Driver to drive?

[Unum]

On 12/24/2012 6:39 PM, Wally W. wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 18:10:38 -0600, Unum wrote:

On 12/24/2012 4:58 PM, Wally W. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:57:11 -0600, Unum wrote:

On 12/24/2012 9:54 AM, Wally W. wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:27:35 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 17:25, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
On 12/23/2012 11:25 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:19:25 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

snip

Its all about personal attacks at this point.

Calling someone a "denier" isn't a personal attack?

Linking the dismisal of your religion with the denial of the Holocaust
is character assassination. How is that not personal?

Lol, suddenly Wally develops a thin skin. There are many forms of
denial aren't there. We didn't land on the moon, the earth isn't
a sphere, there's no such thing as evolution, guns don't kill,
there was no Holocaust, there's no global warming, etc. If you
are a batshit crazy little fruitcake and somebody points it out,
you needn't be offended. Its a large community.

That's for sure. Its merely an accurate description.

You were talking about accurate descriptions.

I gave you an accurate description and now *I* have a thin skin.

Snort.

Good. You're a denialist, we'll just leave it at that.

Marvin's not short of ideas. They are incomplete and incorrect, but
there's no shortage.

Lets see... you're defending a hypothesis that you are TOTALLY ignorant
of, and you cannot state. Most of your rebuttals are vapid and
condescending. You do know that the Latin root of professor means to
profess, that you can STATE your position right? Instead, you're coming
off as an ignorant condescending asshole, and you're calling ME an
"ignoramus" for asking you what the hell is the hypothesis that you're
defending? Then you pretty much admit that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT it is, and
that MAYBE the IPCC has it? Can't defend you thesis, huh?

Does it seem like Marvin has a little anger management problem?

And a small "lack of precision" problem. If I'm defending a hypothesis
that I'm totally ignorant of, how can I know what I'm defending?

That seems to be the point.

Spewing words to further a political agenda differs from defending a
hypothesis.

I don't recall him mentioning a 'political agenda'.

Of course he didn't mention it.

But that is how the AGW scam persists.

Guhaw! Of course he didn't mention it, Wally 'just knows' things. The
voices whisper to him.

When does a scammer lead with the declaration that they are trying to
perpetrate a scam?

Why do you think the AGW scam is different?

You need to cinch that hat on a little tighter. Its all a
conspiracy, you know. You can tell someone is trying to
perpetrate a scam because - there's no sign of a scam.
Sneaky! Same exact thing with political agendas.

Can you quote it Wally?

Have the weasels written it down?

They tipped their hand here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones#Inscriptions
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with
nature.

The political agenda comes from the Georgia Guidestones. Lol, I
learn something new on the internet every day! What kind of tinfoil
do you use for your hat, the thin crinkly stuff or the industrial
grade? Might want to consider the heavy duty.

So, no: The weasels haven't written it down.

I was mainly interested in the hat. Do you go for the round
or the pointy style? What planet do the messages come from?

He then wants me to define it - which is a neat trick if I don't what
it is - while ignoring the fact that I've already done it in this
thread.

Then it should be easy for you to copy and paste it.

Lol now Wally wants him to paste what he already wrote back
into the thread. Look it up.

So you are also unable to demonstrate that he had "already done it."

I'm demonstrating that you aren't smart enough to go look for yourself
at everything that has appeared in the thread.

And yet, you haven't demonstrated that what you claim is in the thread
actually exists.

I didn't claim anything was in the thread other than what
people have already written. I will claim that whatever was
in the thread does exist.

He's a waste of space, and reacting to him is a waste of bandwidth.
The high incidence of stupid mistakes in his posts does make it
tempting, but he's posted enough to absolve us from any obligation to
point up any more.

On the contrary, he has asked good questions which have not been
answered, and he has debunked claims by the warmophobes who have not
better comeback than to repeat the same claim because their
programming compels it.

Marvin's garbage gets regularly destroyed on alt.global-warming
and your crap does too Wally. Spell out for me what Marvin has
'debunked' here and what that 'debunking' consisted of.

I don't accept the job of spoon-feeding you.

So you've got absolutely nothing. You can't come up with
a single thing.

In the past, I have not found it worth the effort to expend much
effort in detailing things for you.

In the past you have never 'detailed' a single thing, very similar
to what we are seeing here. Keep on running, boy.

Your "Spell out for me" demand is over the top.

Request denied.

I'll just assume you've got absolutely nothing.

Using your approach: Look it up.

The burden of proof is on the AGW alarmists. If you think there is an
error in Marvin's efforts to debunk your religion, point it out.

Already pointed out that Marvin lied about the 'no warming in
16 years', what else are you looking for specifically? His pet
little cosmic ray theory? There are at least a half-dozen papers
blowing that out of the water. The CO2 came from dissolving coral?
Which crackpot statement do you want to defend?

Your own side says there has not been warming in 16 years. Take it up
with them.

Obvious lie.

Remind them that they aren't helping "the cause."

A half-dozen pal-reviewed papers. Nice.

Are you saying *no* CO2 came from dissolving coral?

Sure seems unlikely. Explain the process whereby ocean water
is dissolving coral skeletons and CO2 is thereby emitted into
the atmosphere.

Aren't the warmophobes complaining about the disappearance of coral?
Where do you think it goes?

At this point, the live coral is reportedly dying off at a
pretty rapid rate. Are you suggesting that it 'goes somewhere'
after it dies?

I'm still
waiting for him to "Explain to us exactly why the absorption bands
and the various radiation flows are not significant".

First, your quotes seem to be misplaced. As written, it appears that
"explain to us" is part of your request, not his statement.

Since your ability to quote is in question, a cite is needed pursue
this issue.

That's exactly right. Marvin disputes the relevance of GHG's
to global climate, stating "you were bringing up CO2 absorption
bands that were in between the sun's black body curve, and the
earths, and trying to argue they were significant". Not that
the statement makes any sense at all.

So you don't even understand the statement, but you dispute it.

I provided the cite you 'needed'. Guess you didn't want it
after all.

We're dealing with a real genius here, folks.

I admit to not understanding a lot of things that don't make
any sense. But since you *do* understand it Wally, you explain it.

 

[benj]

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 20:37:39 -0600, Unum wrote:

Good. You're a denialist, we'll just leave it at that.

Which obviously makes you a climate revisionist.
So no actual science can be discussed here.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:26:35 -0500, Wally W. wrote:

Why do you think the AGW scam is different?

You need to cinch that hat on a little tighter. Its all a conspiracy,
you know. You can tell someone is trying to perpetrate a scam because -
there's no sign of a scam.
Sneaky! Same exact thing with political agendas.

Check Climategate for signs of a scam.

Unum thinks he's so smart that he can lie away the climategate e-mail
scandals (plural - there were two releases).

That's pretty impressively stupid. No wonder his posts contain no science
and he pretends that things like the Climategate e-mails don't exist.

 

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/26/12 9:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

Unum thinks he's so smart that he can lie away the climategate e-mail
scandals (plural - there were two releases).

What the science says, Marvin:

Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of
context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent
Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating
the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are
not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's
conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of
openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.

Exhibit No. 1 of the climate conspiracy theory is a collection of emails
stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East
Anglia (UEA), which appeared on the internet in November 2009.

Founded in 1972, CRU is only a small research unit with around 16 staff.
CRU is best known for its work, since 1978, on a global record of
instrumental temperature measurements from 1850 to the present, or
CRUTEM. CRU’s land surface temperatures are combined with the UK Met
Office Hadley Centre’s sea surface temperatures to form the global
land-ocean record HadCRUT. CRU has also published reconstructions of
pre-1850 temperatures based on tree rings, and CRU scientists have been
involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The 1,073 emails span 13 years of correspondence between colleagues at
CRU. Much of it is mundane, but in this digital age it took only a
matter of hours for contrarians to do some quote-mining. Contrarians
alleged that the CRU scientists had manipulated temperature and tree
ring data to support predetermined conclusions, that they had
stonewalled Freedom of Information (FoI) requests for data, and that
they had corrupted the peer review and IPCC processes.

The story was quickly dubbed “Climategate”, and it spread rapidly from
arcane contrarian blogs through conservative columnists to the
mainstream media. The hyperbole was turned up to eleven. Conspiracy
theorists had a field day, claiming that anyone even mentioned in the
emails, or remotely connected to CRU, must also be part of a conspiracy.
In this way, the Climategate conspiracy theory snowballed to include the
entire field of climate science. The Climategate emails were held up as
“the final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming”, and the
media were only too happy to play up the controversy.

*The CRU scientists have been cleared*

In the months that followed, there were several inquiries into the
allegations resulting from the emails. When a few of the more suggestive
email quotes are reeled off by pundits without much context, they can
sound pretty damning. But each and every one of these inquiries has
found no fraud and no conspiracy.

The most comprehensive inquiry was the Independent Climate Change Email
Review led by Sir Muir Russell, commissioned by UEA to examine the
behaviour of the CRU scientists (but not the scientific validity of
their work). It published its final report in July 2010. This inquiry
was no whitewash: it examined the main allegations arising from the
emails and their implications in meticulous detail. It focused on what
the CRU scientists did, not what they said, investigating the evidence
for and against each allegation. It interviewed CRU and UEA staff, and
took 111 submissions including one from CRU itself. And it also did
something the media completely failed to do: it attempted to put the
actions of CRU scientists into context.

The Review went back to primary sources to see if CRU really was hiding
or falsifying their data. It considered how much CRU’s actions
influenced the IPCC’s conclusions about temperatures during the past
millennium. It commissioned a paper by Dr Richard Horton, editor of The
Lancet, on the context of scientific peer review. It asked IPCC Review
Editors how much influence individuals could wield on writing groups.
And it reviewed the university's FoI processes and CRU's compliance with
them. Many of these are things any journalist could have done relatively
easily, but few ever bothered to do.

The Review also commented on the broader context of science in the 21st
century. To paraphrase from Chapter 5: the emergence of the blogosphere
requires significantly more openness from scientists. However, providing
the details necessary to validate large datasets can be difficult and
time-consuming, and how FoI laws apply to research is still an evolving
area. Meanwhile, the public needs to understand that science cannot and
does not produce absolutely precise answers. Though the uncertainties
may become smaller and better constrained over time, uncertainty in
science is a fact of life which policymakers have to deal with. The
chapter concludes: “the Review would urge all scientists to learn to
communicate their work in ways that the public can access and understand”.

The Review points out the well-known psychological phenomenon that email
is less formal than other forms of communication: “Extreme forms of
language are frequently applied to quite normal situations by people who
would never use it in other communication channels.” The CRU scientists
assumed their emails to be private, so they used “slang, jargon and
acronyms” which would have been more fully explained had they been
talking to the public. And although some emails suggest CRU went out of
their way to make life difficult for their critics, there are others
which suggest they were bending over backwards to be honest. Therefore
the Review found “the e-mails cannot always be relied upon as evidence
of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behaviour that is
extreme, exceptional or unprofessional.” [section 4.3]

So when put into the proper context, what do these emails actually
reveal about the behaviour of the CRU scientists? The report concluded
(its emphasis):

Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest
standards of honesty, rigour, and openness are needed in its conduct. On
the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists,
we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the
balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find
any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the
IPCC assessments.

But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to
display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU
scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognize not only
the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the
reputation of the University and indeed, to the credibility of UK
climate science. [1.3]

These general findings are more or less consistent across the various
allegations the Review investigated. Its specific findings are
summarized in the following rebuttals: "Did CRU tamper with temperature
data?", "What does Mike's Nature trick to 'hide the decline' mean?",
"Climategate and the peer-review process", "Were skeptic scientists kept
out of the IPCC?", and "Climategate and the Freedom of Information (FOI)
requests".

*The science is unchanged by Climategate*

The argument that Climategate reveals an international climate science
conspiracy is not really a very skeptical one. It is skeptical in the
weak sense of questioning authority, but it stops there. Unlike true
skepticism, it doesn’t go on to objectively examine all the evidence and
draw a conclusion based on that evidence. Instead, it cherry-picks
suggestive emails, seeing everything as incontrovertible evidence of a
conspiracy, and concludes all of mainstream climate science is guilty by
association. This is not skepticism; this is conspiracy theory.

