| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
22 May 2007 10:52:10 AM |
| Object: |
Nope, No Global Warming Here |
In fact, like Fred's heros say, we're actually going into global
cooling.
I mean, what's more normal than a glacier the size of CALIFORNIA
disappearing on you?
http://caribjournal.com/2007/05/16/antarctic-melting-area-as-big-as-california-nasa-confirms/
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -3421 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.
|
|
| User: "TheLetterK" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
22 May 2007 07:11:47 PM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
In fact, like Fred's heros say, we're actually going into global
cooling.
I mean, what's more normal than a glacier the size of CALIFORNIA
disappearing on you?
http://caribjournal.com/2007/05/16/antarctic-melting-area-as-big-as-california-nasa-confirms/
This demonstrates that the cause is anthropogenic... how?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
23 May 2007 08:03:25 PM |
|
|
"TheLetterK" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:DEL4i.7460$JQ3.3821@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
In fact, like Fred's heros say, we're actually going into global
cooling.
I mean, what's more normal than a glacier the size of CALIFORNIA
disappearing on you?
http://caribjournal.com/2007/05/16/antarctic-melting-area-as-big-as-california-nasa-confirms/
This demonstrates that the cause is anthropogenic... how?
Because Manbearpig says so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
23 May 2007 08:28:06 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:03:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654e45e$0$4674$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"TheLetterK" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:DEL4i.7460$JQ3.3821@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
In fact, like Fred's heros say, we're actually going into global
cooling.
I mean, what's more normal than a glacier the size of CALIFORNIA
disappearing on you?
http://caribjournal.com/2007/05/16/antarctic-melting-area-as-big-as-california-nasa-confirms/
This demonstrates that the cause is anthropogenic... how?
Because Manbearpig says so.
Well that and the massive amount of evidence.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
23 May 2007 08:41:03 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:agq9535iqrk5h7a6k27tvndg8t8shpbbf7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:03:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654e45e$0$4674$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"TheLetterK" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:DEL4i.7460$JQ3.3821@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
In fact, like Fred's heros say, we're actually going into global
cooling.
I mean, what's more normal than a glacier the size of CALIFORNIA
disappearing on you?
http://caribjournal.com/2007/05/16/antarctic-melting-area-as-big-as-california-nasa-confirms/
This demonstrates that the cause is anthropogenic... how?
Because Manbearpig says so.
Well that and the massive amount of evidence.
You mean the massive amount of bogus computer simulations? Enjoy your holy
carbon-based masses, but leave me out, thank you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
23 May 2007 08:54:28 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:41:03 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654ed2f$0$15135$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:agq9535iqrk5h7a6k27tvndg8t8shpbbf7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:03:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654e45e$0$4674$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"TheLetterK" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:DEL4i.7460$JQ3.3821@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
In fact, like Fred's heros say, we're actually going into global
cooling.
I mean, what's more normal than a glacier the size of CALIFORNIA
disappearing on you?
http://caribjournal.com/2007/05/16/antarctic-melting-area-as-big-as-california-nasa-confirms/
This demonstrates that the cause is anthropogenic... how?
Because Manbearpig says so.
Well that and the massive amount of evidence.
You mean the massive amount of bogus computer simulations? Enjoy your holy
carbon-based masses, but leave me out, thank you.
No, when I wrote evidence I meant evidence. Now if you have a problem
with the models then by all means present it. But if your problem is
with scientific models in general, then go join the Luddites.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
24 May 2007 03:50:25 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:t0s953l0sigorsq9v36o72tcerrhh61jjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:41:03 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654ed2f$0$15135$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:agq9535iqrk5h7a6k27tvndg8t8shpbbf7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:03:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654e45e$0$4674$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"TheLetterK" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:DEL4i.7460$JQ3.3821@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
In fact, like Fred's heros say, we're actually going into global
cooling.
I mean, what's more normal than a glacier the size of CALIFORNIA
disappearing on you?
http://caribjournal.com/2007/05/16/antarctic-melting-area-as-big-as-california-nasa-confirms/
This demonstrates that the cause is anthropogenic... how?
Because Manbearpig says so.
Well that and the massive amount of evidence.
You mean the massive amount of bogus computer simulations? Enjoy your
holy
carbon-based masses, but leave me out, thank you.
No, when I wrote evidence I meant evidence.
Where's the evidence that man is responsible?
Now if you have a problem
with the models then by all means present it. But if your problem is
with scientific models in general, then go join the Luddites.
Sorry, dummy, but I work on computer models for a living. I know enough to
tell you that the climate alarmists' models are bogus. They are bogus
because we do not possess the knowledge of the most important factors that
influence climate to be able to model them with any degree of fidelity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
24 May 2007 09:02:17 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 May 2007 04:50:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <465551d2$0$9914$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:t0s953l0sigorsq9v36o72tcerrhh61jjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:41:03 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654ed2f$0$15135$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:agq9535iqrk5h7a6k27tvndg8t8shpbbf7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:03:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654e45e$0$4674$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"TheLetterK" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:DEL4i.7460$JQ3.3821@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
In fact, like Fred's heros say, we're actually going into global
cooling.
I mean, what's more normal than a glacier the size of CALIFORNIA
disappearing on you?
http://caribjournal.com/2007/05/16/antarctic-melting-area-as-big-as-california-nasa-confirms/
This demonstrates that the cause is anthropogenic... how?
Because Manbearpig says so.
Well that and the massive amount of evidence.
You mean the massive amount of bogus computer simulations? Enjoy your
holy
carbon-based masses, but leave me out, thank you.
No, when I wrote evidence I meant evidence.
Where's the evidence that man is responsible?
The dramatic rise in carbon in the atmosphere, the observations that
carbon acts to keep heat in, the observation that humans have put lots
of carbon in the atmosphere.
Now if you have a problem
with the models then by all means present it. But if your problem is
with scientific models in general, then go join the Luddites.
Sorry, dummy,
Ah, so cogent an argument.
but I work on computer models for a living. I know enough to
tell you that the climate alarmists' models are bogus.
Sorry, but I don't think I can take your authority here.
They are bogus
because we do not possess the knowledge of the most important factors that
influence climate to be able to model them with any degree of fidelity.
Do you work with climatology models? Do you have specific objections
or just this hand wave? That you "work" with scientific models is not
enough background for you to blithely announce that "we" do not
possess enough knowledge. How about you find some peer reviewed
climatology paper and give *your* comments on what is wrong with the
model presented?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
24 May 2007 02:50:49 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:7h6b53d1vbceeljn6b99v4vpl8gv8squ99@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 May 2007 04:50:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <465551d2$0$9914$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:t0s953l0sigorsq9v36o72tcerrhh61jjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:41:03 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654ed2f$0$15135$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:agq9535iqrk5h7a6k27tvndg8t8shpbbf7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:03:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654e45e$0$4674$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"TheLetterK" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:DEL4i.7460$JQ3.3821@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
In fact, like Fred's heros say, we're actually going into global
cooling.
I mean, what's more normal than a glacier the size of CALIFORNIA
disappearing on you?
http://caribjournal.com/2007/05/16/antarctic-melting-area-as-big-as-california-nasa-confirms/
This demonstrates that the cause is anthropogenic... how?
Because Manbearpig says so.
Well that and the massive amount of evidence.
You mean the massive amount of bogus computer simulations? Enjoy your
holy
carbon-based masses, but leave me out, thank you.
No, when I wrote evidence I meant evidence.
Where's the evidence that man is responsible?
The dramatic rise in carbon in the atmosphere, the observations that
carbon acts to keep heat in, the observation that humans have put lots
of carbon in the atmosphere.
Now if you have a problem
with the models then by all means present it. But if your problem is
with scientific models in general, then go join the Luddites.
Sorry, dummy,
Ah, so cogent an argument.
but I work on computer models for a living. I know enough to
tell you that the climate alarmists' models are bogus.
Sorry, but I don't think I can take your authority here.
Sorry but I don't give a *****.
They are bogus
because we do not possess the knowledge of the most important factors that
influence climate to be able to model them with any degree of fidelity.
Do you work with climatology models?
Nope. I know what simulation is about and I know the inherent risks of
extapolating data. I know that models can be tuned to match historical data
and be orrible predictors of the future. I know that such effects occur
when the underlying phenomena are not well understood. It's rather like
building a a high order equation to describe a random wave pattern. One can
build such an equation and reproduce it beatifully with math, but it is
worthless as a predictor. I know that fools are easily impressed by such
sleight of hand.
Do you have specific objections
or just this hand wave?
That's not a hand wave. The fact is that a 1% change in cloud coverage has
as much impact as a 100% in chagne in CO2. The models admittedly do a
shitty job of modelling cloud coverage.
That you "work" with scientific models is not
enough background for you to blithely announce that "we" do not
possess enough knowledge.
The fact that we don't is all I need. Have you actually read the IPCC?
Beyond the scary exec summary I mean. If you had, you would see all the
caveats and admissions by the authors themselves to the back up what I said.
How about you find some peer reviewed
climatology paper and give *your* comments on what is wrong with the
model presented?
For starters:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1069
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm
http://www.applet-magic.com/IPCCmistakes.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
24 May 2007 03:18:26 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 May 2007 15:50:49 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4655ec99$0$19420$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:7h6b53d1vbceeljn6b99v4vpl8gv8squ99@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 May 2007 04:50:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <465551d2$0$9914$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:t0s953l0sigorsq9v36o72tcerrhh61jjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:41:03 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654ed2f$0$15135$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:agq9535iqrk5h7a6k27tvndg8t8shpbbf7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:03:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654e45e$0$4674$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"TheLetterK" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:DEL4i.7460$JQ3.3821@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
In fact, like Fred's heros say, we're actually going into global
cooling.
I mean, what's more normal than a glacier the size of CALIFORNIA
disappearing on you?
http://caribjournal.com/2007/05/16/antarctic-melting-area-as-big-as-california-nasa-confirms/
This demonstrates that the cause is anthropogenic... how?
Because Manbearpig says so.
Well that and the massive amount of evidence.
You mean the massive amount of bogus computer simulations? Enjoy your
holy
carbon-based masses, but leave me out, thank you.
No, when I wrote evidence I meant evidence.
Where's the evidence that man is responsible?
The dramatic rise in carbon in the atmosphere, the observations that
carbon acts to keep heat in, the observation that humans have put lots
of carbon in the atmosphere.
Now if you have a problem
with the models then by all means present it. But if your problem is
with scientific models in general, then go join the Luddites.
Sorry, dummy,
Ah, so cogent an argument.
but I work on computer models for a living. I know enough to
tell you that the climate alarmists' models are bogus.
Sorry, but I don't think I can take your authority here.
Sorry but I don't give a *****.
You were the one trying to claim some expertise. If you don't have it,
you don't.
They are bogus
because we do not possess the knowledge of the most important factors that
influence climate to be able to model them with any degree of fidelity.
Do you work with climatology models?
Nope.
So why should I care what you say about them.
I know what simulation is about and I know the inherent risks of
extapolating data.
But you don't seem to know enough about the underlying material to
judge it.
I know that models can be tuned to match historical data
and be orrible predictors of the future.
We all know that. You still have to show the actual problems with the
models used.
I know that such effects occur
when the underlying phenomena are not well understood. It's rather like
building a a high order equation to describe a random wave pattern. One can
build such an equation and reproduce it beatifully with math, but it is
worthless as a predictor. I know that fools are easily impressed by such
sleight of hand.
And now you jumped from claimed expertise to a bit of poisoning the
well. Neat.
Do you have specific objections
or just this hand wave?
That's not a hand wave. The fact is that a 1% change in cloud coverage has
as much impact as a 100% in chagne in CO2. The models admittedly do a
shitty job of modelling cloud coverage.
Please provide a link to a specific paper that you think does a poor
job.
That you "work" with scientific models is not
enough background for you to blithely announce that "we" do not
possess enough knowledge.
The fact that we don't is all I need.
I am sorry, but that *you* don't does not mean that no one does.
Have you actually read the IPCC?
Beyond the scary exec summary I mean. If you had, you would see all the
caveats and admissions by the authors themselves to the back up what I said.
Again some specific references would be great. To published scientific
papers would be best.
How about you find some peer reviewed
climatology paper and give *your* comments on what is wrong with the
model presented?
For starters:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1069
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm
http://www.applet-magic.com/IPCCmistakes.htm
When you have scientific response to the science let me know.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
24 May 2007 03:29:32 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:s7sb535i5o5jhb5bgd36g10igv7mon1i2b@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 May 2007 15:50:49 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4655ec99$0$19420$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:7h6b53d1vbceeljn6b99v4vpl8gv8squ99@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 May 2007 04:50:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <465551d2$0$9914$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:t0s953l0sigorsq9v36o72tcerrhh61jjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:41:03 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654ed2f$0$15135$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in
message news:agq9535iqrk5h7a6k27tvndg8t8shpbbf7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:03:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654e45e$0$4674$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"TheLetterK" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:DEL4i.7460$JQ3.3821@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
In fact, like Fred's heros say, we're actually going into global
cooling.
