Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61
  1. #21  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    No, but I will come to hopefully show, that this article doesn't actually say what some seem to think it does, and that cheers of 'smoking gun' are simply the result of approaching things with extreme naivete and little to no attempt at understanding.
    ..and your degrees in climatology are...?

    The science is not "settled" and quite frankly, in light of this blatant fraud and lies, I don't see why I should believe anything these lying bastards have to say. AGW is a hoax, a lie, a scam based on "science" that is conveniently now unable to be checked by INDEPENDENT sources.
    The plain and simple truth.
    Last edited by Sonnabend; 01-02-2010 at 07:59 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post
    ..and your degrees in climatology are...?

    The plain and simple truth.
    Interesting. You keep asking "Where's my climatology degree".

    However, its pretty clear that you feel you've been given unrestrained authority to dismiss anything anyone from academia says about global warming (especially on the heels of the leaked emails). Heck you feel you have unrestrained authority to dismiss anything coming from a person who isn't a full blown extremist global warming skeptic, full stop.

    So it would seem I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. If I have a climatology degree, you clearly won't trust anything I say for I would obviously be a corrupt "scientist" making shit up for grant money. If I don't have a climatology degree, you will call me unqualified.

    Any non-contrarian with a climatology degree is an obvious co-conspirator in the Great Hoax, in your mind at least. So how bout you cool it with the silly stunts?


    PS - Nevermind that no one here is so qualified, yet feels they can actually make assessments and strong claims about the theory (including yourself). Why aren't you asking Policon, FlaGator, Big Guy, and Rockntractor for their climatology degrees, hmm?
    Last edited by wilbur; 01-03-2010 at 02:29 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Ape Articulate_Ape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NJ, Exit Only
    Posts
    8,446
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    No, but I will come to hopefully show, that this article doesn't actually say what some seem to think it does, and that cheers of 'smoking gun' are simply the result of approaching things with extreme naivete and little to no attempt at understanding.

    Note that the title says: "No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction In Past....". Pay special attention to the word fraction. I suspect most of you read this and took it to mean that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has not increased since 1850 (leading to the happy dances we see from the usual suspects). However, that would be both false, and absurd.

    What the study actually investigates is the percentage of airborne CO2 that gets taken out of the air by carbon sinks, like the ocean, and how (or if) this percentage has changed over time. The article on sciencedaily cites the percent to be 45%. In other words, 45% of carbon emissions are removed from the atmosphere, by natural mechanisms.

    Scientists have theorized that as these carbon sinks reach their absorption capacity, that %45 percent absorption rate will start to drop, and more carbon emissions will remain in the atmosphere. There has been some data that suggests that the percent has changed somewhat. The study cited set out to see if the percentage has changed over time (as more carbon emissions have increased). From what I gather, it hasnt changed in any statistically significant way during the time period studied (though there is much variation). Interesting, but it certainly doesn't have the profound implications that some here seem to think.

    I don't know to what extent climate models rely on this percent, or estimates of projected drops in the airborn fraction - though I would be very surprised to see if none have taken into account a relatively static value.

    What this doesn't do, is refute the fact that the actual amount of carbon in the atmosphere has increased dramatically (and continues to increase dramatically), due to human activity.

    2009 is likely to be the coldest one in recent years, and if current global temps are any indication, then 2010 may even be colder. So, I ask at what point does empirical evidence trump computer models? What metric have the AGW proponents set forth by which their theory(s) is proven inaccurate? In other words, how cold does it have to get, and for how long, before the folks at the IPCC start scratching their heads, let alone using them?
    "The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    Interesting. You keep asking "Where's my climatology degree".
    Yes, I do, seeing as you have already proven you know jack shit about terminal care.

    You carry on as if you have all the answers and AGW is "settled science by consensus"...when the consensus is that AGW is a scam, and that CRU have lied repeatedly.

    I'd like to know what makes you more qualified to make this conclusion. so i ask what science degrees you have?

    However, its pretty clear that you feel you've been given unrestrained authority to dismiss anything anyone from academia says about global warming (especially on the heels of the leaked emails).
    When someone admits that they have fudged the data, refused to provide information for FOI requests, when they state they cannot provide the original raw data on which their "conclusions "are based, when they go to great lengths to ensure that people either do not know that an FOI law exists and threaten to delete said data rather than release it, I question both their integrity and their conclusions.

    Since the raw data has been destroyed, and all we are left with is their "results" (which in scientific terms, are now non repeatable, hence invalid) I happen to consider that there have been a great deal of lies told, a lot of ass covering and very little honesty, all we have left are guesses and "models" which cannot be proven for 100 years.

    Gore and his mockumentary have told the biggest lies of all...and quite frankly, Gore does not practise what he preaches..and I suspect neither do you.

    Said "models" re now highly suspect, since the way in which the data has been tabulated and results gained, can no longer be checked by an independent source

    "Take their word for it"...the UN??

    You have got to be joking.

    Heck you feel you have unrestrained authority to dismiss anything coming from a person who isn't a full blown extremist global warming skeptic, full stop.
    Funny, a few days ago you were lecturing ME on how organs were handled...yet when confronted by the fact that you actually had NO idea except for "vague notions", you refuse to even admit you were clueless on the subject.

