Driver to drive?

On Dec 21, 11:19 am, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:

On 2012-12-21, P E Schoen <p...@peschoen.com> wrote:

"Mickey Langan"  wrote in message
news:tO-dndc25pSTe07NnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@supernews.com...

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?

You are probably getting all of your "facts" from media sources that are
biased to massage your delusions. But even seven years ago Fox News reported
that 77% of Americans believe in global warming:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175070,00.html

Now it may be closer to 85%, in spite of massive right-wing propaganda:
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/timepoll.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/15/us-usa-poll-ipsos-idUSTRE78...
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1877674/many_americans_still_bel...

although some polls show otherwise:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-C...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/24/AR200...

Many of these are not very recent, but I found this from October 2012.
Sandy, anyone?
http://blog.pe.com/environment/2012/10/18/climate-change-more-people-...

Hell, *I* believe in warming. But that isn't the issue, is it? The
issue is CAGW, i.e. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. All
your polls about people, or even scientists, believing warming is
happening are completely meaningless, because warming is not the
issue. Any fool can see that the world has warmed since 1850.

It just kills me when you try to say "there's warming, I've proved
my point!" No, you haven't proved a thing. And most people are
smart enough to understand this at least on a gut level. They
see what warmists do and say to themselves, "People who are winning
an argument don't behave in this fashion...."

It's pretty obvious the earth is warming, has been for a long time.
Why, not that long ago, North America was buried under a mile of ice.
Trapped a bunch of wooly mammoths, it did.

I like it better this way. Mammoths would too.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Dec 21, 10:19 am, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com> wrote:

"Tunderbar"  wrote in message

news:97cbd939-0438-4b10-8d8b-96ccfa0f4bfc@k6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

As a citizen of the North, I welcome a warmer climate. I'll take that
1.6C anytime.

Typical selfish remark from denialists, or more accurately, sociopaths. Such
behavior is defined by being motivated totally by self-interest and having
no compassion for (or even logical comprehension of) the deleterious effects
on others.

Careful, that logic works in reverse, too--stipulating to your
assumptions, why would you deny food, transport, medicine, and comfort
to Africans, Indians, and Chinese? Warmer winters for Canadians?

Moreover, the average temperature rise has apparently manifested
itself as more extreme weather patterns, which are far more destructive than
a homogeneous change as you apparently interpret this to be.

Not AFAICT. Until Sandy--which wasn't particularly remarkable itself
except for unluckily meeting a nor'easter--we've had years of below-
average activity.

When a source forever relates the costs of a thing, but never possible
benefits, it's prima facie evidence of bias. When events are
continually cherry-picked, ditto.

Rational decisions require weighing of costs and benefits. If those
aren't fairly, openly presented, the source has an agenda other than
science.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Dec 21, 2:55 am, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:33:41 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21 Dec, 14:40, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

So are you going to say that Dr. Hansen is not a scientist? I might
agree with you on that one...
I'm not saying anything of the sort, and since you've got that wrong,
it's no surprise that you misjudge Hansen too,

No doubt he's your hero making millions off of the AGW scam he's promoted
for so long. Too bad all his dire predictions turned out wrong like all
those predictions of the end of the world.

Nope, Al Gore's his guy.

I measure my own energy use in milliGores, 1 Gore being Al Gore's
average electrical use at his Nashville house (just one of many, one
might add, and neglecting his natural gas bill) = 18.6 MWHr/month.

For a while I was at 3 milliGores, drifted up to 10 for a while, but
last month I got by on 3.2 mG.

(IOW, I'm a conservationist. Not like those global cooling deniers.)

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:30:42 +0000, Mike Perkins <spam@spam.com>
wrote:

On 21/12/2012 14:45, Tunderbar wrote:
On Dec 20, 7:17 pm, 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.

As a citizen of the North, I welcome a warmer climate. I'll take
that 1.6C anytime.


That's an average. In practice prevailing wind patterns may well change
to make your area colder. Here in the UK we are protected to an extent
by the Gulf Stream, and there is historical evidence that this has
stopped from time to time, with a subsequent cooling effect.