I mean, what's more normal than a glacier the size of CALIFORNIA
disappearing on you?
http://caribjournal.com/2007/05/16/antarctic-melting-area-as-big-as-california-nasa-confirms/
This demonstrates that the cause is anthropogenic... how?
Because Manbearpig says so.
Well that and the massive amount of evidence.
You mean the massive amount of bogus computer simulations? Enjoy your
holy
carbon-based masses, but leave me out, thank you.
No, when I wrote evidence I meant evidence.
Where's the evidence that man is responsible?
The dramatic rise in carbon in the atmosphere, the observations that
carbon acts to keep heat in, the observation that humans have put lots
of carbon in the atmosphere.
Now if you have a problem
with the models then by all means present it. But if your problem is
with scientific models in general, then go join the Luddites.
Sorry, dummy,
Ah, so cogent an argument.
but I work on computer models for a living. I know enough to
tell you that the climate alarmists' models are bogus.
Sorry, but I don't think I can take your authority here.
Sorry but I don't give a *****.
You were the one trying to claim some expertise. If you don't have it,
you don't.
They are bogus
because we do not possess the knowledge of the most important factors
that
influence climate to be able to model them with any degree of fidelity.
Do you work with climatology models?
Nope.
So why should I care what you say about them.
I know what simulation is about and I know the inherent risks of
extapolating data.
But you don't seem to know enough about the underlying material to
judge it.
I know that models can be tuned to match historical data
and be orrible predictors of the future.
We all know that. You still have to show the actual problems with the
models used.
I know that such effects occur
when the underlying phenomena are not well understood. It's rather like
building a a high order equation to describe a random wave pattern. One
can
build such an equation and reproduce it beatifully with math, but it is
worthless as a predictor. I know that fools are easily impressed by such
sleight of hand.
And now you jumped from claimed expertise to a bit of poisoning the
well. Neat.
Wrong again. My expertise is in computer simulation. I told you the ways
in which the IPCC fucked up. I ma well qualified to make such an
assessment.
Do you have specific objections
or just this hand wave?
That's not a hand wave. The fact is that a 1% change in cloud coverage
has
as much impact as a 100% in chagne in CO2. The models admittedly do a
shitty job of modelling cloud coverage.
Please provide a link to a specific paper that you think does a poor
job.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
The IPCC admits to the limits of their work, if you would only read beyond
the exec summary.
That you "work" with scientific models is not
enough background for you to blithely announce that "we" do not
possess enough knowledge.
The fact that we don't is all I need.
I am sorry, but that *you* don't does not mean that no one does.
The fact that no one does means that no one does!
Have you actually read the IPCC?
Beyond the scary exec summary I mean. If you had, you would see all the
caveats and admissions by the authors themselves to the back up what I
said.
Again some specific references would be great. To published scientific
papers would be best.
Here's one example from the IPCC report:
<quote>
8.5.1.1
However, two major points of concern were noted. Firstly, the SAR found
that simulation of clouds and related processes "remains a major source of
uncertainty in atmospheric models". As discussed in Chapter 7, these
processes continue to account for most of the uncertainty in predicting
human-induced climate change.
</quote>
How about you find some peer reviewed
climatology paper and give *your* comments on what is wrong with the
model presented?
For starters:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1069
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm
http://www.applet-magic.com/IPCCmistakes.htm
When you have scientific response to the science let me know.
You fucking, dim-witted *****! You could not possibly have even resolved
the links to those references in the time it took you to respond, yet alone
read or understand a single word in them. I'm not going to waste time with
such a *****, if you can't even look at the evidence!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
24 May 2007 05:00:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 May 2007 16:29:32 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4655f5ac$0$9958$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:s7sb535i5o5jhb5bgd36g10igv7mon1i2b@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 May 2007 15:50:49 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4655ec99$0$19420$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:7h6b53d1vbceeljn6b99v4vpl8gv8squ99@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 May 2007 04:50:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <465551d2$0$9914$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:t0s953l0sigorsq9v36o72tcerrhh61jjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:41:03 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654ed2f$0$15135$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in
message news:agq9535iqrk5h7a6k27tvndg8t8shpbbf7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:03:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654e45e$0$4674$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"TheLetterK" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:DEL4i.7460$JQ3.3821@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
In fact, like Fred's heros say, we're actually going into global
cooling.
I mean, what's more normal than a glacier the size of CALIFORNIA
disappearing on you?
http://caribjournal.com/2007/05/16/antarctic-melting-area-as-big-as-california-nasa-confirms/
This demonstrates that the cause is anthropogenic... how?
Because Manbearpig says so.
Well that and the massive amount of evidence.
You mean the massive amount of bogus computer simulations? Enjoy your
holy
carbon-based masses, but leave me out, thank you.
No, when I wrote evidence I meant evidence.
Where's the evidence that man is responsible?
The dramatic rise in carbon in the atmosphere, the observations that
carbon acts to keep heat in, the observation that humans have put lots
of carbon in the atmosphere.
Now if you have a problem
with the models then by all means present it. But if your problem is
with scientific models in general, then go join the Luddites.
Sorry, dummy,
Ah, so cogent an argument.
but I work on computer models for a living. I know enough to
tell you that the climate alarmists' models are bogus.
Sorry, but I don't think I can take your authority here.
Sorry but I don't give a *****.
You were the one trying to claim some expertise. If you don't have it,
you don't.
They are bogus
because we do not possess the knowledge of the most important factors
that
influence climate to be able to model them with any degree of fidelity.
Do you work with climatology models?
Nope.
So why should I care what you say about them.
I know what simulation is about and I know the inherent risks of
extapolating data.
But you don't seem to know enough about the underlying material to
judge it.
I know that models can be tuned to match historical data
and be orrible predictors of the future.
We all know that. You still have to show the actual problems with the
models used.
I know that such effects occur
when the underlying phenomena are not well understood. It's rather like
building a a high order equation to describe a random wave pattern. One
can
build such an equation and reproduce it beatifully with math, but it is
worthless as a predictor. I know that fools are easily impressed by such
sleight of hand.
And now you jumped from claimed expertise to a bit of poisoning the
well. Neat.
Wrong again. My expertise is in computer simulation.
So have you looked at their simulations? Do you have some comments
about their code? Otherwise you are claiming authority you don't have.
I told you the ways
in which the IPCC fucked up. I ma well qualified to make such an
assessment.
How much climatology have you studied? You have to understand the
underlying material before you can criticize the simulations.
Do you have specific objections
or just this hand wave?
That's not a hand wave. The fact is that a 1% change in cloud coverage
has
as much impact as a 100% in chagne in CO2. The models admittedly do a
shitty job of modelling cloud coverage.