    You seem to prate on with a great deal of "authority" so I ask just where does this certainty come from, and what makes you such an expert?

    Do you know the difference between clinical death and brain death?

    So it would seem I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.
    It's called backing up your claims with facts. Try it sometime.

    If I have a climatology degree, you clearly won't trust anything I say for I would obviously be a corrupt "scientist" making shit up for grant money. If I don't have a climatology degree, you will call me unqualified.
    If you have, fine, where and when and with which university...is your research "peer reviewed?" or are you just sitting there smug and self assured, and have just a modicum of 2nd or 3rd hand reading based on questionable conclusions from scientists we KNOW have already lied through their teeth?

    The emails are real, Jones has admitted it

    Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit.
    Jones never did say who hacked the emails...did he? We know who did..a whistleblower INSIDE the CRU.

    .Any non-contrarian with a climatology degree is an obvious co-conspirator in the Great Hoax, in your mind at least. So how bout you cool it with the silly stunts?
    In 1976 it was global cooling, then syphilis, then AIDS, then Y2K, then an asteroid hitting earth, then the Saturn Conjunction..now global warming. The number of doomsayer predictions is as long as your arm and guess what...we are still here. Before that it was nuclear bombs kicking us out of orbit and into the sun, then nuclear weapons knocking us out of orbit and away from the sun....so why should I listen to yet another chicken little?

    The Russian scientist who said there had never been malaria in Russia before global warming? A lie. Another one saying the Loch Ness Monster had died from global warming? A stupid lie.

    More hurricanes says Gore...no, there are less. Oceans to rise and swallow whole nations? No, actually they will rise a few centimetres.

    Oops, I guess New York is safe till Godzilla comes along. Again.

    And here


    But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

    Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
    Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.


    The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
    Dear dear me...

    Wait wait...you'll say he is being paid by "big oil"

    PS - Nevermind that no one here is so qualified, yet feels they can actually make assessments and strong claims about the theory (including yourself). Why aren't you asking Policon, FlaGator, Big Guy, and Rockntractor for their climatology degrees, hmm?
    Because they arent climate alarmists and they arent sitting here trying to lecture the rest of us.

    Face it wilbur...

    On terminal care? (P.s wilbur I worked in nursing homes and hospices for a long time, I attended a course with, and spoke to, and listened to, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross)

    You know her? The brilliant woman who pioneered thanatology?

    YOU FAIL.

    On AGW?

    YOU FAIL.
    Last edited by Sonnabend; 01-03-2010 at 04:17 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Articulate_Ape View Post
    2009 is likely to be the coldest one in recent years, and if current global temps are any indication, then 2010 may even be colder.
    http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2...9-12-08-02.asp

    Through selective reporting of cold snaps and record temperatures and that sort of thing, its easy to get a misleading picture. The article above certainly disagrees with the assessment that 2009 is one of the coldest year in recent years, when measuring global temperature. In fact, it claims just the opposite.

    So, I ask at what point does empirical evidence trump computer models? What metric have the AGW proponents set forth by which their theory(s) is proven inaccurate? In other words, how cold does it have to get, and for how long, before the folks at the IPCC start scratching their heads, let alone using them?
    Well, one easy and obvious way to empirically falsify AGW would be to show that global temperature and CO2 have little or no significant correlation.
    Last edited by wilbur; 01-04-2010 at 06:28 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    Well, one easy and obvious way to empirically falsify AGW would be to show that global temperature and CO2 have little or no significant correlation.
    ...or destroy the data so that no one can prove you're lying. Or falsify graphs.Or delete data rather than have anyone look at it.

    That's fraud.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    eeeevil Sith Admin SarasotaRepub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    54,971


    Tee,hee. :D
    May the FORCE be with you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    eeeevil Sith Admin SarasotaRepub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    54,971
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Well, then what do you make of the motives of Wolfgang Knorr, apparently a pure-bred academic? Do we dismiss his research because he's in academia (thereby undercutting the claims in the OP article) or do we automatically trust his research since it provided an easy avenue for news rags to make skeptic friendly stories?

    What reason do you have to trust him over other academics that you dismiss?
    I actually don't trust him anymore than the others. Hey, if I was an enterprising
    scientist I might see a grant opening for anti AGW research...:D
    May the FORCE be with you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post
    ...or destroy the data so that no one can prove you're lying. Or falsify graphs.Or delete data rather than have anyone look at it.

    That's fraud.
    Actually, destroying data wouldn't falsify anything, neither would engaging in fraud. It would certainly make your own conclusions untrustworthy - but not necessarily false.

    But all that aside, there is no good evidence of nefariously manipulated data, in the leaked emails - go ahead, start a thread and make the case. I will show you why your wrong. This isnt to say there could NO nefariously manipulated data, somewhere. You just don't have any reasonable evidence for it.

    And, go ahead and start a thread about missing data, if you like. There I will show you that there are at least two independent sets of raw temperature data, available for download by ANYONE (no FOI required) and both are relied upon in temperature reconstructions used by the IPCC. So sorry, the science CAN be checked - and it has been.
    Last edited by wilbur; 01-05-2010 at 12:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    35,194
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Well, one easy and obvious way to empirically falsify AGW would be to show that global temperature and CO2 have little or no significant correlation.

    already been done

    so we can call it a day then ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •