Isaac Asimov on climate change, 1989, 1977

[Oddball]

Support any of your contentions with legitimately sourced (preferrably published)mainstream scientific consideration and understanding...

Preferably those from East Anglia, Penn State, UCAR, NCAR, IPCC and/or James Hanson.

 

[Trakar]

Support any of your contentions with legitimately sourced (preferrably published)mainstream scientific consideration and understanding...

Preferably those from East Anglia, Penn State, UCAR, NCAR, IPCC and/or James Hanson.

Actually, no. I will give serious attention and consideration to any mainstream science journal paper or letter. on the otherhand you seem dismissive of all mainstream published science. That is your conspiracy theory to argue.

 

[westwall]

Amazing, the contortionist knots you seem to tie yourself in by simultaneously rejecting and denouncing mainstream science and yet trying to rely upon mainstream science to support your misunderstandings. Have you considered counselling?

...There is nothing contortionist at all about my post...

From the bizarre warpage evidenced in your statements, your perspective is unsurprising.

Support any of your contentions with legitimately sourced (preferrably published)mainstream scientific consideration and understanding, and I will give your comments the reflection and understanding they deserve, if all you are going to do is stamp your feet and repeat the same unsupported dredge, there is little sense in wasting much time on it.

I heartily agree. You should just let your alter ego olfraud carry on. You're a pale shadow of his silliness. Run along now and leave the adults alone.

 

[westwall]

Support any of your contentions with legitimately sourced (preferrably published)mainstream scientific consideration and understanding...

Preferably those from East Anglia, Penn State, UCAR, NCAR, IPCC and/or James Hanson.

Actually, no. I will give serious attention and consideration to any mainstream science journal paper or letter. on the otherhand you seem dismissive of all mainstream published science. That is your conspiracy theory to argue.

Even the heavily biased "investigations" of Jones et all found that they had corrupted the peer review process. That alone condemns them to the nether world of pseudo scientific frauds. Grow up Ed Begley Jr.

 

[Oddball]

Support any of your contentions with legitimately sourced (preferrably published)mainstream scientific consideration and understanding...

Preferably those from East Anglia, Penn State, UCAR, NCAR, IPCC and/or James Hanson.

Actually, no. I will give serious attention and consideration to any mainstream science journal paper or letter. on the otherhand you seem dismissive of all mainstream published science. That is your conspiracy theory to argue.

I'm dismissive of closed-shop circle jerks, which is what the bulk of those "mainstream" journals are.

 

[Trakar]

Preferably those from East Anglia, Penn State, UCAR, NCAR, IPCC and/or James Hanson.

Actually, no. I will give serious attention and consideration to any mainstream science journal paper or letter. on the otherhand you seem dismissive of all mainstream published science. That is your conspiracy theory to argue.

I'm dismissive of closed-shop circle jerks, which is what the bulk of those "mainstream" journals are.

Again that is your consipiracy theory to support, but ignorance and rhetoric don't amount to compelling support with regards to issues of science.

 

[westwall]

Actually, no. I will give serious attention and consideration to any mainstream science journal paper or letter. on the otherhand you seem dismissive of all mainstream published science. That is your conspiracy theory to argue.

I'm dismissive of closed-shop circle jerks, which is what the bulk of those "mainstream" journals are.

Again that is your consipiracy theory to support, but ignorance and rhetoric don't amount to compelling support with regards to issues of science.

How about this one then. Remember back a few years ago when GW was killing the penguins? Remember that? Turns out it wasn't GW that was killing them it was the scientists tagging them that are! Yep, you heard it correctly the act of observing them is what was killing them as very nicely explained in this NATURE article. Yet another "tenet" of GW bites the dust when proper research is done.


"Attaching bands to penguins' flippers makes them easier for scientists to study, but may also up the birds' death rates and lower their chances of reproducing. A team studying king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) has rekindled this debate, which has been running for more than 30 years, and thrown up an additional concern. Not only do bands placed around the birds' flippers make life more difficult for penguins, their effects also undermine the conclusions drawn from such studies1.

Biologists have long feared that the tags, bands and transmitters they attach to animals could have a negative effect on their study subjects. The debate has been especially fraught where penguins are concerned because some studies have found problems with bands whereas others have found none.

Yvon Le Maho at the University of Strasbourg in France, an author of the current study, published in Nature, says that the time has come for ecologists to embrace new technologies and abandon flipper bands, "certainly as a precautionary principle".

His group's paper also highlights a wider issue: studies on penguins can and are being used to look at the effects of climate change on ecosystems. Le Maho and colleagues have previously used electronic tagging of king penguins to show that just 0.26 ºC of warming in sea-surface temperatures could trigger a 9% decline in adult survival2. If banding were used in such studies, its consequences on a population could cripple attempts to extrapolate a climate-linked trend from the data.