In reality, Climategate has not thrown any legitimate doubt on CRU’s
results, let alone the conclusions of the entire climate science
community. The entire work of CRU comprises only a small part of the
evidence for AGW. There are all sorts of lines of evidence for global
warming, and for a human influence on climate, which in no way depend on
the behaviour of the CRU scientists. Global warming has been observed
not just on land but also over the oceans and in the troposphere, as
well as being confirmed by many other indicators such as ocean heat
content, humidity, sea level, glaciers, and Arctic sea ice. And while
the hockey stick tells us that humans have caused a profound disturbance
to our climate system, we don’t need it to know that humans are causing
global warming. The pattern of warming we observe is the same as that
long predicted for greenhouse warming: the stratosphere is cooling,
nights have warmed faster than days, and winters faster than summers.

But this reality doesn’t fit into the narrative that the contrarians
would like to tell: that AGW is a house of cards that is falling down.
It is very difficult to attack all of these diverse lines of evidence
for global warming. Instead they tend to focus on some of the better
publicized ones and try to associate them with a few individuals, making
a much easier target. Yet while contrarians have been nosing around in
scientists’ emails, the actual science has, if anything, become more
concerning. Many major studies during 2009 and 2010 found things may be
worse than previously thought.

Far from exposing a global warming fraud, “Climategate” merely exposed
the depths to which contrarians are willing to sink in their attempts to
manufacture doubt about AGW. They cannot win the argument on scientific
grounds, so now they are trying to discredit researchers themselves.
Climategate was a fake scandal from beginning to end, and the media
swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. The real scandal is the attacks on
climate science which have done untold damage to the reputation of the
scientists involved, public trust in science, and the prospects of
mitigating future warming.

See:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:13:38 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 9:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Unum thinks he's so smart that he can lie away the climategate e-mail
scandals (plural - there were two releases).

What the science says, Marvin:

That's not science, dumb ass. That's a bunch of lying political assholes
saying that obvious fraud is not fraud.

Clearly, your level of "ethics" and scientific integrity is at the same
slimy, lying level of those at the CRU if you don't think that lying to
hide the decline, adding fudge factors to show false warming, and abusing
peer-review to keep papers that debunk their crap science from being
published is "science".

I always knew you had no scientific integrity. All you do is cut and
paste articles (abusing copy right laws, btw) in order to pretend to be a
scientists, but you're really just a dumb ass who thinks science is done
by voting.

 

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/26/12 9:46 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:13:38 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 9:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Unum thinks he's so smart that he can lie away the climategate e-mail
scandals (plural - there were two releases).

What the science says, Marvin:

That's not science, dumb ass. That's a bunch of lying political assholes
saying that obvious fraud is not fraud.

Clearly, your level of "ethics" and scientific integrity is at the same
slimy, lying level of those at the CRU if you don't think that lying to
hide the decline, adding fudge factors to show false warming, and abusing
peer-review to keep papers that debunk their crap science from being
published is "science".

I always knew you had no scientific integrity. All you do is cut and
paste articles (abusing copy right laws, btw) in order to pretend to be a
scientists, but you're really just a dumb ass who thinks science is done
by voting.

The earth is in an energy imbalance and warming rapidly, Marvin. Your
name calling and blustering is not going to change that fact!

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:56:59 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 9:46 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:13:38 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 9:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Unum thinks he's so smart that he can lie away the climategate e-mail
scandals (plural - there were two releases).

What the science says, Marvin:

That's not science, dumb ass. That's a bunch of lying political
assholes saying that obvious fraud is not fraud.

Clearly, your level of "ethics" and scientific integrity is at the same
slimy, lying level of those at the CRU if you don't think that lying to
hide the decline, adding fudge factors to show false warming, and
abusing peer-review to keep papers that debunk their crap science from
being published is "science".

I always knew you had no scientific integrity. All you do is cut and
paste articles (abusing copy right laws, btw) in order to pretend to be
a scientists, but you're really just a dumb ass who thinks science is
done by voting.



The earth is in an energy imbalance and warming rapidly, Marvin. Your
name calling and blustering is not going to change that fact!

So, you expect that the third party reader can't go to the GISS website
or find the MET office data that shows you're a fucking liar?

You're really depending on convincing the stupid, aren't you? People
aren't as damned dumb as you are, worm.

MET data...
<http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/
article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg>

GISS data...
<http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/
article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg>

They show NO WARMING for 16 years.

So even the two biggest damned AGW liars on the planet aren't telling the
lie about "warming rapidly" that you're telling. They're not as stupid as
you.

 

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/26/12 10:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:56:59 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 9:46 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:13:38 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 9:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Unum thinks he's so smart that he can lie away the climategate e-mail
scandals (plural - there were two releases).

What the science says, Marvin:

That's not science, dumb ass. That's a bunch of lying political
assholes saying that obvious fraud is not fraud.

Clearly, your level of "ethics" and scientific integrity is at the same
slimy, lying level of those at the CRU if you don't think that lying to
hide the decline, adding fudge factors to show false warming, and
abusing peer-review to keep papers that debunk their crap science from
being published is "science".

I always knew you had no scientific integrity. All you do is cut and
paste articles (abusing copy right laws, btw) in order to pretend to be
a scientists, but you're really just a dumb ass who thinks science is
done by voting.



The earth is in an energy imbalance and warming rapidly, Marvin. Your
name calling and blustering is not going to change that fact!

So, you expect that the third party reader can't go to the GISS website
or find the MET office data that shows you're a fucking liar?

You're really depending on convincing the stupid, aren't you? People
aren't as damned dumb as you are, worm.

MET data...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/
article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg

GISS data...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/
article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg

They show NO WARMING for 16 years.

So even the two biggest damned AGW liars on the planet aren't telling the
lie about "warming rapidly" that you're telling. They're not as stupid as
you.

Have you not noticed that it's you against the climate community and
most scientific societies? Have you not noticed the melting ice and
rising sea level.

How could you not notice these things?

Did you really think we could burn tens of millions of years of
sequestered carbon in just a few centuries without consequence?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:16:59 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 10:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:56:59 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 9:46 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:13:38 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 9:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Unum thinks he's so smart that he can lie away the climategate
e-mail scandals (plural - there were two releases).

What the science says, Marvin:

That's not science, dumb ass. That's a bunch of lying political
assholes saying that obvious fraud is not fraud.

Clearly, your level of "ethics" and scientific integrity is at the
same slimy, lying level of those at the CRU if you don't think that
lying to hide the decline, adding fudge factors to show false
warming, and abusing peer-review to keep papers that debunk their
crap science from being published is "science".

I always knew you had no scientific integrity. All you do is cut and
paste articles (abusing copy right laws, btw) in order to pretend to
be a scientists, but you're really just a dumb ass who thinks science
is done by voting.



The earth is in an energy imbalance and warming rapidly, Marvin.
Your name calling and blustering is not going to change that fact!

So, you expect that the third party reader can't go to the GISS website
or find the MET office data that shows you're a fucking liar?

You're really depending on convincing the stupid, aren't you? People
aren't as damned dumb as you are, worm.

MET data...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/
article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg

GISS data...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/
article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg

They show NO WARMING for 16 years.

So even the two biggest damned AGW liars on the planet aren't telling
the lie about "warming rapidly" that you're telling. They're not as
stupid as you.


Have you not noticed that it's you against the climate community and
most scientific societies? Have you not noticed the melting ice and
rising sea level.

How could you not notice these things?

Did you really think we could burn tens of millions of years of
sequestered carbon in just a few centuries without consequence?

Ah shit. He's falling back on his "everyone believes, drink the Kool-Aid"
argument.

It's been pointed out to you before, even if your lie of "you against the
climate community" was true, that it isn't a valid argument, and it ISN'T
true. You've made another one of your "stupid to the squared power"
arguments.

Then the 'There must be some consequence to this, ergo my fantasy
consequence'.

I mean, you REALLY, REALLY don't understand science. At all. And you
CANNOT be educated.

 

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/26/12 10:28 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:16:59 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

Have you not noticed that it's you against the climate community and
most scientific societies? Have you not noticed the melting ice and
rising sea level.

How could you not notice these things?

Did you really think we could burn tens of millions of years of
sequestered carbon in just a few centuries without consequence?

Ah shit. He's falling back on his "everyone believes, drink the Kool-Aid"
argument.

Drink all the Kool-Aid you want, Marvin, but the many indicators are
that the earth is warming and warming rapidly. How can you deny the
melting of ice and rising of the sea?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:31:46 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 10:28 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:16:59 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

Have you not noticed that it's you against the climate community
and most scientific societies? Have you not noticed the melting
ice and rising sea level.

How could you not notice these things?

Did you really think we could burn tens of millions of years of
sequestered carbon in just a few centuries without consequence?

Ah shit. He's falling back on his "everyone believes, drink the
Kool-Aid"
argument.

Drink all the Kool-Aid you want, Marvin, but the many indicators are
that the earth is warming and warming rapidly. How can you deny the
melting of ice and rising of the sea?

So, you don't even know that:
1) Ice melts at any temperature above 0 degrees C.
2) The glaciers melted during the prior interglacial period, and humans
had NOTHING at all to do with that.

I told you probably a hundred times that you're making a post hoc
fallacy, and you NEVER LEARN and continue to make the same damned logical
error. What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/26/12 10:35 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:31:46 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 10:28 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:16:59 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

Have you not noticed that it's you against the climate community
and most scientific societies? Have you not noticed the melting
ice and rising sea level.

How could you not notice these things?

Did you really think we could burn tens of millions of years of
sequestered carbon in just a few centuries without consequence?

Ah shit. He's falling back on his "everyone believes, drink the
Kool-Aid"
argument.

Drink all the Kool-Aid you want, Marvin, but the many indicators are
that the earth is warming and warming rapidly. How can you deny the
melting of ice and rising of the sea?

So, you don't even know that:
1) Ice melts at any temperature above 0 degrees C.
2) The glaciers melted during the prior interglacial period, and humans
had NOTHING at all to do with that.

I told you probably a hundred times that you're making a post hoc
fallacy, and you NEVER LEARN and continue to make the same damned logical
error. What the fuck is wrong with you?

We see things differently, and I can't figure out what's wrong with
you, Marvin. We don't agree on anything!

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:16:59 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 12/26/12 10:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:56:59 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 9:46 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:13:38 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 9:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Unum thinks he's so smart that he can lie away the climategate e-mail
scandals (plural - there were two releases).

What the science says, Marvin:

That's not science, dumb ass. That's a bunch of lying political
assholes saying that obvious fraud is not fraud.

Clearly, your level of "ethics" and scientific integrity is at the same
slimy, lying level of those at the CRU if you don't think that lying to
hide the decline, adding fudge factors to show false warming, and
abusing peer-review to keep papers that debunk their crap science from
being published is "science".

I always knew you had no scientific integrity. All you do is cut and
paste articles (abusing copy right laws, btw) in order to pretend to be
a scientists, but you're really just a dumb ass who thinks science is
done by voting.



The earth is in an energy imbalance and warming rapidly, Marvin. Your
name calling and blustering is not going to change that fact!

So, you expect that the third party reader can't go to the GISS website
or find the MET office data that shows you're a fucking liar?

You're really depending on convincing the stupid, aren't you? People
aren't as damned dumb as you are, worm.

MET data...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/
article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg

GISS data...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/
article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg

They show NO WARMING for 16 years.

So even the two biggest damned AGW liars on the planet aren't telling the
lie about "warming rapidly" that you're telling. They're not as stupid as
you.


Have you not noticed that it's you against the climate community and
most scientific societies? Have you not noticed the melting ice and
rising sea level.

How could you not notice these things?

Are you claiming that you, personally, have noticed rising sea level?
Where do you live?

 

[P E Schoen]

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
news:reOdnTpE8s1kUkbNnZ2dnUVZ5uWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

I told you probably a hundred times that you're making a post hoc
fallacy, and you NEVER LEARN and continue to make the same damned
logical error. What the fuck is wrong with you?

He just doesn't realize you are an infamous troll, or perhaps he just enjoys
feeding you and watching you sputter your silly profanities like a spoiled
brat.

Read and weep and go away (back to Mars):
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Paul

 

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/26/12 10:44 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:16:59 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com
wrote:

On 12/26/12 10:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:56:59 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 9:46 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:13:38 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 9:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Unum thinks he's so smart that he can lie away the climategate e-mail
scandals (plural - there were two releases).

What the science says, Marvin:

That's not science, dumb ass. That's a bunch of lying political
assholes saying that obvious fraud is not fraud.

Clearly, your level of "ethics" and scientific integrity is at the same
slimy, lying level of those at the CRU if you don't think that lying to
hide the decline, adding fudge factors to show false warming, and
abusing peer-review to keep papers that debunk their crap science from
being published is "science".

