Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There you go again. The old proof by assertion. You've been caught usingThere you go again.
Using cheap non-words like "warmists ".
It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush like
"denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.
Malarkey.
mr_antone
How's Greenland doing? Is all that ice turning into aOn 23 Dec, 07:25, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com
wrote:
there are two main problems that the confirmerists & denierists refuse
to acknowledge: a)
the continuous rise of teh two largest ice sheets,
since the first intl. bipolar year ('57-9), and b)
the matching lack of a rise in sealevel, viz Morner.
It's not a problem. The top of the ice sheet is fresh snow, which
contains a lot of air. Local warming puts more water vapour in the air
over the oceans, which means more snow falling on the ice sheets.
The ice sheets become more voluminous, but not more massive - the
GRACE satellites are measuring the mass of the ice sheets, and they
are all shrinking. The consequent corresponding rise in sea level is
fairly small, and not inconsistent with what we are measuring.
Sea level rise probably won't become a problem until the ice starts
sliding off into the ocean rather faster than it's doing at the
moment. When the Laurentian ice sheet (over most of Canada) slid off
into the North Atlantic at the end of the last ice age, it did so in
big chunks, which apparently turned off the Gulf Stream twice. This is
one of the interesting possible consequences of further anthropogenic
global warming, but one which is not easy to model or predict.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
I did - "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition."On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 23:54, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 18:04, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 03:24, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 23:34, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 15:31, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 12:17, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:
snip
The Wall Street Journal isn't a person, but an organisation, and their
propensity to publish denialist propaganda is well established.
You still can't do it. Amazing. I bet you don't even know what
the issues in global warming are. All you can do is call names
and appeal to authority.
If you want the scientific chapter and verse, go to
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse
effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.
If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe
you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?
http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/...
It's not the only information available about what's going on, but it
does set this latest round of big business trashing inconvenient
scientific evidence in it's historical context.
You've been suckered by a well-financed public relations campaign
directed by the same people who earlier told you that smoking wasn't
actually all that bad for your health
More logical fallacies.
There no logic involved, merely an exposition of historical fact.
OK, tell me who these "same people" are.
"The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science...
Surely you can pull a specific example from that. Just provide one.
I gave you a specific organisation, and enough detail on thatDon't send me on a wild goose chase.
The data is there, but you are too dim, or too dedicated to yourYet you can't show how.
I just did.
You did not. You posted a steaming pile of links.
As you might have worked out by now, if you had a functioning brain.It's cheap and desperate,
It might be if it were wrong. It isn't.
Repeated assertion is not a winning tactic, either.
You can't even identify the dimensions - units - of the sensitivityIn fact, it's stupid for you to even do that when you should know
that the central question of CAGW is the sensitivity number. Everyone
with any skin in the game at all knows that, and that is so unambiguous
all you have to do is state a real in the range 0.5 to 6 in this
context and everyone knows precisely what is referenced.
But you don't. And the 0.5 to 6 is way too high these days
Huh? We don't even know the sign for sure.
Weather is chaotic. Climate isn't. We've been pointing this out toBest estimates seem
to be 1-2, but they are simply estimates and no one can
characterize our chaotic climate system well enough to even
achieve statisical likelihood of their estimate.
It's not a problem. The top of the ice sheet is fresh snow, whichthere are two main problems that the confirmerists & denierists refuse
to acknowledge: a)
the continuous rise of teh two largest ice sheets,
since the first intl. bipolar year ('57-9), and b)
the matching lack of a rise in sealevel, viz Morner.
It's standard newspaper over-dramatisation, nothing more. EnglishOn Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:17:05 -0800 (PST), RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:
http://tinyurl.com/wsj-ridley-on-GW
1.6* C seems survivable, maybe even benign.
Ridley isn't a scientist, but he does cite credible
sources.
Of course, we know Sam Wormley will give this
due consideration, famous as he is for rationality
and objectivity and erudition, immune to hysteria
and ego and emotional investment.
PS Epigram from the article: "... given the IPCC's
record of replacing evidence-based policy-making
with policy-based evidence-making..."
Is this dumb or what?
http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Weather-warnings-become-reality...
apparently AGW waited intil 2012 to hit us all at once. Imagine a US city
hitting 95 degrees in the summer! Outrageous!
