Is news coverage of stories global?
-
Wow...I just love it when people put their foot into arenas that they haven't fully studied. I would assume that the majority of people on this site are programmers by education...meaning a BS in computer science, computer engineering, etc... Probably even a few Master's and PhDs in here in those subjects. Well, I actually have a Masters in Environmental Science. I just want to say that I think you're all morons when it comes to GW. It's like me trying to talk about the efficiency of chips based on NAND gates. I know what a NAND gate is, and from my Computer Architecture course I can say that you can build an entire chip out of NAND gates, but you all are making claims like if I said, all chips are made exclusively out of NAND gates or even that NAND gate use is a myth, no one uses NAND gates anymore! Stick to subject you actually know something about.
Don't bother. A more self assured pompous ignoramus is hard to find. I advise you to not spend any time arguing with him, as it'll only drain your energy for no good. He's like a hard core religious guy - no matter what you say, he'll always find some obscure scripture passage that "proves" his case. If you ask him the whole picture, you won't get any response other than "GW is a hoax, because I don't even want to begin to take any responsibility for anything".
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
OK, go find some graph of high and low layers if you like. I am all ears.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Ask me in a couple years when the latest study finishes... Supposedly they have a bunch of satellites up there mapping it out now.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Even a 1-degree increase will drastically change climate patterns.
So says fear theory. Actually, and the IPCC knows this, there is no evidence that wamring cause a 'drastic shift in weather paterns' Tell me, where did you pick this phrase up from, the TV?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The climate changes in cycles, so a mere decrease in temperature, especially in one reason, doesn't mean CO2 is having no effect. IF it is decreasing, then the question is whether it's decreasing more or less than it should be.
But it DOES mean that CO2 is a minor player whose effect is dwarfed by other factors. So WHAT is the point limiting it?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Again I'll use the economy as an example of cyclical behavior
No please dont.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Unproven does not mean false. Unproven means unknown. DISPROVEN means false. A lack of conclusive evidence on either side, means that we DO NOT KNOW the answer yet.
Ah, Zen and the art of triplistic logic. Makes great philosophy, but not such good science. Fact is, if it isnt prooved, its disproved. thats fualistic logic.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
- Is global warming occurring, whether natural or artificial?
Well, like I said, its not globally warming, just part of the globe warming. As for whether its man made, if ots warmed to the same degree at the same rate before when CO2 wasnt being produced by man then it is vey likely its the same cyclic process at play.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
But it DOES mean that CO2 is a minor player whose effect is dwarfed by other factors. So WHAT is the point limiting it?
As you've been told many times, it doesn't take much to tip the balance.
fat_boy wrote:
Ah, Zen and the art of triplistic logic. Makes great philosophy, but not such good science. Fact is, if it isnt prooved, its disproved. thats fualistic logic.
Tell that to all of the agnostics out there. There is such a thing as "Unknown."
fat_boy wrote:
As for whether its man made, if ots warmed to the same degree at the same rate before when CO2 wasnt being produced by man then it is vey likely its the same cyclic process at play.
You're absolutely correct. When we have a conclusive study to determine this, we'll know the answer.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Wow...I just love it when people put their foot into arenas that they haven't fully studied. I would assume that the majority of people on this site are programmers by education...meaning a BS in computer science, computer engineering, etc... Probably even a few Master's and PhDs in here in those subjects. Well, I actually have a Masters in Environmental Science. I just want to say that I think you're all morons when it comes to GW. It's like me trying to talk about the efficiency of chips based on NAND gates. I know what a NAND gate is, and from my Computer Architecture course I can say that you can build an entire chip out of NAND gates, but you all are making claims like if I said, all chips are made exclusively out of NAND gates or even that NAND gate use is a myth, no one uses NAND gates anymore! Stick to subject you actually know something about.
I think you need to find a new field of study before you get tarred and feathered.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Don't bother. A more self assured pompous ignoramus is hard to find. I advise you to not spend any time arguing with him, as it'll only drain your energy for no good. He's like a hard core religious guy - no matter what you say, he'll always find some obscure scripture passage that "proves" his case. If you ask him the whole picture, you won't get any response other than "GW is a hoax, because I don't even want to begin to take any responsibility for anything".
