Page 101 of 366 FirstFirst ... 5191979899100101102103104105111151201 ... LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,515 of 5480
  1. #1501
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,810

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Boilerplate OTOC... attack the source without addressing a single point he makes. OMFG... he has no "climate credentials"!! BLOG!! Don't attack me!! Who coulda seen that coming?

    Sorry OTOC.. you need not be Einstein... have "climate credentials" or need an IPCC "peer review" to point out the fact that Scientific observation has shot the MMGW theory to sh*t.

    lol,
    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post

    lol, here's what Frank Tipler writes about when he isn't penning letters to ex comedy writers with blogs for you to post links as evidence of your position:
    Now, either tell me what a cult is or tell me that you post links without reading them and understanding the source. Of course the obligatory personal insult will also do.
    I wonder which one you decided to do. Another non-answer and last word complete with the wave, thanks.

    Do you have those cut and pastes in memory?

    How can one answer a statement that says you don't need credentials or peer review to discredit science or while you ignore the point that someone in the ID field professing scientific method proves God approved virtual sex with beautiful women complete with formulas is now writing opinions about global warming after making your cult comment? Once again, I lost my coffee on that one...
    Last edited by otoc; 12-29-2008 at 08:27 AM. Reason: added last part out of courtesy
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  2. #1502
    Joined
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SO CAL USA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,602

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    A blast from the past.
    Here's what every American needs to know about global warming. Contrary to almost every news report and every staged hearing, including one held by Mr. McCain on Oct. 1, scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (C), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree, according to scientific figures as disparate as this author and NASA scientist James Hansen. The uncertainty is so small, in fact, that publicly crowing this figure is liable to result in a substantial cut in our research funding, which is why the hundreds of other scientists who know this have been so reluctant to disgorge the truth in public. All this has to do with basic physics, which isn't real hard to understand. It has been known since 1872 that as we emit more and more carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, each increment results in less and less warming. In other words, the first changes produce the most warming, and subsequent ones produce a bit less, and so on.
    But we also assume carbon dioxide continues to go into the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate. In other words, the increase from year-to-year isn't constant, but itself is increasing. The effect of increasing the rate of carbon dioxide emissions, coupled with the fact that more and more carbon dioxide produces less and less warming compels our climate projections for the future warming to be pretty much a straight line.
    Translation: Once human beings start to warm the climate, they do so at a constant rate. And yes, it's a sad fact that it took $10 billion of taxpayer money to "prove" something so obvious it can be written in a mere 100 words.
    So, once you demonstrate humans are indeed warming the climate, you know the amount of future warming. This is where the greens (and Mr. Lieberman and Mr. McCain) made a major miscalculation: They assumed that once you could demonstrate a human influence on the Earth's surface temperature that people would be panicked into something like Kyoto. But, in reality, people are smart enough to know that a modest warming is a likely benefit, which is why they tend to move South as soon as they can afford it.
    Some more pretty straight physics, also known for a long time, is that human warming will be strongest and most obvious in very cold and dry air, such as in Siberia and northwestern North America in the dead of winter. And, not surprisingly, that's where the lion's share of warming is, which proves the human influence. (This is also one of the reasons Vladimir Putin opposes the Kyoto Protocol: Warming Siberia just doesn't seem so bad to the Russians). So, now having proven humans are warming the atmosphere, ask the simple question: Is the warming indeed the straight-line predicted by $10 billion dollars?
    As shown in our chart, it couldn't be straighter. Since the warming of the excessively cold air of winter began in earnest (how too bad), the deviations from a straight-line are vanishingly small, and projected future warming is right at the lower limit projected by the United Nations.
    Before sending me the hate mail claiming scientists would never exaggerate for political effect, let me submit it's not just my idea this has been going on. Back in 1988, NASA's Mr. Hansen lit the bonfire of the greenhouse vanities with some pretty incendiary testimony on the first day of summer, in the middle of a terrible and hot drought in the Midwestern and Eastern U.S. He later wrote he did this because he felt the need to call global warming to the attention of the public and the president.
    But, after a decade-and-a-half of reality, which resists exaggeration, it has become apparent that warming is indeed pretty modest. Jim wrote this in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2001:
    "Future global warming can be predicted much more accurately then is generally realized ... we predict additional warming in the next 50 years of 0.75 ºC [plus or minus] 0.25ºC, a warming rate of 0.15ºC [plus or minus] 0.05ºC per decade."
    This warming rate — the real one — is approximately 4 times less than the lurid top figure widely trumpeted by the United Nations and repeated ad infinitum in the press. And, just to drive my point home, here's what Mr. Hansen wrote last month in his latest paper in the online journal Natural Science:
    Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decisionmakers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate ... scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. ...
    Which brings us back to S.139. It's easy to run the numbers on how much warming it "prevents," because it's very similar to the Kyoto Protocol, whose futility is well-known. The effect of both is included in our figure. You may need glasses to see the difference between doing nothing and S.139. It's 6/100 of a degree Celsius in 50 years. That's the amount of climate change you experience, on the average, every 10 seconds.
    asrock x370 taichi,16g gskill flarex3200 wd250mu 3wdblack 1 tera
    Asrock 990FX FX8120 8G Gskill 2133 2x WD2T 6.0 pc p+c 950w
    Asrock 890FX 1090t 2x4 Gskill 1866 RipJaw WD 1T 6.0 mushkin 850w
    DFI 790FXB M3H5 PII 965 8 Gskill RipJaw 1866 WD1T 6.0 ocz 750 w
    DFI 790FXB M3H5 PII 965 2x4 Gskill Rip Jaw 1600 Ocz evo720
    DFI 790FXB M2RSH PII 955 2x1Gskill 1600 Saph 4670 Ocz Evo 720W
    DFI 790FXM2RS PII 720 2x1gig Gskill 1600 Sapphire HD3400
    DFI Lp ultra D SLI Opti 148@300x10 @33c 1 gig Crucial ballistix 4000

  3. #1503
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,810

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by THOMAS LYNN View Post
    A blast from the past.
    I'm surprised you are using an old OpEd from Patrick J. Michaels because he acknowledges man's influence on warming and felt at the time that it would be at the low end range of IPCC predictions. I enjoy where he said the money spend on studies didn't need to be spent on it because he wrote 100 words based on those studies. It's like the point Orangutan made with scooter only different.

    I'm also surprised you use someone who is against your normal position that warming is either not there or not caused by man. His latest post on his blog acknowledges it, but he feels natural forces will pull it it down:
    The bottom line is this: the anthropogenic influence on global temperatures, while surely omnipresent, is not of a magnitude which prevents the influence of natural variations within the earth’s climate system from dominating the global temperature record for periods of years to perhaps even decades—with the downstream effects impacting the ultimate course that climate will take during the coming century.


    While the anthropogenic pressure towards global warming has not stopped, it most definitely has been sidetracked.
    While that last part is not a peer reviewed position, his peers have had things to say about Michaels:
    Science, Climate Change, and Censorship: The Pacific Institute, Patrick Michaels, and the science of climate change

    And as to the above linked charges of representing a view...
    ABC News Reporting Cited As Evidence In Congressional Hearing On Global Warming

    Making Money by Feeding Confusion Over Global Warming

    By CLAYTON SANDELL and BILL BLAKEMORE



    This report was cited by Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., in a Congressional hearing on climate change. She read out parts of this report to explain the confusion surrounding the issue of global warming.
    July 27, 2006 Ever wonder why so many people still seem confused about global warming?
    The answer appears to be that confusion leads to profit -- especially if you're in some parts of the energy business.
    One Colorado electric cooperative has openly admitted that it has paid $100,000 to a university academic who prides himself on being a global warming skeptic.
    Intermountain Rural Electric Association is heavily invested in power plants that burn coal, one of the chief sources of greenhouse gasses that scientists agree is quickly pushing earth's average temperature to dangerous levels.
    Scientists and consumer advocates say the co-op is trying to confuse its clients about the virtually total scientific consensus on the causes of global warming.
    ABC News has obtained a copy of a nine-page document that IREA general manager Stanley Lewandowski Jr. addressed to the more than 900 fellow members of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
    The document is a wide-ranging condemnation of carbon taxes and mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions that Lewandowski writes would threaten to "erode most, if not all, the benefits of coal-fired generation."
    The letter also says that in February of this year, IREA contributed $100,000 to Patrick Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.
    Michaels is one of about a dozen academics who for years have cast doubt on the science surrounding global warming while downplaying the scientifically accepted idea that humans are causing it.
    It should be noted, Patrick Michaels is no longer a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. I wonder if he will continue to be a peer reviewer of future IPCC reports as he has been in the past.
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  4. #1504
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    I'm looking for the link that shows the celebration for our reduced fuel consumption, caused by economic downturns, that roughly equates to the demands of man made global warmers from a a few years ago.

  5. #1505
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,281

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan View