Magnetic Apocalypse?

[boedicca]

We watched the Very Silly Movie "2012" last night.

Amidst the scientifically illiterate bogosity of the Sun's neutrinos melting the earth's core is sociogical theme which is quite true: faced with the imminent destruction of the world, governmental leaders and bureaucrats will save themselves while lying to everyone else.

If Earth as we know it is going to be destroyed, I'd rather die than be faced with rebuilding civilization which a bunch of DC elitists.

 

[westwall]

The magnetic polls flip, just as the earth warms and cools. Humans are arrogant enough to believe it has anything to do with us.

The earth has a plan of its own, and it could care less about humanity.

and im good with that

About two billion years ago, single celled creatures totally changed the content of the atmosphere of this planet. Life can indeed do major things to a planetary atmosphere. And we have already created a 40% increase in the CO2, a 150% increase in the CH4. And added industrial gasses that are thousands of times as effective GHG as CO2.

That was certainly the accepted wisdom (should I be so bold as to call it a consensus?) a decade or so ago. However a geochemist by the name of Hiroshi Ohmoto and his colleagues have been examining lacustrine deposits in western Australia that are between 2.76 and 2.92 billion years old that have sulfer isotope ratios similar to much more modern rocks. The most logical explanation for this is that the Earth had an oxygentated atmosphere much earlier than was previously believed.

The Earth has a atmosphere because of life. The vast majority (over 95%) of the gasses are produced naturally. Man could pollute like its going out of style and the results would be pretty catastrophic on the local level. However the climate is independant of any thing man can do. It's primary energy source is the sun. It gets a little bit of heat from radioactive deacy internally, the rest is cyclic based on orbital perturbations.

We have AMPLE evidence that what I have just written is true and factual. We have decades of research showing multiple warming periods independent of mans influence.
We have 30 years of "research" that is inexact, massaged, and outright fabricated showing it to be mans fault.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Old Rocks]

Jeez old fraud,

You trot that same old crap out every time don't you. What is it on auto post?
However to the point; NONE of those little end of the world scenarios has any factual data to support them. Not one little bit. They are dreamed up by some little cultist writing a science fiction novella for some pulp magazine...damn there I go dating myself!

If there were going to be a "methane catastrophe" jesu maria christo they overuse that term, it would most certainly have occured during the MWP when it was three degrees warmer. It didn't. Nor did it occur during the RWP when it was even warmer.

Yet another failed hypothesis designed to scare the natives.

It's just silly now.

Had you the slightest knowledge of geology, you would know that the cycle of GHGs rise by Trapp volcanics, then release of methane clathrates has happened several times in the past. And the physics of the process cares not at all that this time it is not volcanics introducing the GHGs into the atmosphere, but mankind. Once the cycle gets to a certain point, the results are inevitable.

The MWP was primarily a northern hemisphere event, not even a trace of it in the Antarctic Ice Cores. As for the RWP, not enough data to present it even as a hemispherical event. And neither was as warm as you fellows try to make out. We are warmer now than either event. And neither event had anything to do with GHGs.

You are wrong (as usual) on all counts. In order; yes the Trapps released huge amounts of methane and CO2. Erwin and Paull have tried to show that this was a leading cause of the P-T extinction. The problem is the length of time that the exinctions occured (1 million to 8 million years depending on who you believe) preclude the Trapps as being a sole source for extinction. Additionally the vast majority of evidence supports a COOLING of the planet not a warming.

The process of global warming is natural. It has happened in the past and it will happen in the future, as will cooling. It doesn't give a rats ass how much CO2 man is injecting into the atmosphere as it is a trivial amount compared to the natural CO2 emitted by the planet.


The MWP is proving itself to have been a GLOBAL event. Sea bottom cores taken in Polynesia have been found to show the MWP was in operation in the southern hemisphere as well.

Try reading a real science journal some time instead of wiki, you might learn something.

U/Pb Zircon Geochronology and Tempo of the End-Permian Mass Extinction -- Bowring et al. 280 (5366): 1039 -- Science

U/Pb Zircon Geochronology and Tempo of the End-Permian Mass Extinction
S. A. Bowring, * D. H. Erwin, Y. G. Jin, M. W. Martin, K. Davidek, W. Wang

The mass extinction at the end of the Permian was the most profound in the history of life. Fundamental to understanding its cause is determining the tempo and duration of the extinction. Uranium/lead zircon data from Late Permian and Early Triassic rocks from south China place the Permian-Triassic boundary at 251.4 ± 0.3 million years ago. Biostratigraphic controls from strata intercalated with ash beds below the boundary indicate that the Changhsingian pulse of the end-Permian extinction, corresponding to the disappearance of about 85 percent of marine species, lasted less than 1 million years. At Meishan, a negative excursion in 13C at the boundary had a duration of 165,000 years or less, suggesting a catastrophic addition of light carbon.

