Sheriff Buford T. Bussser wrote:
And after that Climate March in NYC - all the supporters and believers of AGW proved themselves extreme hypocrites when they trashed the places where they marched. They left the biggest trash mess all over the city.
A) Some of the supporters and believers of AGW left trash on the ground
B) Therefore AGW is a hoax
QED
Logical Man wrote:
Sheriff Buford T. Bussser wrote:And after that Climate March in NYC - all the supporters and believers of AGW proved themselves extreme hypocrites when they trashed the places where they marched. They left the biggest trash mess all over the city.
A) Some of the supporters and believers of AGW left trash on the ground
B) Therefore AGW is a hoax
QED
I participated in the Climate March and big Global Warming supporter. I admit I left a lot of trash. So what? The little people can clean it up. I could care less.
electron1661 wrote:
This whole thread has to be one big troll of a joke. I mean, seriously, if you don't believe in GW then you're an ignorant, conservative POS. In fact, you probably belong in the same group as the church people who claim evolution isn't a fact.
Scientists are not lying about this. There was recently a Climate March in NYC with 400,000 people in it. You think all those people are just blind sheep? Yeah right. Plus, the science is logical. Changes are already being seen as we speak to flora and fauna.
No, I'm sorry, you are the joke. Your second sentence proves it ... Are you referring to the "Theory of Evolution", because scientists reserve the term "Law" to describe "fact". The Theory of Evolution has a great deal of data backing up it's current premise, but it remains in development ... when they call it the "Law of Evolution", get back to me, would you?
Very few concepts in science become Laws. Studying AGW became a hobby of mine only AFTER Robert Watson, in the late 90's, claimed that the science is settled. This single statement points to the unfortunate circumstance that, for many in the AGW camp (we could probably list them as being in the CAGW camp), that this branch of science is more religion than science ... and that is tragic.
NOW, those in the skeptic camp who believe that no degree of warming has been created by increased CO2 aren't scientists; it is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and will cause some amount of increase. I have been very interested (I am a chemist, and have done actual experiments dealing with these concpets) in Beers Law and it's prediction that CO2's impact is dampened significantly after 400 ppm due to it's absorption bands, but more work needs to be done in this area. Since CO2 is now at about 403 ppm, it may help explain the current pause.
I believe we will find that natural variability can/will trump the current HIGHER temperature of the planet; while the earths temperature hasn't warmed for an 18+ period, we are warmer than we were 150 years ago. Even the IPCC has admitted that we may be looking at 30+ years of static or even lowering temperatures.
The atmosphere warms, then pauses as the oceans absorbs that heat. Then the atmosphere starts warming again, and this goes back and forth, like Heaviside (step) functions.
irun wrote:
The atmosphere warms, then pauses as the oceans absorbs that heat. Then the atmosphere starts warming again, and this goes back and forth, like Heaviside (step) functions.
OK, then let me ask you ....
1. What happens when the earth begins the cycle of moving toward an ice age ....
2. What causes an ice age (strongest current theory ....)
3. In terms of geologic cycles, when would most scientists have expected the next ice age?
I ask these questions because, it would appear that you expect warming to occur ad infinitum?
hmmmmmm? (the industry shill) wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:Why would I do that?I guess I don't really know how to respond to that.
Citizen Runner wrote earlier in the thread (why would we consider an alternate hypothesis when we already have one?" (I am paraphrasing), and not you write "why would I bother looking at the data?
If for no other reason, academic / scientific / intellectual curiosity.
Yes, that's a perfectly good reason to look at it. I'm just not so interested in the nuts and bolts of climate science that I would take that time and effort to do that.
But if you are interested then, by all means, learn all you can. Just don't pretend that you are able to draw any conclusions that matter.
If you haven't guessed by now, my personal interest lies more in exposing the folly of questioning the scientific establishment. If you really want to do that, then become a real climate scientist. Do the hard work that it takes to really become an expert.
hmmmmmm? (the industry shill) wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:Why would I do that?I guess I don't really know how to respond to that.
Citizen Runner wrote earlier in the thread (why would we consider an alternate hypothesis when we already have one?" (I am paraphrasing), and not you write "why would I bother looking at the data?
If for no other reason, academic / scientific / intellectual curiosity.
Academic/scientific/intellectual curiosity are wonderful motivations. They would naturally lead one to read the existent literature and ask questions of actual experts as opposed to turning to this message board for answers.
