Ian Shlasko, can you provide proof that GW sceptics have lied?
-
fat_boy wrote:
What, you dont think that Herschel studying a correlation between sunspot activity and agricultural growing conditions constitutes climate study?
In a 1801 paper, Herschel discusses an inverse correlation between the price of wheat and the number of sunspots visible on the Sun. Herschel speculated that when the sun was highly spotted, it “may lead us to expect copious emission of heat and therefore mild seasons,” while few spots suggested “spare emission of heat” accompanied by “severe seasons”. Herschel, W. (1801). “Observations Tending to Investigate the Nature of the Sun, in Order to Find the Causes and Symptoms of its Variable Emission of Light and Heat ...” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Vol. 91, pp. 261-331. So Herschel observed a correlation between sunspot activity which suggests that periods of high sunspot activity are good for the wheat crop in England. You wish to claim that this is a climate study? Further you have cited one paper to support your claim that such studies have been going on for "hundreds of years". Admittedly an 1801 paper takes it back just over two hundred years. However you fail to recognise that in that period other papers were published which support the notion of global warming. E.G. (adapted from Wikipedia) In 1824, Joseph Fourier found that Earth's atmosphere kept the planet warmer than would be the case in a vacuum, and he made the first calculations of the warming effect. In a 1827 paper Fourier stated, "The establishment and progress of human societies, the action of natural forces, can notably change, and in vast regions, the state of the surface, the distribution of water and the great movements of the air. Such effects are able to make to vary, in the course of many centuries, the average degree of heat; because the analytic expressions contain coefficients relating to the state of the surface and which greatly influence the temperature." Another Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, integrated Avrid Högbom's and Samuel Pierpoint Langley's work. He realized that Högbom's calculation of human influence on carbon would eventually lead to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and used Langley's observations of increased infrared absorption where moon rays pass through atmosphere at a low angle, encountering more CO2, to estimate an atmospheric warming effect from a future doubling of CO2. He also realized the effect would also reduce snow and ice cover on e
riced wrote:
You wish to claim that this is a climate study?
You think weather affecting crop growing conditions ISNT climate study?
riced wrote:
In 1824, Joseph Fourier found that Earth's atmosphere kept the planet warmer than would be the case in a vacuum, and he made the first calculations of the warming effect.
Where did I suggest that the knowledge that gasses store heat is a recent developement?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
This is hearsay. Somone reported overhearing Houghtonn sayig that years ago. He states he never did. So what have you got for factual lies? You know, lies about the state of the planet, temperature, endangered species and so on? Polar bears being in decline, huricanes being more frequent, that kind of thing.
Show me where I specifically stated what KIND of lies they said. The anti-AGW crowd's strategy has been to pick apart every bit of research done by the AGW side, find every typo and glitch, and use those as proof of not only complete incompetence, but malicious intent and fear-mongering. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through raw data with you YET AGAIN, because you'll just start spouting the same crap tomorrow. If you want links, why don't you just check the last hundred pages of this forum for all of the people who have debunked most of your claims.
fat_boy wrote:
So, do you acknowledge that if you criticise me for stating that, then you must also criticise GW alrmists for doing the same? If not how do you explain your double standards?
What double standards? I've said OVER and OVER and OVER again that BOTH sides are full of crap. You keep trying to change my argument to one you can debate. My point of view has ALWAYS been, with the exception of a recent joke post, that we need more research and better numbers.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Show me where I specifically stated what KIND of lies they said.
OK, good point. But even if you allow yourself hersay you stil have only one lie.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The anti-AGW crowd's strategy has been to pick apart every bit of research done by the AGW side, find every typo and glitch, and use those as proof of not only complete incompetence, but malicious intent and fear-mongering.
