, 7:57:36 PM2/7/12
to
> > RE
> > The cause of this warming is another story altogether.
>
> > Bollocks, the causes of the rapid warming are clear as day, are proven
> > scietifically through detailed observations and climate sciences, and
> > it is not the sun.
>
> OK. Let's say that you are correct.
> How do we fix it and how much will it cost ME?
>
> PS- I have the solutions, but you would go bugshit if you heard them.
>
OK. Let's say that you are correct.
Simple, I am correct, whether you or anyone agrees or not is
irrelevant. Your head and beliefs are your concern, not mine, nor the
climate issues.
RE
How do we fix it and how much will it cost ME?
Why are you changing the subject?
I don't give a shit how much it costs YOU or me. Evolution proves that
species either adapt or die out.
Why the fuckwits in this world keep lying about it, keep denying the
bleeding obvious, and while people keep voting in fuckwits and the
majority of self-centred fools run the world and manipulate the rest
with their narcissistic and psychopathic behaviours it's an irrelevant
question *how to fix it* ...
The only question that matters is how does each individual and their
children if they have any survive vs die when the effects of climate
change continue to play out and get worse when the major tipping
points start being ticked off. ?
It's not about fucking $$$ and how much it will cost you, it's what
will you be able to EAT .. not how many friends you have on facebook,
or the size of your damn car or the US debt or whether Israel gets
destroyed by nukes.
You go work it out for yourself, it;s your fucking life!!!
<shrug>
HVAC
Feb 8, 2012, 7:51:10 AM2/8/12
to
On 2/7/2012 7:57 PM, Santim Vah wrote:
>
>>>
> How do we fix it and how much will it cost ME?
>
> Why are you changing the subject?
I'm not. You are. I agreed that the Earth is warming. I also stated
>
>>>
> How do we fix it and how much will it cost ME?
>
> Why are you changing the subject?
that the causes for this warming are not fully understood.
YOU then stated that the causes were understood.
I asked as to a solution and the per capita cost for same.
......You then proceeded to have a melt down.
> I don't give a shit how much it costs YOU or me. Evolution proves that
> species either adapt or die out.
> Why the fuckwits in this world keep lying about it, keep denying the
> bleeding obvious, and while people keep voting in fuckwits and the
> majority of self-centred fools run the world and manipulate the rest
> with their narcissistic and psychopathic behaviours it's an irrelevant
> question *how to fix it* ...
>
> The only question that matters is how does each individual and their
> children if they have any survive vs die when the effects of climate
> change continue to play out and get worse when the major tipping
> points start being ticked off. ?
>
> It's not about fucking $$$ and how much it will cost you, it's what
> will you be able to EAT .. not how many friends you have on facebook,
> or the size of your damn car or the US debt or whether Israel gets
> destroyed by nukes.
>
> You go work it out for yourself, it;s your fucking life!!!
> <shrug>
vtcapo
Feb 8, 2012, 9:23:03 AM2/8/12
to
effect on climate change. However, what is of concern are Co2 levels.
The question is are we as a species helping to accelerate this warming
trend? The evidence is overwhelming that we are.
The fuckwit scientists that constantly deny this fact are bought and
paid for by big industry. They have the power and the money to
forestall any change in the right direction if it is going to affect
their bottom line. Fooling the general public is child’s play for
these movers and shakers. Look how long they have kept the UFO and
Alien phenomena cover up going.
Don’t expect a change for the better as long as Big Oil rules. The
world and especially the American public are easily fooled into
believing their lies. Look how many dumb asses still vote
Republican. No, as long as people like HVAC can manage to get to
the voters booth and instead of doing the research think in terms of
their wallet, nothing will change.
Except the climate…..
RT
HVAC
Feb 8, 2012, 9:40:46 AM2/8/12
to
On 2/8/2012 9:23 AM, vtcapo wrote:
>
>>
>
> The facts remain that based on current data the Sun does have a major
> effect on climate change. However, what is of concern are Co2 levels.
> The question is are we as a species helping to accelerate this warming
> trend? The evidence is overwhelming that we are.
It is the height of hubris to believe that we fully
>
>>
>
> The facts remain that based on current data the Sun does have a major
> effect on climate change. However, what is of concern are Co2 levels.
> The question is are we as a species helping to accelerate this warming
> trend? The evidence is overwhelming that we are.
understand the chaotic nature of global climate.
> The fuckwit scientists that constantly deny this fact are bought and
> paid for by big industry. They have the power and the money to
> forestall any change in the right direction if it is going to affect
> their bottom line. Fooling the general public is child’s play for
> these movers and shakers. Look how long they have kept the UFO and
> Alien phenomena cover up going.
> Don’t expect a change for the better as long as Big Oil rules. The
> world and especially the American public are easily fooled into
> believing their lies. Look how many dumb asses still vote
> Republican. No, as long as people like HVAC can manage to get to
> the voters booth and instead of doing the research think in terms of
> their wallet, nothing will change.
>
> Except the climate…..
current warming trend, the solution would be to construct at
least 50 new nuclear power plants in the next decade or so.
Are you global warming hippies prepared to take that step?
If not, then shut the fuck up.
Antares 531
Feb 8, 2012, 9:01:59 AM2/8/12
to
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:39:34 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/7/2012 10:25 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>> No. Observations and temperature reading worldwide show that the Earth's
>>> mean temp. is rising. It is what is is.
>>
>> People world wide believe in God and we have the data showing that NO
>> culture has ever proven there is NO God.
>
>
>What does a belief in god have to do with temp readings?
>
>
>>> Denying it is just stupid.
>>
>> Denying God is just stupid
>
>
>With one huge difference...Anyone can go and take temp
>readings and compare their results. This repeatability
>is what separates science from religion.
>
The problem here is that short term temperature data doesn't provide
>On 2/7/2012 10:25 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>> No. Observations and temperature reading worldwide show that the Earth's
>>> mean temp. is rising. It is what is is.
>>
>> People world wide believe in God and we have the data showing that NO
>> culture has ever proven there is NO God.
>
>
>What does a belief in god have to do with temp readings?
>
>
>>> Denying it is just stupid.
>>
>> Denying God is just stupid
>
>
>With one huge difference...Anyone can go and take temp
>readings and compare their results. This repeatability
>is what separates science from religion.
>
much, if any insights into what causes the long term climate changes.
I'm talking about the 110 to 120 thousand year cycles that are
recorded in the polar ice. Ice core studies have shown at least four
such cycles, and there were probably more before that time, but the
polar ice isn't available for those earlier cycles.
HVAC
Feb 8, 2012, 10:48:15 AM2/8/12
to
On 2/8/2012 9:01 AM, Antares 531 wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Denying God is just stupid
>>
>>
>> With one huge difference...Anyone can go and take temp
>> readings and compare their results. This repeatability
>> is what separates science from religion.
>>
> The problem here is that short term temperature data doesn't provide
> much, if any insights into what causes the long term climate changes.
> I'm talking about the 110 to 120 thousand year cycles that are
> recorded in the polar ice. Ice core studies have shown at least four
> such cycles, and there were probably more before that time, but the
> polar ice isn't available for those earlier cycles.
Exactly. We don't fully understand the chaotic system that
>
>>>
>>> Denying God is just stupid
>>
>>
>> With one huge difference...Anyone can go and take temp
>> readings and compare their results. This repeatability
>> is what separates science from religion.
>>
> The problem here is that short term temperature data doesn't provide
> much, if any insights into what causes the long term climate changes.
> I'm talking about the 110 to 120 thousand year cycles that are
> recorded in the polar ice. Ice core studies have shown at least four
> such cycles, and there were probably more before that time, but the
> polar ice isn't available for those earlier cycles.
is global climate. Having said that, when someone wants money
to 'cure' the 'problem', I grab my ass and my wallet....Cause
someone wants a piece of each.
Brad Guth
Feb 8, 2012, 1:37:01 PM2/8/12
to
the better, because the rich and powerful could honestly care less
about GW or AGW weather extremes or the cost of everything.
Global CO2 is more of an indicator rather than any singular cause of
AGW.
Solar variations are truly minimal. The end result of whatever
internal fusion within our sun (regardless of the internal time delay
from start to exit) is still going to become the surface or
photosphere radiated energy, and a great deal of science has proven
when the sun has been measurably hotter or cooler, as such hasn't
offered any strong link as to what Earth has to work with, such as
when we try to deductively figure out GW and AGW science.
Try to remember, that by going only 0.1 km (100 meters) below the
surface, the +/- solar energy is nearly meaningless, because day or
night is practically meaningless. As for going any deeper than a km
under the surface, whereas even if the sun varied by +/50% would not
make any significant difference. Should that sun entirely vanish
would not measurably affect the bedrock that’s any km+ deep, however
the lack of tidal modulation would be measurably noticed as a measured
reduction in global heat.
On the annual cycle basis, most of our glacial ice thaw has been
melting from the bottom up. This is not to say that our AGW and its
global dimming isn’t working its magic from the top down.
The amount of stored heat, including fission generated heat and tidal
modulated heat from within Earth is considerably greater than any
solar heat influx. The extra 296 TW of thermal imbalance is just the
amount humans manage to contribute via mostly hydrocarbons, fission
and hydroelectric energy.
“According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the
0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
future.”
part of the estimated .58 w/m2 or 296 TW worth of global thermal
imbalance are you buying or not buying into?
296 TW of AGW (42.3 kw/person) doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local
area drought and/or weather/storm extremes are either draining your
bank account or otherwise killing you.
I would actually doubt that any 42 ppm reduction in CO2 by itself can
cancel out the .58 w/m2 of global energy imbalance, especially when so
much of the global imbalance of 296 TW isn’t strictly CO2 related.
However, if we can manage to cut the global CO2 by an average of 42
ppm, it stands to good reason that many other reductions in our soot,
CO, NOx, CH4 and a host of other released elements (including helium)
is going to get reduced at the same time. The accumulative affect is
going to be positive and otherwise beneficial, even if it only
accomplishes a 10% improvement (.058 W/m2), but none the less it's
certainly a terrific start in the right direction.
Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isn’t such a bad idea,
considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
with no shortages of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees
per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those
and everything else to grow from. With any luck, Greenland could
become the new Eden for us.
Michael Gordge
Feb 8, 2012, 3:38:48 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 2:39 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What does a belief in god have to do with temp readings?
God and AGW are kissing cousins, ewe fuckwit, both invented to keep
> What does a belief in god have to do with temp readings?
control of ewe, sucker.
MG
Michael Gordge
Feb 8, 2012, 3:37:32 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 12:14 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Prove what? That the recorded temperatures are real?
In regards to a 5 billion year old event condensed into an hour, the
> Prove what? That the recorded temperatures are real?
climate, man has records of temperatures that dont even span the
duration of a microsecond of that hour, soo grow up ewe delinquent
religionist fuckwit and stop denying AGW is just another lefturdian
tax hoax.
MG
HVAC
Feb 8, 2012, 3:54:21 PM2/8/12
to
Michael Gordge
Feb 8, 2012, 4:09:47 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 9, 5:54 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kewl
Not even stops ewe being a complete sucker, what fools ewe leftestical
retards are.
MG
> Kewl
Not even stops ewe being a complete sucker, what fools ewe leftestical
retards are.
MG
Michael Gordge
Feb 8, 2012, 4:28:31 PM2/8/12
to
Involves the church eh?
MG
MG
Michael Gordge
Feb 8, 2012, 4:22:15 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 9, 12:48 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We don't fully understand the chaotic system..........
Hahahhaa another one of those 'butterfly flapping wings causes
earhquakes' fuckwit.
MG
> We don't fully understand the chaotic system..........
Hahahhaa another one of those 'butterfly flapping wings causes
earhquakes' fuckwit.
