| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Challenge to Dim-wit, aka Bozo, aka Onbzo
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| AR- |
 Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I've read your post below. Well, part of it, it's too lame to read all
of it. You begin by whining about bypassing the scientific method (i've
put what you posted in brackets):
[[[April 21, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2704
QUOTE: "the scientific method of testing the theory that human CO2 was
causing warming/climate change was effectively bypassed"]]
You then proceed to state:
[Once you realize humans are not causing global warming and/or climate
change,...]
I know you to be a hypocrite from your posts, so this question is just
to show this one more time.
Show us how the Scientific Method was used to prove that "humans are not
causing global warming and/or climate change".
I know, you can't, but maybe you could at least post some amusing
dribble....
Regards |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| AR- |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I forgot to post this to all of the groups that bozo posted the original
message to.
AR- wrote:
Quote: I've read your post below. Well, part of it, it's too lame to read all
of it. You begin by whining about bypassing the scientific method (i've
put what you posted in brackets):
[[[April 21, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2704
QUOTE: "the scientific method of testing the theory that human CO2 was
causing warming/climate change was effectively bypassed"]]
You then proceed to state:
[Once you realize humans are not causing global warming and/or climate
change,...]
I know you to be a hypocrite from your posts, so this question is just
to show this one more time.
Show us how the Scientific Method was used to prove that "humans are not
causing global warming and/or climate change".
I know, you can't, but maybe you could at least post some amusing
dribble....
Regards
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| 0NBZ0 |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"AR-" <Ginger.Grand@bettertakethisoutfirst.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fuo10t$4ia$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu...
Quote: I forgot to post this to all of the groups that bozo posted the
original message to.
AR- wrote:
I've read your post below. Well, part of it, it's too lame to read
all of it. You begin by whining about bypassing the scientific method
(i've put what you posted in brackets):
[[[April 21, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2704
QUOTE: "the scientific method of testing the theory that human CO2
was causing warming/climate change was effectively bypassed"]]
You then proceed to state:
[Once you realize humans are not causing global warming and/or
climate change,...]
I know you to be a hypocrite from your posts, so this question is
just to show this one more time.
Show us how the Scientific Method was used to prove that "humans are
not causing global warming and/or climate change".
Nah, the onus is on you guys to prove your wacko AGW claims!
Because their is no scientific evidence for AGW,
the scientific method has deliberately been left
waaaaaaaaay behind!
Global Warming? Some Commonsense Thoughts
Reid A. Bryson Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr.1
http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1837.htm
The Built-in Nonsense Detector
Hardly a day goes by without a news article in the paper containing a
reference to someone's opinion about "Global Warming". A quick search of
the internet uncovers literally hundreds of items about "Global
Warming". Issues of atmospheric science journals will normally have at
least one article on climatic change, usually meaning "Global Warming"
or some aspect thereof. Whole generations of graduate students have been
trained to believe that we know the main answers about climate change
and only have to work out the details.
Why then do I bother you by introducing this section with such a
ludicrous title?
I do it because, as one who has spent many decades studying the subject
professionally, I find that there are enormous gaps in the understanding
of those making the most strident claims about climatic change. In order
to read the news rationally, the educated reader needs a few keys to
quickly sort the patently absurd from the possibly correct. I propose to
supply some of those keys to give the reader at least a rudimentary
nonsense detector.
Some Common Fallacies
1. The atmospheric warming of the last century is unprecedented and
unique.
Wrong.
There are literally thousands of papers in the scientific literature
with data that shows that the climate has been changing one way or the
other for millions of years.
2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic
in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission.
Wrong.
That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a
number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than
carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to
carbon dioxide alone.
3. The most important gas with a "greenhouse" effect is carbon dioxide.
Wrong.
Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so
small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes in
carbon dioxide.
4. One cannot argue with the computer models that predict the climate
effects of a doubling of carbon dioxide or other "greenhouse gases".
Wrong.
To show this we must show that the computer models can at least
duplicate the present-day climate. This they cannot do with what could
be called accuracy by any stretch of the imagination. There are studies
that show that the average error in modeling present precipitation is on
the order of 100%, and the error in modeling present temperature is
about the same size as the predicted change due to a doubling of carbon
dioxide. For many areas, the precipitation error is 300-400 percent.
