Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Global Warming Believer's Section
#41


Reply
#42
(02-11-2014, 01:50 AM)Paul In Sweden Wrote:
Quote:You said..."Mann claims Steyn slandered him by calling him a pedophile." Mann made no such claim. You were wrong. Deal with it.

Quote:In court, our notably unimpressive judge Natalia Combs-Greene declared, even before we got anywhere near the trial, that she was with Dr. Mann: “The court agrees with the arguments advanced by Plaintiffs. To place Plaintiff’s name in the same sentence with Sandusky (a convicted pedophile) is clearly outrageous.”

So... to prove that Mann claimed that Steyn called him a pedophile you go and quote someone else??

S2

Your still wrong.

Paul In Sweden Wrote:It should also be noted that this radical judge has had all rulings in this matter over turned by higher courts.

Except the last ruling that is letting this whole thing go to court. Wrong again.

Paul In Sweden Wrote:Buzz this ridiculous matter has been dealt with...

Yeah... right... NOT!

(02-11-2014, 01:59 AM)Paul In Sweden Wrote:
(02-11-2014, 01:41 AM)Buzz Wrote: Mann was a lead author for the IPCC which received a Nobel. Now if you don't think that counts then fine...

I am a citizen of the European Union which received a Nobel Prize in 2012. I think you should consider carefully the way you address me as I too by your own definition the recipient and holder of a Nobel Peace Prize. S13 Deal with it... S13

Whatever....
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#43
(02-11-2014, 02:30 AM)Buzz Wrote:
(02-11-2014, 01:50 AM)Paul In Sweden Wrote:
Quote:You said..."Mann claims Steyn slandered him by calling him a pedophile." Mann made no such claim. You were wrong. Deal with it.

Quote:In court, our notably unimpressive judge Natalia Combs-Greene declared, even before we got anywhere near the trial, that she was with Dr. Mann: “The court agrees with the arguments advanced by Plaintiffs. To place Plaintiff’s name in the same sentence with Sandusky (a convicted pedophile) is clearly outrageous.”

So... to prove that Mann claimed that Steyn called him a pedophile you go and quote someone else

Someone else... Yeah...I did! The Federal Judge in the case S13 that was overturned because she maliciously and without legal basis put forth the claims of Mann's Big Tobacco legal representation that Steyn somehow inferred that Mann was somehow a pedophile. While I have no reason at all to believe Mann is a pedophile the Federal Judge hearing the case listened to Mann's Big Tobacco legal team making assertions that Steyn may have slandered him by calling him a pedophile while this is clearly far from the truth.

We know the decades of whitewash that Penn State copiously applied to all the despicable actions of Sandusky, because he generated revenue. We also know how Penn State whitewashed their press statement alluding to an investigation which anyone looking at it would realize it was nothing more than Penn State asking Mann: "Did you do anything wrong?", Mann replying "Nope..." and the same now fired senior officials of Penn State University whom did the same thing with the pedophile Sandusky issued a press release stating that Mann brings is millions of fraudulent research dollars to this University. We have asked him if he has done anything wrong and he has told us "No!". Case closed, debate over...

While that probably qualifies as evidence to you and your circle I am a bit more discerning.
Reply
#44
Here's a new resource that peer reviews climate change media articles.

Climate Feedback

The website says of itself

"Climate Feedback organizes scientists from around the world to comment on the accuracy of a variety of climate change media articles using the emerging technology of web annotation. Scientists’ comments, or ‘annotations’ are layered directly onto the original texts allowing readers to easily identify where and why the coverage is consistent (or inconsistent) with state-of-the-art thinking and knowledge in climate science.

Climate Feedback assigns each article a “credibility” rating based on the annotations and evaluations made by the participating scientists, giving readers an overall guide to the accuracy of the text. We call these evaluations ‘Feedbacks’.

All Feedbacks will be archived on our site, creating a useful resource for anyone to easily compare and contrast the credibility of different news sources."
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Reply
#45
MLT -

From that site:

Quote:“Is this article consistent with the latest thinking and knowledge in science?”
“Would experts in this field endorse the main message of this article?”

These are the types of questions our “feedbacks” are designed to answer.

I don't know who these folks are, but real science isn't about whether something matches up, or is "consistent with the latest thinking and knowledge" but whether something IS good science.

The clichéd "flat earth" was consistent with the latest thinking and knowledge" and, I'm hoping, you would say it was wrong.

Just an observation.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#46
It's for you to read, review, evaluate and question; never take anything at face value.


   
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Reply
#47
Tonk,

I cannot debate science as I am uneducated. I can use my mind and this is common place for the AGW leaders and it's difficult to believe they need to act like this if the facts are that firmly with them:

http://www.investors.com/politics/editor...n/?ref=yfp
Reply
#48
(08-12-2016, 09:52 AM)Palladin Wrote: Tonk,

I cannot debate science as I am uneducated...

You do not need education to debate science. But education does need common sense to interact with the masses on science. If it's not simple, it is probably not valid.
Reply
#49
The problem with much of the Global Warming crowd, is that the scientific method is thrown out the window. Models are everything, and outcomes are decided upon before research is even contemplated.
Reply
#50
(08-12-2016, 08:47 AM)Monsieur Le Tonk Wrote: It's for you to read, review, evaluate and question; never take anything at face value.

I agree with the "Scientific Method" chart.