MG
be...@iwaynet.net
Feb 8, 2012, 5:04:28 PM2/8/12
to
We also can notice that trillion dollar PER YEAR energy tax that vtcapo
seems to not mention. A tax that even if it were effective in stopping
ALL fossil fuel use, would only change the greenhouse effect of CO2 by
under 1 %. Of course that tax would pay for those nukes (provided the
politicians didn't get to it first).
Bret Cahill
Feb 8, 2012, 5:04:44 PM2/8/12
to
> > > >> Bret, I'd be curios to see what kind of data is out their supporting
> > > >> the global warming theory, do you know of anybody compiling and making
> > > >> available to the general public?
>
> > > > Actually global warming is an observation, not a theory.
>
> > > Well put. The other day I had a friend ask me, "don't you think
> > > those meteorologic scientists have an agenda?".
>
> > > I replied, "what if their agenda is to go places and report the
> > > findings?" Because that's what the VAST majority of scientists DO.
>
> > > The fact that a few have altered their findings to garner more
> > > funding is irrelevant. The Earth is warming. Period.
>
> > > The cause of this warming is another story altogether.
>
> > > At the end of the day, polluting our planet is not a good thing.
>
> > > --
> > > "OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
>
> > RE
> > The cause of this warming is another story altogether.
>
> > Bollocks, the causes of the rapid warming are clear as day, are proven
> > scietifically through detailed observations and climate sciences, and
> > it is not the sun.
>
> Well, the above paragraph proves you aren't thinking about the
> > > >> the global warming theory, do you know of anybody compiling and making
> > > >> available to the general public?
>
> > > > Actually global warming is an observation, not a theory.
>
> > > Well put. The other day I had a friend ask me, "don't you think
> > > those meteorologic scientists have an agenda?".
>
> > > I replied, "what if their agenda is to go places and report the
> > > findings?" Because that's what the VAST majority of scientists DO.
>
> > > The fact that a few have altered their findings to garner more
> > > funding is irrelevant. The Earth is warming. Period.
>
> > > The cause of this warming is another story altogether.
>
> > > At the end of the day, polluting our planet is not a good thing.
>
> > > --
> > > "OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
>
> > RE
> > The cause of this warming is another story altogether.
>
> > Bollocks, the causes of the rapid warming are clear as day, are proven
> > scietifically through detailed observations and climate sciences, and
> > it is not the sun.
>
> problem scientifically.
You need to support those claims with your Lyndon LaRouch link to a
dowsers.
. . .
> There is no way to create a reliable mathematical model of the
> Earth's atmosphere because of one simple mathematical concept:
> Chaos. This is a matter of mathematical consensus. There is no
> wiggle room.
You would have more credibility if one of your more eruditated sock
puppets would post here agreeing with that.
HVAC
Feb 8, 2012, 5:41:24 PM2/8/12
to
HVAC
Feb 8, 2012, 5:44:07 PM2/8/12
to
On 2/8/2012 5:04 PM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> If you are correct and humans have been the cause of this
>> current warming trend, the solution would be to construct at
>> least 50 new nuclear power plants in the next decade or so.
>>
>> Are you global warming hippies prepared to take that step?
>>
>> If not, then shut the fuck up.
>
>
> EXCELLENT REPLY, HVAC! I want to have your love-child!
Get in line...
>
>>
>>
>> If you are correct and humans have been the cause of this
>> current warming trend, the solution would be to construct at
>> least 50 new nuclear power plants in the next decade or so.
>>
>> Are you global warming hippies prepared to take that step?
>>
>> If not, then shut the fuck up.
>
>
> EXCELLENT REPLY, HVAC! I want to have your love-child!
Brad Guth
Feb 8, 2012, 7:22:29 PM2/8/12
to
There's lots of renewable energy that's relatively failsafe and
doesn't create CO2, SO2, CO, NOx and disperse a slew of other nasty
toxins, as well as not releasing precious helium, but those are not
nearly as profitable nor worth going to war over. There’s also
numerous methods of utilizing our energy a whole lot more efficiently
and making it more reliable at the same time. For some reason Steven
Chu and others of our previous, current and future administrations do
not feel the need nor having any personal motives for changing a damn
Solar variations are truly minimal, whereas the end result of whatever
photosphere radiated energy, and a great deal of science has long
since proven when the sun has been measurably hotter or cooler, as
CO, NOx, SO2, CH4 and a host of other released elements (including
forms of life, even terrific if it only accomplishes a 10% improvement
(.058 W/m2 or 29.6 TW), but none the less it's certainly a terrific
another 25% of its continent as ice-free land, worthy of 5e11 m2),
should actually turn out as being a very good place to live. As is,
Greenland is only 19% ice-free, or 4.1e11 m2 out of 2.166e12 m2,
although most of that ice-free land isn’t desirable to live on.
However, together that’s 9.1e11 m2 of ice-free land, with unlimited
hydroelectric and all the fresh water you could possibly want (after
exporting more than half of the 365e9 gallons of ice and compacted
snow melt per year, at the wholesale value of $1/gallon).
Outdated science: “Greenland's ice-free area increased by 16 percent
between 1979 and 2002” is a rate of roughly 0.7%/year, which by now
has likely increased to near 1%/year.
Btw; ice cores of Greenland’s compacted snow which becomes ice seem
to also track our industrial use of lead. Obviously even such heavy
elements of metallicity do carry themselves into the atmosphere, and
return to the surface as precipitation or snow.
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=397988§ion=3.1
doesn't create CO2, SO2, CO, NOx and disperse a slew of other nasty
toxins, as well as not releasing precious helium, but those are not
nearly as profitable nor worth going to war over. There’s also
numerous methods of utilizing our energy a whole lot more efficiently
and making it more reliable at the same time. For some reason Steven
Chu and others of our previous, current and future administrations do
not feel the need nor having any personal motives for changing a damn
thing.
Global CO2 is more of an indicator rather than any singular cause of
AGW, just like smoke or soot is an indicator of fire.
Global CO2 is more of an indicator rather than any singular cause of
Solar variations are truly minimal, whereas the end result of whatever
internal fusion within our sun (regardless of the internal time delay
from start to exit) is still going to become the hot surface or
photosphere radiated energy, and a great deal of science has long
since proven when the sun has been measurably hotter or cooler, as
helium) is going to get reduced at the same time. The accumulative
affect is going to be positive and otherwise beneficial to all known
forms of life, even terrific if it only accomplishes a 10% improvement
(.058 W/m2 or 29.6 TW), but none the less it's certainly a terrific
start in the right direction.
Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isn’t such a bad idea,
considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
with no shortages of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees
per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those
and everything else to grow from. With any luck, Greenland could
become the new Eden for us.
Greenland with another 50% loss of ice (-1.45e18 kg and say exposing
Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isn’t such a bad idea,
considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
with no shortages of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees
per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those
and everything else to grow from. With any luck, Greenland could
become the new Eden for us.
another 25% of its continent as ice-free land, worthy of 5e11 m2),
should actually turn out as being a very good place to live. As is,
Greenland is only 19% ice-free, or 4.1e11 m2 out of 2.166e12 m2,
although most of that ice-free land isn’t desirable to live on.
However, together that’s 9.1e11 m2 of ice-free land, with unlimited
hydroelectric and all the fresh water you could possibly want (after
exporting more than half of the 365e9 gallons of ice and compacted
snow melt per year, at the wholesale value of $1/gallon).
Outdated science: “Greenland's ice-free area increased by 16 percent
between 1979 and 2002” is a rate of roughly 0.7%/year, which by now
has likely increased to near 1%/year.
Btw; ice cores of Greenland’s compacted snow which becomes ice seem
to also track our industrial use of lead. Obviously even such heavy
elements of metallicity do carry themselves into the atmosphere, and
return to the surface as precipitation or snow.
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=397988§ion=3.1
Brad Guth
Feb 8, 2012, 7:39:37 PM2/8/12
to
Our resident parrot Sam Wormley is correct, in that GW+AGW is an
ongoing climate change, and most actively as of roughly 11,712 years
ago, but only as of lately getting into its highest gear and looking
grim for those that can’t afford to deal with it.
Seasonal weather is not global cooling or heating. If that snow and
ice arrived late and its duration is gone within the same or shorter
period of time as in previous years, it's not a cooling trend. For
another better example; snow buildup within central Antarctica is
only possible due to global warming, so perhaps that needs to be
objectively measured.
That rug of AGW sweepings (that’s supposedly good at hiding cold
spots), is not the same badly soiled rug on Hagar’s makeshift trailer
porch, is it?
It seems the pro-GWs (anti-AGWs) want the rest of us to believe that
it’s all perfectly natural and somehow automatically taking care of
us, regardless of whatever 7+ billion humans has done in the past,
current or future. Hagar has been suggesting that spots of unusually
cold temperatures and whatever compacted snow producing glacial
buildups are being systematically excluded or obfuscated by those in
favor of the AGW theory. However, those multiple hot spots seem to be
outnumbering the cold spots, not only by size but via duration. I
take it that our Hagar and other GWs in perpetual denial don’t buy
into any part of the AGW that's suggesting .58 w/m2 of our global
energy as any budget imbalance.
GW and AGW obfuscation:, and the usual denial of being in denial works
every time, as well as quantitative physics that interact with one
another but not always for the greater good is what seems to get
ignored, perhaps because the rich and powerful really don’t have to
care.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/bc7030dc9b65e314?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/1f293fab9f4ac555?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/45a69518da54748e?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/be280373c5f7e04c?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/740b288d63bc201f?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/browse_frm/thread/93db80bdc450004b?
On Feb 5, 12:15 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget_prt.htm
: The researchers concluded that the 0.58 watts per square meter
: imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced
: to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to
: equilibrium. They say the most recent measurements put CO2
: to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to
: levels at 392 parts per million and those concentrations are
: expected to keep rising.
:
: Scientists have been refining calculations of the Earth's energy
: imbalance for years, but NASA researchers say their newest
: estimate is an improvement because they had access to better
: measurements of ocean temperature.
: --
: "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...
: and CO2 levels to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm."
: --
: --
“According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the
0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
future.”
So, go right ahead and specify or declare what scientific quantitative
part of the estimated .58 w/m2 or 296 TW worth of global thermal
imbalance are you buying or not buying into?
296 TW of AGW (42.3 kw/person) doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local
area drought and/or weather/storm extremes are either draining your
bank account or otherwise killing you.
I would actually doubt that any 42 ppm reduction in CO2 by itself can
cancel out the .58 w/m2 of global energy imbalance, especially when so
much of the global imbalance of 296 TW isn’t strictly CO2 related.
However, if we can manage to cut the global CO2 by an average of 42
ppm, it stands to good reason that many other reductions in our soot,
CO, NOx, CH4 and a host of other released elements (including helium)
0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
future.”
So, go right ahead and specify or declare what scientific quantitative
part of the estimated .58 w/m2 or 296 TW worth of global thermal
imbalance are you buying or not buying into?
296 TW of AGW (42.3 kw/person) doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local
area drought and/or weather/storm extremes are either draining your
bank account or otherwise killing you.
I would actually doubt that any 42 ppm reduction in CO2 by itself can
cancel out the .58 w/m2 of global energy imbalance, especially when so
much of the global imbalance of 296 TW isn’t strictly CO2 related.
However, if we can manage to cut the global CO2 by an average of 42
ppm, it stands to good reason that many other reductions in our soot,
is going to get reduced at the same time. The accumulative affect is
going to be positive and otherwise beneficial, even if it only
accomplishes a 10% improvement (.058 W/m2), but none the less it's
certainly a terrific start in the right direction.
Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isn’t such a bad idea,
considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
with no shortages of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees
per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those
and everything else to grow from. With any luck, Greenland could
become the new Eden for us.