5. I am arguing that the carbon dioxide measurements are poorly done.
Wrong.
The measurements are well done, but the interpretation of them is often
less than acceptably scientific.
6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that
carbon-dioxide-induced warming of the climate is a fact.
Probably wrong. I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if
such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it
would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough
about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky
way to discover scientific truth.
So What Can We Say about Global Warming?
We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century.
We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of
"greenhouse gases" until we consider the other possible factors, such as
aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the
past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.
We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the
climate is an important question --- too important to ignore. However it
has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a
scientific problem.
What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific
meeting2 and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly
change the climate!
---------------------------------------------------------
1 Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental
Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord
Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the
University of Wisconsin, Madison.
2 AAAS Conference in Houston, TX, 1968, organized by SFS and published
as "Global Effects of Environmental Pollution" (S F Singer, editor,
published by Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht)"
Ref: Bryson, Reid A., 2004. Global Warming? Some common sense thoughts.
This Week That Was March 20, 2004,
from: http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/publications/CCR_849.pdf
The Faithful Heretic
A Wisconsin Icon Pursues Tough Questions
Some people are lucky enough to enjoy their work, some are lucky enough
to love it, and then there's Reid Bryson. At age 86, he's still hard at
it every day, delving into the science some say he invented.
Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history
of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the
University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology-now the Department of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences-in the 1970s he became the first
director of what's now the UW's Gaylord Nelson Institute of
Environmental Studies. He's a member of the United Nations Global 500
Roll of Honor-created, the U.N. says, to recognize "outstanding
achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment." He
has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was
identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most
frequently cited climatologist in the world.
Long ago in the Army Air Corps, Bryson and a colleague prepared the
aviation weather forecast that predicted discovery of the jet stream by
a group of B-29s flying to and from Tokyo. Their warning to expect
westerly winds at 168 knots earned Bryson and his friend a chewing out
from a general-and the general's apology the next day when he learned
they were right. Bryson flew into a couple of typhoons in 1944, three
years before the Weather Service officially did such things, and he
prepared the forecast for the homeward flight of the Enola Gay. Back in
Wisconsin, he built a program at the UW that's trained some of the
nation's leading climatologists.
Read more at: http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's book
Capitalism |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lloyd |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 24, 12:27 am, "0NBZ0" <0N...@doooooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com>
wrote:
Quote: "AR-" <Ginger.Gr...@bettertakethisoutfirst.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fuo10t$4ia$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu...
I forgot to post this to all of the groups that bozo posted the
original message to.
AR- wrote:
I've read your post below. Well, part of it, it's too lame to read
all of it. You begin by whining about bypassing the scientific method
(i've put what you posted in brackets):
[[[April 21, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2704
QUOTE: "the scientific method of testing the theory that human CO2
was causing warming/climate change was effectively bypassed"]]
You then proceed to state:
[Once you realize humans are not causing global warming and/or
climate change,...]
I know you to be a hypocrite from your posts, so this question is
just to show this one more time.
Show us how the Scientific Method was used to prove that "humans are
not causing global warming and/or climate change".
Nah, the onus is on you guys to prove your wacko AGW claims!
Been done. Hundreds of articles in scientific journals.
Quote: Because their is no scientific evidence for AGW,
Lie #45
Quote: the scientific method has deliberately been left
waaaaaaaaay behind!
Lie #46
Quote:
Global Warming? Some Commonsense Thoughts
Reid A. Bryson Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr.1
http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1837.htm
The Built-in Nonsense Detector
Hardly a day goes by without a news article in the paper containing a
reference to someone's opinion about "Global Warming". A quick search of
the internet uncovers literally hundreds of items about "Global
Warming". Issues of atmospheric science journals will normally have at
least one article on climatic change, usually meaning "Global Warming"
or some aspect thereof. Whole generations of graduate students have been
trained to believe that we know the main answers about climate change
and only have to work out the details.
Why then do I bother you by introducing this section with such a
ludicrous title?
I do it because, as one who has spent many decades studying the subject
professionally, I find that there are enormous gaps in the understanding
of those making the most strident claims about climatic change. In order
to read the news rationally, the educated reader needs a few keys to
quickly sort the patently absurd from the possibly correct. I propose to
supply some of those keys to give the reader at least a rudimentary
nonsense detector.