Just don't see

"“Is this article consistent with the latest thinking and knowledge in science?”
“Would experts in this field endorse the main message of this article?”

anywhere on it.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#51
(08-12-2016, 09:52 AM)Palladin Wrote: Tonk,

I cannot debate science as I am uneducated. I can use my mind and this is common place for the AGW leaders and it's difficult to believe they need to act like this if the facts are that firmly with them:

http://www.investors.com/politics/editor...n/?ref=yfp

'Uneducated' - well so were Thomas Edison and Benjamin Franklin, didn't seem to stop them.

Re your article, certainly there are those who are dogmatic about AGW, many no doubt have generous grants, but to tar all with the same brush isn't wise. There are plenty of good scientists and good science out there, and you need to be careful of how the media seeks to spin these kinds of stories, Investors.com has its own agenda as well.

If you research Professor Valentina Zharkova you'll find that she doesn't dismiss AGW, she believes her research buys us time to fix the problem.

Quote:Professor Valentina Zharkova

After analyzing the solar data with their model, Zharkova's team noticed something that no one had ever expected before: that the Sun produces the magnetic waves in pairs. Previously everyone had thought that there was only a single source of magnetic waves in the Sun, but the evidence suggested two sources. The team used these observations to predict how the Sun's magnetic field would change in the future. “This is where we predicted this new Maunder minima,” Zharkova added.

She commented on how the changes in the Sun are likely to affect the Earth's environment. “During the minimum, the intensity of solar radiation will be reduced dramatically. So we will have less heat coming into the atmosphere, which will reduce the temperature.”

However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mi...l-warming/
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Reply
#52
The problem is common sense. If we are in an interval within an ice age as climatologists agree, then extending warming is good.

What is always missing from these discussions are the positives that come from warming - and all we hear are negatives.
Reply
#53
IF AGW is accurate the eventuality is that humanity is going to cause a large increase in the average temperature even if it is 200 years from now. The problems guys like Tonk fear are long term problems and IF AGW is valid, the problem is going to be very hard to fix because CO2 & methane just don't break down easily.
Reply
#54
(08-15-2016, 05:42 PM)Palladin Wrote: IF AGW is accurate the eventuality is that humanity is going to cause a large increase in the average temperature even if it is 200 years from now. The problems guys like Tonk fear are long term problems and IF AGW is valid, the problem is going to be very hard to fix because CO2 & methane just don't break down easily.

CO2 is not the problem, regardless what the AGW folks keep shouting. Water vapor makes up 97% of the global warming greenhouse effect. lower clouds absorb the sun's rays and retain heat. Further, man's addition to the Co2 content is tiny compared to the rest of the 3% of CO2.

A warming planet is better. More people succumb to cold than heat. You should try living in Alaska and enjoy the winters there. You go outside and not layer yourself properly, and you will die.

Furthermore, the Holocene maximum was several degrees Centigrade warmer than is it currently. This is all a smokescreen for other things: POWER and MONEY.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#55
John,

I don't think AGW is valid either, just pointing out that IF it were valid, current "mini ice age" climate trends would not invalidate it.
Reply
#56
This might be a good time to remind everyone that the warming effect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic.

Meaning, simply, that a lot more CO2 only means a little more temperature increase.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#57
(08-15-2016, 09:40 PM)JohnWho Wrote: This might be a good time to remind everyone that the warming effect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic.

Meaning, simply, that a lot more CO2 only means a little more temperature increase.

There's another scientific term for the same thing used in Chemistry and physics. I used to know it, but have not used it for some time. And at my age, I do tend to forget some things. Banghead
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#58
The idea that natural CO2 production is about 97% of it's existence in the atmosphere reminds me of the CFCs being closer to 99% natural and that didn't slow down DuPont and the state nexus from making a fortune to "fix" the ozone hole" problem.

Don't hear much about that anymore, AGW is where the major league dollars are to be made. we "fixed" the ozone hole.
Reply
#59
(08-15-2016, 09:57 PM)Palladin Wrote: The idea that natural CO2 production is about 97% of it's existence in the atmosphere reminds me of the CFCs being closer to 99% natural and that didn't slow down DuPont and the state nexus from making a fortune to "fix" the ozone hole" problem.

Don't hear much about that anymore, AGW is where the major league dollars are to be made. we "fixed" the ozone hole.

That's because it fixed itself,.......naturally. S13

Besides, who really gives a damn about ozone covering the south pole in particular. The overwhelming majority of ozone in the atmosphere is located above the equator, because even a single molecule of oxygen has mass. And people don't live in the polar areas, unless they are there temporarily. These Eco-Wackos are beyond redemption with their ignorance. S6
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#60
I read a paper out here at the lab years ago and it didn't need fixing was the scientific concensus here. What this thing was about was the pr campaign was drawn around when you measure it. It is like an accordion and if you want a big hole, measure it during X time frame, small hole measure during Y.

DuPont, according to the paper, had funded all the pr campaign and I guess it's just a coincidence those greedy bastards and the government slaves they owned had already secured a patent for the replacement when the old Freon was outlawed!!!
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Global Warming Skeptics Thread John L 60 35,620 05-12-2013, 10:06 AM
Last Post: John L
  Friends Of Science on Global Warming John L 1 2,664 08-13-2007, 12:26 AM
Last Post: Anonymous

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)