Obviously the rich and powerful could care less how much climate
Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isn’t such a bad idea,
considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
with no shortages of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees
per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those
and everything else to grow from. With any luck, Greenland could
become the new Eden for us.
change or weather severity (hot, cold, wet or stormy) is taking place,
because they'll always fully insured and get to relocate as often and
as far away from the really nasty stuff as they like (using their
private yachts and business jets none the less), and usually not even
having to pay an extra cent in taxes because they’ll find a way of
writing it off as another one of their onshore as well as offshore
business expenses. On the other hand, the middle and lower caste
seems to be stuck directly in harms way of GW and AGW consequences.
In fact, it seems the rich and powerful desire as much GW and AGW as
they can muster and/or allowing others to create, as another way of
culling the lower 95% of us, thereby sucking away at our savings and
making this look as though only nature was responsible for killing us
off.
-
Once again our resident redneck FUD-master (aka Hagar) is constipated
from eating too much of his deep-fried roadkill, and damn proud of it
and the methane cloud that always follows wherever he goes.
On Feb 5, 9:20 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: And to think it all had its start in the 70s, with the dreaded
: Global Cooling doomsday scenario gang ... and the idiots
: insist it is Global Warming, ooops . Climate Change,
: ooopsy-daisy ... Global Climate Disruption
:
http://news.yahoo.com/snow-forces-heathrow-cancel-half-flights-143250...
: Bwahahahahaaa ...
Then we always have this other intellectual flatulence that’ll further
justify any amount of pollution and environmental disruption, as a
good thing.
On Feb 6, 3:40 am, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Yes, I keep "telling" people that!! - MOST of the argument
: here is purely personal opinion backed up by "more" personal
: opinions by pseudo-scientists, mostly working outside their
: fields of expertise anyway. Their contrived arguments are
: supposed to impress just because they *may* be scientists of
: some other sort than Climate! Further, what effect does
: photosynthesis have on climate change? It should reduce
: planetary warming because it converts CO2 into O2. ALL
: plants use photosynthesis to live. The planet is working away
: to rectify any mistakes we, or any other thing, may make to
: cause global warming. Panic over!
: Harry Merrick.
Oddly, it seems we’ve deforested and paved over quite enough, as well
as making the average density of diatoms not 10% of what they used to
be, in that converting CO2 back into O2 just isn’t happening to the
extent that Henry Merrick thinks is happening. However, surface
erosion has accelerated and the chemicals plus metallicity
artificially added to the global surface, ground water and atmospheric
environment has never been greater, and the toxic stench is only
getting worse.
It seems warming up another significant part of this planet puts more
water vapor into the atmosphere (at least that's physics-101), and
weather/storm extremes do not happen due to global cooling, but you
mainstreamers can go right ahead and pretend otherwise.
Global dimming via multiple natural and artificial methods will
usually not cause a global cooling trend, unless you're talking about
an extremely large and volumetric dosage of heavy or extremely dense
and sulfuric volcanic output that would have to be sustained at
perhaps ten fold normal levels for several years (not just for any few
months or even a year might not be sufficient).
Objective measurements of the continuing ice volume losses is also
hard to keep ignoring, but I’m sure if anyone can it’ll have to be the
likes of our Hagar and his fellow ZNRs that are in perpetual denial
about damn near everything. Seasonal snow and ice hardly counts, but
you folks of GW and AGW denial can always make any seasonal cold
affected area look like another ice-age, just like our NASA/Apollo era
made our physically dark moon look so monochromatic of pastels
offering only light grays that were also oddly so extra reflective and
inert for such a naked terrain that was nicely eroded down to only
soft rolling hills, and not the least bit metallicity worthy, or even
the least bit UV reactive, much less anticathode worthy. In other
words the Apollo moon was acting as though it were as metallicity
deficient as a certain private guano island.
-
Once again our favorite resident redneck ZNR clown has us rolling on
the floor, laughing our silly butts off. Apparently his home-
schooling stopped bothering to teach him basic math, science and
reading comprehension as of grade three when his puberty kicked in,
and that scared the other little kids that were all of 6 years
younger.
On Feb 2, 4:34 pm, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*******************************************
: We all know that you are retarded, so here it is again, for the
: umpteenth time. If you add up all the chemicals that the average
: of 10 active volcanoes belch into the atmosphere, and add to that
: the natural evaporation of ocean bound methane, plus the 10,000
: plus "smokers" or "chimneys' along the oceanic rifts, you may
: find, much to your chagrin, that the contribution from automobile
: exhausts, airplanes and powerplants is merely a drop in the bucket
: of that fictional Global Warming pollution we are supposedly the
: root of.
: Unfortunately, having your head buried deep within your colon
: doesn't help you to see things very clearly, as evidenced by the
: supposed structures you see on Venus ... pure shit.
Your redneck ZNR approved planet as apparently one of having no
tipping points and unlimited resources, plus ample roadkill and free
deep-fryers for everyone, is noted. In other words, you're saying
that without us humans mass consuming, burning, exploding, excavating,
polluting and exploiting everything in sight (above and below ground
plus indiscriminate harvesting throughout all oceans), as well as
simply venting or spilling whatever as much and often as we like,
whereas without us humans the natural geothermal and atmospheric
energy budget and the chemical plus diversity of raw elements and
biological genetic diversity balance for our Eden environment would be
all out of whack. Got it! (Earth is obviously going cryogenic at any
moment, and needs another fresh restart after the next great thaw)
Silly me, I didn't know that having an artificially made acidic and
carcinogenic atmosphere was actually a good thing, along with
increased soot and raw methane for added global dimming and solar
heating.
Silly me again, for having not appreciated Canada burning their raw
(unprocessed) natural gas in order to get that toxic oil out of their
mucky sand (all at a net energy loss), was actually a very good thing
that couldn’t have been done any better, or sooner.
After all, who the hell doesn’t need more arsenic, mercury, lead,
sulfur and CO in their mostly coal fired industrial and civilian
environment, along with the extra soot, methane, radioisotopes like
radium and radon in order to balance out the extra NOx, CO and CO2.
I didn’t know that by venting massive volumes of raw natural gas along
with helium which tends to displace and/or destabilizes our protective
O3/ozone layer, was yet another perfectly good thing that needed to be
done.
I also didn’t realize that we can never have enough plutonium plus so
many other secondary lethal fission elements for feeding our
skullduggery and WMD frenzy.
I mean, who the hell doesn’t need several thousand tonnes of spent
reactor fuel at risk of losing its cool, which of course wouldn’t even
be an issue if it were spent thorium reactor fuel.
I honestly didn't know that having acidic and toxic fresh water
(surface and deep aquifers artificially polluted) was yet another
super good thing that mother nature needed our help with.
I didn't know that getting rid of that pesky Greenland ice-cap wasn't
yet another super good idea that can’t happen soon enough. (after all,
most of Florida was supposed to be underwater)
I didn't realize the thousands of complex specie extinctions was yet
another good thing we humans have caused or at the very least
expedited, because who the hell needs them other forms of complex
life.
I didn't realize that custom engineered virus and lethal microbials
was just the best ever ticket that Earth couldn't possibly manage
without our help.
I also didn’t realize that Corexit plus numerous other industrial
chemicals as molecular hydrocarbon modifiers and perfectly worthy of
causing genetic mutations was perfectly healthy for us and most other
species.
I certainly didn't realize that lower caste starvation and wars (bogus
or real) because of economic disparities, energy deficiencies
contrived via hoarding or banishment, extensive drought and weather
extremes plus failing crops was all such a good thing in order to
justify global inflation that you and your buddies see nothing wrong
with.
Silly old me, to think that our mutually perpetrated cold-war(s) and
the likes of 9/11 wasn’t a good thing. I mean, what would we have
done otherwise with our spare time and trillions of our hard earned
loot if the US and USSR hadn’t created the likes of North Korea and
Israel to begin with.
So, you’re good with as many dead Jews as possible, as long as only
white Zionist Jews either do their own killing, or cause others to do
the killings in order to justify their subsequent revenge killings by
provoking others?
How about your devout kosher support of the global ethnic culling, in
order to get rid of 6.5 billion humans, and for keeping the global
population always under the “Georgia Guidestones” specified 500
million. Would you care to further elaborate on its kosher approved
redneck authority? (at least so far, all of the Usenet/newsgroup
contributors that act/react exactly like Zionists/Jews, haven’t had
one bad word to say against “The Age of Reason” by yet another
pseudonym that’s hiding himself and his associations)
Don’t get me wrong, as I’m not suggesting a planet like Earth would
not be a whole lot better off under one world government with a common
language and having to host considerably fewer of us, as only highly
educated wizards that’ll each get to know all there is to know, much
like having only a few species of ants could be interesting if these
were hybrid or intelligent engineered enough in order to accomplish
the same jobs as the 12000 species had been accomplishing as of long
before humans even existed.
http://www.antark.net/ant-species/
Perhaps the fewer organic species the better. I mean, why stop at
restricting the variations and population of humans, such as who the
hell needs oxygen from diatoms and their storage of CO2? Imagine our
discovering another Earth that had only one selected species of highly
intelligent humans, and having no other complex forms of organic life,
of which we wouldn’t be allowed to visit or interact with this planet
because everything about our less than 500 million would likely kill
them.
If there were to be a selection of 100 human species or variants of
five million each, would this offer sufficient biological diversity to
insure our perpetual survival?
Isn’t sustaining the widest possible diversity of terrestrial life
kind of good biodiversity insurance against our extinction?
Is it imperative that we all think exactly alike, just so that
rednecks like our Hagar and other FUD-masters can sleep at night?
Notice that our Hagar as commander and chief warlord and resident
hatemonger of Usenet/newsgroups hasn’t specified a common world
religion or his faith-based policy that’s sufficiently redneck
approved. Perhaps those Hagar Guidestones will make this perfectly
clear.
Of course the extremely nearby planet Venus is not without any number
of GW faults and consequences that are pretty much all natural and
doing a fine job, of keeping that planet cooler than it otherwise
might be if the full 2650 w/m2 of sunlight was allowed to get down to
its active geothermally heated surface. Some terrestrial scientists
actually want us to try putting a few million tonnes of sulfur into
our upper atmosphere, for accomplishing the same reflective cooling
effect, except lacking atmospheric buoyancy is why it will not stay up
there, and the end result would likely be much worse off.
Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
“Guth Venus”, at 1:1, then 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
Santim Vah
Feb 8, 2012, 11:23:07 PM2/8/12
to
will place your thoughts into what I think you might have meant .. and
i think is more accurate.
RE "The facts remain that based on current data the Sun does have a
major effect on climate change."
It is a FACT that the Suns longterm (hundreds to thousands of years)
output energy does affect geologivcal timescale climate on earth.
That's true.
It is also true that the daily to yearly changes in the Sun's output
does affect short term weather patterns and changes in short climatic
conditions in various places on the earth, all things being equal.
But it is a scientific fact, proven over decades and research into the
geological records and other observations that the SUN HAS NOT had any
major causal effect upon the CURRENT RAPID temperature increases and
climate changes upon us NOW.
Solar effects are simply null and void, and do not add up in ANY way.
Has been repeatdly proven no matter who and how this research and
analaysis has been done, they all report the same findings.
The Sun however can have an immedite and delayed effect in severe
weather conditions in various places, and that has been documented for
a over a century.
thx sean
Santim Vah
Feb 8, 2012, 11:27:42 PM2/8/12
to
intelligently honest and mature people
I have no time for time wasters and people asking STUPID QUESTIONS
whilst ignoring the fundamentals and making FALSE CLAIMS because they
do not get it, and will probably never get it.
Get over yourself already. and educate yourself, it;s not my job.,
BYE
Santim Vah
Feb 8, 2012, 11:33:18 PM2/8/12
to
*If not, then shut the fuck up.*
To understand current global warming and the causes for climate
change and the *Possible* solutions over time, before entering the
battle zone one first needs to be armed with a functioning mind and
some self-awareness. Two things you obviously do not possess ...
anyone seeking answers to such important issues would NOT be hanging
out in a newsgroup talking shit, arguing shit, and swallowing shit,
but would be educating themselves and hanging out with people who KNEW
MORE THAN YOU DO .... eg read info from REAL climate scientists,
honest economists and send them your questions and try not to be so
fucking arrogant about it.