Please provide a link to a specific paper that you think does a poor
job.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
The IPCC admits to the limits of their work, if you would only read beyond
the exec summary.
I hope you understand that the IPCC is not the underlying scientific
work but a governmental consensus. A consensus that the U.S. and China
worked very hard to tone down.
That you "work" with scientific models is not
enough background for you to blithely announce that "we" do not
possess enough knowledge.
The fact that we don't is all I need.
I am sorry, but that *you* don't does not mean that no one does.
The fact that no one does means that no one does!
You have yet to establish that fact, you have only asserted it.
Asserted it pretty much based on your expertise at computer
simulations.
Have you actually read the IPCC?
Beyond the scary exec summary I mean. If you had, you would see all the
caveats and admissions by the authors themselves to the back up what I
said.
Again some specific references would be great. To published scientific
papers would be best.
Here's one example from the IPCC report:
<quote>
8.5.1.1
However, two major points of concern were noted. Firstly, the SAR found
that simulation of clouds and related processes "remains a major source of
uncertainty in atmospheric models". As discussed in Chapter 7, these
processes continue to account for most of the uncertainty in predicting
human-induced climate change.
</quote>
So? That is pretty standard scientific speak. That does not mean that
the result is nonsense, it does not mean the model is useless, it just
identified key areas of uncertainty. Scientific models have
uncertainty: I would think that you would know this based on your
expertise.
How about you find some peer reviewed
climatology paper and give *your* comments on what is wrong with the
model presented?
For starters:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1069
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm
http://www.applet-magic.com/IPCCmistakes.htm
When you have scientific response to the science let me know.
You fucking, dim-witted *****!
Ah, your cogent analysis again.
You could not possibly have even resolved
the links to those references in the time it took you to respond, yet alone
read or understand a single word in them. I'm not going to waste time with
such a *****, if you can't even look at the evidence!
I looked and saw that they were not what I asked for. I wanted to see
the original studies that you object to, not some political complaint
about a political document. I had enough time to discern that.
Political biased web pages are not evidence, so when you have a link
to a scientific paper that you object to let me know.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
24 May 2007 06:11:45 PM |
|
|
I hope you understand that the IPCC is not the underlying scientific
work but a governmental consensus. A consensus that the U.S. and China
worked very hard to tone down.
The IPCC report is the basis for all of the climate hysteria! It is the
compilation of all the (faulty) computer models that the alarmists like you
cite as the reason for telling us that the sky is falling so we better find
ways to ruin our economy to fix it.
That you "work" with scientific models is not
enough background for you to blithely announce that "we" do not
possess enough knowledge.
The fact that we don't is all I need.
I am sorry, but that *you* don't does not mean that no one does.
The fact that no one does means that no one does!
You have yet to establish that fact, you have only asserted it.
Asserted it pretty much based on your expertise at computer
simulations.
You didn't read what I cited. The IPCC says as much.
Have you actually read the IPCC?
Beyond the scary exec summary I mean. If you had, you would see all the
caveats and admissions by the authors themselves to the back up what I
said.
Again some specific references would be great. To published scientific
papers would be best.
Here's one example from the IPCC report:
<quote>
8.5.1.1
However, two major points of concern were noted. Firstly, the SAR found
that simulation of clouds and related processes "remains a major source of
uncertainty in atmospheric models". As discussed in Chapter 7, these
processes continue to account for most of the uncertainty in predicting
human-induced climate change.
</quote>
So? That is pretty standard scientific speak.
*****. And if you had read the piece by Lindzen (Climatology Prof
Emeritus at MIT and contributor to the IPCC report) you would know that.
That does not mean that
the result is nonsense, it does not mean the model is useless, it just
identified key areas of uncertainty. Scientific models have
uncertainty: I would think that you would know this based on your
expertise.
An area of uncertainty whose effect is orders of magnitude greater than then
phenomena that is being modeled!
How about you find some peer reviewed
climatology paper and give *your* comments on what is wrong with the
model presented?
For starters:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1069
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm
http://www.applet-magic.com/IPCCmistakes.htm
When you have scientific response to the science let me know.
You fucking, dim-witted *****!
Ah, your cogent analysis again.
You could not possibly have even resolved
the links to those references in the time it took you to respond, yet
alone
read or understand a single word in them. I'm not going to waste time
with
such a *****, if you can't even look at the evidence!
I looked and saw that they were not what I asked for. I wanted to see
the original studies that you object to, not some political complaint
about a political document. I had enough time to discern that.
Political biased web pages are not evidence, so when you have a link
to a scientific paper that you object to let me know.
I gave that to you. I cited the IPCC and I provided commentary from
Lindzen. If you want to read his published work look it up for yourself.
The primary evidence is right there in the report itself for anyone who is
not too stupid to read it. Look at section 7 where it talks about how
little is really known about water vapor, cloud formation, and the factors
that influence the above. In fact the report itself states that the authors
cannot even discern if warming produces more or fewer clouds and whether the
effect is negative or positive feedback! And that is far and away the most
important element to any prediction about temperature.
But you don't give a ***** Matt. You just like to argue. What's true
doesn't matter to you. You proved that yet again by completely ignoring the
material I provided. You've wasted all of my time that you're going to
waste.
<PLONK>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
24 May 2007 06:22:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 May 2007 19:11:45 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <46561bb1$0$19393$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
I hope you understand that the IPCC is not the underlying scientific
work but a governmental consensus. A consensus that the U.S. and China
worked very hard to tone down.
The IPCC report is the basis for all of the climate hysteria!
It is not the basis for all of the warming concern.
It is the
compilation of all the (faulty) computer models that the alarmists like you
cite as the reason for telling us that the sky is falling so we better find
ways to ruin our economy to fix it.
You have yet to show any actual fault with any actual model.
That you "work" with scientific models is not
enough background for you to blithely announce that "we" do not
possess enough knowledge.
The fact that we don't is all I need.
I am sorry, but that *you* don't does not mean that no one does.
The fact that no one does means that no one does!
You have yet to establish that fact, you have only asserted it.
Asserted it pretty much based on your expertise at computer
simulations.
You didn't read what I cited. The IPCC says as much.
Specific quote please.
Have you actually read the IPCC?
Beyond the scary exec summary I mean. If you had, you would see all the
caveats and admissions by the authors themselves to the back up what I
said.
Again some specific references would be great. To published scientific
papers would be best.
Here's one example from the IPCC report:
<quote>
8.5.1.1
However, two major points of concern were noted. Firstly, the SAR found
that simulation of clouds and related processes "remains a major source of
uncertainty in atmospheric models". As discussed in Chapter 7, these
processes continue to account for most of the uncertainty in predicting
human-induced climate change.
</quote>
So? That is pretty standard scientific speak.
*****.
No, but if you are not familiar with careful scientific writing that
is ok. I am quite used to creationists taking similar comments and
using them to try to batter evolution, so your response does not
surprise me.
And if you had read the piece by Lindzen (Climatology Prof
Emeritus at MIT and contributor to the IPCC report) you would know that.
That does not mean that
the result is nonsense, it does not mean the model is useless, it just
identified key areas of uncertainty. Scientific models have
uncertainty: I would think that you would know this based on your
expertise.
An area of uncertainty whose effect is orders of magnitude greater than then
phenomena that is being modeled!
What is the degree of uncertainty there? Again, references to the
actual papers would be nice. And some explanation for why the people
who actual do this work seem to disagree with you.
How about you find some peer reviewed
climatology paper and give *your* comments on what is wrong with the
model presented?
For starters:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1069
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm
http://www.applet-magic.com/IPCCmistakes.htm
When you have scientific response to the science let me know.
You fucking, dim-witted *****!
Ah, your cogent analysis again.
You could not possibly have even resolved
the links to those references in the time it took you to respond, yet
alone
read or understand a single word in them. I'm not going to waste time
with
such a *****, if you can't even look at the evidence!
I looked and saw that they were not what I asked for. I wanted to see
the original studies that you object to, not some political complaint
about a political document. I had enough time to discern that.
Political biased web pages are not evidence, so when you have a link
to a scientific paper that you object to let me know.
I gave that to you. I cited the IPCC and I provided commentary from
Lindzen. If you want to read his published work look it up for yourself.
As Fred would say: so, you admit defeat.
The primary evidence is right there in the report itself for anyone who is
not too stupid to read it. Look at section 7 where it talks about how
little is really known about water vapor, cloud formation, and the factors
that influence the above. In fact the report itself states that the authors
cannot even discern if warming produces more or fewer clouds and whether the
effect is negative or positive feedback! And that is far and away the most
important element to any prediction about temperature.
And, yet, the CO2 is rising and the temp is rising and the permafrost
is melting and both polar caps are melting.
But you don't give a ***** Matt. You just like to argue. What's true
doesn't matter to you. You proved that yet again by completely ignoring the
material I provided. You've wasted all of my time that you're going to
waste.
Material that is now what I asked for is not what I asked for. You did
not point to the science. Sorry.
<PLONK>
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TheLetterK" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
24 May 2007 05:17:44 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 16:29:32 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4655f5ac$0$9958$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
So? That is pretty standard scientific speak. That does not mean that
the result is nonsense, it does not mean the model is useless, it just
identified key areas of uncertainty. Scientific models have
uncertainty: I would think that you would know this based on your
expertise.
Yet you pass these predictions off as a certainty. Also, if these
scientists can be persuaded to reach a "consensus" through political
pressure by groups opposing the idea of anthropogenic global warming,
why would they be immune to the persuasive abilities of groups promoting
the idea?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
24 May 2007 05:48:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 May 2007 18:17:44 -0400, in alt.atheism , TheLetterK
<none@none.net> in <q9o5i.811$YM5.130@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 16:29:32 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4655f5ac$0$9958$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
So? That is pretty standard scientific speak. That does not mean that
the result is nonsense, it does not mean the model is useless, it just
identified key areas of uncertainty. Scientific models have
uncertainty: I would think that you would know this based on your
expertise.
Yet you pass these predictions off as a certainty.
Science does not offer certainty. What we have here is a massive
amount of evidence pointing in one direction. Do we know it all? Not
even close. There are big issue of uncertainty, but most of the stuff
I have seen in the last few years suggests that scientists have been
too conservative in their predictions: things are happening faster
than they expected.
Also, if these
scientists can be persuaded to reach a "consensus" through political
pressure by groups opposing the idea of anthropogenic global warming,
why would they be immune to the persuasive abilities of groups promoting
the idea?
That is a big if. The political groups have toned down reports due to
pressure from governments. The science is there for you to look at.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "TheLetterK" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
24 May 2007 06:16:38 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 18:17:44 -0400, in alt.atheism , TheLetterK
<none@none.net> in <q9o5i.811$YM5.130@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 16:29:32 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4655f5ac$0$9958$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
So? That is pretty standard scientific speak. That does not mean that
the result is nonsense, it does not mean the model is useless, it just
identified key areas of uncertainty. Scientific models have
uncertainty: I would think that you would know this based on your
expertise.
Yet you pass these predictions off as a certainty.
Science does not offer certainty. What we have here is a massive
amount of evidence pointing in one direction.
There is no such evidence in this particular field. There's a lot of
evidence, but it only "points in one direction" if you purposely align
it like that. Most of the data could be taken to mean any number of things.
Do we know it all? Not
even close.
Thank you. Perhaps we are only finding evidence "for" anthropogenic
global warming because we're specifically looking for evidence of it?
Rather than trying to understand the reality of the warming trend,
scientists are simply assuming that the cause is anthropogenic and going
from there. Just look at the sheer number of grant proposals of people
trying to elbow in on the global warming money.
There are big issue of uncertainty,
You're not making any sense. We have "massive amounts of evidence
pointing in one direction" but there's also "big issues of uncertainty"?
That's nonsensical. Either the issue is understood and the evidence
clearly demonstrates it, or the issue is not understood, and scientists
are still debating how the evidence is to be interpreted. Either that,
or there really aren't massive amounts of evidence.
but most of the stuff
I have seen in the last few years suggests that scientists have been
too conservative in their predictions: things are happening faster
than they expected.
Which would indicate that their models were *wrong*, and that perhaps
their reasoning (reasoning that is, in large part, based on these same
models) is flawed as well.
Also, if these
scientists can be persuaded to reach a "consensus" through political
pressure by groups opposing the idea of anthropogenic global warming,
why would they be immune to the persuasive abilities of groups promoting
the idea?
That is a big if. The political groups have toned down reports due to
pressure from governments. The science is there for you to look at.
And political groups have beefed up reports as well. People act as if
scientists won't fudge numbers and conclusions in order to secure more
funding. It's not malicious, it's not a conspiracy, it's a simply
consequence of a system of funding based not on scientific integrity but
rather on the ability to convince laypeople of the value of the research.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
24 May 2007 07:53:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 May 2007 19:16:38 -0400, in alt.atheism , TheLetterK
<none@none.net> in <E0p5i.1085$dy1.860@bigfe9> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 18:17:44 -0400, in alt.atheism , TheLetterK
<none@none.net> in <q9o5i.811$YM5.130@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 16:29:32 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4655f5ac$0$9958$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
So? That is pretty standard scientific speak. That does not mean that
the result is nonsense, it does not mean the model is useless, it just
identified key areas of uncertainty. Scientific models have
uncertainty: I would think that you would know this based on your
expertise.
Yet you pass these predictions off as a certainty.
Science does not offer certainty. What we have here is a massive
amount of evidence pointing in one direction.
There is no such evidence in this particular field. There's a lot of
evidence, but it only "points in one direction" if you purposely align
it like that. Most of the data could be taken to mean any number of things.
Do we know it all? Not
even close.
Thank you. Perhaps we are only finding evidence "for" anthropogenic
global warming because we're specifically looking for evidence of it?
Any evidence to support that conjecture? It mean, it is a neat idea
that there is this great big conspiracy of liberals to bring down
capitalism, but a little evidence would be nice. Which of the
published papers on the topic seem to you to be finding evidence of
anthropogenic warming because they were looking for it? Which
scientists are you accusing here?
Rather than trying to understand the reality of the warming trend,
scientists are simply assuming that the cause is anthropogenic and going
from there.
No, that is not what happened. But if you are going to accuse lots of
people you ought to provide some evidence.
Just look at the sheer number of grant proposals of people
trying to elbow in on the global warming money.
What is that number and how is it meaningful?
There are big issue of uncertainty,
You're not making any sense. We have "massive amounts of evidence
pointing in one direction" but there's also "big issues of uncertainty"?
I am sorry that confused you. We don't know everything about the very
complex subject of climate, so there are uncertainties. One of the
things we do know is that it is warming now, will warm for some time,
and humans have played a significant role in that warming. We don't
know when the North Pole will be ice free in summer, but it is getting
there. We don't know when the Antarctic ice cap will melt, but it is
likely to do so catastrophically. We don't know the details of the
affect of the melting of the Siberian and Canadian permafrost, but
that is likely to *accelerate* the warming.
That's nonsensical. Either the issue is understood and the evidence
clearly demonstrates it, or the issue is not understood, and scientists
are still debating how the evidence is to be interpreted. Either that,
or there really aren't massive amounts of evidence.
Sorry that the world is not as clear cut as you would like. But lots
of science is like that. We learn more and more about a topic and we
can make the error bars smaller and smaller. But often we still have
big areas of uncertainty.
but most of the stuff
I have seen in the last few years suggests that scientists have been
too conservative in their predictions: things are happening faster
than they expected.
Which would indicate that their models were *wrong*, and that perhaps
their reasoning (reasoning that is, in large part, based on these same
models) is flawed as well.
Wrong is not an either or issue. The models are getting better and
better, but none of the major models show cooling or deny significant
human influence on the climate change.
Also, if these
scientists can be persuaded to reach a "consensus" through political
pressure by groups opposing the idea of anthropogenic global warming,
why would they be immune to the persuasive abilities of groups promoting
the idea?
That is a big if. The political groups have toned down reports due to
pressure from governments. The science is there for you to look at.
And political groups have beefed up reports as well.
In this case? Which scientific reports do you claim have been "beefed
up"? Meanwhile:
U.S., China want global warming report revised - A Concord Monitor
Article - Your News Source - Concord NH 03301
"The United States and China want to amend a major report by
U.N.-sponsored climate researchers to play down its conclusion that
quick, affordable action can limit the worst effects of global
warming, according to documents reviewed yesterday by the Associated
Press."
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070501/REPOSITORY/705010366/1013/NEWS03
People act as if
scientists won't fudge numbers and conclusions in order to secure more
funding.
You keep accusing people of dishonesty, do you have any evidence for
this? Or evidence that there is lots of money available for those who
promote global warming?
It's not malicious, it's not a conspiracy, it's a simply
consequence of a system of funding based not on scientific integrity but
rather on the ability to convince laypeople of the value of the research.
Something you have not produce one bit of evidence for.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "TheLetterK" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
24 May 2007 09:29:33 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 19:16:38 -0400, in alt.atheism , TheLetterK
<none@none.net> in <E0p5i.1085$dy1.860@bigfe9> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 18:17:44 -0400, in alt.atheism , TheLetterK
<none@none.net> in <q9o5i.811$YM5.130@bignews2.bellsouth.net> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 16:29:32 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4655f5ac$0$9958$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
So? That is pretty standard scientific speak. That does not mean that
the result is nonsense, it does not mean the model is useless, it just
identified key areas of uncertainty. Scientific models have
uncertainty: I would think that you would know this based on your
expertise.
Yet you pass these predictions off as a certainty.
Science does not offer certainty. What we have here is a massive
amount of evidence pointing in one direction.
There is no such evidence in this particular field. There's a lot of
evidence, but it only "points in one direction" if you purposely align
it like that. Most of the data could be taken to mean any number of things.
Do we know it all? Not
even close.
Thank you. Perhaps we are only finding evidence "for" anthropogenic
global warming because we're specifically looking for evidence of it?
Any evidence to support that conjecture? It mean, it is a neat idea
that there is this great big conspiracy of liberals to bring down
capitalism,
There is no conspiracy involved. You're the only one suggesting a
conspiracy--though I do think there is a tendency towards sensationalism
throughout the scientific community. It's a form of enlightened
self-interest, since they get more funding if their particular subject
is seen as a threat by the public. Just take a look at how the funding
going into global warming research has ballooned over the last few decades.
but a little evidence would be nice. Which of the
published papers on the topic seem to you to be finding evidence of
anthropogenic warming because they were looking for it?
Most of them (relating to the field of study) published in the last
decade. I think the majority involved in the field got convinced a long
time ago, and they've been spending the intervening years trying to
support their pet theory. That, by the way, is not how science is
supposed to work.
Which
scientists are you accusing here?
No one in particular. You're the one proposing some sort of intentional
conspiracy.
Rather than trying to understand the reality of the warming trend,
scientists are simply assuming that the cause is anthropogenic and going
from there.
No, that is not what happened. But if you are going to accuse lots of
people you ought to provide some evidence.
Look at their damned papers. You don't see many people investigating
alternative proposals, and those that do often lose their funding. This
is a highly politicized field of study, and if you can't see that, then
you must be extremely naive.
Just look at the sheer number of grant proposals of people
trying to elbow in on the global warming money.
What is that number and how is it meaningful?
It's a meaningful number because it demonstrates that there is an
interest this subject for reasons other than sound science.
There are big issue of uncertainty,
You're not making any sense. We have "massive amounts of evidence
pointing in one direction" but there's also "big issues of uncertainty"?
I am sorry that confused you. We don't know everything about the very
complex subject of climate, so there are uncertainties.
