Reasons we don't like the Kool Aid on global warming

[Baruch Menachem]

First, I don't think putting large amounts of dirt in the air is a good thing.
Second, most of my working life I have commuted on foot, by bike, or by bus. Only rarely have I commuted by car. I recycle. etc etc.

It always bugs me when I am stuck behind an SUV with green bumper stickers on it when I ride my bike. And it happens a lot.

Anyway, on Global Warming..

• The earth's temperature is varialbe. From one year to the next, one decade to the next from one century to the next
• Most of what makes the temperature variable is outside of our understanding, and what we do know about is mostly outside of our control
• There has always been a huge amount of bogus in the global warming numbers.
• A lot of the remediation (trees etc) might actually make for more carbon in the atmosphere rather than less
• The carbon footprint numbers seem made up, as lots of poorer areas are poor because of mismangment. cooking over open fires is a lot more poluting than cooking with gas or electric, even when the electric is produced by coal fired boilers
• the worst poluters always get exemptions, as witness the Copenhagen conference where everyone with authority had to have a stretch limo and an enterauge of 50
• Those promoting it don't really seem to care that much about the environment, as much as they care about having their hands on our throats

Feel free to ad more

 

[Midnight Marauder]

• NF3 is one of the most efficacious greenhouse gases in existence. It does not occur in nature and is completely man-made. We are spewing it into the atmosphere at 1000s of times the percentage rate of CO2. It is 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2, it is poisonous to every living thing on the planet, it stays in the atmosphere for more than 700 years, but there's no move whatsoever to regulate it or even inventory it. And when you talk about it, watermelons go completely ape-shit.

 

[Oddball]

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=YXUGesAw6zw[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

So you people say. Yet the scientists who study the subject state just the opposite. Now who do you think that I consider the most competant to speak on the subject.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you people say. Yet the scientists who study the subject state just the opposite. Now who do you think that I consider the most competant to speak on the subject.

Hide the decline

 

[Truthmatters]

What is the Evidence for Global Warming

 

[Midnight Marauder]

So you people say. Yet the scientists who study the subject state just the opposite.

Can you refute any of the below? If so, please feel free:

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

Now who do you think that I consider the most competant to speak on the subject.

It really doesn't matter much, since you cannot even SPELL "competent" much less even know what it is.

 

[Truthmatters]

how very sad that so many need to cast Hate on science to continue to hold politcal ideas that have failed.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

how very sad that so many need to cast Hate on science to continue to hold politcal ideas that have failed.

No one's casting any "hate" but some are definitely attacking a cult you have been programmed to call science.

Care to refute any of this? I'll wait:

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

 

[Truthmatters]

So now science is a cult?

A fact free zone called the conservative mind

 

[Midnight Marauder]

So now science is a cult?

No. AGW is a cult, masquerading as science.

A fact free zone called the conservative mind

You're conservative? Whoda thunk it!

I ask again, can you refute any of the below? I'll wait:

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you believe people who call in to a show and identity themselves as "tea baggers" are real Conservatives, then I'll guess you'll believe anything

 

[Caligirl]

Can you refute any of the below? If so, please feel free:

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, ...

Well, on another thread it was claimed (I assume by the same poster but didn't pay attention) that the 'warming' theory was not falsifiable ... and in the next breath - by the same poster - it was claimed that warming science had been falsified, ... so, ya know, I wouldn't take that claim as being particularly credible.

It is falsifiable, of course. Any predictive theory is falsifiable - if the prediction fails, it falsifies the theory. Any dummy should get that.

... nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

Yeah I don't have any particular problem with this as long as we agree that this goes for both sides and the deniers are every bit as flawed. Can we agree that the deniers have it wrong?

 

[Caligirl]

First, I don't think putting large amounts of dirt in the air is a good thing.
Second, most of my working life I have commuted on foot, by bike, or by bus. Only rarely have I commuted by car. I recycle. etc etc.

It always bugs me when I am stuck behind an SUV with green bumper stickers on it when I ride my bike. And it happens a lot.

Anyway, on Global Warming..