I always knew you had no scientific integrity. All you do is cut and
paste articles (abusing copy right laws, btw) in order to pretend to be
a scientists, but you're really just a dumb ass who thinks science is
done by voting.



The earth is in an energy imbalance and warming rapidly, Marvin. Your
name calling and blustering is not going to change that fact!

So, you expect that the third party reader can't go to the GISS website
or find the MET office data that shows you're a fucking liar?

You're really depending on convincing the stupid, aren't you? People
aren't as damned dumb as you are, worm.

MET data...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/
article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg

GISS data...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/
article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg

They show NO WARMING for 16 years.

So even the two biggest damned AGW liars on the planet aren't telling the
lie about "warming rapidly" that you're telling. They're not as stupid as
you.


Have you not noticed that it's you against the climate community and
most scientific societies? Have you not noticed the melting ice and
rising sea level.

How could you not notice these things?


Are you claiming that you, personally, have noticed rising sea level?
Where do you live?

I can read the satellite altimetry data for mean sea level.

I can also the read the shinking glaciers and Arctic extent data.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 20:44:07 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:16:59 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com
wrote:

On 12/26/12 10:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:56:59 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 9:46 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:13:38 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 9:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Unum thinks he's so smart that he can lie away the climategate
e-mail scandals (plural - there were two releases).

What the science says, Marvin:

That's not science, dumb ass. That's a bunch of lying political
assholes saying that obvious fraud is not fraud.

Clearly, your level of "ethics" and scientific integrity is at the
same slimy, lying level of those at the CRU if you don't think that
lying to hide the decline, adding fudge factors to show false
warming, and abusing peer-review to keep papers that debunk their
crap science from being published is "science".

I always knew you had no scientific integrity. All you do is cut and
paste articles (abusing copy right laws, btw) in order to pretend to
be a scientists, but you're really just a dumb ass who thinks
science is done by voting.



The earth is in an energy imbalance and warming rapidly, Marvin.
Your name calling and blustering is not going to change that
fact!

So, you expect that the third party reader can't go to the GISS
website or find the MET office data that shows you're a fucking liar?

You're really depending on convincing the stupid, aren't you? People
aren't as damned dumb as you are, worm.

MET data...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/
article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg

GISS data...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/14/
article-2217286-157E3ADF000005DC-561_644x358.jpg

They show NO WARMING for 16 years.

So even the two biggest damned AGW liars on the planet aren't telling
the lie about "warming rapidly" that you're telling. They're not as
stupid as you.


Have you not noticed that it's you against the climate community and
most scientific societies? Have you not noticed the melting ice and
rising sea level.

How could you not notice these things?


Are you claiming that you, personally, have noticed rising sea level?
Where do you live?

Al Gore said sea level is rising. That's what Worm says is a scientific
observation. It's even a repeatable measurement- ask Al Gore again, and
he'll say the same thing, so it must be scientific.

But the data shows that the sea level at the Maldives, Nauru and Solomon
Islands has fallen 11 inches in the past 50 years.*

In worm-science, falling sea levels is indisputable proof of rising sea
levels.

* "Falling Sea Level Upsets Theory of Global Warming", London Telegraph,
8/6/2000

 

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/26/12 11:22 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

Al Gore said sea level is rising. That's what Worm says is a scientific
observation. It's even a repeatable measurement- ask Al Gore again, and
he'll say the same thing, so it must be scientific.

Here's a plot of global mean sea level ofer the last 125 years:

http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level%2C_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png

More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#IPCC_Third_Assessment

 

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/26/12 11:22 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

Al Gore said sea level is rising. That's what Worm says is a scientific
observation. It's even a repeatable measurement- ask Al Gore again, and
he'll say the same thing, so it must be scientific.

What the science says...

Observed sea levels are actually tracking at the upper range of the IPCC
projections. When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica
are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by
2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.

The *two main contributors to sea level rise* are *thermal expansion* of
water and *melting ice*. Predicting the future contribution from melting
ice is problematic. Most sea level rise from ice melt actually comes
from chunks of ice breaking off into the ocean, then melting. This
calving process is accelerated by warming but the dynamic processes are
not strongly understood. For this reason, the IPCC didn't include the
effects of dynamic processes, arguing they couldn't be modelled. In
2001, the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) projected a sea level rise
of 20 to 70 cm by 2100. In 2007, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (4AR)
gave similar results, projecting sea level rise of 18 to 59 cm by 2100.
How do the IPCC predictions compare to observations made since the two
reports?