No kidding! Uncertainties in very basic components of the models being
used to make these predictions. These are not minor uncertainties in
subtle nuances of some arcane aspect of the discipline--this is a great
deal of uncertainty in something as fundamental as cloud formation and
the role of water vapor. It's a complex subject with a *lot* of
uncertainty, but you and a lot of other people are passing this off as a
trivial detail and moving forward with these predictions as if they are
near certain.
One of the
things we do know is that it is warming now, will warm for some time,
and humans have played a significant role in that warming.
No, we *don't* know that. We have no idea what sort of role humans play
in this at all, since we have a very limited understanding of how the
system works in the first place! We can't start assigning priority to
things without actually understanding how the system works. Until such
fundamental "details" are ironed out, any predictions made according to
these models should be taken with a grain of salt.
We don't
know when the North Pole will be ice free in summer, but it is getting
there. We don't know when the Antarctic ice cap will melt, but it is
likely to do so catastrophically. We don't know the details of the
affect of the melting of the Siberian and Canadian permafrost, but
that is likely to *accelerate* the warming.
No, you don't know that. You (or rather, climatologists) theorize that,
but in all reality they have no clue how it will impact anything.
Neither you nor the self-professed experts can see the future, and the
best any of us can do are look at admittedly flawed models and theorize
about what might be the case. We can look at trends, we can look at
observations, but we can't make claims regarding the importance of
certain aspects of a complex system without actually understanding the
system itself.
That's nonsensical. Either the issue is understood and the evidence
clearly demonstrates it, or the issue is not understood, and scientists
are still debating how the evidence is to be interpreted. Either that,
or there really aren't massive amounts of evidence.
Sorry that the world is not as clear cut as you would like. But lots
of science is like that.
No, it's not. I know of very few other "theories" that scientists hold
to with such devotion. All of them have literally mountains of hard
evidence and a history of accurate predictions behind them. The
anthropogenic global warming hypothesis still lacks their history of
credibility. One should seriously begin to question the validity of a
theory when the scientific community as a whole stops discussing
alternatives. Any time scientists come to a quick resolution about
something, it's probably brought about by bias within the community
itself. Hell, even "cornerstone" theories like Evolution via Natural
Selection took many decades to come to a general consensus on, and it
has a lot more supporting evidence than the hypothesis of anthropogenic
global warming.
We learn more and more about a topic and we
can make the error bars smaller and smaller. But often we still have
big areas of uncertainty.
Yes, we do, which is why scientists almost never make such specific
predictions. Of course, that's *not* what the scientific community is
doing with regard to anthropogenic global warming. They are, instead,
putting out very accurate predictions, lacking in the usual range of
degrees found with other hypotheses.
but most of the stuff
I have seen in the last few years suggests that scientists have been
too conservative in their predictions: things are happening faster
than they expected.
Which would indicate that their models were *wrong*, and that perhaps
their reasoning (reasoning that is, in large part, based on these same
models) is flawed as well.
Wrong is not an either or issue. The models are getting better and
better,
Wrong, in this case, is a binary condition. Being almost correct with a
model is like being almost pregnant. A model is either correct or it
isn't. If it's outside of a very narrow margin of error, it's probably
going to be useless for prediction. Especially when talking about very
complex systems.
but none of the major models show cooling or deny significant
human influence on the climate change.
If none of them show cooling, then none of them have extended far
enough. Either that, or they're inaccurate. I'm betting on both.
Also, if these
scientists can be persuaded to reach a "consensus" through political
pressure by groups opposing the idea of anthropogenic global warming,
why would they be immune to the persuasive abilities of groups promoting
the idea?
That is a big if. The political groups have toned down reports due to
pressure from governments. The science is there for you to look at.
And political groups have beefed up reports as well.
In this case? Which scientific reports do you claim have been "beefed
up"?
IMO? Most of them related to the field released in the last few years.
People act as if
scientists won't fudge numbers and conclusions in order to secure more
funding.
You keep accusing people of dishonesty, do you have any evidence for
this?
I have as much evidence for their dishonesty as they have evidence for
their claims.
Or evidence that there is lots of money available for those who
promote global warming?
http://www.pewtrusts.com/ideas/ideas_item.cfm?content_item_id=375&content_type_id=6&issue_name=Global%20warming&issue=19&page=6&name=Grant%20Highlights
There's one being put out by a private organization; some-odd 4.3
million dollars to push for new emissions regulations on power plants.
They're making a special emphasis on carbon dioxide because it
"exacerbates global warming". The EPA spends millions every year
promoting global warming "awareness", and the feds grants millions every
year in grants to scientists researching global warming.
Here's an example all the way back in '94;
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/89745a330d4ef8b9852572a000651fe1/c756f70bcbcbf3eb8525646d0075d656!OpenDocument
The US government alone has set aside better than 20 million dollars in
grants and incentives for those researching "alternative" fuels and
methods of increasing energy efficiency in this year alone--and those
groups often base the need for this off said global warming research.
This is a multi-billion dollar industry, and most of that money is
coming in the form of grants and subsidies, not consumers buying goods.
It's not malicious, it's not a conspiracy, it's a simply
consequence of a system of funding based not on scientific integrity but
rather on the ability to convince laypeople of the value of the research.
Something you have not produce one bit of evidence for.
Something so basic I shouldn't need to cite specific evidence. Just as
one shouldn't need to point out that 2+2=4 to a mathematician.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
24 May 2007 08:32:30 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:7h6b53d1vbceeljn6b99v4vpl8gv8squ99@4ax.com:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 04:50:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <465551d2$0$9914$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in message news:t0s953l0sigorsq9v36o72tcerrhh61jjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:41:03 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654ed2f$0$15135$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in message news:agq9535iqrk5h7a6k27tvndg8t8shpbbf7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:03:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654e45e$0$4674$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>
wrote:
"TheLetterK" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:DEL4i.7460$JQ3.3821@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
In fact, like Fred's heros say, we're actually going into
global cooling.
I mean, what's more normal than a glacier the size of
CALIFORNIA disappearing on you?
http://caribjournal.com/2007/05/16/antarctic-melting-area-as-
big
-as-california-nasa-confirms/
This demonstrates that the cause is anthropogenic... how?
Because Manbearpig says so.
Well that and the massive amount of evidence.
You mean the massive amount of bogus computer simulations? Enjoy
your holy
carbon-based masses, but leave me out, thank you.
No, when I wrote evidence I meant evidence.
Where's the evidence that man is responsible?
The dramatic rise in carbon in the atmosphere, the observations that
carbon acts to keep heat in, the observation that humans have put lots
of carbon in the atmosphere.
Now if you have a problem
with the models then by all means present it. But if your problem is
with scientific models in general, then go join the Luddites.
Sorry, dummy,
Ah, so cogent an argument.
but I work on computer models for a living. I know enough to
tell you that the climate alarmists' models are bogus.
Sorry, but I don't think I can take your authority here.
They are bogus
because we do not possess the knowledge of the most important factors
that influence climate to be able to model them with any degree of
fidelity.
Do you work with climatology models? Do you have specific objections
or just this hand wave? That you "work" with scientific models is not
enough background for you to blithely announce that "we" do not
possess enough knowledge. How about you find some peer reviewed
climatology paper and give *your* comments on what is wrong with the
model presented?
Which climate models do more than offer up fudge factors for cloud
formation, phytoplankton reproduction and species shift, solar wind and
cosmic ray flux variation?
Which climate models account for the 800-year *lag* between warming and
CO2 increase that is observable in historical ice-core samples?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic
organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its
enemies."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
24 May 2007 11:16:23 AM |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 13:32:30 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993A69F75F4EBfreddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:7h6b53d1vbceeljn6b99v4vpl8gv8squ99@4ax.com:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 04:50:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <465551d2$0$9914$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in message news:t0s953l0sigorsq9v36o72tcerrhh61jjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:41:03 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654ed2f$0$15135$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in message news:agq9535iqrk5h7a6k27tvndg8t8shpbbf7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:03:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654e45e$0$4674$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>
wrote:
"TheLetterK" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:DEL4i.7460$JQ3.3821@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
In fact, like Fred's heros say, we're actually going into
global cooling.
I mean, what's more normal than a glacier the size of
CALIFORNIA disappearing on you?
http://caribjournal.com/2007/05/16/antarctic-melting-area-as-
big
-as-california-nasa-confirms/
This demonstrates that the cause is anthropogenic... how?
Because Manbearpig says so.
Well that and the massive amount of evidence.
You mean the massive amount of bogus computer simulations? Enjoy
your holy
carbon-based masses, but leave me out, thank you.
No, when I wrote evidence I meant evidence.
Where's the evidence that man is responsible?
The dramatic rise in carbon in the atmosphere, the observations that
carbon acts to keep heat in, the observation that humans have put lots
of carbon in the atmosphere.
Now if you have a problem
with the models then by all means present it. But if your problem is
with scientific models in general, then go join the Luddites.
Sorry, dummy,
Ah, so cogent an argument.
but I work on computer models for a living. I know enough to
tell you that the climate alarmists' models are bogus.
Sorry, but I don't think I can take your authority here.
They are bogus
because we do not possess the knowledge of the most important factors
that influence climate to be able to model them with any degree of
fidelity.
Do you work with climatology models? Do you have specific objections
or just this hand wave? That you "work" with scientific models is not
enough background for you to blithely announce that "we" do not
possess enough knowledge. How about you find some peer reviewed
climatology paper and give *your* comments on what is wrong with the
model presented?
Which climate models do more than offer up fudge factors for cloud
formation, phytoplankton reproduction and species shift, solar wind and
cosmic ray flux variation?
How about you provide one that does provide what you, in your
expertise on the subject, consider inappropriate "fudge" factors.
Which climate models account for the 800-year *lag* between warming and
CO2 increase that is observable in historical ice-core samples?
Reference please.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
24 May 2007 11:06:02 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:3heb5313nhajgr61a3vo9oe964otjj1dha@4ax.com:
On 24 May 2007 13:32:30 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993A69F75F4EBfreddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:7h6b53d1vbceeljn6b99v4vpl8gv8squ99@4ax.com:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 04:50:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <465551d2$0$9914$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in message news:t0s953l0sigorsq9v36o72tcerrhh61jjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:41:03 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654ed2f$0$15135$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in message
news:agq9535iqrk5h7a6k27tvndg8t8shpbbf7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:03:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654e45e$0$4674$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>
wrote:
"TheLetterK" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:DEL4i.7460$JQ3.3821@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
In fact, like Fred's heros say, we're actually going into
global cooling.
I mean, what's more normal than a glacier the size of
CALIFORNIA disappearing on you?
http://caribjournal.com/2007/05/16/antarctic-melting-area-as-
big
-as-california-nasa-confirms/
This demonstrates that the cause is anthropogenic... how?
Because Manbearpig says so.
Well that and the massive amount of evidence.
You mean the massive amount of bogus computer simulations? Enjoy
your holy
carbon-based masses, but leave me out, thank you.
No, when I wrote evidence I meant evidence.
Where's the evidence that man is responsible?
The dramatic rise in carbon in the atmosphere, the observations that
carbon acts to keep heat in, the observation that humans have put
lots of carbon in the atmosphere.
Now if you have a problem
with the models then by all means present it. But if your problem
is with scientific models in general, then go join the Luddites.
Sorry, dummy,
Ah, so cogent an argument.
but I work on computer models for a living. I know enough to
tell you that the climate alarmists' models are bogus.
Sorry, but I don't think I can take your authority here.
They are bogus
because we do not possess the knowledge of the most important
factors that influence climate to be able to model them with any
degree of fidelity.
Do you work with climatology models? Do you have specific objections
or just this hand wave? That you "work" with scientific models is
not enough background for you to blithely announce that "we" do not
possess enough knowledge. How about you find some peer reviewed
climatology paper and give *your* comments on what is wrong with the
model presented?
Which climate models do more than offer up fudge factors for cloud
formation, phytoplankton reproduction and species shift, solar wind
and cosmic ray flux variation?
How about you provide one that does provide what you, in your
expertise on the subject, consider inappropriate "fudge" factors.
How about you answer the question for a change?
Which climate models account for the 800-year *lag* between warming
and CO2 increase that is observable in historical ice-core samples?
Reference please.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-
ice.html
Spare me your whining about blogs.
Answer the points or admit defeat.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic
organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its
enemies."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Nope, No Global Warming Here |
24 May 2007 01:28:36 PM |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 16:06:02 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993A83FD57E1Efreddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:3heb5313nhajgr61a3vo9oe964otjj1dha@4ax.com:
On 24 May 2007 13:32:30 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993A69F75F4EBfreddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:7h6b53d1vbceeljn6b99v4vpl8gv8squ99@4ax.com:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 04:50:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <465551d2$0$9914$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in message news:t0s953l0sigorsq9v36o72tcerrhh61jjp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:41:03 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654ed2f$0$15135$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in message
news:agq9535iqrk5h7a6k27tvndg8t8shpbbf7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:03:25 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654e45e$0$4674$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>
wrote:
"TheLetterK" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:DEL4i.7460$JQ3.3821@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
In fact, like Fred's heros say, we're actually going into
global cooling.
I mean, what's more normal than a glacier the size of
CALIFORNIA disappear | | | | | | | | | | | |