I'm not your student. Don't give me sources and expect me to chaseOn 23 Dec, 03:00, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 23:54, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 18:04, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 03:24, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 23:34, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 15:31, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 12:17, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:
snip
The Wall Street Journal isn't a person, but an organisation, and their
propensity to publish denialist propaganda is well established.
You still can't do it. Amazing. I bet you don't even know what
the issues in global warming are. All you can do is call names
and appeal to authority.
If you want the scientific chapter and verse, go to
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse
effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.
If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe
you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?
http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/...
It's not the only information available about what's going on, but it
does set this latest round of big business trashing inconvenient
scientific evidence in it's historical context.
You've been suckered by a well-financed public relations campaign
directed by the same people who earlier told you that smoking wasn't
actually all that bad for your health
More logical fallacies.
There no logic involved, merely an exposition of historical fact.
OK, tell me who these "same people" are.
"The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science...
Surely you can pull a specific example from that. Just provide one.
I did - "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition."
George Monbiot's Guardian article - effectively a chapter from his
book "Heat" if I've remembered the dates correctly - talks about
TASSC, and I threw in the SourceWatch detail to flesh out the picture.
Make *what* point? You won't state one. All you'll do is make vagueDon't send me on a wild goose chase.
I gave you a specific organisation, and enough detail on that
organisation to make the point. You've failed to process the data.
Your reaction is that of a silly goose who doesn't know how to deal
with actual facts.
Again, I am not your student. And now I am not going to be yoursnip
Yet you can't show how.
I just did.
You did not. You posted a steaming pile of links.
The data is there, but you are too dim, or too dedicated to your
demented point of view, to be able to process it.
More ad-hominem, ho-hum.It's cheap and desperate,
It might be if it were wrong. It isn't.
Repeated assertion is not a winning tactic, either.
As you might have worked out by now, if you had a functioning brain.
What do you mean, "can't identify the units". Those are your words.snip
In fact, it's stupid for you to even do that when you should know
that the central question of CAGW is the sensitivity number. Everyone
with any skin in the game at all knows that, and that is so unambiguous
all you have to do is state a real in the range 0.5 to 6 in this
context and everyone knows precisely what is referenced.
But you don't. And the 0.5 to 6 is way too high these days
Huh? We don't even know the sign for sure.
You can't even identify the dimensions - units - of the sensitivity
you are pontificating about, and yet you think you can make credible
claims about the current level of scientific knowledge about whatever
it is you think you are talking about.
Climate is a result of chaotic forcings. Given the perspective ofBest estimates seem
to be 1-2, but they are simply estimates and no one can
characterize our chaotic climate system well enough to even
achieve statisical likelihood of their estimate.
Weather is chaotic. Climate isn't. We've been pointing this out to
John Larkin here for years. We've even pointed out that this
particular insight goes back to John von Neumann, not much after the
crucial computer modelling fiasco that drew everybody's attention to
the fact that weather is chaotic. John Larkin's yet to take it on
board, and you don't promise to be a quick study either.
Make *what* point? You won't state one. All you'll do is make vague
accusations and expect me to chase your references.
Then state the hypothesis in equation form with all the relevantOn 22 Dec, 10:22, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse
effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.
If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe
you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?
Denying what? Denying that the models of certain theorists showing a
climate sensitivity of 3+ degrees C are gospel? And you are going to
resort the the cheap trick of the semantic tarbrush trying to equate
holocaust denial for denying *that*?
Actually, Dr. Sloman seems to be unaware that while it is indisputable
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for some of the warmth
of the earth, doubling it won't have much effect, due to the fact that
the CO2 IR window is totally blocked.
The "fact" that the CO2 IR window is "totally blocked" - it isn't -
doesn't have the significance you imagine. You need to get your head
around the concept of "effective emitting altitude" which is wavelength
dependent number. Below that altitude, most of the radiation emitted at
the wavelength is re-absorbed within the atmosphere. At that altitude,
half of it makes it out into outer space.
It's the temperature at that altitude that thus determines the amount of
IR radiated to outer space at that wavelength. More CO2 pushes it
higher, where the atmosphere is colder. Since the IR emitted has to
balance the essentially constant IR flux from the Sun, the temperatures
all the way down to the surface have to warm up to keep the temperature
at the emitting altitude a bit warmer than it used to be.
WTF?! Dude, the greenhouse effect is about blocking the IR bands in theYou may see a TRIVIAL amount of warming due to a raise in the sidebars,
but you'd also see a decrease due to CO2's absorption band in the sun's
spectral output to the earth.
The sun is lot hotter than the earth, and most of it's energy comes in
above the CO2 absorbtion bands. Look up Plancks Law.
Your argument is a big fail. First of all, it IS blocked
Oooh, you're nimble.On 23 Dec, 00:21, Sleepalot <sleepalo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 10:22, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse effect
argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.
If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe you
-- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?
Denying what? Denying that the models of certain theorists showing a
climate sensitivity of 3+ degrees C are gospel? And you are going to
resort the the cheap trick of the semantic tarbrush trying to equate
holocaust denial for denying *that*?
Actually, Dr. Sloman seems to be unaware that while it is indisputable
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for some of the warmth of
the earth, doubling it won't have much effect, due to the fact that the
CO2 IR window is totally blocked.
The "fact" that the CO2 IR window is "totally blocked" - it isn't -
doesn't have the significance you imagine. You need to get your head
around the concept of "effective emitting altitude" which is
wavelength dependent number. Below that altitude, most of the
radiation emitted at the wavelength is re-absorbed within the
atmosphere. At that altitude, half of it makes it out into outer
space.
It's the temperature at that altitude that thus determines the amount
of IR radiated to outer space at that wavelength. More CO2 pushes it
higher, where the atmosphere is colder. Since the IR emitted has to
balance the essentially constant IR flux from the Sun,
Night-time.
The earth has quite a lot of thermal mass. The night side of the earth
does cool off a bit during the night, but not enough to make much
difference to the radiative balance.
snip
It's been done. IIRR you can download the suite of software that letsOn Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:34:42 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22 Dec, 10:22, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse
effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.
If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe
you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?
Denying what? Denying that the models of certain theorists showing a
climate sensitivity of 3+ degrees C are gospel? And you are going to
resort the the cheap trick of the semantic tarbrush trying to equate
holocaust denial for denying *that*?
Actually, Dr. Sloman seems to be unaware that while it is indisputable
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for some of the warmth
of the earth, doubling it won't have much effect, due to the fact that
the CO2 IR window is totally blocked.
The "fact" that the CO2 IR window is "totally blocked" - it isn't -
doesn't have the significance you imagine. You need to get your head
around the concept of "effective emitting altitude" which is wavelength
dependent number. Below that altitude, most of the radiation emitted at
the wavelength is re-absorbed within the atmosphere. At that altitude,
half of it makes it out into outer space.
It's the temperature at that altitude that thus determines the amount of
IR radiated to outer space at that wavelength. More CO2 pushes it
higher, where the atmosphere is colder. Since the IR emitted has to
balance the essentially constant IR flux from the Sun, the temperatures
all the way down to the surface have to warm up to keep the temperature
at the emitting altitude a bit warmer than it used to be.
Then state the hypothesis in equation form with all the relevant
variables of your choice and show how it predicts and accurately
describes the current state.
At ground level. Which means that the IR radiation is still moving upYour argument is a big fail. First of all, it IS blocked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
The only band that contributes to the greenhouse effect is the 14-20
micrometer band, and it IS saturated.
Right. But since most of the energy input from the sun comes in atYou may see a TRIVIAL amount of warming due to a raise in the sidebars,
but you'd also see a decrease due to CO2's absorption band in the sun's
spectral output to the earth.
The sun is lot hotter than the earth, and most of it's energy comes in
above the CO2 absorbtion bands. Look up Plancks Law.
WTF?! Dude, the greenhouse effect is about blocking the IR bands in the
EARTH's black body curve, not the suns! Blocking incoming radiation in
the SUN's black body curve causes COOLING.
Wrong. The mis-perception is entirely yours, and it's a pretty comicalLOL! You don't even know how the greenhouse effect works!!
And you are the butt of the joke.That is just too damned funny!
Slowman's nylons.krw@att.bizzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:27:36 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies
GnomeLess@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:08:03 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush like
"denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.
I think that is something going on in your mind, most people know that
the word denier refers to nylons.
Are your really asserting that a homograph has any meaning in this
discussion?
Or that he has a fetish for wearing nylons?
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 15:15:38 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
krw@att.bizzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:27:36 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies
GnomeLess@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:08:03 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush like
"denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.
I think that is something going on in your mind, most people know that
the word denier refers to nylons.
Are your really asserting that a homograph has any meaning in this
discussion?
Or that he has a fetish for wearing nylons?