S. A. Bowring, M. W. Martin, and K. Davidek are in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02319, USA. D. H. Erwin is in the Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC 20560, USA. Y. G. Jin and W. Wang are at the Laboratory of Paleobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology, Academia Sinica, Nanjing, 210008, People's Republic of China.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

 

[Old Rocks]

Jeez old fraud,

You trot that same old crap out every time don't you. What is it on auto post?
However to the point; NONE of those little end of the world scenarios has any factual data to support them. Not one little bit. They are dreamed up by some little cultist writing a science fiction novella for some pulp magazine...damn there I go dating myself!

If there were going to be a "methane catastrophe" jesu maria christo they overuse that term, it would most certainly have occured during the MWP when it was three degrees warmer. It didn't. Nor did it occur during the RWP when it was even warmer.

Yet another failed hypothesis designed to scare the natives.

It's just silly now.

Had you the slightest knowledge of geology, you would know that the cycle of GHGs rise by Trapp volcanics, then release of methane clathrates has happened several times in the past. And the physics of the process cares not at all that this time it is not volcanics introducing the GHGs into the atmosphere, but mankind. Once the cycle gets to a certain point, the results are inevitable.

The MWP was primarily a northern hemisphere event, not even a trace of it in the Antarctic Ice Cores. As for the RWP, not enough data to present it even as a hemispherical event. And neither was as warm as you fellows try to make out. We are warmer now than either event. And neither event had anything to do with GHGs.

You are wrong (as usual) on all counts. In order; yes the Trapps released huge amounts of methane and CO2. Erwin and Paull have tried to show that this was a leading cause of the P-T extinction. The problem is the length of time that the exinctions occured (1 million to 8 million years depending on who you believe) preclude the Trapps as being a sole source for extinction. Additionally the vast majority of evidence supports a COOLING of the planet not a warming.

The process of global warming is natural. It has happened in the past and it will happen in the future, as will cooling. It doesn't give a rats ass how much CO2 man is injecting into the atmosphere as it is a trivial amount compared to the natural CO2 emitted by the planet.


The MWP is proving itself to have been a GLOBAL event. Sea bottom cores taken in Polynesia have been found to show the MWP was in operation in the southern hemisphere as well.

Try reading a real science journal some time instead of wiki, you might learn something.

Of course it is natural. The laws of physics state that you add GHGs to the atmosphere, and the atmosphere naturally warms. The same laws of physics do not give a damn whether those GHGs come from Trapp Volcanics intruding on ocean clathrates, or from a certain naked ape burning fossil fuels.

 

[Old Rocks]

Jeez old fraud,

You trot that same old crap out every time don't you. What is it on auto post?
However to the point; NONE of those little end of the world scenarios has any factual data to support them. Not one little bit. They are dreamed up by some little cultist writing a science fiction novella for some pulp magazine...damn there I go dating myself!

If there were going to be a "methane catastrophe" jesu maria christo they overuse that term, it would most certainly have occured during the MWP when it was three degrees warmer. It didn't. Nor did it occur during the RWP when it was even warmer.

Yet another failed hypothesis designed to scare the natives.

It's just silly now.

Had you the slightest knowledge of geology, you would know that the cycle of GHGs rise by Trapp volcanics, then release of methane clathrates has happened several times in the past. And the physics of the process cares not at all that this time it is not volcanics introducing the GHGs into the atmosphere, but mankind. Once the cycle gets to a certain point, the results are inevitable.

The MWP was primarily a northern hemisphere event, not even a trace of it in the Antarctic Ice Cores. As for the RWP, not enough data to present it even as a hemispherical event. And neither was as warm as you fellows try to make out. We are warmer now than either event. And neither event had anything to do with GHGs.

You are wrong (as usual) on all counts. In order; yes the Trapps released huge amounts of methane and CO2. Erwin and Paull have tried to show that this was a leading cause of the P-T extinction. The problem is the length of time that the exinctions occured (1 million to 8 million years depending on who you believe) preclude the Trapps as being a sole source for extinction. Additionally the vast majority of evidence supports a COOLING of the planet not a warming.

The process of global warming is natural. It has happened in the past and it will happen in the future, as will cooling. It doesn't give a rats ass how much CO2 man is injecting into the atmosphere as it is a trivial amount compared to the natural CO2 emitted by the planet.


The MWP is proving itself to have been a GLOBAL event. Sea bottom cores taken in Polynesia have been found to show the MWP was in operation in the southern hemisphere as well.

Try reading a real science journal some time instead of wiki, you might learn something.

AOL Search

Abstract. It has frequently been suggested that the period encompassing the
ninth to the fourteenth centuries A.D. experienced a climate warmer than that
prevailing around the turn of the twentieth century. This epoch has become known
as the Medieval Warm Period, since it coincides with the Middle Ages in Europe.
In this review a number of lines of evidence are considered, (including climatesensitive
tree rings, documentary sources, and montane glaciers) in order to
evaluate whether it is reasonable to conclude that climate in medieval times was,
indeed, warmer than the climate of more recent times. Our review indicates that
for some areas of the globe (for example, Scandinavia, China, the Sierra Nevada
in California, the Canadian Rockies and Tasmania), temperatures, particularly
in summer, appear to have been higher during some parts of this period than
those that were to prevail until the most recent decades of the twentieth century.
These warmer regional episodes were not strongly synchronous. Evidence from
other regions (for example, the Southeast United States, southern Europe along
the Mediterranean, and parts of South America) indicates that the climate during
that time was little different to that of later times, or that warming, if it occurred,
was recorded at a later time than has been assumed. Taken together, the available
evidence does not support a global Medieval Warm Period, although more support
for such a phenomenon could be drawn from high-elevation records than from
low-elevation records.
The available data exhibit significant decadal to century scale variability throughout
the last millennium. A comparison of 30-year averages for various climate
indices places recent decades in a longer term perspective.

 

[daveman]

Jeez old fraud,

You trot that same old crap out every time don't you. What is it on auto post?
However to the point; NONE of those little end of the world scenarios has any factual data to support them. Not one little bit. They are dreamed up by some little cultist writing a science fiction novella for some pulp magazine...damn there I go dating myself!

If there were going to be a "methane catastrophe" jesu maria christo they overuse that term, it would most certainly have occured during the MWP when it was three degrees warmer. It didn't. Nor did it occur during the RWP when it was even warmer.

Yet another failed hypothesis designed to scare the natives.

It's just silly now.

Had you the slightest knowledge of geology...

What's your degree in?

 

[Old Rocks]

The magnetic polls flip, just as the earth warms and cools. Humans are arrogant enough to believe it has anything to do with us.

The earth has a plan of its own, and it could care less about humanity.

and im good with that

About two billion years ago, single celled creatures totally changed the content of the atmosphere of this planet. Life can indeed do major things to a planetary atmosphere. And we have already created a 40% increase in the CO2, a 150% increase in the CH4. And added industrial gasses that are thousands of times as effective GHG as CO2.

That was certainly the accepted wisdom (should I be so bold as to call it a consensus?) a decade or so ago. However a geochemist by the name of Hiroshi Ohmoto and his colleagues have been examining lacustrine deposits in western Australia that are between 2.76 and 2.92 billion years old that have sulfer isotope ratios similar to much more modern rocks. The most logical explanation for this is that the Earth had an oxygentated atmosphere much earlier than was previously believed.

The Earth has a atmosphere because of life. The vast majority (over 95%) of the gasses are produced naturally. Man could pollute like its going out of style and the results would be pretty catastrophic on the local level. However the climate is independant of any thing man can do. It's primary energy source is the sun. It gets a little bit of heat from radioactive deacy internally, the rest is cyclic based on orbital perturbations.

We have AMPLE evidence that what I have just written is true and factual. We have decades of research showing multiple warming periods independent of mans influence.
We have 30 years of "research" that is inexact, massaged, and outright fabricated showing it to be mans fault.

Prove me wrong.

According to this article, the oxygenation started about 2.7. billion years ago, had significant oxygen in the atmosphere by 2.45 billion years ago, but not the modern percentage until much more time had passed.

The Origin of Oxygen in Earth's Atmosphere: Scientific American

But roughly 2.45 billion years ago, the isotopic ratio of sulfur transformed, indicating that for the first time oxygen was becoming a significant component of Earth's atmosphere, according to a 2000 paper in Science. At roughly the same time (and for eons thereafter), oxidized iron began to appear in ancient soils and bands of iron were deposited on the seafloor, a product of reactions with oxygen in the seawater.

"What it looks like is that oxygen was first produced somewhere around 2.7 billion to 2.8 billon years ago. It took up residence in atmosphere around 2.45 billion years ago," says geochemist Dick Holland, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. "It looks as if there's a significant time interval between the appearance of oxygen-producing organisms and the actual oxygenation of the atmosphere."

So a date and a culprit can be fixed for what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation Event, but mysteries remain. What occurred 2.45 billion years ago that enabled cyanobacteria to take over? What were oxygen levels at that time? Why did it take another one billion years—dubbed the "boring billion" by scientists—for oxygen levels to rise high enough to enable the evolution of animals?

 

[Old Rocks]

Jeez old fraud,

You trot that same old crap out every time don't you. What is it on auto post?
However to the point; NONE of those little end of the world scenarios has any factual data to support them. Not one little bit. They are dreamed up by some little cultist writing a science fiction novella for some pulp magazine...damn there I go dating myself!

If there were going to be a "methane catastrophe" jesu maria christo they overuse that term, it would most certainly have occured during the MWP when it was three degrees warmer. It didn't. Nor did it occur during the RWP when it was even warmer.

Yet another failed hypothesis designed to scare the natives.

It's just silly now.

Had you the slightest knowledge of geology...

What's your degree in?

What's yours in, Practical Idiocy?

 

[westwall]

Jeez old fraud,

You trot that same old crap out every time don't you. What is it on auto post?
However to the point; NONE of those little end of the world scenarios has any factual data to support them. Not one little bit. They are dreamed up by some little cultist writing a science fiction novella for some pulp magazine...damn there I go dating myself!

If there were going to be a "methane catastrophe" jesu maria christo they overuse that term, it would most certainly have occured during the MWP when it was three degrees warmer. It didn't. Nor did it occur during the RWP when it was even warmer.

Yet another failed hypothesis designed to scare the natives.

It's just silly now.

Had you the slightest knowledge of geology...

What's your degree in?

Old fraud has a PhD in tomfoolery and the support of cultism

 

[westwall]

Had you the slightest knowledge of geology, you would know that the cycle of GHGs rise by Trapp volcanics, then release of methane clathrates has happened several times in the past. And the physics of the process cares not at all that this time it is not volcanics introducing the GHGs into the atmosphere, but mankind. Once the cycle gets to a certain point, the results are inevitable.

The MWP was primarily a northern hemisphere event, not even a trace of it in the Antarctic Ice Cores. As for the RWP, not enough data to present it even as a hemispherical event. And neither was as warm as you fellows try to make out. We are warmer now than either event. And neither event had anything to do with GHGs.

You are wrong (as usual) on all counts. In order; yes the Trapps released huge amounts of methane and CO2. Erwin and Paull have tried to show that this was a leading cause of the P-T extinction. The problem is the length of time that the exinctions occured (1 million to 8 million years depending on who you believe) preclude the Trapps as being a sole source for extinction. Additionally the vast majority of evidence supports a COOLING of the planet not a warming.

The process of global warming is natural. It has happened in the past and it will happen in the future, as will cooling. It doesn't give a rats ass how much CO2 man is injecting into the atmosphere as it is a trivial amount compared to the natural CO2 emitted by the planet.


The MWP is proving itself to have been a GLOBAL event. Sea bottom cores taken in Polynesia have been found to show the MWP was in operation in the southern hemisphere as well.

Try reading a real science journal some time instead of wiki, you might learn something.

AOL Search

Abstract. It has frequently been suggested that the period encompassing the
ninth to the fourteenth centuries A.D. experienced a climate warmer than that
prevailing around the turn of the twentieth century. This epoch has become known
as the Medieval Warm Period, since it coincides with the Middle Ages in Europe.
In this review a number of lines of evidence are considered, (including climatesensitive
tree rings, documentary sources, and montane glaciers) in order to
evaluate whether it is reasonable to conclude that climate in medieval times was,
indeed, warmer than the climate of more recent times. Our review indicates that
for some areas of the globe (for example, Scandinavia, China, the Sierra Nevada
in California, the Canadian Rockies and Tasmania), temperatures, particularly
in summer, appear to have been higher during some parts of this period than
those that were to prevail until the most recent decades of the twentieth century.
These warmer regional episodes were not strongly synchronous. Evidence from
other regions (for example, the Southeast United States, southern Europe along
the Mediterranean, and parts of South America) indicates that the climate during
that time was little different to that of later times, or that warming, if it occurred,
was recorded at a later time than has been assumed. Taken together, the available
evidence does not support a global Medieval Warm Period, although more support
for such a phenomenon could be drawn from high-elevation records than from
low-elevation records.
The available data exhibit significant decadal to century scale variability throughout
the last millennium. A comparison of 30-year averages for various climate
indices places recent decades in a longer term perspective.

I'll let a colleague answer. Oh and BTW try finding something other than wiki based reports. I can't think of a single professor who allows wiki to be used. Far too much innacurate info.
I also posted the whole declaration and highlighted the relevant section for the reading impaired.


U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works


U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Hearing Statements
Date: 12/06/2006

Statement of Dr. David Deming
University of Oklahoma
College of Earth and Energy
Climate Change and the Media

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and distinguished guests, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am a geologist and geophysicist. I have a bachelor's degree in geology from Indiana University, and a Ph.D in geophysics from the University of Utah. My field of specialization in geophysics is temperature and heat flow. In recent years, I have turned my studies to the history and philosophy of science. In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.
I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages.

The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."

In 1769, Joseph Priestley warned that scientists overly attached to a favorite hypothesis would not hesitate to "warp the whole course of nature." In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph.

Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.

There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed on this and other environmental issues.

Earth's climate system is complex and poorly understood. But we do know that throughout human history, warmer temperatures have been associated with more stable climates and increased human health and prosperity. Colder temperatures have been correlated with climatic instability, famine, and increased human mortality.

The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.


# # # # #

 

[westwall]

About two billion years ago, single celled creatures totally changed the content of the atmosphere of this planet. Life can indeed do major things to a planetary atmosphere. And we have already created a 40% increase in the CO2, a 150% increase in the CH4. And added industrial gasses that are thousands of times as effective GHG as CO2.

That was certainly the accepted wisdom (should I be so bold as to call it a consensus?) a decade or so ago. However a geochemist by the name of Hiroshi Ohmoto and his colleagues have been examining lacustrine deposits in western Australia that are between 2.76 and 2.92 billion years old that have sulfer isotope ratios similar to much more modern rocks. The most logical explanation for this is that the Earth had an oxygentated atmosphere much earlier than was previously believed.

The Earth has a atmosphere because of life. The vast majority (over 95%) of the gasses are produced naturally. Man could pollute like its going out of style and the results would be pretty catastrophic on the local level. However the climate is independant of any thing man can do. It's primary energy source is the sun. It gets a little bit of heat from radioactive deacy internally, the rest is cyclic based on orbital perturbations.

We have AMPLE evidence that what I have just written is true and factual. We have decades of research showing multiple warming periods independent of mans influence.
We have 30 years of "research" that is inexact, massaged, and outright fabricated showing it to be mans fault.

Prove me wrong.

According to this article, the oxygenation started about 2.7. billion years ago, had significant oxygen in the atmosphere by 2.45 billion years ago, but not the modern percentage until much more time had passed.

The Origin of Oxygen in Earth's Atmosphere: Scientific American

But roughly 2.45 billion years ago, the isotopic ratio of sulfur transformed, indicating that for the first time oxygen was becoming a significant component of Earth's atmosphere, according to a 2000 paper in Science. At roughly the same time (and for eons thereafter), oxidized iron began to appear in ancient soils and bands of iron were deposited on the seafloor, a product of reactions with oxygen in the seawater.

"What it looks like is that oxygen was first produced somewhere around 2.7 billion to 2.8 billon years ago. It took up residence in atmosphere around 2.45 billion years ago," says geochemist Dick Holland, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. "It looks as if there's a significant time interval between the appearance of oxygen-producing organisms and the actual oxygenation of the atmosphere."

So a date and a culprit can be fixed for what scientists refer to as the Great Oxidation Event, but mysteries remain. What occurred 2.45 billion years ago that enabled cyanobacteria to take over? What were oxygen levels at that time? Why did it take another one billion years—dubbed the "boring billion" by scientists—for oxygen levels to rise high enough to enable the evolution of animals?

Yes a nice rather old article there old fraud. That's why you have to have access to the scientific journals. That is how you stay a little more current on the state of research out there. You're presenting last months news. Hell that's last years news.

 

[Douger]

The magnetic poles flip quite often on a geological time scale. And there is no record of that flipping having ever negatively affected life at that time.

On the other hand, there are several times in the geological records when we have had a spike of GHGs, and all are accompanied with extinction periods, minor to great.

And you're trying to prevent an extinction event in your own time. How humble.