In a chaotic system, everything changes everything. Sure you can blame
AGW for hurricane Sandy. You can just as logically blame my burning a
pile of oak leaves in 1968 for Sandy.

We painted the roof of our building with nice shiny aluminum paint. In
20 years or so, that will change everything.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

I like it better this way. Mammoths would too.

Oprah, Rosanne Barr and Ricky lake? Those mammoths? ;-)

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:

On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@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.

 

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:22:42 -0600, Marvin the Martian
<marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:

On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@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.

Particularly when that "authority" is in a completely different field,
which might just as well be in 15th century Ethiopian literature.

 

[WoolyBully]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 04:51:10 -0600, wiljan@nospam.pobox.com (Will
Janoschka) wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:46:14, benj <benj@iwaynet.net> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:50:41 -0600, Unum wrote:

Why don't we just use a graph straight from NASA;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.pdf

Why not? Sure it's designed to cover a wider range, but if you look
closely at the end you get the SAME flat line for the last decade.
Obviously it SHOULD since it's supposedly from the same data.

And while you are at it take a good look at that period from 1940 to
about 1975. MORE than 30 years of FALLING temperatures while CO2
continued to rise! So much for the CO2 is the ONLY cause of global
warming theory.

We won't even get into how this data has been fudged to produce apparent
warming and even with the cheating it STILL shows the AGW theories to be
fake!

Just who do you guys think you are fooling?

They arn't fooling, their smokin, want a toke? I do some of
my best work when stoned. Your milage may vary.

Now there is a vapor we should all be filling the air with!

 

[Mickey Langan]

On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@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:

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/1608193942

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. In this case, a red herring combined with
a non-sequitur. Smoking has nothing to do with this, and you bringing
it up means you have nothing in the way of a point.

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.

More ad-hominems. When that's all you have, people don't
believe you. That's your problem; even if you have a winning
argument you have adopted the tactics of a loser. But if you
had a winning argument, you'd advance it. You don't, so everyone
knows you are a loser. See the problem the warmists have?

--
Mickey

Why is it more moral for a federal bureaucrat in a state-supplied SUV to
shut down an offshore oil rig on grounds that it is too dangerous for
the environment than for a private individual to risk his own capital to
find some sort of new fuel to power his government's SUV fleet?
-- Victor Davis Hanson

 

[Mickey Langan]

On 2012-12-21, Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:

On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@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 is why
they have lost and faded into irrelevance. 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.

--
Mickey

Why is it more moral for a federal bureaucrat in a state-supplied SUV to
shut down an offshore oil rig on grounds that it is too dangerous for
the environment than for a private individual to risk his own capital to
find some sort of new fuel to power his government's SUV fleet?
-- Victor Davis Hanson

 

[Bill Sloman]

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/1608193942

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

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.

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.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

This is well known

It isn't, because it doesn't happen to be true.

- 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

Wrong. And water is another greenhouse gas, and makes a significant
difference. As the earth surface gets warmer, the 70% of it covered by
water sustains a higher partial pressure of water in teh atmosphere.
It's one of the positive feedback mechanisms. Everybody - except you -
has known about it for years, so nobody is "looking for it" at the
moment.

(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!)

You obviously haven't got a clue about the physics involved and your
claims about "lies" and "not following their own methodology" are
simply evidence of your ignorance.

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.

Perfectly true. Sadly for your rhetoric, I haven't said anything
stupid, and you've made lots of stupid errors. I've not been appealing
to authority, I've been exercising it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 22 Dec, 10:34, k...@att.bizzz wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:22:42 -0600, 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.

Particularly when that "authority" is in a completely different field,
which might just as well be in 15th century  Ethiopian literature.

Krw doesn't know much about physical chemistry, and less about my
Ph.D. project. He probably doesn't know much about 15th century
Ethiopean literature either.

He obviously doesn't know anything about climate science, or he might
have picked up a few of Marvin the Martian's solecisms. I was
particularly amused by

"you'd also see a decrease due to CO2's absorption band in the sun's
spectral output to the earth."

