neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 26, 6:46 pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 26, 3:24 am, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:59 am, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:01 pm, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com
wrote:

One way to spot "junk science", or junk arguments in general, is
a failure to acknowledge the opposition- A. McIntire

And since the round earthers fail to acknowledge the flat earth
arguments, that must mean that the round earth theory must be junk,
right?

Didn't science prove the earth was round?

No, it was observed long before the scientific method was developed.

Global warming is like a flat
earth.... a hypothesis, until science proves it one way or the other.

This just indicates that you don't understand how science works.
Science doesn't prove anything; evidence does that. Scientific
theories are created to make sense of the evidence. There is always
uncertainty in science, which people like you use to try and tear down
the advances in understanding that have been made. You want to throw
out the consensus of the experts in the field because you don't like
the answer. Well, guess what. Science works towards answers that are
accurate, whether you find them palatable or not.

As to balance of evidence; every national science organization, every
international science organization, every relevant professional
organization, and even EXXON agrees with the IPCC assessment. When
you can find a single scientific body of national or international
standing that disagrees with the IPCC, you just might have something.
But as it stands, I'm sitting with a straight flush, and you've got a
2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, mixed suits. And claiming that there's actually a
conspiracy among the entire worlds scientific community is so
intellectually vacuous that being a young earth creationist would be a
step up.

You should quote where somebody claimed a conspiracy if you
comment on it.

Your exact words were "massive conspiracy by retards who are so
egotistical as to believe the public is less than literate."
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/629e181e1ee930e3

But was my words in this thread?

Gosh, did I write that, it is great, it represents exactly what
I think, although the "massive conspiracy" is different than the usual
planning of a conspiracy, rather than all participants trying to harm
others, they all think they are "saving the planet".

So, instead of a conspiracy among the scientific community, you just
think that they are all deluded retards.

All that are sure that CO2 is causing climate change (or any other
song you want to dance to) are most likely deluded, I would hate to think
they are just me-too men.

There is a lot of talk about a doubling of the CO2 concentration,
and I have already said I don't think that will happen, by the time all
the easy to get oil and coal re used up, chances are that alternate
energy will be in sufficient availability to allow CO2 concentrations
to level off an peak.

When daily TV news anchors are directed to include a going green
tid-bit in every broadcast, more than science is in play.

Let's read that again;

http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/629e181e1ee930e3

Posted here in case somebody wants to read it without using the
browser;

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:12:55 +1000, "Bonzo" <boo...@optusnt.com.au
wrote:

Vol.15, No. 2, Spring 1992
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
Richard S. Lindzen

Thanks for posting that, it is amazing that this charade
has gone on so long, and from all appearances the media and the general
public is still wondering what all the fuss is about.

There will no doubt be big reactions once it is clear that
it is a massive conspiracy by retards who are so egotistical as to
believe the public is less than literate.

And the truth is even worse than Dr. Lindzen states,
because the "average global temperature" is totally meaningless.

The great bulk of the ocean is cold, very cold, and it
would take an enormous amount of thermal energy to raise all the mass of
the ocean to 15 C.

And the great mass of the solid Earth is hot, very hot, and
the small amount of mass in the atmosphere and the thin layer of the
surface that is changed daily or seasonally by solar radiation can't
possibly be significant in the total energy contained.

All the talk of an average annual global temperature is
just plain unadulterated bullshit, spread by retards and gullible fools
who have a short spiritual experience in thinking they are saving the
planet as if they were the hero in a catastrophe movie.
[unquote]

_____________________________________________________________________
Now, if any of the AGW nuts or the leftists posing as AGW nuts
want to point out anything in my above quote that is far from the
truth, please do.____________________________________________________

Fool, the core of the planet and the deep ocean isn't considered by
anyone I've heard of to be part of the surface of the planet.

And do you agree with that?

The ocean gradually turns over,
and it doesn't take much cold water to absorb the minuscule couple of
watts per square meter surplus energy claimed.
That could go on for a million years without much change.

The core of the planet definitely should be included in any
"crisis" model, everything should be considered, even the 100 watts
average output of all animals (including humans) weighing more than
40 pounds or so. That number could be 10 to 20 Billion (times 100 watts).

Additionally, understanding of how the climate works has significantly
improved in the decade and a half from when the article was written.

No doubt, and that is likely the reason more and more scientists
are writing about cyclic climate and typical climate instead of a proven
upward trend.

Just because you haven't kept up with the research doesn't mean that
the research is wrong.

I try to keep up,

but there are too many leftists with agendas to
use climate or any other means to further causes of little or no consequence
other than political.

GW "science" is far from "accurate", air temperatures near the surface
can vary over large ranges even when the same amount of energy is involved,
and only idiots or agenda driven nuts would place extreme confidence in
the accuracy of averaged and rounded data with results within a one unit
spread.

I have confidence in the scientific method and the process of peer
review. Not perfect confidence (science doesn't work like that), but
certainly enough to warrant taking out some metaphorical insurance.

I have confidence in science too, once it matures, maybe AGW even
has more basis for belief than aether theory, but it can be just as wrong,
or more likely, almost wrong or only a tiny bit right, OR THE OPPOSITE.

Fine, what level of confidence among the scientific community would
you consider good enough for you,

Good enough for what?

You seem to think I know what the whole
mess is about, I have no idea what the IPCC, Al Gore, the European Union,
or any other entity expects people like me to do.

Frankly I thought Jimmy Carter was a wimp for suggesting people
wear a sweater and turn down the thermostat, so where does that leave
me on what you think I should do.

The money being spent on study grants and salaries and stupid
advertising could be building solar cell production lines, solar thermal
electric plants in the sunbelts of the world, Plug-in Electric Vehicles
(PEVs) and many other more marginal alternate energy sources.

I just started driving one of my 1982 DFI Cadillacs because I can
get 20 MPG with it, and I plan to convert my riding mower to a hybrid
or all electric, but it doesn't really mean I am doing anything at all
related to Climate Change or Global Warming, I just need to be able
to control costs and avoid spending more and more money.

and why should your personal
uninformed position be given any credibility?

Credibility about what?

I have supported solar energy since
1973, there isn't anything else to say, except those who want money for
study of AGW or GW or planting trees are a bunch of nuts, many are greedy
or gorey, and some are just stupid or politically motivated.
All the talk like clearing forests in the US is pure bull manure,
yet that is one of their green platforms.

Do you advocate waiting
until every last person on the planet agrees?

Waiting for what, to do what? You seem to lack the ability
to write meaningful sentences?

Do you think being
popular would make the results more accurate?

What results?

I suppose I should write more about how the
atmosphere would not be able to cool itself without GreenHouse Gases,
but there seems to be a lot of objecting to that fact.

And I have been wanting to study the 1896 Arrhenius paper to see
just how badly his assumptions have been misinterpreted, he said the
moon has a mean surface temperature of 45 degrees, is that the same
as the Earth?

I would like to see more written about the water/water-vapor cycle,
with numbers, there is way too much written about climate and warming
or cooling without numbers attached to the results.

Does an unpopular
finding make the finding wrong in your world?

I haven't seen any real "finding" of anything significant.

I know that the air and the highway right-of-ways are cleaner
than they were 60 years ago, the weather is just as fickle, and
flood control of the rivers is better, but bad things still happen,
there is nothing new on this Earth that I know of.

Change your userID, you seem opinionated.

Fool, yours fits like a glove.

Yours doesn't, unless you straddle the fence a little more obvious.

Fool, a neutralino is a theoretical particle thought to make up the
bulk of dark matter in the universe.

In your case maybe a little gray matter would help.

Look, last August I experienced the longest spell of above 90
temperatures in 80 years, the driest month for the region, but not a
single day was within 6 degrees of the record high for any day of the
month.

Some day, you should learn the difference between climate and weather,
as well as the basic fact that the weather you had last August may not
actually be representative for the weather for the rest of the planet
for the rest of the year.

Whatever the weather, it is included in the global annual average
nonsense, the point is that nothing has changed, except a lot of dummies
don't realize the outcome of studies is tainted by opinions.

When the articles written are given a title before the data
is presented, then they become agenda driven, and authors working for
a man who has made his preferences known, they will pacify him in order
to hold their job and keep the peace.

You really don't understand how peer review works, do you.

Of course, everybody does, you pat my back, I'll pat yours.

A conspiracy by any name you want to give it, sheep with a
known sheepherder.

And some of those sheepherders names are Timothy Ball, Robert Carter,
Vincent Grey, Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen.....so feel free to keep
bleating about how the worlds scientific community is involved in a
massive conspiracy.

The names are not meaningful to me, what counts is the number
of days I have to wear a heavy coat, Perhaps your writing makes
more sense to people who use air conditioning more than I need to.

On Apr 26, 6:46 pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 26, 3:24 am, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:59 am, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:01 pm, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com
wrote:

One way to spot "junk science", or junk arguments in general, is
a failure to acknowledge the opposition- A. McIntire

And since the round earthers fail to acknowledge the flat earth
arguments, that must mean that the round earth theory must be junk,
right?

Didn't science prove the earth was round?

No, it was observed long before the scientific method was developed.

Global warming is like a flat
earth.... a hypothesis, until science proves it one way or the other.

This just indicates that you don't understand how science works.
Science doesn't prove anything; evidence does that. Scientific
theories are created to make sense of the evidence. There is always
uncertainty in science, which people like you use to try and tear down
the advances in understanding that have been made. You want to throw
out the consensus of the experts in the field because you don't like
the answer. Well, guess what. Science works towards answers that are
accurate, whether you find them palatable or not.