Well, in fact sceptical scientists such as Christy and LIndzen merely state the facts which are: 1) Troposphere warming is not as great as it should be according to AGW theory. 2) The south pole should be warming alot according to AGW theory. 3) Man made CO2 has no detectable effect on global temperature. Let me quote two other sceptical scientists here: "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics This last is particularly relevant in respect of the three points I made above.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
why don't you just check the last hundred pages of this forum for all of the people who have debunked most of your claims
None has been debunked.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
What double standards? I've said OVER and OVER and OVER again that BOTH sides are full of crap. You keep trying to change my argument to one you can debate. My point of view has ALWAYS been, with the exception of a recent joke post, that we need more research and better numbers.
You stated that my statement that partial warming does not constitute global warming was stupid. I drew your attention to the fact that the same thing is said about the MWP by alarmists. I asked you to either criticise them the same way or explain your double standards. So, are you going to answer this, its all there you
-
riced wrote:
You wish to claim that this is a climate study?
You think weather affecting crop growing conditions ISNT climate study?
riced wrote:
In 1824, Joseph Fourier found that Earth's atmosphere kept the planet warmer than would be the case in a vacuum, and he made the first calculations of the warming effect.
Where did I suggest that the knowledge that gasses store heat is a recent developement?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
You think weather affecting crop growing conditions ISNT climate study?
The paper does not actually deal with weather conditions. It finds that there is an inverse correlation between the price of wheat in England and sunspot activity. It then speculates that this may be evidence that sunspot activity influences the weather.
fat_boy wrote:
Where did I suggest that the knowledge that gasses store heat is a recent developement?
Attempted deflection, one of the tactics Schopenhauer endorses to always appear right in an argument. I never suggested that you suggested anything of the sort. My reference was to support the view that GW has as long a pedigree as the alternative and that your claim that it is "the new kid on the block" is actually false.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Show me where I specifically stated what KIND of lies they said.
OK, good point. But even if you allow yourself hersay you stil have only one lie.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The anti-AGW crowd's strategy has been to pick apart every bit of research done by the AGW side, find every typo and glitch, and use those as proof of not only complete incompetence, but malicious intent and fear-mongering.
Well, in fact sceptical scientists such as Christy and LIndzen merely state the facts which are: 1) Troposphere warming is not as great as it should be according to AGW theory. 2) The south pole should be warming alot according to AGW theory. 3) Man made CO2 has no detectable effect on global temperature. Let me quote two other sceptical scientists here: "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics This last is particularly relevant in respect of the three points I made above.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
why don't you just check the last hundred pages of this forum for all of the people who have debunked most of your claims
None has been debunked.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
What double standards? I've said OVER and OVER and OVER again that BOTH sides are full of crap. You keep trying to change my argument to one you can debate. My point of view has ALWAYS been, with the exception of a recent joke post, that we need more research and better numbers.
You stated that my statement that partial warming does not constitute global warming was stupid. I drew your attention to the fact that the same thing is said about the MWP by alarmists. I asked you to either criticise them the same way or explain your double standards. So, are you going to answer this, its all there you
fat_boy wrote:
OK, good point. But even if you allow yourself hersay you stil have only one lie.
Those were just a few selections from the first ten google results.
fat_boy wrote:
Well, in fact sceptical scientists such as Christy and LIndzen merely state the facts which are: 1) Troposphere warming is not as great as it should be according to AGW theory. 2) The south pole should be warming alot according to AGW theory. 3) Man made CO2 has no detectable effect on global temperature.
Again, not going into raw numbers yet again, but #3 is not a "fact." It's a hypothesis. None of the models have given conclusive results for either side. Claiming that this is a "fact" is itself a lie. This is, as I keep saying, your main problem... You ASSUME that you're right, and that everything on your side is factual. A real scientist assumes that NOTHING is factual until it's PROVEN.
fat_boy wrote:
None has been debunked.
Because you simply ignore any evidence that doesn't support your theory, or claim it to be fabricated. This is getting repetitive.
fat_boy wrote:
You stated that my statement that partial warming does not constitute global warming was stupid. I drew your attention to the fact that the same thing is said about the MWP by alarmists. I asked you to either criticise them the same way or explain your double standards.