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

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.

In this case, a red herring combined with a non-sequitur.

Dream on.

Smoking has nothing to do with this, and you bringing
it up means you have nothing in the way of a point.

On the contrary, the technique for devaluing scientific information
that was invented by the tobacco companies to preserve their right to
keep on damaging their customer's health for a few more years, are
exactly the same techniques, occasionally applied by exactly the same
people, that are being used to cloud your thinking about anthropogenic
global warming.

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 quantify - 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.

More ad-hominems.

Scarcely. The phrase he used was scientifically illiterate - not even
wrong, to borrow Dirac's phrase, and there's no way of pointing this
out without belittling him.

When that's all you have, people don't
believe you.

That's scarcely all I have

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

offers rather more.

That's your problem; even if you have a winning
argument you have adopted the tactics of a loser.

So, how would a winner have coped with such a fatuous counter-
argument?

But if you had a winning argument, you'd advance it.

I do and did. The AIP web-site gives chapter and verse. If you are too
dim to get your head around it, that makes you the loser, not me.

You don't, so everyone knows you are a loser. See the problem the warmists have?

With people who can't do joined up logic? You do exhibit the nature of
the problem depressingly well.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

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.

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 22 Dec, 03:03, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:19:47 -0500, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com> wrote:

"Tunderbar"  wrote in message
news:97cbd939-0438-4b10-8d8b-96ccfa0f4bfc@k6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

As a citizen of the North, I welcome a warmer climate. I'll take that
1.6C anytime.

OK, you can have the 1.6, as long as the skiing isn't affected.



Typical selfish remark from denialists, or more accurately, sociopaths. Such
behavior is defined by being motivated totally by self-interest and having
no compassion for (or even logical comprehension of) the deleterious effects
on others. Moreover, the average temperature rise has apparently manifested
itself as more extreme weather patterns, which are far more destructive than
a homogeneous change as you apparently interpret this to be.

The only thing that's more extreme is the reporting. Weather has always been
variable. Have some compassion for the billions of terribly poor people who want
a better life; a warmer climate, higher crop yields, availability of energy and
petrochemicals and transportation will all make their lives better. If fracking
produces natural gas in/for energy-poor countries, it will be the greatest gift
to the poor in world history.

Pollyanna Larkin see only the positive effects of global warming, and
expects global warming and more CO2 to do more for crop plants than
for weeds.

Today's alarmist mantra is "Of course, climate change can't be blamed for any
specific weather event" followed by doing exactly that.

Not exactly. They do note that extreme weather events ahve become more
frequent since we started giving the atmosphere a little more energy
to play with.

AGW panic is just another doomsday fad. It will go away eventually and silly
people will find something else to worry about.

Whereas sensible people will continue to pay attention to serious
science, rather than the denialist propaganda peddled by the fossil
carbon extraction industry. Nobody is panicked by anthropogenic global
warming - it's a slow-moving threat that just gets progressively more
troublesome. We may find something else more serious and immediate to
worry about - brain-dead right-wing Americans do make zombies look
benign - but anthropogenic global warming does seem to have staying
power.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 22 Dec, 03:54, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 21, 10:19 am, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com> wrote:

"Tunderbar"  wrote in message

news:97cbd939-0438-4b10-8d8b-96ccfa0f4bfc@k6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

As a citizen of the North, I welcome a warmer climate. I'll take that
1.6C anytime.

Typical selfish remark from denialists, or more accurately, sociopaths. Such
behavior is defined by being motivated totally by self-interest and having
no compassion for (or even logical comprehension of) the deleterious effects
on others.

Careful, that logic works in reverse, too--stipulating to your
assumptions, why would you deny food, transport, medicine, and comfort
to Africans, Indians, and Chinese?

Not necessary. Solar energy is going to be cheaper than energy
obtained by burning fossil carbon in a decade or so anyway. Why not
get them started off right, rather than stuck with 6% efficient coal-
fired generators (which the Chinese are now shutting down at a great
rate, at the same time as they are ramping up their photo-voltaic
production capacity, bringing the cross-over date forward ).