Admitting you do NOT know what you are talking about is the first step
to any degree of learning something new.
6 years olds get that in grade one .. why don't you?
Brad Guth
Feb 8, 2012, 11:42:26 PM2/8/12
to
What we're saying is that it's not the primary nor much less singular
cause of this most recent trend.
Michael Gordge
Feb 9, 2012, 6:20:24 AM2/9/12
to
last Sunday to get water to run up hill?
MG
HVAC
Feb 9, 2012, 8:23:39 AM2/9/12
to
On 2/9/2012 6:20 AM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>
>>
>>>> We don't fully understand the chaotic system..........
>>
>>> Hahahhaa another one of those 'butterfly flapping wings causes
>>> earhquakes' fuckwit.
>>
>> Didn't mommy show you enough attention when you were younger?
>>
>> -
>
>
>>
>>>> We don't fully understand the chaotic system..........
>>
>>> Hahahhaa another one of those 'butterfly flapping wings causes
>>> earhquakes' fuckwit.
>>
>> Didn't mommy show you enough attention when you were younger?
>>
>> -
>
> Is it true that ewe and Eroll and Timmmm prayed hard enough in church
> last Sunday to get water to run up hill?
If I had preyed hard enough, the Patriots would have won.
> last Sunday to get water to run up hill?
HVAC
Feb 9, 2012, 8:26:59 AM2/9/12
to
On 2/8/2012 11:27 PM, Santim Vah wrote:
>
>>
>> I asked as to a solution and the per capita cost for same.
>> ......You then proceeded to have a melt down.
>>
>>
>
>>
>> I asked as to a solution and the per capita cost for same.
>> ......You then proceeded to have a melt down.
>>
>>
>> I suggest that you re-contact me after you have matured a bit.
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>
> The CAUSES ARE fully understood by CLIMATE SCIENTISTS .... and
> intelligently honest and mature people
>
> I have no time for time wasters and people asking STUPID QUESTIONS
> whilst ignoring the fundamentals and making FALSE CLAIMS because they
> do not get it, and will probably never get it.
>
> Get over yourself already. and educate yourself, it;s not my job.,
Just an FYI: When insulting someone's intelligence, please use correct
> intelligently honest and mature people
>
> I have no time for time wasters and people asking STUPID QUESTIONS
> whilst ignoring the fundamentals and making FALSE CLAIMS because they
> do not get it, and will probably never get it.
>
> Get over yourself already. and educate yourself, it;s not my job.,
grammar and punctuation. Otherwise, you appear to be a retard.
No offense.
HVAC
Feb 9, 2012, 8:33:20 AM2/9/12
to
On 2/8/2012 11:33 PM, Santim Vah wrote:
>
>>
>> If you are correct and humans have been the cause of this
>> current warming trend, the solution would be to construct at
>> least 50 new nuclear power plants in the next decade or so.
>>
>> Are you global warming hippies prepared to take that step?
>>
>> If not, then shut the fuck up.
>>
>>
>
>
>>
>> If you are correct and humans have been the cause of this
>> current warming trend, the solution would be to construct at
>> least 50 new nuclear power plants in the next decade or so.
>>
>> Are you global warming hippies prepared to take that step?
>>
>> If not, then shut the fuck up.
>>
>>
>
> Pot kettle black when it comes to *maturity* is see!
>
> *If not, then shut the fuck up.*
My instruction as to maturity is for other people. Not me.
>
> *If not, then shut the fuck up.*
> To understand current global warming and the causes for climate
> change and the *Possible* solutions over time, before entering the
> battle zone one first needs to be armed with a functioning mind and
> some self-awareness. Two things you obviously do not possess ...
> anyone seeking answers to such important issues would NOT be hanging
> out in a newsgroup talking shit, arguing shit, and swallowing shit,
> but would be educating themselves and hanging out with people who KNEW
> MORE THAN YOU DO .... eg read info from REAL climate scientists,
> honest economists and send them your questions and try not to be so
> fucking arrogant about it.
> Admitting you do NOT know what you are talking about is the first step
> to any degree of learning something new.
chaotic systems that affect climate on a global scale.
So I *do* admit that I don't know.
Good thing we have YOU here to clear things up.
BeamMeUpScotty
Feb 9, 2012, 10:05:50 AM2/9/12
to
On 2/9/2012 6:20 AM, Michael Gordge wrote:
> Is it true that ewe and Eroll and Timmmm prayed hard enough in church
> last Sunday to get water to run up hill?
Your prayers are between you and your God.... If s/he turns your shit to
> last Sunday to get water to run up hill?
gold we just don't care.
--
When it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there is NO
moderation. To do so is to lose the battle before it has begun.
vtcapo
Feb 9, 2012, 10:28:32 AM2/9/12
to
On Feb 8, 9:40 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
that worked out yet. And by the way, after the earthquake in Japan
which caused the surrounding area to be a DEAD ZONE, good luck getting
this to pass Congress.
RT
vtcapo
Feb 9, 2012, 10:32:26 AM2/9/12
to
That will surely increase my growing season in VT.
RT
vtcapo
Feb 9, 2012, 10:40:31 AM2/9/12
to
RT
PS We will all survive this warming trend. Future generations will
have to contend with the ramifications if nothing is done. It's just
going to be easier to grow crops up North at least in my life time and
that's a good thing.
vtcapo
Feb 9, 2012, 10:59:21 AM2/9/12
to
severe solar flare activity. The reason I put up a new greenhouse on
the property is because of this fact. It is estimated that the
current solar cycle which will peak between 2012-2014 will cause
worldwide drought peaking in 2024 and extend approximately another 4
+years.
Whatever the reason is for this warming trend or what science proposes
as a remedy the Sun rules the show. Future wars will be over food
and water. And you can blame the Sun.
RT
HVAC
Feb 9, 2012, 11:58:19 AM2/9/12
to
On 2/9/2012 10:40 AM, vtcapo wrote:
>
>>
>> EXCELLENT REPLY, HVAC! I want to have your love-child!
>>
>>
>
>
>>
>> EXCELLENT REPLY, HVAC! I want to have your love-child!
>>
>>
>
> Have HVAC's child? He's gay....
That's not what Barbara said day before yesterday when I
was banging her like a screen door in a windstorm.
I guess you just ain't giving it to her right.
HVAC
Feb 9, 2012, 12:00:15 PM2/9/12
to
On 2/9/2012 10:28 AM, vtcapo wrote:
>
>>
>> If you are correct and humans have been the cause of this
>> current warming trend, the solution would be to construct at
>> least 50 new nuclear power plants in the next decade or so.
>>
>> Are you global warming hippies prepared to take that step?
>>
>> If not, then shut the fuck up.
>>
>> --
>>
>
>>
>> If you are correct and humans have been the cause of this
>> current warming trend, the solution would be to construct at
>> least 50 new nuclear power plants in the next decade or so.
>>
>> Are you global warming hippies prepared to take that step?
>>
>> If not, then shut the fuck up.
>>
>> --
>>
> And how will you solve the waste situation? They still haven't got
> that worked out yet. And by the way, after the earthquake in Japan
> which caused the surrounding area to be a DEAD ZONE, good luck getting
> this to pass Congress.
So what will we run our vehicles on? Kool-Ade?
> that worked out yet. And by the way, after the earthquake in Japan
> which caused the surrounding area to be a DEAD ZONE, good luck getting
> this to pass Congress.
It's either go nuclear or die on the vine.
Brad Guth
Feb 9, 2012, 12:35:41 PM2/9/12
to
global thermal imbalance which includes the extra solar benefit
derived from the added 42 ppm of CO2, plus from any number of other
elements we mange to put into our atmosphere (including h2o). We
certainty can't exclude the global dimming that comes along for the
ride.
Antares 531
Feb 9, 2012, 12:45:15 PM2/9/12
to
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:00:15 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/9/2012 10:28 AM, vtcapo wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If you are correct and humans have been the cause of this
>>> current warming trend, the solution would be to construct at
>>> least 50 new nuclear power plants in the next decade or so.
>>>
>>> Are you global warming hippies prepared to take that step?
>>>
>>> If not, then shut the fuck up.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>> And how will you solve the waste situation? They still haven't got
>> that worked out yet. And by the way, after the earthquake in Japan
>> which caused the surrounding area to be a DEAD ZONE, good luck getting
>> this to pass Congress.
>
>
>So what will we run our vehicles on? Kool-Ade?
>
>It's either go nuclear or die on the vine.
>
I've read some magazine articles recently about a form of algae that
>On 2/9/2012 10:28 AM, vtcapo wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If you are correct and humans have been the cause of this
>>> current warming trend, the solution would be to construct at
>>> least 50 new nuclear power plants in the next decade or so.
>>>
>>> Are you global warming hippies prepared to take that step?
>>>
>>> If not, then shut the fuck up.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>> And how will you solve the waste situation? They still haven't got
>> that worked out yet. And by the way, after the earthquake in Japan
>> which caused the surrounding area to be a DEAD ZONE, good luck getting
>> this to pass Congress.
>
>
>So what will we run our vehicles on? Kool-Ade?
>
>It's either go nuclear or die on the vine.
>
can produce a high output of very clean hydrocarbons that can be
refined into diesel fuel. These algae can be grown in reservoirs such
as municipal sewage lagoons and swamp areas. Some claims were that an
abundance of very clean, high grade diesel could be produced with no
negative side effects and a lot of beneficial side effects such as
sewage processing. Has anyone here heard or read anything on this?
vtcapo
Feb 9, 2012, 12:58:56 PM2/9/12
to
Bawhahahahahahah.....
vtcapo
Feb 9, 2012, 1:01:11 PM2/9/12
to
RT
HVAC
Feb 9, 2012, 1:52:55 PM2/9/12
to
On 2/9/2012 12:45 PM, Antares 531 wrote:
>
>>
>> So what will we run our vehicles on? Kool-Ade?
>>
>> It's either go nuclear or die on the vine.
>>
> I've read some magazine articles recently about a form of algae that
> can produce a high output of very clean hydrocarbons that can be
> refined into diesel fuel. These algae can be grown in reservoirs such
> as municipal sewage lagoons and swamp areas. Some claims were that an
> abundance of very clean, high grade diesel could be produced with no
> negative side effects and a lot of beneficial side effects such as
> sewage processing. Has anyone here heard or read anything on this?
That's all well and good, but what we need NOW is power.
>
>>
>> So what will we run our vehicles on? Kool-Ade?
>>
>> It's either go nuclear or die on the vine.
>>
> I've read some magazine articles recently about a form of algae that
> can produce a high output of very clean hydrocarbons that can be
> refined into diesel fuel. These algae can be grown in reservoirs such
> as municipal sewage lagoons and swamp areas. Some claims were that an
> abundance of very clean, high grade diesel could be produced with no
> negative side effects and a lot of beneficial side effects such as
> sewage processing. Has anyone here heard or read anything on this?
Lots and lots of power. Wind, solar, etc. are fine, but
we can't wait until these are brought online. We need at
least 50 new nuke plants in the next decade or two.
WE should NEVER have to conserve.
HVAC
Feb 9, 2012, 1:55:45 PM2/9/12
to
On 2/9/2012 1:01 PM, vtcapo wrote:
>
>>
>> So what will we run our vehicles on? Kool-Ade?
>>
>> It's either go nuclear or die on the vine.
>>
>> --
>>
>
>>
>> So what will we run our vehicles on? Kool-Ade?
>>
>> It's either go nuclear or die on the vine.
>>
>> --
>>
> Tell that to Japan. No vines left...... in the DEAD ZONE.
Fuck the japs...They're all used to dealing with nuke
radiation since WW2 anyway.