Poppy V wrote:
Why do those who believe in Global Warming keep insisting that the science is "settled?" Why are they so harsh to anyone who challenges what they believe? Why not welcome debate? I don't understand why those who believe in Global Warming are so vehement and so angry at anyone who challenges their beliefs. Why not listen to what the other side says and then debate them?
Here is the way it is:
The place for debating the science lies within and among those who study this issue professionally. These are called scientists.
These 'debates' on LRC and elsewhere are preposterous. If one really has an understanding on the level where their opinion is worth anything at all then they are doing their debating among their peers in the scientific community.
At this level (LRC) the only thing to debate is does one believe in science. Those against science do indeed deserve nothing but scorn.
I'm sorry but that is just the way it is.
Fat hurts wrote:
hmmmmmm? (the industry shill) wrote:I guess I don't really know how to respond to that.
Citizen Runner wrote earlier in the thread (why would we consider an alternate hypothesis when we already have one?" (I am paraphrasing), and not you write "why would I bother looking at the data?
If for no other reason, academic / scientific / intellectual curiosity.
Yes, that's a perfectly good reason to look at it. I'm just not so interested in the nuts and bolts of climate science that I would take that time and effort to do that.
But if you are interested then, by all means, learn all you can. Just don't pretend that you are able to draw any conclusions that matter.
If you haven't guessed by now, my personal interest lies more in exposing the folly of questioning the scientific establishment. If you really want to do that, then become a real climate scientist. Do the hard work that it takes to really become an expert.
Questioning the scientific establishment is good. Do you mean Lindzen, Spencer, Watts, Christy, Curry ..... just sayin' ....
hmmmmmm? (the industry shill) wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:Why would I do that?I guess I don't really know how to respond to that.
Citizen Runner wrote earlier in the thread (why would we consider an alternate hypothesis when we already have one?" (I am paraphrasing), and not you write "why would I bother looking at the data?
If for no other reason, academic / scientific / intellectual curiosity.
Let me paraphrase:
1) hmmmmmm?: I plotted some stuff, stared at it for a bit, and have concluded that more likely than not it's all cyclic natural variation.
2) Citizen Runner: WTF?
3) goto 1
enormous marches with 400,000 people will generate trash. is that some kind of exceptional event that it did?? how is that relevant at all? we already know that environmentalists are far more likely than conservatives to use less than average amounts of fuel, to recycle more, etc. and to vote for greener politicians.
Here is the answer you need wrote:
Poppy V wrote:Why do those who believe in Global Warming keep insisting that the science is "settled?" Why are they so harsh to anyone who challenges what they believe? Why not welcome debate? I don't understand why those who believe in Global Warming are so vehement and so angry at anyone who challenges their beliefs. Why not listen to what the other side says and then debate them?
Here is the way it is:
The place for debating the science lies within and among those who study this issue professionally. These are called scientists.
These 'debates' on LRC and elsewhere are preposterous. If one really has an understanding on the level where their opinion is worth anything at all then they are doing their debating among their peers in the scientific community.
I'm sorry but that is just the way it is.
Those who study the issue professionally, those so-called scientists, are the ones who have been manipulating the data when it doesn't support their agenda. No thanks - I will not leave it to them.
SomeCoach wrote:
No, I'm sorry, you are the joke. Your second sentence proves it ... Are you referring to the "Theory of Evolution", because scientists reserve the term "Law" to describe "fact". The Theory of Evolution has a great deal of data backing up it's current premise, but it remains in development ... when they call it the "Law of Evolution", get back to me, would you?
Wrong. There is no graduation ceremony where a theory becomes a law. And there is nothing special about calling something a law versus a theory. It may have a particular meaning in a certain context, but scientifically, there is really little difference.
Note, for example, the theory of evolution is far more widely accepted than Newton's law of gravity, which was found to be wrong in some cases.
jjjjjjjjjj wrote:
enormous marches with 400,000 people will generate trash. is that some kind of exceptional event that it did?? how is that relevant at all? we already know that environmentalists are far more likely than conservatives to use less than average amounts of fuel, to recycle more, etc. and to vote for greener politicians.
Environmentalists like Al Gore, Brad Pitt, Sean Penn who travel around in their personal huge jets? LOL!
Sheriff Buford T. Bussser wrote:
Here is the answer you need wrote:Here is the way it is:
The place for debating the science lies within and among those who study this issue professionally. These are called scientists.