"It's very difficult to anticipate what the consequences are," Le Maho says. He says there is a problem with warming affecting ecosystems, but "the numbers have to be reconsidered" where they have been derived from banded studies.





Band of bothers : Nature News

 

[Oddball]

Actually, no. I will give serious attention and consideration to any mainstream science journal paper or letter. on the otherhand you seem dismissive of all mainstream published science. That is your conspiracy theory to argue.

I'm dismissive of closed-shop circle jerks, which is what the bulk of those "mainstream" journals are.

Again that is your consipiracy theory to support, but ignorance and rhetoric don't amount to compelling support with regards to issues of science.

It was supported in the East Anglia e-mails, where the "scientists" openly discussed blacklisting other scientists and journals who didn't play along with the clique.

That's conspiracy fact, right in front of your face, Poindexter.

 

[westwall]

I'm dismissive of closed-shop circle jerks, which is what the bulk of those "mainstream" journals are.

Again that is your consipiracy theory to support, but ignorance and rhetoric don't amount to compelling support with regards to issues of science.

It was supported in the East Anglia e-mails, where the "scientists" openly discussed blacklisting other scientists and journals who didn't play along with the clique.

That's conspiracy fact, right in front of your face, Poindexter.

I can't rep you again dammit! This guy has to be a rebranded olfraud. Talks the same, insults the same, posts the same way, it's got to be him.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. In other words Traker sites real scientists and scientific publications. Anybody that does that has to be a fraud in your book.

Walleyes claims to be a scientist, then states that all the scientists are deplorable people with no ethics. And since almost all disagree with him, they must be cretins.

From 1820 to present, real scientists have observed that there are GHGs that can increase the heat retention of the atmosphere, and, thereby, the oceans. And, in the last 150 years, we have seen this happening, expecially in the last 30 years.

Let's review some of Walleyes arguements. First, we are not warming, we are cooling. But even if we are warming, mankind has nothing at all to do with it. Even though CO2 is a GHG, it doesn't really warm the atmosphere and ocean. And even if it does, it is going to be good for us, no matter how many of us it kills. LOL What a scientist.

 

[westwall]

LOL. In other words Traker sites real scientists and scientific publications. Anybody that does that has to be a fraud in your book.

Walleyes claims to be a scientist, then states that all the scientists are deplorable people with no ethics. And since almost all disagree with him, they must be cretins.

From 1820 to present, real scientists have observed that there are GHGs that can increase the heat retention of the atmosphere, and, thereby, the oceans. And, in the last 150 years, we have seen this happening, expecially in the last 30 years.

Let's review some of Walleyes arguements. First, we are not warming, we are cooling. But even if we are warming, mankind has nothing at all to do with it. Even though CO2 is a GHG, it doesn't really warm the atmosphere and ocean. And even if it does, it is going to be good for us, no matter how many of us it kills. LOL What a scientist.

Explain the Vostock ice core data which shows CO2 lagging behind temperature and don't post that stupid sceptical science BS, explain it in your own words so we can tear your little scenario apart.

 

[Old Rocks]

My, my. In other words, don't refer to what real scientists have written, so we can find some error in semantics or expression and pounce on it.

Well, it's very simple. Milankovic cycles warm the southern ocean and the atmosphere. Warming ocean begins to emit more CO2 that it absorbs. CO2, being a GHG, warms the atmosphere even further, causing more warming, and releasing more CO2 and CH4.

Now this is a much faster process than the absorption of CO2 as the Miliankovic Cycle goes the other way as one can observe from the maps of the temperatures over the last 650,000 years provided by the Vostok cores. That is why we are seeing a rapid response to our creating a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2.

Of course, this has been laid out many times by real scientists, the very people whose evidence you refuse to accept because of your silly political beliefs. Fortunetly there are real scientists that do real research.

 

[Oddball]

Yes....What "real scientists" have written.

Especially what they've written about rat fucking other scientists and journals, whose findings conflict with the orthodoxy and are made public.

Can't have that.

 

[westwall]

My, my. In other words, don't refer to what real scientists have written, so we can find some error in semantics or expression and pounce on it.

Well, it's very simple. Milankovic cycles warm the southern ocean and the atmosphere. Warming ocean begins to emit more CO2 that it absorbs. CO2, being a GHG, warms the atmosphere even further, causing more warming, and releasing more CO2 and CH4.

Now this is a much faster process than the absorption of CO2 as the Miliankovic Cycle goes the other way as one can observe from the maps of the temperatures over the last 650,000 years provided by the Vostok cores. That is why we are seeing a rapid response to our creating a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2.

Of course, this has been laid out many times by real scientists, the very people whose evidence you refuse to accept because of your silly political beliefs. Fortunetly there are real scientists that do real research.