These newly designed plants have passive cooling systems
and are completely safe. Matter of fact, they're SO safe
I'd allow one to be built right next door to you.
vtcapo
Feb 9, 2012, 2:42:40 PM2/9/12
to
RT
Brad Guth
Feb 9, 2012, 3:23:25 PM2/9/12
to
On Feb 9, 9:45 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
Everything you ever need to know (and then some) about cleaner,
cheaper and more failsafe energy you can learn from the likes of
Mokenergy (aka William Mook). There are some issues and methods that
I have proposed which are not Mook approved, but then he usually
doesn't care for any ideas, methods of deductive interpretations other
than his own (probably not terribly unlike yourself), so the two of
you should get along just great.
cheaper and more failsafe energy you can learn from the likes of
Mokenergy (aka William Mook). There are some issues and methods that
I have proposed which are not Mook approved, but then he usually
doesn't care for any ideas, methods of deductive interpretations other
than his own (probably not terribly unlike yourself), so the two of
you should get along just great.
vtcapo
Feb 9, 2012, 2:49:01 PM2/9/12
to
RT
PS Did you answer the waste issue? .......NO!
PPS I live just outside the 10 mile evacuation range of the Port St.
Lucie Plant in Florida. Ten miles my ass! I hope the wind blows in
the opposite direction so I have time to beat the fallout in my
sailboat...
Michael Gordge
Feb 9, 2012, 3:32:39 PM2/9/12
to
On Feb 10, 12:05 am, BeamMeUpScotty
care.
MG
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> Your prayers are between you and your God.... If s/he turns your shit to
> gold we just don't care.
Yeah but getting water to run up hill, now that would make everyone
> Your prayers are between you and your God.... If s/he turns your shit to
> gold we just don't care.
care.
MG
HVAC
Feb 9, 2012, 3:45:28 PM2/9/12
to
On 2/9/2012 2:42 PM, vtcapo wrote:
>
>>
>> That's all well and good, but what we need NOW is power.
>> Lots and lots of power. Wind, solar, etc. are fine, but
>> we can't wait until these are brought online. We need at
>> least 50 new nuke plants in the next decade or two.
>>
>> WE should NEVER have to conserve.
>>
>> --
>
>
>
>>
>> That's all well and good, but what we need NOW is power.
>> Lots and lots of power. Wind, solar, etc. are fine, but
>> we can't wait until these are brought online. We need at
>> least 50 new nuke plants in the next decade or two.
>>
>> WE should NEVER have to conserve.
>>
>> --
>
>
>> WE should NEVER have to conserve.
>
> Spoken like a true blooded American.....
Well, that's what I am. A true American. I take big bites.
>
> Spoken like a true blooded American.....
The power exists all around us. All we need is the will
and the commitment to go grab some.
vtcapo
Feb 9, 2012, 4:04:36 PM2/9/12
to
When soil tests showed that the best soil for the septic tank and
drain field was above the level of the proposed house they said,
that's where it would have to go.
Riiiiiight............Dumb ass liberal woodchucks!
RT
Santim Vah
Feb 9, 2012, 5:59:15 PM2/9/12
to
drought cycles are NOT climate; and they are not a part of the decades
long global warming.
unless one understands the difference between weather and climatic
cycles and the current rapid GW & the resulting Climate CHANGE from
that, then they will keep going round in circles.
the 3 things are totally different. The Sun is not the cause of the
current global warming and climate change .. period. according to the
climate science and ongoing observations in the data.
vtcapo
Feb 9, 2012, 6:05:22 PM2/9/12
to
On Feb 8, 11:33 pm, Santim Vah <sean.arund...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pay HVAC no mind. He always uses the spelling and grammar ploy when he
is losing an argument.
RT
PS And I bet you speak more than one language while he still struggles
with English.
> On Feb 9, 1:40 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/8/2012 9:23 AM, vtcapo wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/8/2012 9:23 AM, vtcapo wrote:
>
> > > The facts remain that based on current data the Sun does have a major
> > > effect on climate change. However, what is of concern are Co2 levels.
> > > The question is are we as a species helping to accelerate this warming
> > > trend? The evidence is overwhelming that we are.
>
> > > effect on climate change. However, what is of concern are Co2 levels.
> > > The question is are we as a species helping to accelerate this warming
> > > trend? The evidence is overwhelming that we are.
>
> > It is the height of hubris to believe that we fully
> > understand the chaotic nature of global climate.
>
> > understand the chaotic nature of global climate.
>
> > > The fuckwit scientists that constantly deny this fact are bought and
> > > paid for by big industry. They have the power and the money to
> > > forestall any change in the right direction if it is going to affect
> > > their bottom line. Fooling the general public is child’s play for
> > > these movers and shakers. Look how long they have kept the UFO and
> > > Alien phenomena cover up going.
>
> > > paid for by big industry. They have the power and the money to
> > > forestall any change in the right direction if it is going to affect
> > > their bottom line. Fooling the general public is child’s play for
> > > these movers and shakers. Look how long they have kept the UFO and
> > > Alien phenomena cover up going.
>
> > Now you've slid right off the tracks......
>
>
> > > Don’t expect a change for the better as long as Big Oil rules. The
> > > world and especially the American public are easily fooled into
> > > believing their lies. Look how many dumb asses still vote
> > > Republican. No, as long as people like HVAC can manage to get to
> > > the voters booth and instead of doing the research think in terms of
> > > their wallet, nothing will change.
>
> > > Except the climate…..
>
> > > world and especially the American public are easily fooled into
> > > believing their lies. Look how many dumb asses still vote
> > > Republican. No, as long as people like HVAC can manage to get to
> > > the voters booth and instead of doing the research think in terms of
> > > their wallet, nothing will change.
>
> > > Except the climate…..
>
> > If you are correct and humans have been the cause of this
> > current warming trend, the solution would be to construct at
> > least 50 new nuclear power plants in the next decade or so.
>
> > Are you global warming hippies prepared to take that step?
>
> > If not, then shut the fuck up.
>
> > current warming trend, the solution would be to construct at
> > least 50 new nuclear power plants in the next decade or so.
>
> > Are you global warming hippies prepared to take that step?
>
> > If not, then shut the fuck up.
>
> > --
> > "OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
>
> > "OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
>
> Pot kettle black when it comes to *maturity* is see!
>
> *If not, then shut the fuck up.*
>
>
> To understand current global warming and the causes for climate
> change and the *Possible* solutions over time, before entering the
> battle zone one first needs to be armed with a functioning mind and
> some self-awareness. Two things you obviously do not possess ...
> anyone seeking answers to such important issues would NOT be hanging
> out in a newsgroup talking shit, arguing shit, and swallowing shit,
> but would be educating themselves and hanging out with people who KNEW
> MORE THAN YOU DO .... eg read info from REAL climate scientists,
> honest economists and send them your questions and try not to be so
> fucking arrogant about it.
> Admitting you do NOT know what you are talking about is the first step
> to any degree of learning something new.
>
> 6 years olds get that in grade one .. why don't you?
> To understand current global warming and the causes for climate
> change and the *Possible* solutions over time, before entering the
> battle zone one first needs to be armed with a functioning mind and
> some self-awareness. Two things you obviously do not possess ...
> anyone seeking answers to such important issues would NOT be hanging
> out in a newsgroup talking shit, arguing shit, and swallowing shit,
> but would be educating themselves and hanging out with people who KNEW
> MORE THAN YOU DO .... eg read info from REAL climate scientists,
> honest economists and send them your questions and try not to be so
> fucking arrogant about it.
> Admitting you do NOT know what you are talking about is the first step
> to any degree of learning something new.
>
Pay HVAC no mind. He always uses the spelling and grammar ploy when he
is losing an argument.
RT
PS And I bet you speak more than one language while he still struggles
with English.
Santim Vah
Feb 9, 2012, 6:06:12 PM2/9/12
to
results best in the world ... rec u research the history of these
people
http://www.worldweather.com.au/
Brad Guth
Feb 9, 2012, 7:28:40 PM2/9/12
to
Actually, in reply to "vtcapo", the only shortages of food and water
are those being contrived and/or intentionally interfered with, so as
to influence the global inflation and/or insure the artificial
scarcity on such items as food and water. We have had the technology
to prevent most shortages of food and water, so why are we preventing
it by multiple means or allowing others to prevent those solutions?
Isn't the key element that's necessary for the survival of humanity,
having cheap and reliable energy?
vtcapo
Feb 9, 2012, 7:55:02 PM2/9/12
to
they are not a part of the decades long global warming.” But the
drought cycles ARE caused by the sun. This is my chief concern
because it is forecasted for the immediate future. Climate change and
its ramifications are beyond my control to mitigate because of the
politics involved. However, severe drought if you know it is coming
can be prepared for.
And that’s what I’m doing….
RT
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/US-drought.htm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/17/the-current-us-drought-is-not-a-surprise/
vtcapo
Feb 9, 2012, 8:18:31 PM2/9/12
to
>
> Your infomercial is noted, but where's the original science?
>
> Actually, in reply to "vtcapo", the only shortages of food and water
> are those being contrived and/or intentionally interfered with, so as
> to influence the global inflation and/or insure the artificial
> scarcity on such items as food and water. We have had the technology
> to prevent most shortages of food and water, so why are we preventing
> it by multiple means or allowing others to prevent those solutions?
>
> Isn't the key element that's necessary for the survival of humanity,
> having cheap and reliable energy?
>
> http://translate.google.com/#
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
60+ million people under severe drought conditions now as we speak and
> Your infomercial is noted, but where's the original science?
>
> Actually, in reply to "vtcapo", the only shortages of food and water
> are those being contrived and/or intentionally interfered with, so as
> to influence the global inflation and/or insure the artificial
> scarcity on such items as food and water. We have had the technology
> to prevent most shortages of food and water, so why are we preventing
> it by multiple means or allowing others to prevent those solutions?
>
> Isn't the key element that's necessary for the survival of humanity,
> having cheap and reliable energy?
>
> http://translate.google.com/#
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
more severe conditions forecasted does not seem to me to be contrived
in any way shape or form.
http://drought.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/drought.html?map=%2Fwww%2Fdrought%2Fweb_pages%2Fdrought.map&program=%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmapserv&root=%2Fwww%2Fdrought2%2F&map_web_imagepath=%2Ftmp%2F&map_web_imageurl=%2Ftmp%2F&map_web_template=%2Fdrought.html
RT
PS Cheap and reliable energy will not be realized as long as Big Oil
runs the show. They will get every drop out of the ground or ocean
before that happens.
Brad Guth
Feb 9, 2012, 9:28:27 PM2/9/12
to
>
> RT
> PS Cheap and reliable energy will not be realized as long as Big Oil
> runs the show. They will get every drop out of the ground or ocean
> before that happens.
AGW is contrived, by way of allowing as much hydrocarbons to get
> RT
> PS Cheap and reliable energy will not be realized as long as Big Oil
> runs the show. They will get every drop out of the ground or ocean
> before that happens.
consumed as possible, and whenever possible to fight over it. Wars
seldom act as a cooling trend.
Exactly, it's Big Energy or Big Oil telling our governments whatever
they can or can not do.
Brad Guth
Feb 9, 2012, 9:44:44 PM2/9/12
to
Storage of fresh water is technically quite doable. A few million
gallons stored here and there is certainly within modern technology to
resolve. There are spare/surplus single hull tankers that can safely
pack upwards of 50 million gallons each.
Mokenergy can distil as many million gallons from seawater as you
need, using solar energy none the less.
Santim Vah
Feb 9, 2012, 11:46:44 PM2/9/12
to
>
> > longterm weather prediction via sun spots and the planets .. proven
> > results best in the world ... rec u research the history of these
>
> Your infomercial is noted, but where's the original science?
>
Try google Lennox walker, Inigo Jones, sunspots, weather
> Your infomercial is noted, but where's the original science?
>
forecasts .... beerwah qld.
*science* as yet does not accept the observations and the patterns and
the success rate, becasue no one has the resopurces to study it ...
and it is outside the current mindset .... so you won't find a
published paper on it, but that doesn't make it false either.
Many claimed the world was flat once upon a time, Copernicus and
Gallileo were right too, even though no one believed his observations
either for a very long time.
AS was the several *scientists* who in the 1800's first proposed the
THEORY of future global warming as a result of the Green house gases
from industry.
It took a hundred years before RIO before such a theory finally had to
be accepted as truth, and still people argue the point as if it's all
bullshit.
<whatever>
> Actually, in reply to "vtcapo", the only shortages of food and water
> are those being contrived and/or intentionally interfered with, so as
> to influence the global inflation and/or insure the artificial
> scarcity on such items as food and water. We have had the technology
> to prevent most shortages of food and water, so why are we preventing
> it by multiple means or allowing others to prevent those solutions?
>
> Isn't the key element that's necessary for the survival of humanity,
> having cheap and reliable energy?
>
> http://translate.google.com/#
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
humanity,
having cheap and reliable energy?
No, it is actually a thing called INTELLIGENCE plus a WILL TO ACT.
having cheap and reliable energy?
when 25% of the worlds energy resources are being sucked by the BS
narcissists in the USA, 300 mill out of 7000 mill; it is easy to see
there isn't much intelligence anywhere, especially inside the US of
A .. ya know what I'm sayin' ??
<VBG>
Brad Guth
Feb 10, 2012, 12:44:19 AM2/10/12
to
failsafe), even the intelligence of Einstein would be screwed.
Thorium as a Secure Nuclear Fuel Alternative / Journal of Energy
Security
http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=187%3athorium-as-a-secure-nuclear-fuel-alternative&catid=94:0409content&Itemid=342
“Thorium is not new technology, but rather, it is as old as the
nuclear age itself, with research ongoing since its inception. The
first nuclear reactors in America and Russia were fuelled by thorium.
It was then dismissed by policy-makers – the key reason being that the
thorium fuel cycle provides no opportunity for obtaining bomb
materials. The 21st Century is a different era than the Cold War
era. The Obama Administration has recently announced its goal to rid
the entire world of nuclear weapons while it must confront both energy
and environmental crises. Fossil fuels are expensive and experience
wildly volatile price fluctuations. Uranium is in dangerously short
supply. The world was not ready for thorium in the 1950s. Thorium
could not be more appropriate now.”
Thorium is still the most failsafe nuclear energy amplifier, and it’s
rather abundant, cheap to obtain, already at 100% purity as is, and
it’s fission can be fully controlled on demand. Once spent, with
minimal processing, it’s either reusable as is or nearly daycare
approved for sandbox use.
Our resident rednecks and their public-funded army of brown-nosed
clowns, minions and FUD-masters are of course hired and instructed to
topic/author stalk and trash or discredit anyone suggesting the better
alternatives for using thorium as reactor fuel. We’re being duped
into believing that only uranium and MOX fuel reactors are the way to
go, as we’ll as we get to pay for everything at least ten fold greater
cost than using thorium.
Sam Wormley
Feb 10, 2012, 12:54:23 AM2/10/12
to
On 2/9/12 11:44 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Our resident rednecks and their public-funded army of brown-nosed
> clowns, minions and FUD-masters...
> Our resident rednecks and their public-funded army of brown-nosed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRza-sBbTrI
Brad Guth
Feb 10, 2012, 1:07:36 AM2/10/12
to
themselves.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Feb 10, 2012, 1:31:31 AM2/10/12
to
please, mister Cahill, show me where it is,
that Morner claims to be a Dowser; thank you, because
he may be the best dowser, there is (and,
taht could be a good thing, with massive desertification).
> support those claims with your Lyndon LaRouche link to a dowser.
it is really very simple, why "teh data" are inadequate, because
of the silly oversimplification of urban heat-islanding.
also, see _The Vast Machine_ for the true character
of "the data," as it interacts with the simulations.
that Morner claims to be a Dowser; thank you, because
he may be the best dowser, there is (and,
taht could be a good thing, with massive desertification).
> support those claims with your Lyndon LaRouche link to a dowser.
it is really very simple, why "teh data" are inadequate, because
of the silly oversimplification of urban heat-islanding.
also, see _The Vast Machine_ for the true character
of "the data," as it interacts with the simulations.
Sam Wormley
Feb 10, 2012, 1:39:51 AM2/10/12
to
http://www.ted.com/talks/einstein_the_parrot_talks_and_squawks.html
HVAC
Feb 10, 2012, 7:54:25 AM2/10/12
to
On 2/9/2012 2:49 PM, vtcapo wrote:
>
>>
>> These newly designed plants have passive cooling systems
>> and are completely safe. Matter of fact, they're SO safe
>> I'd allow one to be built right next door to you.
>>
>>
>
>
>>
>> These newly designed plants have passive cooling systems
>> and are completely safe. Matter of fact, they're SO safe
>> I'd allow one to be built right next door to you.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks, I knew you loved me....
I know, right?
> PS Did you answer the waste issue? .......NO!
Again,we can concentrate the nuke waste in a few spots,
or we can continue to just heave our coal and oil waste
into the atmosphere.
> PPS I live just outside the 10 mile evacuation range of the Port St.
> Lucie Plant in Florida. Ten miles my ass! I hope the wind blows in
> the opposite direction so I have time to beat the fallout in my
> sailboat...
Brad Guth
Feb 10, 2012, 4:14:19 PM2/10/12
to
getting lame.
Michael Gordge
Feb 10, 2012, 4:26:33 PM2/10/12
to
managed to have the government steal and spend $12million from tax-
payers (about US$6million) to divert a new road away from some nesting
swamp birds, I kid you not.
MG
BeamMeUpScotty
Feb 11, 2012, 10:40:25 AM2/11/12
to
important than Gas mileage and Global Warming.... bt humans are less
important than any of it.
Obama has forced all that Canadian oil to be piped to the ocean rather
than directly to U.S. refineries..... Obama is wasting Diesel and fuel
mileage and efficiency while the EPA forces you to buy cars that get
better mileage and Obama tells you to unsafely over inflate your tires
to save gas. Gotta love the double standard of Obama and the EPA
colluding to waste fuel on the production and delivery side of the
equation while at the same time forcing you to buy shitty little toy
cars that are dangerous and uncomfortable and more costly..... In the
end Obama has caused more Global Warming and more bird deaths than had
he and the EPA never been created.
--
When it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there is NO
moderation. To do so is to lose the battle before it has begun.
Brad Guth
Feb 11, 2012, 1:54:13 PM2/11/12
to
yourself and those slaves that allow you to live large?
How about we build a road though all of your homes or estates, without
the option of diverting those roads? (after all, governments and
especially those private railroads used to do that to all of their
native populations that got little or nothing in exchange)
be...@iwaynet.net
Feb 11, 2012, 5:14:56 PM2/11/12
to
On 2/11/2012 1:54 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> So, you're in favor of eliminating all forms of life other than
> yourself and those slaves that allow you to live large?
>
> How about we build a road though all of your homes or estates, without
> the option of diverting those roads? (after all, governments and
> especially those private railroads used to do that to all of their
> native populations that got little or nothing in exchange)
So as a Faithful PETA member you believe with the founder that a human,
> So, you're in favor of eliminating all forms of life other than
> yourself and those slaves that allow you to live large?
>
> How about we build a road though all of your homes or estates, without
> the option of diverting those roads? (after all, governments and
> especially those private railroads used to do that to all of their
> native populations that got little or nothing in exchange)
a rat or a cockroach are all the SAME! And all need the right to divert
a road, waste money and create more fossil fuel burning to produce a
huge carbon "footprint". Real sane.
Brad Guth
Feb 11, 2012, 7:17:33 PM2/11/12
to
AGWFacts
Feb 12, 2012, 1:22:39 PM2/12/12
to
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 11:04:11 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I
> > am the target
> >
> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/02/a-case-stud...
> >
> > Over the years I have pointed out the fallacious arguments of
> > climate change deniers when they attack legitimate climatologists
> > like James Hansen and Michael Mann. This is, of course, like
> > kicking at a bee hive, and whenever I do the comments section of
> > my posts fill with lots of angry buzzing.
> >
> > But now, for what I think is the first time, I find myself the
> > target of an attack. And I have to admit, I welcome it: it’s a
> > textbook case of denialist sleight of hand, of distraction,
> > distortion, error, and misdirection.
> >
> > Stick around for all of this. It’ll be... interesting.
> >
> > OK, first, here’s the scoop: a few days ago, I wrote a blog post
> > taking apart two intellectually bankrupt climate change denial
> > articles, one in the Wall Street Journal, and the other in the
> > UK’s Daily Mail. Both were claiming that global warming appears to
> > have stopped in the past few years, a claim which is trivially
> > easy to show wrong. In fact, I linked to two articles doing just
> > that: one at Skeptical Science, and another I myself wrote.
> > Finding actual scientists destroying that claim is not hard at
> > all; those two links have many more links therein.
> >
> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/30/while-tempe...
>
> . . .
>
> > My favorite irony is that a lot of these global warming denialists
> > take money from fossil fuel interests, but then routinely say to
> > "follow the money", as if it’s the climatologists who are raking
> > in the big bucks from shady think tanks with undisclosed
> > bankrollers. While Briggs points out he gets no money from them,
> > he asks where my money comes from. Think on this, Dr. Briggs; how
> > much money would I make if I suddenly turned coat and said global
> > warming wasn’t real? I’ll guarantee you it would be a lot more
> > than I make now, probably with a couple of zeroes added to the
> > end. So that argument falls a wee bit flat here.
> >
> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/25/five-shots-...
> >
> > Like all the others.
> >
> > Of course, given the comments I’ve seen on my blog, on Briggs’
> > blog, on Watts Up With That, or in any other blog discussing
> > global warming, I know how this will go. You can bring up the
> > major pieces of evidence supporting reality again and again, but
> > the denialists will ignore them and go after phantoms instead.
> > Because if they do acknowledge the actual evidence, they lose.
> Denierism is being attenuated like noise in a correlation based
> filter.
Actually it is considered by some psychologists to be a mental
aberation, much like Flat Earthism, Hollow Earthism, Young Earth
belief, and the like. There are a few books on the subject.
> Wingers can put out a lot of mutually contradictory nonsense but since
> it doesn't correlate it will eventually be overwhelmed by the signal
> in the time integral. Tocqueville mentioned something that sounded
> like a public opinion lock-in amp back in 1833.
Denialists use mutually-contradictory assertions because that is
allowed in politics and in criminal defense. In science it is not
allowed.
> And if they try to get organized -- "just like Hitler" as the
> teabaggers are fond of saying -- around a few talking points then
> those lies will draw the attention of the climate scientists. Those
> lies can then be debunked directly, one by one.
>
> There are ways to speed this process up, especially if you know
> something about political science and signal processing.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
--
"I am not ignorant simply because I choose to believe one
theory over another." -- Madison Murphy
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I
> > am the target
> >
> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/02/a-case-stud...
> >
> > Over the years I have pointed out the fallacious arguments of
> > climate change deniers when they attack legitimate climatologists
> > like James Hansen and Michael Mann. This is, of course, like
> > kicking at a bee hive, and whenever I do the comments section of
> > my posts fill with lots of angry buzzing.
> >
> > But now, for what I think is the first time, I find myself the
> > target of an attack. And I have to admit, I welcome it: it’s a
> > textbook case of denialist sleight of hand, of distraction,
> > distortion, error, and misdirection.
> >
> > Stick around for all of this. It’ll be... interesting.
> >
> > OK, first, here’s the scoop: a few days ago, I wrote a blog post
> > taking apart two intellectually bankrupt climate change denial
> > articles, one in the Wall Street Journal, and the other in the
> > UK’s Daily Mail. Both were claiming that global warming appears to
> > have stopped in the past few years, a claim which is trivially
> > easy to show wrong. In fact, I linked to two articles doing just
> > that: one at Skeptical Science, and another I myself wrote.