Some Common Fallacies
1. The atmospheric warming of the last century is unprecedented and
unique.
Wrong.
Lie #47
Quote:
There are literally thousands of papers in the scientific literature
with data that shows that the climate has been changing one way or the
other for millions of years.
Misleading.
Quote:
2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic
in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission.
Wrong.
Lie #48
Quote:
That is a theory for which there is no credible proof.
Lie #49
Quote: There are a
number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than
carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to
carbon dioxide alone.
Been done. Lie #50
Quote:
3. The most important gas with a "greenhouse" effect is carbon dioxide.
Wrong.
Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so
small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes in
carbon dioxide.
Irrelevant.
Quote: 4. One cannot argue with the computer models that predict the climate
effects of a doubling of carbon dioxide or other "greenhouse gases".
Wrong.
To show this we must show that the computer models can at least
duplicate the present-day climate. This they cannot do with what could
be called accuracy by any stretch of the imagination.
Lie #51
Quote: There are studies
that show that the average error in modeling present precipitation is on
the order of 100%, and the error in modeling present temperature is
about the same size as the predicted change due to a doubling of carbon
dioxide. For many areas, the precipitation error is 300-400 percent.
5. I am arguing that the carbon dioxide measurements are poorly done.
Wrong.
The measurements are well done, but the interpretation of them is often
less than acceptably scientific.
Lie #52
Quote:
6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that
carbon-dioxide-induced warming of the climate is a fact.
Probably wrong.
Lie #53
Quote: I know of no vote having been taken,
Scientific journals -- look at the articles. Scientific groups --
look at their positions.
Quote: and know that if
such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it
would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough
about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky
way to discover scientific truth.
So What Can We Say about Global Warming?
We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century.
And "gravity most probably exists."
Quote: We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of
"greenhouse gases" until we consider the other possible factors, such as
aerosols.
Lie #54 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ouroboros_Rex |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
0NBZ0 wrote:
Quote: "AR-" <Ginger.Grand@bettertakethisoutfirst.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fuo10t$4ia$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu...
I forgot to post this to all of the groups that bozo posted the
original message to.
AR- wrote:
I've read your post below. Well, part of it, it's too lame to read
all of it. You begin by whining about bypassing the scientific
method (i've put what you posted in brackets):
[[[April 21, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2704
QUOTE: "the scientific method of testing the theory that human CO2
was causing warming/climate change was effectively bypassed"]]
You then proceed to state:
[Once you realize humans are not causing global warming and/or
climate change,...]
I know you to be a hypocrite from your posts, so this question is
just to show this one more time.
Show us how the Scientific Method was used to prove that "humans are
not causing global warming and/or climate change".
Nah, the onus is on you guys to prove your wacko AGW claims!
Because their is no scientific evidence for AGW,
ROFLMAO |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| AR- |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
0NBZ0 wrote:
Quote:
"AR-" <Ginger.Grand@bettertakethisoutfirst.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fuo10t$4ia$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu...
I forgot to post this to all of the groups that bozo posted the
original message to.
AR- wrote:
I've read your post below. Well, part of it, it's too lame to read
all of it. You begin by whining about bypassing the scientific method
(i've put what you posted in brackets):
[[[April 21, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2704
QUOTE: "the scientific method of testing the theory that human CO2
was causing warming/climate change was effectively bypassed"]]
You then proceed to state:
[Once you realize humans are not causing global warming and/or
climate change,...]
I know you to be a hypocrite from your posts, so this question is
just to show this one more time.
Show us how the Scientific Method was used to prove that "humans are
not causing global warming and/or climate change".
Nah,
[snip]
I am surprised. Oh, wait a minute, let me think, what did I say, oh yes,
here it is, "I know you to be a hypocrite from your posts, so this
question is just to show this one more time."
Thanks Bozo, I knew you wouldn't disappoint.
Regards
Quote:
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's book
Capitalism |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"0NBZ0" <0NBZ0@doooooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com> wrote
Quote: Nah, the onus is on you guys to prove your wacko AGW claims!
Because their is no scientific evidence for AGW,
"The world has been warming for the last 18 years." - Bonzo.
Gosh Bonzo. I kinda think that a warming globe is evidence of global
warming.
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:16 am
|
|