Why should I bother criticizing the AGW side? You're doing plenty of that already. I'm not trying to push you to the AGW side... I'm trying to push you back to the center, which is, as I see it, the sensible position. If you started spouting crap about how we're all going to die in ten years because the planet is going to roast to a cinder, I'd be taking the anti-GW side to, again, bring you to the center.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
You think weather affecting crop growing conditions ISNT climate study?
The paper does not actually deal with weather conditions. It finds that there is an inverse correlation between the price of wheat in England and sunspot activity. It then speculates that this may be evidence that sunspot activity influences the weather.
fat_boy wrote:
Where did I suggest that the knowledge that gasses store heat is a recent developement?
Attempted deflection, one of the tactics Schopenhauer endorses to always appear right in an argument. I never suggested that you suggested anything of the sort. My reference was to support the view that GW has as long a pedigree as the alternative and that your claim that it is "the new kid on the block" is actually false.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
Now of course you know I am refering to the recent alarmist form of AGW, not the well known fact that gasses can store heat. As a good example of what I am refering to consoder the Hockey stick as produced principly by Mann. In the IPCC AR1 report the long held view of historuic temperature was used. THis included a MWP warmer than today. For AR2 and 3 this was replaced with Manns hockey stick, showing no MWP. (As we later know this graph was dropped in AR4 after it was found to be based on bad science) It is this replacing of of long held understanding to whioch I am refering, and in this example a good indicaiotn of how the new science did not even stand up when criticised. As always, the new science must prove itself to be valid.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
OK, good point. But even if you allow yourself hersay you stil have only one lie.
Those were just a few selections from the first ten google results.
fat_boy wrote:
Well, in fact sceptical scientists such as Christy and LIndzen merely state the facts which are: 1) Troposphere warming is not as great as it should be according to AGW theory. 2) The south pole should be warming alot according to AGW theory. 3) Man made CO2 has no detectable effect on global temperature.
Again, not going into raw numbers yet again, but #3 is not a "fact." It's a hypothesis. None of the models have given conclusive results for either side. Claiming that this is a "fact" is itself a lie. This is, as I keep saying, your main problem... You ASSUME that you're right, and that everything on your side is factual. A real scientist assumes that NOTHING is factual until it's PROVEN.
fat_boy wrote:
None has been debunked.
Because you simply ignore any evidence that doesn't support your theory, or claim it to be fabricated. This is getting repetitive.
fat_boy wrote:
You stated that my statement that partial warming does not constitute global warming was stupid. I drew your attention to the fact that the same thing is said about the MWP by alarmists. I asked you to either criticise them the same way or explain your double standards.
Why should I bother criticizing the AGW side? You're doing plenty of that already. I'm not trying to push you to the AGW side... I'm trying to push you back to the center, which is, as I see it, the sensible position. If you started spouting crap about how we're all going to die in ten years because the planet is going to roast to a cinder, I'd be taking the anti-GW side to, again, bring you to the center.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Claiming that this is a "fact" is itself a lie
Ian Shlasko wrote:
None of the models have given conclusive results for either side
Models. :laugh: I am talking about the real world. OK, to quote Bob Watson AGW proponent. He stated, and I have provided the link in the past that there is no evidence man made CO2 caused the recent warming, but since they cannot account for it any other way it must be man made CO2 causing it. Not to mention the other scientist I quoted in my last reponse who said that there is no detectable effect of man made OC2 on temperature outside of natural variation.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
A real scientist assumes that NOTHING is factual until it's PROVEN.
Absoloutely. And the theory of AGW is not proven because: 1) Its effect cant be detected on temperatured outside natural variation. 2) Troposphere warming is not as great as the theory dictates (its about a third what it should be BTW) 3) The south pole is not warming up whcih the theory dictates it should do. OK, lets redefine our position on the GW vs not GW point. I consider that an increase in AVERAGE global temperature is not global warming. Since CO2 is distributed evenly in the atmosphere, any effect of CO2 should be global. The fact that it isnt tends to imply that CO2 is not having such an effect as the theory suggests.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
anti-GW guys
Lets contain ourselves to scientists.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
"Hey, my country was colder than average this year! It must be an ice age!"