> > Finding actual scientists destroying that claim is not hard at
> > all; those two links have many more links therein.
> >
> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/30/while-tempe...
>
> . . .
>
> > My favorite irony is that a lot of these global warming denialists
> > take money from fossil fuel interests, but then routinely say to
> > "follow the money", as if it’s the climatologists who are raking
> > in the big bucks from shady think tanks with undisclosed
> > bankrollers. While Briggs points out he gets no money from them,
> > he asks where my money comes from. Think on this, Dr. Briggs; how
> > much money would I make if I suddenly turned coat and said global
> > warming wasn’t real? I’ll guarantee you it would be a lot more
> > than I make now, probably with a couple of zeroes added to the
> > end. So that argument falls a wee bit flat here.
> >
> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/25/five-shots-...
> >
> > Like all the others.
> >
> > Of course, given the comments I’ve seen on my blog, on Briggs’
> > blog, on Watts Up With That, or in any other blog discussing
> > global warming, I know how this will go. You can bring up the
> > major pieces of evidence supporting reality again and again, but
> > the denialists will ignore them and go after phantoms instead.
> > Because if they do acknowledge the actual evidence, they lose.
> Denierism is being attenuated like noise in a correlation based
> filter.
Actually it is considered by some psychologists to be a mental
aberation, much like Flat Earthism, Hollow Earthism, Young Earth
belief, and the like. There are a few books on the subject.
> Wingers can put out a lot of mutually contradictory nonsense but since
> it doesn't correlate it will eventually be overwhelmed by the signal
> in the time integral. Tocqueville mentioned something that sounded
> like a public opinion lock-in amp back in 1833.
Denialists use mutually-contradictory assertions because that is
allowed in politics and in criminal defense. In science it is not
allowed.
> And if they try to get organized -- "just like Hitler" as the
> teabaggers are fond of saying -- around a few talking points then
> those lies will draw the attention of the climate scientists. Those
> lies can then be debunked directly, one by one.
>
> There are ways to speed this process up, especially if you know
> something about political science and signal processing.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
--
"I am not ignorant simply because I choose to believe one
theory over another." -- Madison Murphy
AGWFacts
Feb 12, 2012, 1:23:03 PM2/12/12
to
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 15:14:27 -0800 (PST), Brian Hunt
<bhun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bret, I'd be curios to see what kind of data is out their supporting
> the global warming theory
There is no such theory.
<bhun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bret, I'd be curios to see what kind of data is out their supporting
> the global warming theory
There is no such theory.
AGWFacts
Feb 12, 2012, 1:24:07 PM2/12/12
to
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:14:07 -0600, Sam Wormley
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/5/12 5:14 PM, Brian Hunt wrote:
> > Bret, I'd be curios to see what kind of data is out their supporting
> > the global warming theory, do you know of anybody compiling and making
> > available to the general public?
> Actually global warming is an observation, not a theory.
Exactly so. It is like saying "The snow theory," or "the leaf
theory." There is the theory of physics, which is the explanation
for global warming.
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/5/12 5:14 PM, Brian Hunt wrote:
> > Bret, I'd be curios to see what kind of data is out their supporting
> > available to the general public?
> Actually global warming is an observation, not a theory.
Exactly so. It is like saying "The snow theory," or "the leaf
theory." There is the theory of physics, which is the explanation
for global warming.
AGWFacts
Feb 12, 2012, 1:24:58 PM2/12/12
to
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 16:56:36 -0800 (PST), Tunderbar
<tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:13:07 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I
> > am the target
> >
> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/02/a-case-study-of-the-tactics-of-climate-change-denial-in-which-i-am-the-target/
> >
> > In my post about the WSJ and DM, I included a graph. It pretty
> > clearly shows temperatures rising from 1973 to the present. And
> > this is where the fun begins.
> >
> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2012/01/skepticalscience_globalwarming1.jpg
> >
> > That’s the plot. It’s from a recent, independent study done at
> > Berkeley, and represents actual, measured, data. Just to be clear,
> > those points are from weather stations across the globe, and the
> > method used to collect and analyze those measurements is described
> > by the Berkeley team themselves (PDF). With me so far?
> >
> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/21/new-independent-climate-study-confirms-global-warming-is-real/
> >
> > http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.pdf
> >
> > Apparently, William Briggs is not with me. He takes very vigorous
> > exception to the graph in an article he wrote which he titled
> > "Bad Astronomer Does Bad Statistics: That Wall Street Journal
> > Editorial." I encourage you to read it, so that you can assure
> > yourself I am not misrepresenting his arguments in any way.
> >
> > http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5138
> >
> > I found out about this article when I saw a tweet by Dr. Briggs
> > himself. My first thought was: Uh oh. I sure hope I didn’t make a
> > math mistake somewhere in my WSJ post! I better read Briggs’
> > article and see... So I read it.
> >
> > My next thought after reading his arguments was then: Ho-hum. So?
> >
> > The mismeasure of an argument
> >
> > Basically, Briggs accuses me of not understanding statistics, of
> > not including error bars, of misrepresenting that points in that
> > plot, of not displaying the plot correctly, and so on ad nauseum.
> > His biggest claim: that those points aren’t measurements at all,
> > but estimates.
> >
> > Here’s the thing: he’s wrong. Those point are in fact
> > measurements, though they are not raw measurements right off the
> > thermometers. They have been processed, averaged, in a
> > scientifically rigorous way to make sure that the statistics
> > derived from them are in fact solid. The Berkeley team describes
> > in detail how that was done (PDF), and does actually call them
> > estimates, but not because they are just guessing, or using some
> > arcane computer model. They are technically estimates, in the
> > sense that any measurement is an estimate, but they are really,
> > really good ones. Greg Laden tears this use of words apart, as
> > well as pretty much everything else Briggs wrote.
> >
> > http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-averaging-process.pdf
> >
> > http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/william_m_briggs_has_misunders.php
> >
> > Oddly, Briggs then goes on to call them "predictions" for some
> > reason, and that they came from "models", which is just weird.
> > It’s as if he’s trying to use a word choice that raises doubt
> > about the measurements. But again he’s wrong. They really are
> > measurements, not model predictions. At Open Mind, Brigg’s word
> > choice once again is ripped apart. [Note: Briggs has left a
> > comment there, further verifying the fact that his use of words is
> > incorrect.]
> >
> > http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-numerologist-to-the-stars/
> >
> > http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-numerologist-to-the-stars/#comment-59152
> >
> > This reminds me of one of my favorite skeptic jokes. Question: How
> > many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?
> >
> > Answer: Four. It doesn’t matter what you call a tail, it’s not a
> > leg.
> >
> > There are many other places where Briggs makes mistakes that
> > render his arguments null; for example, the error bars (what
> > statisticians usually call "uncertainty") are in fact made
> > available by the Berkeley team, and are small compared to the
> > long-term rise in temperature. For another, Briggs says I
> > should’ve shown the plot going farther into the past, because 1973
> > was actually a low point. However, that’s completely wrong: it’s
> > actually a high point! As Deep Climate points out here, this
> > actually makes the warming trend lower. So in true contrarian
> > fashion, Briggs is contrary even to himself. It’s bizarre.
> >
> > http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-numerologist-to-the-stars/#comment-59147
> >
> > So really, there goes Briggs’ argument. His main point is wrong,
> > so we’re done, right?
> >
> > Well, no. There’s more fun to be had here.
> >
> > Beside the point
> >
> > If you read Briggs’ article, you certainly get the impression that
> > because the graph I use is statistically meaningless (so he
> > incorrectly claims), then my whole argument about global warming
> > is wrong.
> >
> > And this is where I found myself greatly amused, though in a
> > schadenfreude sort of way.
> >
> > Think of it this way: if my argument hinged on that graph, and I
> > removed it, my argument would have no foundation, correct? It
> > would change the tenor of the entire blog post.
> >
> > Go look at my article. If you remove that graph from it, what
> > changes? Nothing. My main point — that the WSJ and DM articles are
> > wrong, that we have lots of evidence the Earth is warming up, that
> > 9 of the 10 hottest years on record occurred since the year 2000,
> > that the DM article specifically uses scientific studies and
> > presents them as if they say the exact opposite of what they
> > actually say — still stands.
> >
> > So even if that graph is wrong and misrepresents what I’m saying —
> > which it does not — it doesn’t matter. In fact, I used that graph
> > as an illustration, to show how we’re warming up. I never intended
> > it to be the basis for the argument I was making, just a way of
> > further showing it. If you read the actual words I wrote,
> > including the links to many, many articles backing up my position,
> > you’ll see that Briggs has not refuted a single actual point I
> > made.
> >
> > So even if he’s right about that graph, it doesn’t matter. And
> > he’s not right.
> >
> > But notice what he’s done. He’s taken what is clearly a minor
> > point and blown it up as if it’s my main point. He’s used shady
> > words (predictions, models) to cast aspersions, and to make
> > someone (me!) look bad. Then, by "refuting" this minor issue he
> > can then poison the well, strongly implying that all my arguments
> > are wrong. That’s kind of a big no-no when trying to argue a
> > point.
> >
> > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/01/briggs-schools-the-bad-astronomer-on-statistics/
> >
> > But it packages well. Watts Up With That, another denialist blog,
> > has run with Briggs’ claims about me as well. He also makes the
> > false claim that warming has stalled, and so on. Note WUWT also
> > says the signers of the WSJ OpEd are "16 scientists", which isn’t
> > true: not all are scientists, and only four have actually
> > published climate science research. And don’t forget about the
> > article the WSJ refused to print talking about the reality of
> > global warming, signed by 255 actual scientists.
> >
> > http://skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html
> >
> > http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/
> >
> > Oops.
> >
> > Denialism’s dark mirror
> >
> > I will admit the irony of this attack amuses me greatly; Briggs
> > accuses me of many things he himself is doing. That is standard
> > fare from antiscience group: creationists, global warming deniers,
> > and alt-medders, for example, all seem to project their own
> > tactics on the scientists with whom they disagree. Don’t like real
> > medicine? Accuse scientists of being in the pocket of Big Pharma
> > (and forget about the millions being made by quacks on useless
> > "remedies"). Don’t believe in evolution? Accuse scientists of
> > being too dogmatic. Don’t think global warming is real? Accuse
> > scientists of misrepresenting the data.
Idiot.
<tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:13:07 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I
> > am the target
> >
> >
> > Over the years I have pointed out the fallacious arguments of
> > climate change deniers when they attack legitimate climatologists
> > like James Hansen and Michael Mann. This is, of course, like
> > kicking at a bee hive, and whenever I do the comments section of
> > my posts fill with lots of angry buzzing.
> >
> > But now, for what I think is the first time, I find myself the
> > target of an attack. And I have to admit, I welcome it: it’s a
> > textbook case of denialist sleight of hand, of distraction,
> > distortion, error, and misdirection.
> >
> > Stick around for all of this. It’ll be... interesting.
> >
> > OK, first, here’s the scoop: a few days ago, I wrote a blog post
> > taking apart two intellectually bankrupt climate change denial
> > articles, one in the Wall Street Journal, and the other in the
> > UK’s Daily Mail. Both were claiming that global warming appears to
> > have stopped in the past few years, a claim which is trivially
> > easy to show wrong. In fact, I linked to two articles doing just
> > that: one at Skeptical Science, and another I myself wrote.
> > Finding actual scientists destroying that claim is not hard at
> > all; those two links have many more links therein.
> >
> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/30/while-temperatures-rise-denialists-reach-lower/
> > Over the years I have pointed out the fallacious arguments of
> > climate change deniers when they attack legitimate climatologists
> > like James Hansen and Michael Mann. This is, of course, like
> > kicking at a bee hive, and whenever I do the comments section of
> > my posts fill with lots of angry buzzing.
> >
> > But now, for what I think is the first time, I find myself the
> > target of an attack. And I have to admit, I welcome it: it’s a
> > textbook case of denialist sleight of hand, of distraction,
> > distortion, error, and misdirection.
