For the AGW Faithers

[Liability]

I would neg rep you right back, sweetie pie, but I don't go off neg repping anyone who disagrees with me like a spoiled brat.

I should pos rep you now for you having the balls to use the term "spoiled brat".

Perhaps you really should have put me on ignore like you said you did. Looks like there really is no reason to believe a thing you say.

I did have you on ignore for quite some time. Then I kept noticing, again, that you appear here an inordinate amount of time within a 24-hour period, so I couldn't resist checking out who your newest victims were who have to be subjected to your egotistic posted sense of superiority.

Maggot only likes it when SHE is the one posting with an egotistical sense of superiority!

 

[Liability]

Ah. Did I get a rise outta you, precious? A comment about "honesty" offends you -- unless it is YOU making the comment about others.

Check.

Typical liberoidal hypocrisy at work.

Go chase someone else around the board, idiot. I can't be bothered with you.
This message is hidden because Liability is on your ignore list.

Hey Maggot; responding to your constant flow of stupidity isn't "chasing you around the board," you vacuous rancid old dildo. It is just responding. I have responded to you almost exactly as much as you have responded to me. Hope the math clears that massive confusion of yours up a bit, you ******* moron!

Oh, and here's a little hint. If somebody now quotes any of my posts, you will still get to treasure them!

Happy dreams, Maggot!

 

[Si modo]

I would neg rep you right back, sweetie pie, but I don't go off neg repping anyone who disagrees with me like a spoiled brat.

I should pos rep you now for you having the balls to use the term "spoiled brat".

Perhaps you really should have put me on ignore like you said you did. Looks like there really is no reason to believe a thing you say.

I did have you on ignore for quite some time. Then I kept noticing, again, that you appear here an inordinate amount of time within a 24-hour period, so I couldn't resist checking out who your newest victims were who have to be subjected to your egotistic posted sense of superiority.

Your feelings of inferiority don't interest me at all when I'm trying to debate the science. I am sure that your feelings have no bearing whatsoever on the science. Perhaps Oprah's or Dr. Phil's forum (I'm guessing they have them) would be better suited for you to vent your feelings.

 

[Toronado3800]

Usually stuff on the board makes me go read this or that. Maybe modify my opinion. I get that feeling here like I do when I get caught watching Jerry Springer

 

[Chris]

Usually stuff on the board makes me go read this or that. Maybe modify my opinion. I get that feeling here like I do when I get caught watching Jerry Springer

Or Glenn Beck.

 

[Navy1960]

Over and over again I have seen many that support the claim made by those that support the global warming theory that it is science. Well lets take a look at science then, shall we. Science at one time as early as the 1970's believed that the earth was not warming and in fact was facing a global ice age because of the effects of pollution. One of the principle authors of this theory is also one of the principle authors that now supports the theory of man made global warming. Science also made the claim for many years that pluto was a planet and in fact so much so , to the point where it was listed as the 9th planet in the solar system in just about every text book in every American school. That was until science discovered an even bigger body beyond pluto and then decided that pluto was not a planet after all and recatagorized it. Even more science the earth is surronded by a radiation belt known as the Van Allen Belt, when science was debating the merits of the Apollo program one of the biggest concerns was if man could survive a trip to the moon because they would have to pass through the Van Allen Belt. Some scientist even claimed this was impossible because the radiation dose would be so severe they would die before they got there. Well as we all know results of that theory with Apollo 8 and onto the landing with Apollo 11 even though the tin foil hat crowd still believes the moon landings did not take place. All of you or at least some of you know who Dr. Robert Ballard is, if not he is the Scientist that discovered the Titanic, what you may not know is that he was not looking for the Titanic but rather was looking for 2 US Navy submarines at the time , however his biggest discovery was not the Titanic it was the discovery of tube worms where no one thought they would ever be able to live. The point here is people science can always change when you least expect it too and to irrationally base policy and procedures on science that is by no means settled will result in throwing a blanket over discovery and that is the true nature of science. discovery, and when you get it in your mind that no one has a right to call into question the nature of a conclusion you give up on discovery. I suggest that this is the kind of policy that those that burned heritics at the stake for even suggesting that the earth was not flat or that it was not the center of the universe.

 

[Bern80]

The majority of scientists still consider GW to be a fact.

Those who argue it is myth have no real proof as time is the primary determinant.

The thread is questioning the validity of AGW not GW. You're either too dumb to know the difference or you are purposly trying to miselad. Take your pick.

Why is a topic as serious as GW debated by people with no knowledge of climate?

Ask Al Gore.

Those who argue GW is wrong argue from a purely adversarial position.

See point one....again

If GW is exaggerated the effort to control and clean up the air remains a positive endeavor.