• The earth's temperature is varialbe. From one year to the next, one decade to the next from one century to the next
• Most of what makes the temperature variable is outside of our understanding, and what we do know about is mostly outside of our control
• There has always been a huge amount of bogus in the global warming numbers.
• A lot of the remediation (trees etc) might actually make for more carbon in the atmosphere rather than less
• The carbon footprint numbers seem made up, as lots of poorer areas are poor because of mismangment. cooking over open fires is a lot more poluting than cooking with gas or electric, even when the electric is produced by coal fired boilers
• the worst poluters always get exemptions, as witness the Copenhagen conference where everyone with authority had to have a stretch limo and an enterauge of 50
• Those promoting it don't really seem to care that much about the environment, as much as they care about having their hands on our throats

Feel free to ad more

Just sounds like a lot of opinion. I have no idea if you're right on any of it or not.

Trees pull carbon out of the air (most of the mass of a tree comes from CO2.). Cooking over open fires is polluting, but it uses short - term carbon sinks (trees) which carbon was only recently puilled out of the air. Coal and fossil fuels are long term carbon sinks, by burning them we are releasing carbon into the air that has been stored for millions of years. That's an important difference between the two types of burning.

the exemptions are atrocious and I wish the globe was put on an even playing field. But the argument goes that the wealthy countries have to protect the global economy for everyone's sake. I don't understand that, so can't say whether it is valid or not.

We do understand a good deal about the past variations in climate. We do understand a good deal of climate factors today. Some models are damn good, they are based on our understanding, and get a lot of it pretty damn right. El nino was forecast for this year, for example, and boom it is here.

So I don't know that you are really on target with a lot of this stuff.

I promote going greener, but don't have my hand on your throat.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Can you refute any of the below? If so, please feel free:

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, ...

Well, on another thread it was claimed (I assume by the same poster but didn't pay attention) that the 'warming' theory was not falsifiable ... and in the next breath - by the same poster - it was claimed that warming science had been falsified, ... so, ya know, I wouldn't take that claim as being particularly credible.

It is falsifiable, of course. Any predictive theory is falsifiable - if the prediction fails, it falsifies the theory. Any dummy should get that.

Yeah, you're gonna have to find those quotes, if you're saying this was Dude you're talking about.

... nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

Yeah I don't have any particular problem with this as long as we agree that this goes for both sides and the deniers are every bit as flawed. Can we agree that the deniers have it wrong?

"Deniers?"

How about, "skeptics" if you really want to have a serious discussion about it.

 

[Si modo]

Can you refute any of the below? If so, please feel free:

Warmist junk science is neither reproducible on demand and in context, falsifiable, ...

Well, on another thread it was claimed (I assume by the same poster but didn't pay attention) that the 'warming' theory was not falsifiable ... and in the next breath - by the same poster - it was claimed that warming science had been falsified, ... so, ya know, I wouldn't take that claim as being particularly credible.

It is falsifiable, of course. Any predictive theory is falsifiable - if the prediction fails, it falsifies the theory. Any dummy should get that.

... nor does it have any static control model other than computer models, which are only as perfect as the imperfect people who input their data and cannot possibly account for every possible variable.

Yeah I don't have any particular problem with this as long as we agree that this goes for both sides and the deniers are every bit as flawed. Can we agree that the deniers have it wrong?

That was me, and that was here. I suggested that you actually read the links I provided to you as you were clueless on the logic of scientific discovery.

You obviously did not take my advice as you still do not understand the concept of falsifiability.


And, what are the 'deniers' denying?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

So now science is a cult?

A fact free zone called the conservative mind

What facts are you asserting...?
We have several instances of people calling themselves scientists who have been caught lying badly.


What MM keeps asking for and what you keep ignoring is that if we are to trust these guys, they have to have valid data and a model that is testable and works. Their predictions have been way off in predictions, and we now find that their data is badly cooked.

We are not the ones being fact free, friend.

 

[Truthmatters]

What is the Evidence for Global Warming

Please read things other than right wing blog sites if you wish to understand science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What is the Evidence for Global Warming

Please read things other than right wing blog sites if you wish to understand science.

You keep handing out the same debunked material.

Why does NASA refuse to comply with the FOIA request for their data for 2 years now?