> >
> > Stick around for all of this. It’ll be... interesting.
> >
> > OK, first, here’s the scoop: a few days ago, I wrote a blog post
> > taking apart two intellectually bankrupt climate change denial
> > articles, one in the Wall Street Journal, and the other in the
> > UK’s Daily Mail. Both were claiming that global warming appears to
> > have stopped in the past few years, a claim which is trivially
> > easy to show wrong. In fact, I linked to two articles doing just
> > that: one at Skeptical Science, and another I myself wrote.
> > Finding actual scientists destroying that claim is not hard at
> > all; those two links have many more links therein.
> >
> >
> > In my post about the WSJ and DM, I included a graph. It pretty
> > clearly shows temperatures rising from 1973 to the present. And
> > this is where the fun begins.
> >
> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2012/01/skepticalscience_globalwarming1.jpg
> >
> > That’s the plot. It’s from a recent, independent study done at
> > Berkeley, and represents actual, measured, data. Just to be clear,
> > those points are from weather stations across the globe, and the
> > method used to collect and analyze those measurements is described
> > by the Berkeley team themselves (PDF). With me so far?
> >
> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/21/new-independent-climate-study-confirms-global-warming-is-real/
> >
> > http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.pdf
> >
> > Apparently, William Briggs is not with me. He takes very vigorous
> > exception to the graph in an article he wrote which he titled
> > "Bad Astronomer Does Bad Statistics: That Wall Street Journal
> > Editorial." I encourage you to read it, so that you can assure
> > yourself I am not misrepresenting his arguments in any way.
> >
> > http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5138
> >
> > I found out about this article when I saw a tweet by Dr. Briggs
> > himself. My first thought was: Uh oh. I sure hope I didn’t make a
> > math mistake somewhere in my WSJ post! I better read Briggs’
> > article and see... So I read it.
> >
> > My next thought after reading his arguments was then: Ho-hum. So?
> >
> > The mismeasure of an argument
> >
> > Basically, Briggs accuses me of not understanding statistics, of
> > not including error bars, of misrepresenting that points in that
> > plot, of not displaying the plot correctly, and so on ad nauseum.
> > His biggest claim: that those points aren’t measurements at all,
> > but estimates.
> >
> > Here’s the thing: he’s wrong. Those point are in fact
> > measurements, though they are not raw measurements right off the
> > thermometers. They have been processed, averaged, in a
> > scientifically rigorous way to make sure that the statistics
> > derived from them are in fact solid. The Berkeley team describes
> > in detail how that was done (PDF), and does actually call them
> > estimates, but not because they are just guessing, or using some
> > arcane computer model. They are technically estimates, in the
> > sense that any measurement is an estimate, but they are really,
> > really good ones. Greg Laden tears this use of words apart, as
> > well as pretty much everything else Briggs wrote.
> >
> > http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-averaging-process.pdf
> >
> > http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/william_m_briggs_has_misunders.php
> >
> > Oddly, Briggs then goes on to call them "predictions" for some
> > reason, and that they came from "models", which is just weird.
> > It’s as if he’s trying to use a word choice that raises doubt
> > about the measurements. But again he’s wrong. They really are
> > measurements, not model predictions. At Open Mind, Brigg’s word
> > choice once again is ripped apart. [Note: Briggs has left a
> > comment there, further verifying the fact that his use of words is
> > incorrect.]
> >
> > http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-numerologist-to-the-stars/
> >
> > http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-numerologist-to-the-stars/#comment-59152
> >
> > This reminds me of one of my favorite skeptic jokes. Question: How
> > many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?
> >
> > Answer: Four. It doesn’t matter what you call a tail, it’s not a
> > leg.
> >
> > There are many other places where Briggs makes mistakes that
> > render his arguments null; for example, the error bars (what
> > statisticians usually call "uncertainty") are in fact made
> > available by the Berkeley team, and are small compared to the
> > long-term rise in temperature. For another, Briggs says I
> > should’ve shown the plot going farther into the past, because 1973
> > was actually a low point. However, that’s completely wrong: it’s
> > actually a high point! As Deep Climate points out here, this
> > actually makes the warming trend lower. So in true contrarian
> > fashion, Briggs is contrary even to himself. It’s bizarre.
> >
> > http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-numerologist-to-the-stars/#comment-59147
> >
> > So really, there goes Briggs’ argument. His main point is wrong,
> > so we’re done, right?
> >
> > Well, no. There’s more fun to be had here.
> >
> > Beside the point
> >
> > If you read Briggs’ article, you certainly get the impression that
> > because the graph I use is statistically meaningless (so he
> > incorrectly claims), then my whole argument about global warming
> > is wrong.
> >
> > And this is where I found myself greatly amused, though in a
> > schadenfreude sort of way.
> >
> > Think of it this way: if my argument hinged on that graph, and I
> > removed it, my argument would have no foundation, correct? It
> > would change the tenor of the entire blog post.
> >
> > Go look at my article. If you remove that graph from it, what
> > changes? Nothing. My main point — that the WSJ and DM articles are
> > wrong, that we have lots of evidence the Earth is warming up, that
> > 9 of the 10 hottest years on record occurred since the year 2000,
> > that the DM article specifically uses scientific studies and
> > presents them as if they say the exact opposite of what they
> > actually say — still stands.
> >
> > So even if that graph is wrong and misrepresents what I’m saying —
> > which it does not — it doesn’t matter. In fact, I used that graph
> > as an illustration, to show how we’re warming up. I never intended
> > it to be the basis for the argument I was making, just a way of
> > further showing it. If you read the actual words I wrote,
> > including the links to many, many articles backing up my position,
> > you’ll see that Briggs has not refuted a single actual point I
> > made.
> >
> > So even if he’s right about that graph, it doesn’t matter. And
> > he’s not right.
> >
> > But notice what he’s done. He’s taken what is clearly a minor
> > point and blown it up as if it’s my main point. He’s used shady
> > words (predictions, models) to cast aspersions, and to make
> > someone (me!) look bad. Then, by "refuting" this minor issue he
> > can then poison the well, strongly implying that all my arguments
> > are wrong. That’s kind of a big no-no when trying to argue a
> > point.
> >
> > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/01/briggs-schools-the-bad-astronomer-on-statistics/
> >
> > But it packages well. Watts Up With That, another denialist blog,
> > has run with Briggs’ claims about me as well. He also makes the
> > false claim that warming has stalled, and so on. Note WUWT also
> > says the signers of the WSJ OpEd are "16 scientists", which isn’t
> > true: not all are scientists, and only four have actually
> > published climate science research. And don’t forget about the
> > article the WSJ refused to print talking about the reality of
> > global warming, signed by 255 actual scientists.
> >
> > http://skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html
> >
> > http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/
> >
> > Oops.
> >
> > Denialism’s dark mirror
> >
> > I will admit the irony of this attack amuses me greatly; Briggs
> > accuses me of many things he himself is doing. That is standard
> > fare from antiscience group: creationists, global warming deniers,
> > and alt-medders, for example, all seem to project their own
> > tactics on the scientists with whom they disagree. Don’t like real
> > medicine? Accuse scientists of being in the pocket of Big Pharma
> > (and forget about the millions being made by quacks on useless
> > "remedies"). Don’t believe in evolution? Accuse scientists of
> > being too dogmatic. Don’t think global warming is real? Accuse
> > scientists of misrepresenting the data.
> >
> > My favorite irony is that a lot of these global warming denialists
> > take money from fossil fuel interests, but then routinely say to
> > "follow the money", as if it’s the climatologists who are raking
> > in the big bucks from shady think tanks with undisclosed
> > bankrollers. While Briggs points out he gets no money from them,
> > he asks where my money comes from. Think on this, Dr. Briggs; how
> > much money would I make if I suddenly turned coat and said global
> > warming wasn’t real? I’ll guarantee you it would be a lot more
> > than I make now, probably with a couple of zeroes added to the
> > end. So that argument falls a wee bit flat here.
> >
> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/25/five-shots-againt-global-warming-denialism/#bankroll
> > My favorite irony is that a lot of these global warming denialists
> > take money from fossil fuel interests, but then routinely say to
> > "follow the money", as if it’s the climatologists who are raking
> > in the big bucks from shady think tanks with undisclosed
> > bankrollers. While Briggs points out he gets no money from them,
> > he asks where my money comes from. Think on this, Dr. Briggs; how
> > much money would I make if I suddenly turned coat and said global
> > warming wasn’t real? I’ll guarantee you it would be a lot more
> > than I make now, probably with a couple of zeroes added to the
> > end. So that argument falls a wee bit flat here.
> >
> >
> > Like all the others.
> >
> > Of course, given the comments I’ve seen on my blog, on Briggs’
> > blog, on Watts Up With That, or in any other blog discussing
> > global warming, I know how this will go. You can bring up the
> > major pieces of evidence supporting reality again and again, but
> > the denialists will ignore them and go after phantoms instead.
> > Because if they do acknowledge the actual evidence, they lose.
> Godwin's Law. You lose.
> > Like all the others.
> >
> > Of course, given the comments I’ve seen on my blog, on Briggs’
> > blog, on Watts Up With That, or in any other blog discussing
> > global warming, I know how this will go. You can bring up the
> > major pieces of evidence supporting reality again and again, but
> > the denialists will ignore them and go after phantoms instead.
> > Because if they do acknowledge the actual evidence, they lose.
Idiot.
AGWFacts
Feb 12, 2012, 1:29:23 PM2/12/12
to
> to Briggs site ( not a cite ) and he has a whole section on global
> warming that is factually inaccurate to be kind.
I looked over his site also; it reminds me of a Creationism web
site, where *NOTHING* the writer claimed scientists say are what
scientists actually say. Briggs just makes up shit, then says
scientists said it.
Bret Cahill
Feb 12, 2012, 5:31:27 PM2/12/12
to
> Global Warming Update:
> The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in the last decade,
> study shows
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?...
>
> Move along. Nothing to see here.
>
> And, hey, whatever happened to that Peak Oil (tm) thing?
The price of oil is already going up and the economy hasn't even
really taken off yet.
> It seems to be as dead as Global Warming hysteria.
You've been reading too many of those Lyndon LaRouche links to
dowsers.
> The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in the last decade,
> study shows
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?...
>
> Move along. Nothing to see here.
>
> And, hey, whatever happened to that Peak Oil (tm) thing?
The price of oil is already going up and the economy hasn't even
really taken off yet.
> It seems to be as dead as Global Warming hysteria.
You've been reading too many of those Lyndon LaRouche links to
dowsers.
vtcapo
Feb 12, 2012, 8:32:04 PM2/12/12
to
which is not a problem. But lets say you got the license to fish in
Lake Eden but decided to go instead to Lake Champlain. If caught you
will be fined for cross contamination.
RT
Brad Guth
Feb 12, 2012, 11:53:30 PM2/12/12
to
previous wrongs, so there has to be rules and enforcements of those
rules. Of course most of the ZNR rednecks we have to put up with in
Usenet/newsgroups, that usually never disclose their true ID or who
and what they truly represent, could care less about others or the
environment.
AGWFacts
Feb 13, 2012, 10:49:54 AM2/13/12
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:31:27 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Global Warming Update:
> > The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in the last decade,
> > study shows
No, it does not: the study says the exact opposite.
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Global Warming Update:
> > The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in the last decade,
> > study shows
> > Move along. Nothing to see here.
> > And, hey, whatever happened to that Peak Oil (tm) thing?
Government that peak oil would happen in about 40 years. Every
year since then Standard Oil has updated their estimate, every
year stating peak oil will happen in 40 years.
> The price of oil is already going up and the economy hasn't even
> really taken off yet.
>
> > It seems to be as dead as Global Warming hysteria.
>
> You've been reading too many of those Lyndon LaRouche links to
> dowsers.
>
>
0 new messages