Slowman's nylons.
The George Monbiot piece is a straightforward newspaper article,On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23 Dec, 03:00, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 23:54, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 18:04, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 03:24, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 23:34, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 15:31, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 12:17, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:
snip
The Wall Street Journal isn't a person, but an organisation, and their
propensity to publish denialist propaganda is well established.
You still can't do it. Amazing. I bet you don't even know what
the issues in global warming are. All you can do is call names
and appeal to authority.
If you want the scientific chapter and verse, go to
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse
effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.
If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe
you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?
http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/...
It's not the only information available about what's going on, but it
does set this latest round of big business trashing inconvenient
scientific evidence in it's historical context.
You've been suckered by a well-financed public relations campaign
directed by the same people who earlier told you that smoking wasn't
actually all that bad for your health
More logical fallacies.
There no logic involved, merely an exposition of historical fact.
OK, tell me who these "same people" are.
"The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science....
Surely you can pull a specific example from that. Just provide one.
I did - "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition."
George Monbiot's Guardian article - effectively a chapter from his
book "Heat" if I've remembered the dates correctly - talks about
TASSC, and I threw in the SourceWatch detail to flesh out the picture.
I'm not your student. Don't give me sources and expect me to chase
them,
George Monbiot may be an adequate approximation to the kind of deity.assuming you are some sort of deity whose perspicacity
I should worship.
It would be, if there was any chance that you could understandYou need to bring out something, describe it in your own words so I know you understand it, then wait for a
response. It's called conversation.
That some of the people busy denying the reality and/or importance ofDon't send me on a wild goose chase.
I gave you a specific organisation, and enough detail on that
organisation to make the point. You've failed to process the data.
Your reaction is that of a silly goose who doesn't know how to deal
with actual facts.
Make *what* point?
I had thought that the point was obvious. I seem to have over-You won't state one.
There's nothing vague about my accusations about the denialistAll you'll do is make vague accusations and expect me to chase your references.
You aren't exactly promising student material, and even lesssnip
Yet you can't show how.
I just did.
You did not. You posted a steaming pile of links.
The data is there, but you are too dim, or too dedicated to your
demented point of view, to be able to process it.
Again, I am not your student. And now I am not going to be your
interlocutor, either, because I am sick of your behavior.
You are claiming to be human? A hominid perhaps, but well short ofIt's cheap and desperate,
It might be if it were wrong. It isn't.
Repeated assertion is not a winning tactic, either.
As you might have worked out by now, if you had a functioning brain.
More ad-hominem, ho-hum.
I know what I'm talking about. I've got no evidence that you do, andsnip
In fact, it's stupid for you to even do that when you should know
that the central question of CAGW is the sensitivity number. Everyone
with any skin in the game at all knows that, and that is so unambiguous
all you have to do is state a real in the range 0.5 to 6 in this
context and everyone knows precisely what is referenced.
But you don't. And the 0.5 to 6 is way too high these days
Huh? We don't even know the sign for sure.
You can't even identify the dimensions - units - of the sensitivity
you are pontificating about, and yet you think you can make credible
claims about the current level of scientific knowledge about whatever
it is you think you are talking about.
What do you mean, "can't identify the units". Those are your words.
I assume that you know what we are talking about here.
The forcing aren't chaotic. The atmosphere churns around ore or lessWeather is chaotic. Climate isn't. We've been pointing this out to
John Larkin here for years. We've even pointed out that this
particular insight goes back to John von Neumann, not much after the
crucial computer modelling fiasco that drew everybody's attention to
the fact that weather is chaotic. John Larkin's yet to take it on
board, and you don't promise to be a quick study either.
Climate is a result of chaotic forcings.
Farmers have a shorter attention span, and they don't find it chaoticGiven the perspective of millenia, one might say climate is not chaotic.
It's not immune to the effects of the North Atlantic multidecadalBut from the
perspective of 160 years of temperature data, and speaking in tenths
of a degree, it is not a system that is immune to the effects of chaos.
Cloud cover isn't a forcing, it's just part of the system beingCan you characterize all of the forcings in the climate system? Until
a couple of years ago, every climate model represented cloud cover in
an extremely simplistic fashion.
Lindzen had ideas about this, but they were exploded at least a decadeClouds aren't simple, and there is
evidence that solar effects may be amplified by clouds.