Thats what Schnieder said by the way... However, I am pretty sure Lindzen or Christy or Palmer or any of the other thousands of sceptical scientists havent said that. Unless of course you can find a quote to back up your allegation.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That global warming can't be happening unless every single point on the globe is getting warmer
Have you heard about the medieval warm period, and the traditional defence used by AGW alarmists that it doesnt make current warming unimportant because 'the MWP was a northern hemisphere only event'? Please do look it up. Well, guess what current warming looks like? (Here's a tip, the southern hemisphere isnt warming in any kind of stastically significant fashion). So come on, if thats the best you got, and quite frankly I have countered it without even drawing breath, then you lost.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:02 AM
fat_boy wrote:
Lets contain ourselves to scientists.
Define scientist. And shouldn't you also say, scientists that specialized in certain areas. I'm not going to go touting something from someone who is a medical researcher and claim they're a climate change expert. So, who should we limit it to? What do they need to have studied to make their views and interpretations of data credible? We certainly know you get most of your information from credible crackpot scientists journalists.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Lets contain ourselves to scientists.
Define scientist. And shouldn't you also say, scientists that specialized in certain areas. I'm not going to go touting something from someone who is a medical researcher and claim they're a climate change expert. So, who should we limit it to? What do they need to have studied to make their views and interpretations of data credible? We certainly know you get most of your information from credible crackpot scientists journalists.
William Winner wrote:
We certainly know you get most of your information from credible crackpot scientists journalists.
Its funny really how people make things up in order to attempt to discredit an argument. I would like you to find say more than 10 things I have quoted that came from journalists.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Claiming that this is a "fact" is itself a lie
Ian Shlasko wrote:
None of the models have given conclusive results for either side
Models. :laugh: I am talking about the real world. OK, to quote Bob Watson AGW proponent. He stated, and I have provided the link in the past that there is no evidence man made CO2 caused the recent warming, but since they cannot account for it any other way it must be man made CO2 causing it. Not to mention the other scientist I quoted in my last reponse who said that there is no detectable effect of man made OC2 on temperature outside of natural variation.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
A real scientist assumes that NOTHING is factual until it's PROVEN.
Absoloutely. And the theory of AGW is not proven because: 1) Its effect cant be detected on temperatured outside natural variation. 2) Troposphere warming is not as great as the theory dictates (its about a third what it should be BTW) 3) The south pole is not warming up whcih the theory dictates it should do. OK, lets redefine our position on the GW vs not GW point. I consider that an increase in AVERAGE global temperature is not global warming. Since CO2 is distributed evenly in the atmosphere, any effect of CO2 should be global. The fact that it isnt tends to imply that CO2 is not having such an effect as the theory suggests.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
OK, to quote Bob Watson AGW proponent. He stated, and I have provided the link in the past that there is no evidence man made CO2 caused the recent warming, but since they cannot account for it any other way it must be man made CO2 causing it. Not to mention the other scientist I quoted in my last reponse who said that there is no detectable effect of man made OC2 on temperature outside of natural variation.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And you're quoting one guy who says something, and claiming it to be a fact. Opinions are not facts unless backed up by evidence.
fat_boy wrote:
Absoloutely. And the theory of AGW is not proven because: 1) Its effect cant be detected on temperatured outside natural variation. 2) Troposphere warming is not as great as the theory dictates (its about a third what it should be BTW) 3) The south pole is not warming up whcih the theory dictates it should do.
"Not proven" is not the same thing as "Wrong." There's this HUGE area in between "Right" and "Wrong" called "Unknown." That's where we are now. We don't know. If people would just admit this, we'd all be a lot better off.
fat_boy wrote:
I consider that an increase in AVERAGE global temperature is not global warming. Since CO2 is distributed evenly in the atmosphere, any effect of CO2 should be global. The fact that it isnt tends to imply that CO2 is not having such an effect as the theory suggests.