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Kind of like Climate Cultists. I would just like to stomp and grind them with my boot as a clench my teeth.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
I don't have a problem with debate, but debate needs to be well-founded. I was mostly annoyed with good old fat_boy Where he got:"The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm." bewilders me or that the troposphere would have to warm substantially for it to be greenhouse gases. And the very first article in that google link that he sent can't be taken as truth just because it's on the internet. One of the sources of the article is an article saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't even exist. The truth is that climate is not well understood. In fact, Dr. Lubchenco, the NOAA Administrator is trying to create a new line office to deal solely with Climate Change. This would be the first US government division to be seriously devoted to trying to understand climate change. I would say that the majority of climate change research is done with an intent in mind to prove one side of the other, which inherently removes the objectivity of the research. I would also say that much of the work that has been presented, such as "An Inconvenient Truth" has the numbers blown out of proportion and are alarmist propaganda. That doesn't mean that some of its not true, but really, no one fully understands it. You (Ian) actually seem to have a pretty good grasp of the research, but you're dealing with people that don't and don't want to take the time to examine it with an objective eye.
William Winner wrote:
You (Ian) actually seem to have a pretty good grasp of the research, but you're dealing with people that don't and
You feel that only because he supports your futile cause. You filthy Climate Cultists are FINISHED!@:mad:
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Ah such well-founded debate. Thank you for that...gave me a little chuckle this morning! Did I say anything about how you make your money? Umm...no...I was talking about educational background. As in, what is your formal training in? And you're question about how much "meteorology" have I studied shows just how little you understand what "environmental science" is or this debate. Meteorology is the study of weather. From Wikipedia: "Meteorology is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting (in contrast with climatology)." Note the "in contrast with climatology". We're talking climate not weather. And, you can bet that anyone with an environmental anything degree has had the basics of the greenhouse effect and the effects of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere. From Wikipedia again: "Environmental science is an interdisciplinary academic field that integrates physical and biological sciences (including physics, chemistry, biology, soil science, geology, and geography) to the study of the environment, and the solution of environmental problems. Environmental science provides an integrated, quantitative, and interdisciplinary approach to the study of environmental systems[1]." EnvSci is concerned with how everything interacts with everything else on a local, regional, ecosystem, and world scale. And, yeah, I'm "trained" to "test" theories using scientific techniques. But to begin to "test" a theory, you first have to understand it, which you clearly do not. And scientific testing does not involve sticking your head out a window and saying, "Hmm...it feels the same today as it did 20 years ago!"
modified on Thursday, February 18, 2010 2:39 PM
You piece of shit Climate Cultists need to be stripped of your humanity and repeatedly whipped with an electric jellyfish whip by s snarling crowd.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
fat_boy wrote:
I also dont think that a broad environmental study such as he did that include biology necessarially qualifies him as an expert in thermodynamics.
You actually have no idea what is involved in an environmental science degree, nor do you have any idea of what my education was like. The Environmental Biology Bachelor's at my school was actually a double major in Environmental Science and Biology. And when did I claim to be an expert on thermodynamics? Oh, that's right, I didn't take a course on it, so I can't be an expert on it like you. Seriously...do you see me making statements for or against GW or trying to pass myself off as an expert?
fat_boy wrote:
Any course that promotes AGW is therefore biassed.
Once again, you have no idea what my courses were like or if they promoted AGW. In fact, none of my courses covered it or claimed an opinion on it that I can remember. That, of course, may be because I graduated before this debate became a huge deal.
fat_boy wrote:
In fact an advisor to Thatcher, Lawson, has stated that she paid the Royal Society (scientists) to demonise CO2 in order to promote nuclear power over coal as a way of destroying the coal industry and its very powerfull union, lead by Scargil. She went on to play a big part in the formaiton of the IPCC and this explains why the first chairman was British and why a British university today, East Anglia, suplies the IPCC with temperature data.
Oh my god...stop the presses...a politician politicized science! How could that possibly be?!?! I don't think that's ever happened in the history of the world! Why don't you back up your claims... Show me in a scientific paper or text where it says "The theory of GH gass warming states that the cold periods and regions will be affected more than the warm. So nights warm, and the poles warm. So if only ONE pole is warming then we are not looking at GH gass caused warming, regardless of what the average temperature does. It is also part of GH gass warming theory that the troposphere, wghere CO2 accumulates, warms MORE than the surface. It has to in order to radiate heat back to the surface." Why don't you start there. You can make all of the claims you want, but back them up. Here's an interesting statement: "Within the region where radiative effects are important, the presentation of
I would just like to grab the back of your skull with an iron grip and slam your communist face into the computer screen over and over.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
fat_boy wrote:
But it DOES mean that CO2 is a minor player whose effect is dwarfed by other factors. So WHAT is the point limiting it?