Identify what you imagine "forcings" to be. It won't make you lookWhen you can't characterize a system completely, and it is subject to many and
varied forcings, the result is chaos on the decadal scales we are
speaking of.
I got unemployment benefit in the Netherlands from 2003 to 2007. ItMickey Langan wrote:
Make *what* point? You won't state one. All you'll do is make vague
accusations and expect me to chase your references.
It's all he's done for over a decade. That, and live on welfare
while whining that no one will hire old fools like him.
Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson is the only regular poster whoMost people on SED have him kill filed.
Really? As far as I know it's been something like nine years since IHe also uses multiple email addresses which will get around some filters.
It seems that Michael Terrell has become increasingly deluded lately, asOn 23 Dec, 12:57, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Most people on SED have him kill filed.
Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson is the only regular poster who
admits to it, and he kill-files everybody who shows him up as the
ignorant red-neck that he is.
He also uses multiple email addresses which will get around some filters.
Really? As far as I know it's been something like nine years since I
intentionally posted as anything other than bill.sloman@ieee.org.
On 22 Dec, 03:24, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 23:34, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 15:31, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 12:17, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:
http://tinyurl.com/wsj-ridley-on-GW
1.6* C seems survivable, maybe even benign.
Ridley isn't a scientist, but he does cite credible
sources.
Of course, we know Sam Wormley will give this
due consideration, famous as he is for rationality
and objectivity and erudition, immune to hysteria
and ego and emotional investment.
PS ?Epigram from the article: "... given the IPCC's
record of replacing evidence-based policy-making
with policy-based evidence-making..."
Given the Wall Street Journal's enthusiasm for publishing denialist
propaganda,
You can't even make it a sentence without an ad-hominem. Is it
any wonder that global warming proponents have completely lost
the PR battle?
The Wall Street Journal isn't a person, but an organisation, and their
propensity to publish denialist propaganda is well established.
You still can't do it. Amazing. I bet you don't even know what
the issues in global warming are. All you can do is call names
and appeal to authority.
If you want the scientific chapter and verse, go to
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse
effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.
If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe
you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?
http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/...
It's not the only information available about what's going on, but it
does set this latest round of big business trashing inconvenient
scientific evidence in it's historical context.
You've been suckered by a well-financed public relations campaign
directed by the same people who earlier told you that smoking wasn't
actually all that bad for your health
Denying what? Denying that the models of certain theorists showing
a climate sensitivity of 3+ degrees C are gospel?
Religions have gospels. Science just has evidence, and not-yet-
falsified interpretations of that evidence. If you were sensitive to
the scientific content of the propositions that you seem to be
objecting to, you'd identify - and quantity - the variable that was
going to create the 3+ K variation. As a clue, it's usually a doubling
of the atmospheric CO2 level from the pre-industrial 270ppm.
Your enthusiasm for typing out phrases that you clearly don't
understand puts you squarely in the "gospel-pushing" camp.
snipped more rubbish
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
All you got to do is put the equation that makes the predictions in theOn 22 Dec, 18:07, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know
enough about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the
greenhouse effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.
If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe
you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?
Denying what? Denying that the models of certain theorists showing a
climate sensitivity of 3+ degrees C are gospel? And you are going to
resort the the cheap trick of the semantic tarbrush trying to equate
holocaust denial for denying *that*?
Actually, Mr. Sloman seems to be unaware that while it is
indisputable that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for some
of the warmth of the earth, doubling it won't have much effect, due
to the fact that the CO2 IR window is totally blocked. You may see a
TRIVIAL amount of warming due to a raise in the sidebars, but you'd
also see a decrease due to CO2's absorption band in the sun's
spectral output to the earth.
This is well known - and it is why so many "climate scientist" are
looking for a "positive feedback mechanism" as IR bands alone do NOT
explain the claimed warming (which is due, in part, to the claimed
warming being a big fat lie... a lot of it is UHI and due to not
following their own methodology!)
When someone says something stupid and then backs it up with "I have
a PhD!" all they're really doing is pissing on their own degree and
proving they shouldn't have one. Appeals to authority are a big fail.
What's clear is that people intuitively can tell they have no real
argument by the tactics they constantly use.
That should be true of the denialist propaganda, but it does seem to be
fooling some of the people - Mickey Langan included - all of the time.
That is why they have lost and faded into irrelevance.
The denialist propaganda machine has done what it was intended to do -
to buy a little more time for the fossil carbon extraction industries to
make a lot more money. It may have done enough to guarantee a human
population crash in a generation or two - it's certainly done enough to
make avoiding such a crash a lot more difficult.