CO2 is NOT distributed evenly in the atmosphere, due to circulation patterns. The northern and southern hemispheres are partially isolated from one another, among other things. We've discussed this before, but again, you just ignore anything that doesn't suit your purposes. EDIT: Oh, and by the way, what you "consider" to be the definition of global warming doesn't change the ACTUAL definition[^].
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)modif
-
Simon_Whale wrote:
thought we were on about climate control?
We are, "climate control" means controlling all human behavior. Its MAN MADE global warming remember? MAN MADE, that means when governments crackdown with their flowery named CLEAN ENGERY and CLIMATE BILLS they will be cracking-down on the free will individual and the individual's reproductive organs.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
they will be cracking-down on ... the individual's reproductive organs.
You are obsessed by this. Where birth control is available, parents can decide for themselves how many children they wish to have. Population Reduction in 'the West', has been the sum of all these individual, freely made, Birth Control choices. That is how it will work elsewhere.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
I'm going to quote you on that, next time you post a video link.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Oh, the irony! :-D
Cheers, विक्रम (Got my troika of CCCs!) Need sig - urgentz!!!
-
William Winner wrote:
We certainly know you get most of your information from credible crackpot scientists journalists.
Its funny really how people make things up in order to attempt to discredit an argument. I would like you to find say more than 10 things I have quoted that came from journalists.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
For the record, I didn't say you were quoting. But here you go:
fat_boy wrote:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/07/settled-science-can-everyplace-really.html\[^\] Ah, hang on, if most of the globe is getting hotter then so is the average, so these places must be continuously outdoing each other momentarially before the average catches up!
-http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3545849/Hmm-most-of-the-globe-is-warming-more-than-average.aspx[^]
fat_boy wrote:
Well yes, they have been caught out: UAH and RSS data shows that the June anomoly was pretty much zero: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-for-june-09-zero/\[^\] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/10/rss-global-temperature-for-june-09-also-down/\[^\]
-http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3545448/Global-warming-lie-exposed-June-was-hottest-ever-r.aspx[^]
fat_boy wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9W\_7MgPJQs\[^\] Its worth watching. It shows that nothing has changed, back then they talked about the destruction of science's credibility, intimidation, gaining funding, and a good media story.
-http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3543273/Interesting-video-from-20-years-ago-about-GW.aspx[^]
fat_boy wrote:
Seems like I am not the only one to see his life a one long tirade of hypocritical actions, not to mention lies and alarmist scare stories: Stephen Schneider—Death of an Unrepentant Hypocrite [^]
-
Oh, the irony! :-D
Cheers, विक्रम (Got my troika of CCCs!) Need sig - urgentz!!!
It's always fun when someone falls into one of my traps :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
they will be cracking-down on ... the individual's reproductive organs.
You are obsessed by this. Where birth control is available, parents can decide for themselves how many children they wish to have. Population Reduction in 'the West', has been the sum of all these individual, freely made, Birth Control choices. That is how it will work elsewhere.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
I'm waiting for him to call me a climate cultist or a eugenicist. :laugh: ;P
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
fat_boy wrote:
OK, to quote Bob Watson AGW proponent. He stated, and I have provided the link in the past that there is no evidence man made CO2 caused the recent warming, but since they cannot account for it any other way it must be man made CO2 causing it. Not to mention the other scientist I quoted in my last reponse who said that there is no detectable effect of man made OC2 on temperature outside of natural variation.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And you're quoting one guy who says something, and claiming it to be a fact. Opinions are not facts unless backed up by evidence.
fat_boy wrote:
Absoloutely. And the theory of AGW is not proven because: 1) Its effect cant be detected on temperatured outside natural variation. 2) Troposphere warming is not as great as the theory dictates (its about a third what it should be BTW) 3) The south pole is not warming up whcih the theory dictates it should do.
"Not proven" is not the same thing as "Wrong." There's this HUGE area in between "Right" and "Wrong" called "Unknown." That's where we are now. We don't know. If people would just admit this, we'd all be a lot better off.
fat_boy wrote:
I consider that an increase in AVERAGE global temperature is not global warming. Since CO2 is distributed evenly in the atmosphere, any effect of CO2 should be global. The fact that it isnt tends to imply that CO2 is not having such an effect as the theory suggests.
CO2 is NOT distributed evenly in the atmosphere, due to circulation patterns. The northern and southern hemispheres are partially isolated from one another, among other things. We've discussed this before, but again, you just ignore anything that doesn't suit your purposes. EDIT: Oh, and by the way, what you "consider" to be the definition of global warming doesn't change the ACTUAL definition[^].
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)modif
Ian Shlasko wrote:
ou're quoting one guy
Who hapens to be strongly associated with the AGW movement.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
We don't know
We do know. We know its not having a noticable effect on temperature. And hasnt done for 70 years. POst war cooling for 35 years. Warming for 25 years, and not much of anything for the last 12 years. All the while CO2 is going up and up. What does that say?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the definition of global warming doesn't change the ACTUAL definition[^].
One of which states "by 1983 as the name for overall rising temperatures". Over all. Get it? Warming all over the place. Of course you know why GW was changed to CC. Its to get around the fact it isnt warming in many parts of the earth. And of those that are, the warming isnt as great as in the 1930's in some parts. US, Canada, Grenland,Arctic, Siberia, Scndanavia.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
For the record, I didn't say you were quoting. But here you go:
fat_boy wrote:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/07/settled-science-can-everyplace-really.html\[^\] Ah, hang on, if most of the globe is getting hotter then so is the average, so these places must be continuously outdoing each other momentarially before the average catches up!
-http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3545849/Hmm-most-of-the-globe-is-warming-more-than-average.aspx[^]
fat_boy wrote:
Well yes, they have been caught out: UAH and RSS data shows that the June anomoly was pretty much zero: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-for-june-09-zero/\[^\] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/10/rss-global-temperature-for-june-09-also-down/\[^\]
-http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3545448/Global-warming-lie-exposed-June-was-hottest-ever-r.aspx[^]
fat_boy wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9W\_7MgPJQs\[^\] Its worth watching. It shows that nothing has changed, back then they talked about the destruction of science's credibility, intimidation, gaining funding, and a good media story.
-http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3543273/Interesting-video-from-20-years-ago-about-GW.aspx[^]
fat_boy wrote:
Seems like I am not the only one to see his life a one long tirade of hypocritical actions, not to mention lies and alarmist scare stories: Stephen Schneider—Death of an Unrepentant Hypocrite [^]
- Tom Nelson is a blogger not a journalist. 2) Anthony Watts to quote: "About Anthony: I’m a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun." 3) You tube vid: Quoted scientists. etc several more from Watts. 6 or 7, Delling pole. Yep, a journalist. Talking about the Jones inquiry. 9) Rich Trzupek quoting schnieder, a scientist. 10) Journalist reporting politicians so not a scientific point of view. So, lots of quotes form scientists on both sides. Do you consdier them crackpot? A financial journalist wuoting the events of a pollitical meting. Hardly crackpot. Watts. A weather man. And Delingpole, a commentor for the Telegraph. Tell me, didnt journalists expose the watergate scandal?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
This is not an argument [^] :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
ou're quoting one guy
Who hapens to be strongly associated with the AGW movement.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
We don't know
We do know. We know its not having a noticable effect on temperature. And hasnt done for 70 years. POst war cooling for 35 years. Warming for 25 years, and not much of anything for the last 12 years. All the while CO2 is going up and up. What does that say?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the definition of global warming doesn't change the ACTUAL definition[^].
One of which states "by 1983 as the name for overall rising temperatures". Over all. Get it? Warming all over the place. Of course you know why GW was changed to CC. Its to get around the fact it isnt warming in many parts of the earth. And of those that are, the warming isnt as great as in the 1930's in some parts. US, Canada, Grenland,Arctic, Siberia, Scndanavia.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Who hapens to be strongly associated with the AGW movement.