Ahhh but it is real scientists writing the reports on the Vostock ice cores silly person. In fact you posted a wonderful link to a study that they had done which made you look like a moron. How about posting that link again. Your brother trakar wants to see it too.

Now to your drivel. Why did it not happen in the past then? There is no empirical evidence supporting that ridiculous theory anywhere on the planet from any time. There are only computer models that are so bad they can't recreate the weather we had three days ago.

Show us some empirical data. You have none.

 

[Trakar]

...Even the heavily biased "investigations" of Jones et all found that they had corrupted the peer review process...

Cite or reference please.

 

[westwall]

...Even the heavily biased "investigations" of Jones et all found that they had corrupted the peer review process...

Cite or reference please.

Look it up yourself, as you so aptly said, tutoring costs money. You have a lot to catch up on so get started. Your info is years out of date.

 

[Trakar]

How about this one then. Remember back a few years ago when GW was killing the penguins? Remember that?

No, actually I don't. Please reference any scientific paper that linked penguin deaths to AGW. I recall studies which indicated that in the future, the change of the environment in the Antarctic might cause problems for species, but I don't recall any reports of current mass deaths in the species being attributed to AGW.

Turns out it wasn't GW that was killing them it was the scientists tagging them that are! Yep, you heard it correctly the act of observing them is what was killing them as very nicely explained in this NATURE article. Yet another "tenet" of GW bites the dust when proper research is done.

Uninteded consequences are indeed among the most common trials and pratfalls of human interaction with the natural world. Please cite or reference where penguin deaths are an expected current outcome of current climate conditions attributable to AGW. It may well be the case that such was postulated, I'm simply unaware of that assertion. My focus within AGW is rooted more

(PS - if you are going to play a scientist on the intertubes, at least get the lingo right, incidents like extinction events and severe weather anomalies might be appropriately described as potential "products of," "results" or even "consequences" of AGW, but in science a "tenet" is a foundational element of understanding upon which more refined and complete understandings and theories are constructed. Referring to an effect as a cause tends to tip others off that you don't even read much science yet alone possess any significant competency, background or education within its general or various specific expressions.)

... Le Maho and colleagues have previously used electronic tagging of king penguins to show that just 0.26 ºC of warming in sea-surface temperatures could trigger a 9% decline in adult survival2. If banding were used in such studies, its consequences on a population could cripple attempts to extrapolate a climate-linked trend from the data

"if banding were used..." well, then it seems its a good thing for the penguin populations that this potential problem has been recognized and understood before such studies are carried out and such methodology is attempted,...don't you agree?

 

[westwall]

How about this one then. Remember back a few years ago when GW was killing the penguins? Remember that?

No, actually I don't. Please reference any scientific paper that linked penguin deaths to AGW. I recall studies which indicated that in the future, the change of the environment in the Antarctic might cause problems for species, but I don't recall any reports of current mass deaths in the species being attributed to AGW.

Turns out it wasn't GW that was killing them it was the scientists tagging them that are! Yep, you heard it correctly the act of observing them is what was killing them as very nicely explained in this NATURE article. Yet another "tenet" of GW bites the dust when proper research is done.

Uninteded consequences are indeed among the most common trials and pratfalls of human interaction with the natural world. Please cite or reference where penguin deaths are an expected current outcome of current climate conditions attributable to AGW. It may well be the case that such was postulated, I'm simply unaware of that assertion. My focus within AGW is rooted more

(PS - if you are going to play a scientist on the intertubes, at least get the lingo right, incidents like extinction events and severe weather anomalies might be appropriately described as potential "products of," "results" or even "consequences" of AGW, but in science a "tenet" is a foundational element of understanding upon which more refined and complete understandings and theories are constructed. Referring to an effect as a cause tends to tip others off that you don't even read much science yet alone possess any significant competency, background or education within its general or various specific expressions.)

... Le Maho and colleagues have previously used electronic tagging of king penguins to show that just 0.26 ºC of warming in sea-surface temperatures could trigger a 9% decline in adult survival2. If banding were used in such studies, its consequences on a population could cripple attempts to extrapolate a climate-linked trend from the data

"if banding were used..." well, then it seems its a good thing for the penguin populations that this potential problem has been recognized and understood before such studies are carried out and such methodology is attempted,...don't you agree?

I just did, read it thoroughly. You're really out of your depth here aren't you? I suggest you immerse yourself in research and get caught up.

 

[Trakar]

...Even the heavily biased "investigations" of Jones et all found that they had corrupted the peer review process...

Cite or reference please.

Look it up yourself, as you so aptly said, tutoring costs money. You have a lot to catch up on so get started. Your info is years out of date.

"He who asserts must also prove"

 

[Trakar]

I just did, read it thoroughly...

Then why do your words seem to make different statements, and often take diametrically opposing postions, of the references you quote?