Doha was a joke, and no one even tried to pretend it wasn't. All
because they use these stupid tactics that a child can see through.
Not exactly. The problem was that they kept on presenting the scientific
evidence, and the "merchants of doubt" know how to get the child-minded
to under-value it.
Mr. Langan has nailed it. As long as the federal government funds studiesOn 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 18:07, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know
enough about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the
greenhouse effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.
If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe
you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?
Denying what? Denying that the models of certain theorists showing
a climate sensitivity of 3+ degrees C are gospel? And you are going
to resort the the cheap trick of the semantic tarbrush trying to
equate holocaust denial for denying *that*?
Actually, Mr. Sloman seems to be unaware that while it is
indisputable that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for
some of the warmth of the earth, doubling it won't have much effect,
due to the fact that the CO2 IR window is totally blocked. You may
see a TRIVIAL amount of warming due to a raise in the sidebars, but
you'd also see a decrease due to CO2's absorption band in the sun's
spectral output to the earth.
This is well known - and it is why so many "climate scientist" are
looking for a "positive feedback mechanism" as IR bands alone do NOT
explain the claimed warming (which is due, in part, to the claimed
warming being a big fat lie... a lot of it is UHI and due to not
following their own methodology!)
When someone says something stupid and then backs it up with "I have
a PhD!" all they're really doing is pissing on their own degree and
proving they shouldn't have one. Appeals to authority are a big
fail.
What's clear is that people intuitively can tell they have no real
argument by the tactics they constantly use.
That should be true of the denialist propaganda, but it does seem to be
fooling some of the people - Mickey Langan included - all of the time.
Nice assertion. Anything to back it up in the way of evidence? Just
point out the fallacious nature of some arguments made.
That is why they have lost and faded into irrelevance.
The denialist propaganda machine has done what it was intended to do -
to buy a little more time for the fossil carbon extraction industries
to make a lot more money.
See, there you go. Conspiracy theories. The "evil carbon-funded
denialist machine". Except no one has ever found the funding -- it
doesn't exist. Now if you want to talk funding which is incontroverible
and self- evident, how about the scientists who have ridden the "climate
change" gravy train for the past three decades. Love this cartoon:
http://duxmail.com/latest.jpg
Perhaps you are subject to that one yourself. I can see the conundrum of
the climate scientist. It must be galling to have studied a long time
only to find out the train you have chosen to ride seems to have run out
of fuel.
It may have done enough to guarantee a human population crash in a
generation or two - it's certainly done enough to make avoiding such a
crash a lot more difficult.
These apocalyptic end-of-the-world forecasts would be more chilling if
the GTA had been cooperating with the dire predictions of the past. So
far, I'll take comfort in the knowledge that apocalyptic end-of-the-
world forecasters are so far 0 for 100,000. Oh, 100,001 now that we have
hit Dec 22.
Doha was a joke, and no one even tried to pretend it wasn't. All
because they use these stupid tactics that a child can see through.
Not exactly. The problem was that they kept on presenting the
scientific evidence, and the "merchants of doubt" know how to get the
child-minded to under-value it.
See? You prove my point every time you speak. You can't help but make
these types of claims, it seems to be in your DNA.
All you got to do is put the equation that makes the predictions in the
newsgroup. You can use all the variables you want besides CO2, but you
have to produce a hypothesis that shows that as CO2 rises, warming rises,
and that hypothesis has to predict.
If you want to shut up the "denialist", then that's all you have to do,
is produce a falsifiable hypothesis that makes accurate predictions. It
is not up to denialist to prove you wrong, it is up to the AGW frauds to
prove they're right.
So, do it, smart ass.
Fact is, every single computer model ever made FAILED to predict the
recent non-warming trend of the last 16 years. All we heard from you guys
is a lot of "yeah but!" and "just wait!" Not only did those models fail
to predict the last 16 years, they always fail to agree with known
observation when you go far enough into the past - that's because they're
all curve fitting.
On the other hand, there's this guy named Svensmark who's simple
hypothesis agrees with the last 4 billion years of the climate record,
and DID predict the recent cooling. All you "scientist" do is pretend you
don't understand the theory, lie about the theory, and slander the guy.
That's not how science is done, son. Go sue your school and try to get
all the money back. You were supposed to learn science, not fraud.