Flipping the poles might be cause a worldwide EMP, the best part of which will be I won't have to read your dire "AGW!!" Warning anymore

No, I am not. We are already well into a major extinction event from our other actions. And I believe that we are already well past the tipping point. What will be, will be. But there are those wise enough to take action for themselves if they realize what is coming down the pike.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbKHDPPrrc]YouTube - Doris Day - Que Sera Sera[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

This David Deming, right?

His statement that a 'Major Reseacher' made a certain statement is very reminescent of 'Tailgunner Joe's' statements in the early '50s. And has the same veracity.

His predicted cooling is feeling pretty warm this year. Just another hack, proven wrong already.

Inhofe: less honest than the Discovery Institute : Deltoid

David Deming, Associate Professor of Geosciences, University of Oklahoma. In an op-ed in the Edmond Sun he wrote

Obama is a vapid demagogue, a hollow man that despises American culture. He is ill-suited to be president of the United States. As the weeks pass, more Americans will come to this realization and elect McCain/Palin in a landslide.

So you can guess that his writing about climate in this week's Washington Times is likely to be as accurate as his election prediction:

But the last two years of global cooling have nearly erased 30 years of temperature increases. To the extent that global warming ever existed, it is now officially over.

 

[westwall]

This David Deming, right?

His statement that a 'Major Reseacher' made a certain statement is very reminescent of 'Tailgunner Joe's' statements in the early '50s. And has the same veracity.

His predicted cooling is feeling pretty warm this year. Just another hack, proven wrong already.

Inhofe: less honest than the Discovery Institute : Deltoid

David Deming, Associate Professor of Geosciences, University of Oklahoma. In an op-ed in the Edmond Sun he wrote

Obama is a vapid demagogue, a hollow man that despises American culture. He is ill-suited to be president of the United States. As the weeks pass, more Americans will come to this realization and elect McCain/Palin in a landslide.

So you can guess that his writing about climate in this week's Washington Times is likely to be as accurate as his election prediction:

But the last two years of global cooling have nearly erased 30 years of temperature increases. To the extent that global warming ever existed, it is now officially over.

Your goals should be to attack the message rather then the messenger. Continuous ad hom attacks are another reason why the people no longer believe your crap. The MWP is a fact. It is well documented and everywhere it has been looked for it has been found. Both in the northern and southern hemispheres.

The GW cultists realised that if the MWP was not "disappeared" then Mann's assertions and his ridiculous hockey stick were not just wrong but damnably wrong. That's why the infamous "we must lose the MWP" email is so damning. If it weren't a fact, and if it weren't global why would they even care?

The answer is it was it was and they know it and it negates all of their BS and they know that too. Which is why they tried to eliminate it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Walleyes, that MWP is well addressed in the PNAS publication concerning the temperatures for the last 2000 years.

 

[daveman]

Had you the slightest knowledge of geology...

What's your degree in?

What's yours in, Practical Idiocy?

No, an associate's laser electro-optics. Couple hours short of an associate's in electrical engineering.

Your degree?

 

[daveman]

Had you the slightest knowledge of geology...

What's your degree in?

Old fraud has a PhD in tomfoolery and the support of cultism

I'm just trying to determine his qualifications for judging someone else's credentials, other than "do they repeat what I want to hear".

 

[Old Rocks]

No degree at all. Three years college in geology, last class finished, Eng. Geo 470/570. An Associates degree would not have gained me anything, never applied for it. Was working as a Journy level Millwright before I started taking classes, and after '72, just went back to my tools.

However, I have continued my interest in Geology, reading textbooks for fun. And have walked rock from Yellowknife to the Mexican border.

 

[daveman]

No degree at all.

Then perhaps you have no reason to denigrate anyone else's.

Three years college in geology, last class finished, Eng. Geo 470/570. An Associates degree would not have gained me anything, never applied for it. Was working as a Journy level Millwright before I started taking classes, and after '72, just went back to my tools.

However, I have continued my interest in Geology, reading textbooks for fun. And have walked rock from Yellowknife to the Mexican border.

Oh, well, walking. Now there's a qualification all too underrated.

 

[Old Rocks]

What's your degree in?

Old fraud has a PhD in tomfoolery and the support of cultism

I'm just trying to determine his qualifications for judging someone else's credentials, other than "do they repeat what I want to hear".

Note that I show sources where I got my data. And, for the most part, they are from peer reviewed journals, or government agencies such as the USGS, NOAA, and NASA.

I have yet to see you post a source for you opinion, or any data to back up those opinions.