If it is not a problem (and there most certainly would be benefits to a warmer climate), no it not worth the financial burden we would place on people (i.e. tax and trade) to try to prevent a problem that is not really a problem.

Green technology's benefits far out weigh pollution and is required because most resources used today are limited anyway.

If that were true the market would already have adopted it. They are the final deciders of what is beneficial. The environmental aspect is the only factor that seems to mater to the tree huggers. Unfortunately that is not the only cirteria as to whether something is 'beneficaial'. It must also be cost effective (see: not subsidized) and efficient. Currently most green energy isn't.

If we do nothing and GW is serious we will not care, we will be dead, so the argument loses immediacy.

The science does not support that doomsday scenario. Greenhouse gases are indeed like a blanket. They trap heat. Also like a blanket, the amount of heat you can trap decreases with ever increasing levels. That is you can put on a blanket to keep warm, but you aren't in any danger of burning to a cinder if you decided to pile on a few hundred blankets.

 

[Liability]

STILL no AGW proponents willing to honestly just take-on the questions posed in the OP, I see.

This is pretty much what I had expected, for a variety of reasons.

 

[amrchaos]

If ANY Member of "the Faith" (i.e., the former scientists who now practice the Religion of AGW) were to even begin to TRY to make the old AGW argument, to do so in a scientific way, they would HAVE to rely on DATA. This raises some questions, wouldn't you say?

Question:

WHAT data would they now rely upon?

Question:

Why?

Question:

Is the data reliable?

Question:

How do you know the data is reliable?

Question:

What is the contrary data?

Question:

Do we have access to that contrary data?

Question:

If not, why not?

Question:

If we don't have access to ALL the data, can we perform "good science?"

Question:

In all honesty, as a scientist, wouldn't you agree that without good, reliable and complete data being shared and disseminated freely in an unaltered form, no valid scientific conclusions can be reached?




Of course, it is a clear possibility that I MIGHT be leaving a "few" questions out....


(Disclaimer: This post of mine is lifted from another thread. I thought it might serve as a springboard in its own thread.)

Well, I am quizzical about global warming myself at the moment regarding the emails and scandals surounding it But I think I can answer you last two questions.


LQ1: If we don't have access to ALL the data, can we perform "good science?"
Yes, It is still possible to come up with theories and model given SUFFICIENT data. All the data would be wonderful, but there are cases where all the data is not possible.

LQ2:In all honesty, as a scientist, wouldn't you agree that without good, reliable and complete data being shared and disseminated freely in an unaltered form, no valid scientific conclusions can be reached?


First--Good, reliable and suffiient data is needed to help lend justificiation to a scientific conclusion. The data can be altered to other forms if the research group is looking for something specific. Even in the case for "altering the data", the original collected data must be preserved and methodology used to collect it documented. (add on --Also how it was altered documented as well!!)

It does not seem like the scientists implemented in the scandal did this either. Too bad they are not Physicists!! They could not hold a Colloquium without being ridiculed or scorned based on that alone!!

 

[Liability]

If ANY Member of "the Faith" (i.e., the former scientists who now practice the Religion of AGW) were to even begin to TRY to make the old AGW argument, to do so in a scientific way, they would HAVE to rely on DATA. This raises some questions, wouldn't you say?

Question:

WHAT data would they now rely upon?

Question:

Why?

Question:

Is the data reliable?

Question:

How do you know the data is reliable?

Question:

What is the contrary data?

Question:

Do we have access to that contrary data?

Question:

If not, why not?

Question:

If we don't have access to ALL the data, can we perform "good science?"

Question:

In all honesty, as a scientist, wouldn't you agree that without good, reliable and complete data being shared and disseminated freely in an unaltered form, no valid scientific conclusions can be reached?




Of course, it is a clear possibility that I MIGHT be leaving a "few" questions out....


(Disclaimer: This post of mine is lifted from another thread. I thought it might serve as a springboard in its own thread.)

Well, I am quizzical about global warming myself at the moment regarding the emails and scandals surounding it But I think I can answer you last two questions.


LQ1: If we don't have access to ALL the data, can we perform "good science?"
Yes, It is still possible to come up with theories and model given SUFFICIENT data. All the data would be wonderful, but there are cases where all the data is not possible.

LQ2:In all honesty, as a scientist, wouldn't you agree that without good, reliable and complete data being shared and disseminated freely in an unaltered form, no valid scientific conclusions can be reached?


First--Good, reliable and suffiient data is needed to help lend justificiation to a scientific conclusion. The data can be altered to other forms if the research group is looking for something specific. Even in the case for "altering the data", the original collected data must be preserved and methodology used to collect it documented. (add on --Also how it was altered documented as well!!)