As you've been told many times, it doesn't take much to tip the balance.
fat_boy wrote:
Ah, Zen and the art of triplistic logic. Makes great philosophy, but not such good science. Fact is, if it isnt prooved, its disproved. thats fualistic logic.
Tell that to all of the agnostics out there. There is such a thing as "Unknown."
fat_boy wrote:
As for whether its man made, if ots warmed to the same degree at the same rate before when CO2 wasnt being produced by man then it is vey likely its the same cyclic process at play.
You're absolutely correct. When we have a conclusive study to determine this, we'll know the answer.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
As you've been told many times, it doesn't take much to tip the balance.
No as YOU have been told manytimes, by alarmist scientists whos prognstications are based on supposition and not science. And YOU believe them. Once again, there is NO evidence at all that weather will in any way become more chaotic, more disasterous, more damaging, or more dangerous to any life on earth because of an increase in temperature or an increase in CO2. In fact there IS a valid theory why the weather pattersn will impove. Lindzen has stated that since weather is driven by the difference in temperature between the poles and the equator, and that since the poles will warm more quickly than the equator this difference will become less.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Tell that to all of the agnostics out there. There is such a thing as "Unknown."
So, the theory of AGW is UNOPROVED, that makes is false, and we still dont know what drives the climate so more research should be done. What is your problem with that assessment of reality?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ask me in a couple years when the latest study finishes... Supposedly they have a bunch of satellites up there mapping it out now.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
I would just like to grab the back of your skull with an iron grip and slam your communist face into the computer screen over and over.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As you've been told many times, it doesn't take much to tip the balance.
No as YOU have been told manytimes, by alarmist scientists whos prognstications are based on supposition and not science. And YOU believe them. Once again, there is NO evidence at all that weather will in any way become more chaotic, more disasterous, more damaging, or more dangerous to any life on earth because of an increase in temperature or an increase in CO2. In fact there IS a valid theory why the weather pattersn will impove. Lindzen has stated that since weather is driven by the difference in temperature between the poles and the equator, and that since the poles will warm more quickly than the equator this difference will become less.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Tell that to all of the agnostics out there. There is such a thing as "Unknown."
So, the theory of AGW is UNOPROVED, that makes is false, and we still dont know what drives the climate so more research should be done. What is your problem with that assessment of reality?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
So, the theory of AGW is UNOPROVED, that makes is false
Look, if you can't grasp such a simple concept as "Unknown," then I don't see the point in continuing this argument. AGW may be true, or it may not be. We don't have conclusive enough evidence to determine this. Therefore, it's unknown. Unproven = Not proven to be true Disproven = Proven to be false It is unproven, not disproven. EDIT: It's past 4am... I just got back from partying all night, so I'm not going to try to keep my brain awake long enough to refute your repetitive posts. If you show some common sense in your next reply, MAYBE we can continue this discussion. Otherwise, I'm tempted to lump you in the same category as CSS, like so many others seem to have done.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ok...well, you go ahead and use "basic" scientific principles to an extremely complex and not well understood subject. Since you took an upper-level physics class, I'm sure you are familiar with the Theory of General Relativity...you know the one by Einstein. And I'm sure that you are also aware of the fact that his theory breaks down at the Quantum scale. So, anyone that looks at the observable quantum data would then have to presume that Einstein's theory is incorrect. The problem I have is that you take data and interpret it as if you are an expert on these fields. The rest of us use interpretations put out by highly-qualified "experts" that have studied this intensely. Once again, let's start at the beginning. When I was in college, when we wrote a paper, we had to support our use of any source by proving their credibility on the subject. So, if we used a paper from Science, we had to show why that author was qualified to say what they did. So, once again, what are your qualifications? You say you took a class on Thermodynamics, eh? What other courses in physics have you taken and did you pass them? Did you get all C's? In my Discrete Structures course, there were a lot of people that were getting 20's and 30's on the test, but they can still say that they took it. Of course, there's no way for us to verify anything you say, but that's the way it goes. You're claiming to have looked at data and put it through scientific analysis to come up with your conclusions.
fat_boy wrote:
This is raw unadjusted data. I validated one temperature series, the central England one.
fat_boy wrote:
I found an online Plank law calculator. You can enter the temperature of th eblack body, the wavelength range, and calculate the energy produced. If you do the same you will see what I mean.
fat_boy wrote:
but I can look at observable data and see it doesn't fit the theory.
So, if you want to use your observations, tell us, what are your qualifications?
William Winner wrote:
rest of us use interpretations put out by highly-qualified "experts" that have studied this intensely
Like CRU, GISS and NCDC? (Found to be flawed with errors in computer programs, written evidence of data tampering, station selection, poor sadjustment for UHI and so on) How about Christy and Lindzen? Ever read their work? They are highly qualified in this field. I am happy to quote their work. Tell me, just where does it say that one can not look at the raw data and come to a valid conclusion? After all, the raw data IS the temperature!
William Winner wrote:
You're claiming to have looked at data and put it through scientific analysis to come up with your conclusions.
No, I am claiming to have looked at raw data period. And this is what it shows. 1) Parts of the Southern hemisphere cooling. Antartica, Darwin, Adelaide for example. 2) Parts of Northern hemisphere warming to previous levels in the 30s. Arctic, US, Greenland for example. 3) A lot of the rest of the world not doing much of anything. Since raw data are actual temperature readings I fail to see how you can object to looking at it in preference to 'processed' data, and also how if you do look at it you can conclude that CO2 is causing warming. To do so requires no qualifications. It requires you to use your brain. There is no 'scientific analysis' here, just the applicaitn of basic scientific rigour: Theory, test, observe. Validate theory. And the theory of AGW is NOT being validated by planet earth.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
You piece of shit Climate Cultists need to be stripped of your humanity and repeatedly whipped with an electric jellyfish whip by s snarling crowd.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Don't bother. A more self assured pompous ignoramus is hard to find. I advise you to not spend any time arguing with him, as it'll only drain your energy for no good. He's like a hard core religious guy - no matter what you say, he'll always find some obscure scripture passage that "proves" his case. If you ask him the whole picture, you won't get any response other than "GW is a hoax, because I don't even want to begin to take any responsibility for anything".
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
fat_boy wrote:
So, the theory of AGW is UNOPROVED, that makes is false
Look, if you can't grasp such a simple concept as "Unknown," then I don't see the point in continuing this argument. AGW may be true, or it may not be. We don't have conclusive enough evidence to determine this. Therefore, it's unknown. Unproven = Not proven to be true Disproven = Proven to be false It is unproven, not disproven. EDIT: It's past 4am... I just got back from partying all night, so I'm not going to try to keep my brain awake long enough to refute your repetitive posts. If you show some common sense in your next reply, MAYBE we can continue this discussion. Otherwise, I'm tempted to lump you in the same category as CSS, like so many others seem to have done.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Look, if you can't grasp such a simple concept as "Unknown,"
This is what I wrote: "we still dont know what drives the climate so more research should be done." I think thats a prety clear statement that the mechanism of the climate is unknown.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
We don't have conclusive enough evidence to determine this. Therefore, it's unknown.
Is the proof you are looking for 1, real world, or 2, computer model? If its real world then how much more data do you want? 1) Another cooling cycle like the last 4 in the last century and a half? 2) Continuing coolng of large parts of the southern hemisphere? If its computer model based proof you want then lets just end the conversation here. In my opinion there is sufficient data available already from the real woprld to disprove the theory of AGW. Of course, a lot depends on how yuo define that theory. Possibles are: 1) World going to hell in a hand cart because of CO2. 2) Some warming caused by CO2 but not gong to have any negative efect. 3) No warminf at all, or warming so slight it canrt be measured agasinst natural variation. Currently I am split between #2 and #3 as being the truth. And if so, then the pressure is off and we dont need to continue pumping millions of dollars into AGW research, we can just go back to normal scientific study. What IS true is that #1 has been the position taken by the media and many scientists, and has been entirely disproved by planet earth. And hope the partying was good!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I never realised you were such a dick Jorgen. Thats sad. I used to think yuo were capable of some kind of reasoned debate.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I'm calling it as I see it. Every age has whiners like you. But you know what? They end up as foot notes in history books.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
I'm calling it as I see it. Every age has whiners like you. But you know what? They end up as foot notes in history books.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
I'm calling it as I see it. Every age has whiners like you. But you know what? They end up as foot notes in history books.
Yes, as YOU see it. Which is a very subjective view point. As for whining, well, you are just plain wrong. This isnt a whining thread, its a discussion, and quite an interesting one. Ian has directed me towards some interesting research that I will take a good look at. So why do you use whining? Well, its obviously a weak insult. Which says more about you than about me. As for being a foot note in history, if I ever acchieved that much I would be surprised.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription