| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Anthropology - Paleo Forum » Hansen is a Whacko...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Claudius Denk... |
 Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 7:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 12:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 25, 3:31 pm, "Dan Luke" <t1... at (no spam) dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
Because his alarmist claims are scientifically baseless. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 2:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 25, 4:20 pm, "Dan Luke" <t1... at (no spam) dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
The burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Luke... |
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 5:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Claudius Denk" wrote:
And you find this whacky why, exactly? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Luke... |
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 6:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Claudius Denk" wrote:
Bullshit.
Pick one and attack it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Doug Bashford... |
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 8:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Claudius Denk said about:
Re: Hansen is a Whacko
Quote: On May 25, 4:20=A0pm, "Dan Luke" <t1... at (no spam) dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" =A0wrote:
That's James E. Hansen of NASA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DETIyCIVu8hI&feature=3Drelated
And you find this whacky why, exactly?
Because his alarmist claims are scientifically baseless.
Bullshit.
Pick one and attack it.
The burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims.
Yep. Like: "We're not CRAZY! Science is!!!!"
Are you actually that stupid, or is it that you
think "your readers" are? You think they can't google?
What!?
The neocons did not support Duhbya in the 2000 primaries.
He's just a newbie convert.
...they supported John McCain.
PURE Republicanism?? It's now clear.
Six years of PURE Republicanism - BOTH houses
AND the Prez. Pure as it gets.
So?
Are you better off now than seven years ago?
Are you proud with what they have done to
America and her reputation? ...To your reputation?
....all the sleaze, lies and bribery?
How about all the killing?
....Americans torture now? Proud?
If actions speak louder than rhetoric, then
name ONE good thing about Republicanism.
Just one.
Just one *real* thing.
Can't do it?
You have only feelsgood rhetoric?
So? Your Republicanism more like a bad habit then? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Poetic Justice... |
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 8:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Claudius Denk wrote:
Quote: On May 25, 4:20 pm, "Dan Luke" <t1... at (no spam) dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" wrote:
That's James E. Hansen of NASA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETIyCIVu8hI&feature=related
And you find this whacky why, exactly?
Because his alarmist claims are scientifically baseless.
Bullshit.
Pick one and attack it.
The burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims.
NASA is like a religious cult, they'd raid the NASA compound to save the
children..... except that there are already Government people there. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Luke... |
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 10:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Claudius Denk" wrote:
Quote:
And you find this whacky why, exactly?
Because his alarmist claims are scientifically baseless.
Bullshit.
Pick one and attack it.
The burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims.
Chickening out noted.
C'mon, "Denk," don't you have one 'alarmist claim' you'd like to refute?
Or are you just blowing smoke? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| jerry warner... |
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 11:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Claudius Denk wrote: Hansen is a Whacko and
Global Warming is a Religion ... as a melting glacier fell on him! Purdy
damned funny.
Claudius Denk wrote:
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rick Wagler... |
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 11:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:83c65359-0592-4174-8ad5-8bfe6ed86238 at (no spam) x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 4:20 pm, "Dan Luke" <t1... at (no spam) dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
The burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims.
And our evidence that Hansen has not assumed the
burden would be what?
Rick Wagler |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 12:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 25, 9:27 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote:
Quote: "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:83c65359-0592-4174-8ad5-8bfe6ed86238 at (no spam) x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 4:20 pm, "Dan Luke" <t1... at (no spam) dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" wrote:
That's James E. Hansen of NASA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETIyCIVu8hI&feature=related
And you find this whacky why, exactly?
Because his alarmist claims are scientifically baseless.
Bullshit.
Pick one and attack it.
The burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims.
And our evidence that Hansen has not assumed the
burden would be what?
Rick Wagler
You're suggesting we should take his word for it? Are you aware of
any evidence that Hansen has assumed the burden? Do you not think
that Hansen has an obligation to support his alarmist comments?
Answer my questions you evasive twit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rick Wagler... |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:abbf6aa9-4738-4aaf-8b4e-627e49419055 at (no spam) q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 9:27 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote:
Quote: "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:83c65359-0592-4174-8ad5-8bfe6ed86238 at (no spam) x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 4:20 pm, "Dan Luke" <t1... at (no spam) dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" wrote:
That's James E. Hansen of NASA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETIyCIVu8hI&feature=related
And you find this whacky why, exactly?
Because his alarmist claims are scientifically baseless.
Bullshit.
Pick one and attack it.
The burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims.
And our evidence that Hansen has not assumed the
burden would be what?
Rick Wagler
You're suggesting we should take his word for it? Are you aware of
any evidence that Hansen has assumed the burden? Do you not think
that Hansen has an obligation to support his alarmist comments?
Answer my questions you evasive twit.
Look, you silly little thing, when you were challenged to
dispute any single one of Hansen's arguments you responded
with Sagan's dictum. This clearly implies that you think
Hansen is simply blowing smoke and does not attempt to
back up his claims. WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE
THAT THIS IS THE CASE ??. Answere the question
you evasive twit.
Rick Wagler |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 10:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 26, 4:19 am, "Rick Wagler" <taxid... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote:
Quote: "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:abbf6aa9-4738-4aaf-8b4e-627e49419055 at (no spam) q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 9:27 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:83c65359-0592-4174-8ad5-8bfe6ed86238 at (no spam) x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 4:20 pm, "Dan Luke" <t1... at (no spam) dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" wrote:
That's James E. Hansen of NASA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETIyCIVu8hI&feature=related
And you find this whacky why, exactly?
Because his alarmist claims are scientifically baseless.
Bullshit.
Pick one and attack it.
The burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims.
And our evidence that Hansen has not assumed the
burden would be what?
Rick Wagler
You're suggesting we should take his word for it?
No response.
Quote: Are you aware of
any evidence that Hansen has assumed the burden?
No response.
Quote: Do you not think
that Hansen has an obligation to support his alarmist comments?
No response.
Quote: Answer my questions you evasive twit.
Look, you silly little thing, when you were challenged to
dispute any single one of Hansen's arguments you responded
with Sagan's dictum.
Sagan's dictum? The issue, you idiot, is that Hansen is not (and has
never) actually presented any arguments. He just makes alarmist
claims and then he hides behind the mantle of his position as a NASA
scientist/administrator. When requested to support/explain his claims
he immediately begins to accuse those who make such requests as having
motives that are less than scientifically noble.
The reality is that Hansen is not a scientists he's a propagandist.
He will never attempt to support his claims because if he did the
absurdity of these claims would be so plainly obvious that not even he
himself would be abe to believe them.
Quote: This clearly implies that you think
Hansen is simply blowing smoke and does not attempt to
back up his claims.
Uh huh.
Quote: WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE
THAT THIS IS THE CASE?
I don't know how the absurdity of your request is not obvious to you.
If you were to proclaim that some crop circles were the result of
space aliens and then ask me to supply evidence that this was not the
case I would be equally incapable of complying.
If you have evidence that Hansen has provided support for his alarmist
claims one can only wonder why you don't just provide us a link or
reference and put the argument to rest once and for all. That is, of
course, assuming it is not some kind of secret.
Might his be the case, Rick? Is it a secret? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Whata Fool... |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Rick Wagler" <taxidea3 at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote:
Quote:
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:abbf6aa9-4738-4aaf-8b4e-627e49419055 at (no spam) q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 9:27 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:83c65359-0592-4174-8ad5-8bfe6ed86238 at (no spam) x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 4:20 pm, "Dan Luke" <t1... at (no spam) dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" wrote:
That's James E. Hansen of NASA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETIyCIVu8hI&feature=related
And you find this whacky why, exactly?
Because his alarmist claims are scientifically baseless.
Bullshit.
Pick one and attack it.
The burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims.
And our evidence that Hansen has not assumed the
burden would be what?
Rick Wagler
You're suggesting we should take his word for it? Are you aware of
any evidence that Hansen has assumed the burden? Do you not think
that Hansen has an obligation to support his alarmist comments?
Answer my questions you evasive twit.
Look, you silly little thing, when you were challenged to
dispute any single one of Hansen's arguments you responded
with Sagan's dictum. This clearly implies that you think
Hansen is simply blowing smoke and does not attempt to
back up his claims. WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE
THAT THIS IS THE CASE ??. Answere the question
you evasive twit.
Rick Wagler
The record is clear, he has had charge of a branch of the agency
or was exaggerating the same claims almost 30 years ago, it appeared to
get warmer for a while, then the global annual average temperature
leveled off.
This temperature record does not fit any model without some
fiddling and adding some cooling process on top of all natural effects
and the CO2 concentration.
The record does fit perfectly if the apparent warming was errors
or incorrect manipulation of the data, because all errors and alterations
have leveling off limits.
Once a city observation site is surrounded by dry, well drained
paved areas and buildings, even without the added heat of motors or
whatever, the UHI remains the same, it doesn't keep going up and up.
Once the change over to digital automatic recording around the
clock was installed at a site, any readings skewed in either direction
different from the previous human recorded max and min taken at possibly
a time when the max did not occur or the min did not occur, that skew
has to level off within a few years.
Once those sites that use Celsius now, but not before, change to C,
any skew there has to level off in a few years.
And since computer algorithms have been modifying the data, adding
or subtracting, compensating for this or that, those modifications have
to level off after a few years, they can't just keep on going up and up.
Having a situation like this, where it takes speculation about other
un-noticed physical processes to explain the apparent leveling off, there
is clearly reason to believe the apparent rise was statistical, even if
there was no intentional tampering with the data at all.
Unless the global annual average temperature can be made to start
up again, the only rational explanation in the absence of a well defined
and measurable physical process of global cooling, is that there was a
statistical error, and CO2 concentrations are not the big player in
climate change they were thought to be. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:50 pm
|
|