It does not seem like the scientists implemented in the scandal did this either. Too bad they are not Physicists!! They could not hold a Colloquium without being ridiculed or scorned based on that alone!!

Without going into any agreement or disagreement about what you said, I want to congratulate you for having the backbone to address some of the questions straight-up.

That is, as you might have seen, rare around here.

 

[Toronado3800]

If it is not a problem (and there most certainly would be benefits to a warmer climate), no it not worth the financial burden we would place on people (i.e. tax and trade) to try to prevent a problem that is not really a problem.

I would be concerned about any rapid change in the land sea ratio. The folks living in them low lying areas probably are too.

STILL no AGW proponents willing to honestly just take-on the questions posed in the OP, I see.

This is pretty much what I had expected, for a variety of reasons.

Did you want me to copy and paste my reply? It was on page 3.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

STILL no AGW proponents willing to honestly just take-on the questions posed in the OP, I see.

This is pretty much what I had expected, for a variety of reasons.

Did you want me to copy and paste my reply? It was on page 3.

I believe I already replied to some of what you had said, so yes. I should amend my post. You were it seems the first AGW proponent to even try to answer some of the questions.

Consider this the correction. Duly noted.

It is still the case that getting an answer is a rare thing.

 

[Navy1960]

After reading a few of the posts, maybe it might help a few people to know what AGW is,

Anthropogenic Global Warming

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century.[1][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[1] The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries
Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just a little fyi, and to add a dsiclaimer here, this is NOT an endorsement of science by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Toronado3800]

It is still the case that getting an answer is a rare thing.

Get me bored enough and I'll argue anything. My wife has taken over the tv, seems Christmas movies are on 24 - 7 this month.

No word on ice increases or decreases from Santa yet.

 

[Zander]

Al Gore wrote a poem!!!

One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun

Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune's bones dissolve

Snow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quickly

Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning's celebration

Unknown creatures
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrups

Passion seeks heroes and friends
The bell of the city
On the hill is rung

The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools.

 

[Liability]

Al Gore wrote a poem!!!

One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun

Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune's bones dissolve

Snow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quickly

Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning's celebration

Unknown creatures
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrups

Passion seeks heroes and friends
The bell of the city
On the hill is rung

The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools.

You know what's even worse than algore's idea of "poetry?"

Listening to that termite ridden Pinnochio READING his poem.

God almighty! Thoughts of suicide ran through my head.

Will somebody PLEASE get algore to JUST SHUT THE **** UP?

 

[Toronado3800]

Perhaps we can negotiate a new kind of treaty to have Al Gore & Sarah Palin both sent someplace w/o cellular service for a few years......

 

[Annie]

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens - and Russians admit they DID send them | Mail Online

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens as Russians admit they DID come from their Siberian server

By DAVID ROSE
Last updated at 2:10 AM on 13th December 2009


The claim was both simple and terrifying: that temperatures on planet Earth are now ‘likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years’.

As its authors from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) must have expected, it made headlines around the world.

Yet some of the scientists who helped to draft it, The Mail on Sunday can reveal, harboured uncomfortable doubts.

In the words of one, David Rind from the US space agency Nasa, it ‘looks like there were years around 1000AD that could have been just as warm’.

Keith Briffa from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which plays a key role in forming IPCC assessments, urged caution, warning that when it came to historical climate records, there was no new data, only the ‘same old evidence’ that had been around for years.

‘Let us not try to over-egg the pudding,’ he wrote in an email to an IPCC colleague in September 2006.

‘True, there have been many different techniques used to aggregate and scale data - but the efficacy of these is still far from established.’

But when the ‘warmest for 1,300 years’ claim was published in 2007 in the IPCC’s fourth report, the doubters kept silent.

...Professor Trevor Davies, the university’s Pro-Vice Chancellor and a former CRU director, told me. ‘I am certain that the science is rock solid.’...

He admitted that his CRU colleagues had sometimes used ‘injudicious phrases’, but that was because they kept on being ‘diverted’ from their work by those who wished to scrutinise it. ‘It’s understandable that sometimes people get frustrated,’ he said.

The only lesson the affair had for him was that ‘we have got to get better in terms of explanation. Some scientists still find it quite it difficult to communicate with the public.’ and that is a problem...

...Pielke’s verdict on the scandal is damning.

‘These emails open up the possibility that big scientific questions we’ve regarded as settled may need another look.

'They reveal that some of these scientists saw themselves not as neutral investigators but as warriors engaged in battle with the so-called sceptics.

‘They have lost a lot of credibility and as far as their being leading spokespeople on this issue of huge public importance, there is no going back.’...

Keep reading, it gets 'better' or worse, depending on your prejudices.