 Warmer winters for Canadians?

But hotter summers?

Moreover, the average temperature rise has apparently manifested
itself as more extreme weather patterns, which are far more destructive than
a homogeneous change as you apparently interpret this to be.

Not AFAICT.

You haven't been paying attention to the literature, Extreme weather
has become significantly more likely - more water vapor in the air
above the oceans is more energy for every weather system to play with.
Some don't play nice.

 Until Sandy--which wasn't particularly remarkable itself
except for unluckily meeting a nor'easter--we've had years of below-
average activity.

That's statistics for you. The unexpected "black swan" always comes as
a surprise.

When a source forever relates the costs of a thing, but never possible
benefits, it's prima facie evidence of bias.  When events are
continually cherry-picked, ditto.

That's what peer-review is designed to detect. On simple questions
like that, peer-review works well.

Rational decisions require weighing of costs and benefits.  If those
aren't fairly, openly presented, the source has an agenda other than
science.

And which source did you have in mind?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 22 Dec, 07:41, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:30:42 +0000, Mike Perkins <s...@spam.com
wrote:









On 21/12/2012 14:45, Tunderbar wrote:
On Dec 20, 7:17 pm, 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.

As a citizen of the North, I welcome a warmer climate. I'll take
that 1.6C anytime.

That's an average.  In practice prevailing wind patterns may well change
to make your area colder.  Here in the UK we are protected to an extent
by the Gulf Stream, and there is historical evidence that this has
stopped from time to time, with a subsequent cooling effect.

In a chaotic system, everything changes everything. Sure you can blame
AGW for hurricane Sandy. You can just as logically blame my burning a
pile of oak leaves in 1968 for Sandy.

We painted the roof of our building with nice shiny aluminum paint. In
20 years or so, that will change everything.

It changes weather, not climate - climate balances the energy coming
in from the sun with the energy re-radiated out to the rest of the
universe from the upper reaches of the earth's atmosphere.

Weather - and ocean currents - shift some of the energy from the
equator, which gets lots, up to the poles which get less. The exact
routes the energy takes vary from day to day and - to a lesser extent
- from year to year, but conservation of energy makes climate a lot
more predictable than weather.

We tell John this from time to time, but he doesn't know enough to
make sense of what we are telling him.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[mr_antone]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 01:04:36 -0600, Mickey Langan
<mickey@perusion.net> wrote:

On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 03:24, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:

<sniparoo>

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/1608193942

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. In this case, a red herring combined with
a non-sequitur. Smoking has nothing to do with this, and you bringing
it up means you have nothing in the way of a point.


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.

More ad-hominems. When that's all you have, people don't
believe you. That's your problem; even if you have a winning
argument you have adopted the tactics of a loser. But if you
had a winning argument, you'd advance it. You don't, so everyone
knows you are a loser.

See the problem the warmists have?

There you go again.
Using cheap non-words like "warmists ".

mr_antone

--

Glaciers don't lie.

 

[Mickey Langan]

On 2012-12-22, mr_antone <just@not.here> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 01:04:36 -0600, Mickey Langan
mickey@perusion.net> wrote:

On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 03:24, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:

sniparoo


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/1608193942

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. In this case, a red herring combined with
a non-sequitur. Smoking has nothing to do with this, and you bringing
it up means you have nothing in the way of a point.


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.

More ad-hominems. When that's all you have, people don't
believe you. That's your problem; even if you have a winning
argument you have adopted the tactics of a loser. But if you
had a winning argument, you'd advance it. You don't, so everyone
knows you are a loser.

See the problem the warmists have?

There 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.

--
Mickey

Why is it more moral for a federal bureaucrat in a state-supplied SUV to
shut down an offshore oil rig on grounds that it is too dangerous for
the environment than for a private individual to risk his own capital to
find some sort of new fuel to power his government's SUV fleet?
-- Victor Davis Hanson