As to balance of evidence; every national science organization, every
international science organization, every relevant professional
organization, and even EXXON agrees with the IPCC assessment. When
you can find a single scientific body of national or international
standing that disagrees with the IPCC, you just might have something.
But as it stands, I'm sitting with a straight flush, and you've got a
2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, mixed suits. And claiming that there's actually a
conspiracy among the entire worlds scientific community is so
intellectually vacuous that being a young earth creationist would be a
step up.

You should quote where somebody claimed a conspiracy if you
comment on it.

Your exact words were "massive conspiracy by retards who are so
egotistical as to believe the public is less than literate."
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/629e181e1ee930e3

But was my words in this thread?

Gosh, did I write that, it is great, it represents exactly what
I think, although the "massive conspiracy" is different than the usual
planning of a conspiracy, rather than all participants trying to harm
others, they all think they are "saving the planet".

So, instead of a conspiracy among the scientific community, you just
think that they are all deluded retards.

Let's read that again;

http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/629e181e1ee930e3

Posted here in case somebody wants to read it without using the
browser;

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:12:55 +1000, "Bonzo" <boo...@optusnt.com.au
wrote:

Vol.15, No. 2, Spring 1992
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
Richard S. Lindzen

Thanks for posting that, it is amazing that this charade
has gone on so long, and from all appearances the media and the general
public is still wondering what all the fuss is about.

There will no doubt be big reactions once it is clear that
it is a massive conspiracy by retards who are so egotistical as to
believe the public is less than literate.

And the truth is even worse than Dr. Lindzen states,
because the "average global temperature" is totally meaningless.

The great bulk of the ocean is cold, very cold, and it
would take an enormous amount of thermal energy to raise all the mass of
the ocean to 15 C.

And the great mass of the solid Earth is hot, very hot, and
the small amount of mass in the atmosphere and the thin layer of the
surface that is changed daily or seasonally by solar radiation can't
possibly be significant in the total energy contained.

All the talk of an average annual global temperature is
just plain unadulterated bullshit, spread by retards and gullible fools
who have a short spiritual experience in thinking they are saving the
planet as if they were the hero in a catastrophe movie.
[unquote]

_____________________________________________________________________
Now, if any of the AGW nuts or the leftists posing as AGW nuts
want to point out anything in my above quote that is far from the
truth, please do.____________________________________________________

Fool, the core of the planet and the deep ocean isn't considered by
anyone I've heard of to be part of the surface of the planet.

Additionally, understanding of how the climate works has significantly
improved in the decade and a half from when the article was written.

Just because you haven't kept up with the research doesn't mean that
the research is wrong.

GW "science" is far from "accurate", air temperatures near the surface
can vary over large ranges even when the same amount of energy is involved,
and only idiots or agenda driven nuts would place extreme confidence in
the accuracy of averaged and rounded data with results within a one unit
spread.

I have confidence in the scientific method and the process of peer
review. Not perfect confidence (science doesn't work like that), but
certainly enough to warrant taking out some metaphorical insurance.

I have confidence in science too, once it matures, maybe AGW even
has more basis for belief than aether theory, but it can be just as wrong,
or more likely, almost wrong or only a tiny bit right, OR THE OPPOSITE.

Fine, what level of confidence among the scientific community would
you consider good enough for you,

and why should your personal
uninformed position be given any credibility?

Do you advocate waiting
until every last person on the planet agrees?

Do you think being
popular would make the results more accurate?

Does an unpopular
finding make the finding wrong in your world?

Change your userID, you seem opinionated.

Fool, yours fits like a glove.

Yours doesn't, unless you straddle the fence a little more obvious.

Fool, a neutralino is a theoretical particle thought to make up the
bulk of dark matter in the universe.

Look, last August I experienced the longest spell of above 90
temperatures in 80 years, the driest month for the region, but not a
single day was within 6 degrees of the record high for any day of the
month.

Some day, you should learn the difference between climate and weather,
as well as the basic fact that the weather you had last August may not
actually be representative for the weather for the rest of the planet
for the rest of the year.

When the articles written are given a title before the data
is presented, then they become agenda driven, and authors working for
a man who has made his preferences known, they will pacify him in order
to hold their job and keep the peace.

You really don't understand how peer review works, do you.

A conspiracy by any name you want to give it, sheep with a
known sheepherder.

And some of those sheepherders names are Timothy Ball, Robert Carter,
Vincent Grey, Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen.....so feel free to keep
bleating about how the worlds scientific community is involved in a
massive conspiracy.

CO2 increases are caused by Global temperature increase

Didn't science prove the earth was round?

It was found with science to be round.

No, the Greeks (I think) figured it out using basic geometry, a couple
thousand years before the development of the scientific method.

Tell us about life being created in a lab, retard.