These 'debates' on LRC and elsewhere are preposterous. If one really has an understanding on the level where their opinion is worth anything at all then they are doing their debating among their peers in the scientific community.
I'm sorry but that is just the way it is.
Those who study the issue professionally, those so-called scientists, are the ones who have been manipulating the data when it doesn't support their agenda. No thanks - I will not leave it to them.
More conspiracy theories....sigh
Fat hurts wrote:
SomeCoach wrote:No, I'm sorry, you are the joke. Your second sentence proves it ... Are you referring to the "Theory of Evolution", because scientists reserve the term "Law" to describe "fact". The Theory of Evolution has a great deal of data backing up it's current premise, but it remains in development ... when they call it the "Law of Evolution", get back to me, would you?
Wrong. There is no graduation ceremony where a theory becomes a law. And there is nothing special about calling something a law versus a theory. It may have a particular meaning in a certain context, but scientifically, there is really little difference.
Note, for example, the theory of evolution is far more widely accepted than Newton's law of gravity, which was found to be wrong in some cases.
Show me a statement where Evolution is more widely accepted than Newton's Law of Gravity? Please, show me. Newton's Law only breaks down in fields of extreme strength, and in these cases act as a description of differences found between Newtonian and Quantum mechanics ....
But, I digress. The main point is this ... we are a LONG way off in being able to consider climate concepts to follow any type of standard for "law" type acceptance. Christ, we can't model weather 10 days in advance, but these climate modelers believe they can predict climate 100 years down the road. What hubris ... Humble pie soon, the models have proven to themselves to be poor predictors of both the past and the future ...
Evolution is not a Law! And the Earth is probably really flat!
Global Warming is a hoax by all climate scientists to somehow make money if ...they somehow convince industrialists to stop polluting so much...
One of the big Ice ages was caused by a meteor striking the earth and the resulting smoke cloud lasting for decades
Fat hurts wrote:
SomeCoach wrote:No, I'm sorry, you are the joke. Your second sentence proves it ... Are you referring to the "Theory of Evolution", because scientists reserve the term "Law" to describe "fact". The Theory of Evolution has a great deal of data backing up it's current premise, but it remains in development ... when they call it the "Law of Evolution", get back to me, would you?
Wrong. There is no graduation ceremony where a theory becomes a law. And there is nothing special about calling something a law versus a theory. It may have a particular meaning in a certain context, but scientifically, there is really little difference.
.
I beg to differ. No matter how strong a theory is it never "graduates" to become a law. A law, at the time it becomes a law, does not need more verification.
SomeCoach wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:Wrong. There is no graduation ceremony where a theory becomes a law. And there is nothing special about calling something a law versus a theory. It may have a particular meaning in a certain context, but scientifically, there is really little difference.
Note, for example, the theory of evolution is far more widely accepted than Newton's law of gravity, which was found to be wrong in some cases.
Show me a statement where Evolution is more widely accepted than Newton's Law of Gravity? Please, show me. Newton's Law only breaks down in fields of extreme strength, and in these cases act as a description of differences found between Newtonian and Quantum mechanics ....
Newton's Law of Gravity is no longer accepted by anyone as your definition of "Law" would imply. It is no longer accepted as an accurate description of the natural world.
The point is that there is no value in pointing out something called a "Law" versus something called a "Theory". That's about the silliest argument ever to try to cast doubt on evolution.
Citizen Runner wrote:
hmmmmmm? (the industry shill) wrote:I guess I don't really know how to respond to that.
Citizen Runner wrote earlier in the thread (why would we consider an alternate hypothesis when we already have one?" (I am paraphrasing), and not you write "why would I bother looking at the data?
If for no other reason, academic / scientific / intellectual curiosity.
Let me paraphrase:
1) hmmmmmm?: I plotted some stuff, stared at it for a bit, and have concluded that more likely than not it's all cyclic natural variation.
2) Citizen Runner: WTF?
3) goto 1
More glib, facile commentary. You disappoint me. You obviously have a scientific background and you've been generally civil in this discussion (which I do greatly appreciate) but you've been either willfully blind or are deliberately obfuscating. The data, which you shared, show fluctuations on several time scales, and those fluctuations (in all data sets I've looked at) have similar character to the fluctuations we see in the 20th century instrumented record.
I don't suppose I can say anything more on this topic. I don't want or need anybody to "agree" with my interpretation, but I expected that somebody would at least offer and defend a contrary interpretation.