Yet again, you're confusing one man's statements with PROVEN FACTS. Unless you can understand this VERY simple distinction, any discussion with you is pointless.
fat_boy wrote:
We do know. We know its not having a noticable effect on temperature. And hasnt done for 70 years. POst war cooling for 35 years. Warming for 25 years, and not much of anything for the last 12 years. All the while CO2 is going up and up. What does that say?
We've been through this... Several of us have pointed out the errors in your numbers... I'm not going through this all over again.
fat_boy wrote:
One of which states "by 1983 as the name for overall rising temperatures". Over all. Get it? Warming all over the place.
Cute. Out of all the different dictionaries cited on that page, you pick the one that describes the ETYMOLOGY instead of the DEFINITION. Funny how every actual DEFINITION on that page uses the word "average." So until you can wrap your mind around the concept of a global AVERAGE, this discussion again becomes entirely pointless. Your homework for the day... Look up the definitions of "FACT" and "AVERAGE".
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Who hapens to be strongly associated with the AGW movement.
Yet again, you're confusing one man's statements with PROVEN FACTS. Unless you can understand this VERY simple distinction, any discussion with you is pointless.
fat_boy wrote:
We do know. We know its not having a noticable effect on temperature. And hasnt done for 70 years. POst war cooling for 35 years. Warming for 25 years, and not much of anything for the last 12 years. All the while CO2 is going up and up. What does that say?
We've been through this... Several of us have pointed out the errors in your numbers... I'm not going through this all over again.
fat_boy wrote:
One of which states "by 1983 as the name for overall rising temperatures". Over all. Get it? Warming all over the place.
Cute. Out of all the different dictionaries cited on that page, you pick the one that describes the ETYMOLOGY instead of the DEFINITION. Funny how every actual DEFINITION on that page uses the word "average." So until you can wrap your mind around the concept of a global AVERAGE, this discussion again becomes entirely pointless. Your homework for the day... Look up the definitions of "FACT" and "AVERAGE".
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yet again, you're confusing one man's statements with PROVEN FACTS
What proven facts?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
We've been through this... Several of us have pointed out the errors in your numbers... I'm not going through this all over again.
Bullshit,
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So until you can wrap your mind around the concept of a global AVERAGE, this discussion again becomes entirely pointless.
Of course most of the internet, and god knows its the holy fucking grail of truth, uses the word average. They have to to explain the fact the what is happenig in the world DOESNT validate the THEORY of AGW. But, if you once actually read into the science of AGW you would realise that the fact that the entire world isnt heating up is a BIG problem. AND I note that not once have you attempted to tackle the fact that the troposphere isnt warming anywhere near as much as it should. It is absoloutely imperative that the troposphere warms MORE than the surface for AGW to be evident. Go back and read the basic scicence of AGW then come back to me when you have the slightest understanding.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
- Tom Nelson is a blogger not a journalist. 2) Anthony Watts to quote: "About Anthony: I’m a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun." 3) You tube vid: Quoted scientists. etc several more from Watts. 6 or 7, Delling pole. Yep, a journalist. Talking about the Jones inquiry. 9) Rich Trzupek quoting schnieder, a scientist. 10) Journalist reporting politicians so not a scientific point of view. So, lots of quotes form scientists on both sides. Do you consdier them crackpot? A financial journalist wuoting the events of a pollitical meting. Hardly crackpot. Watts. A weather man. And Delingpole, a commentor for the Telegraph. Tell me, didnt journalists expose the watergate scandal?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
- Tom Nelson is a blogger not a journalist.
You're right...he's even less qualified.
fat_boy wrote:
- Anthony Watts to quote: "About Anthony: I’m a former television meteorologist
First, being a weather-man does not make you a scientist. Most have degrees in journalism, not science. Secondly, having looked at weather data for 25 years doesn't make you a credible climate change scientist. As for most of the others, sure they're using scientists, but you didn't use them, you used something written by a non-scientist and I think we can all agree that if you have a specific viewpoint to start with, you can find quotes and papers to back you up. As for number 10, well, it's great that you can tell how politicians feel about a subject by what they do, since we all know that there's no way they're politically motivated.