Figure 1: Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and
*satellite data in blue*. The grey band shows the projections of the
IPCC Third Assessment report (Allison et al 2009).

Observed sea level rise is tracking at the upper range of model
predictions. Why do climate models underestimate sea level rise? The
main reason for the discrepancy is, no surprise, the effects of rapid
flow ice changes. Ice loss from Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers are
accelerating. Even East Antarctica, previously considered stable and too
cold, is now losing mass. Considering the importance of rising sea level
to a human population crowded around coastlines, how can we predict sea
level with greater accuracy?

An alternative way to predict future sea level rise is a semi-empirical
method that uses the relationship between sea level and global
temperature (Vermeer 2009). Instead of modelling glacier dynamics, the
method uses model projections of global temperature which can be
calculated with greater confidence. Sea level change is then derived as
a function of temperature change. To confirm the relationship between
sea level and temperature, observed sea level was compared to
reconstructed sea level calculated from global temperature observations
from 1880 to 2000. Figure 2 shows the strong correlation between
observed sea level (red line) and reconstructed sea level (dark blue
line with light blue uncertainty range).

Figure 2: Observed rate of sea-level rise (red) compared with
reconstructed sea level calculated from global temperature (dark blue
with light blue uncertainty range). Grey line is reconstructed sea level
from an earlier, simpler relationship between sea level and temperature
(Vermeer 2009).

The historical record shows the robustness of the relationship between
sea level and global temperature. Thus, global temperature projections
can be used to simulate sea levels into the future. A number of
different emission scenarios were used, based on how carbon dioxide
emissions might evolve over the next century. Overall, the range of
projected sea level rise by 2100 is 75 to 190 cm. As you get closer to
2100, the contribution from ice melt grows relative to thermal
expansion. This is the main difference to the IPCC predictions which
assume the portion of ice melt would diminish while thermal expansion
contributes most of the sea level rise over the 21st Century.

Figure 3: Projection of sea-level rise from 1990 to 2100, based on IPCC
temperature projections for three different emission scenarios. The
sea-level range projected in the IPCC AR4 for these scenarios are shown
for comparison in the bars on the bottom right. Also shown in red is
observed sea-level (Vermeer 2009).

Figure 3 shows projected sea level rise for three different emission
scenarios. The semi-empirical method predicts sea level rise roughly 3
times greater than the IPCC predictions. Note the IPCC predictions are
shown as vertical bars in the bottom right. For the lowest emission
rate, sea levels are expected to rise around 1 metre by 2100. For the
higher emission scenario, which is where we're currently tracking, sea
level rise by 2100 is around 1.4 metres.

There are limitations to this approach. The temperature record over the
past 120 years doesn't include large, highly non-linear events such as
the collapse of an ice sheet. Therefore, the semi-empirical method can't
rule out sharp increases in sea level from such an event.

Independent confirmation of the semi-empirical method is found in a
kinematic study of glacier movements (Pfeffer 2008). The study examines
calving glaciers in Greenland, determining each glacier's potential to
discharge ice based on factors such as topography, cross-sectional area
and whether the bedrock is based below sea level. A similar analysis is
also made of West Antarctic glaciers (I can't find any mention of
calculating ice loss from East Antarctica). The kinematic method
estimates sea level rise between 80 cm to 2 metres by 2100.

Recent observations find sea level tracking at the upper range of IPCC
projections. The semi-empirical and kinematic methods provide
independent confirmation that the IPCC underestimate sea level rise by
around a factor of 3. There are growing indications that sea level rise
by the end of this century will approach or exceed 1 metre.

See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

 

[Wally W.]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:13:38 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 9:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Unum thinks he's so smart that he can lie away the climategate e-mail
scandals (plural - there were two releases).

What the science says, Marvin:

Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning

Correct.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:47:57 -0500, Wally W. wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:13:38 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/26/12 9:07 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Unum thinks he's so smart that he can lie away the climategate e-mail
scandals (plural - there were two releases).

What the science says, Marvin:

Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning

Correct.

Worm has a lot of "disregard the obvious" blogs in his political
propaganda websites.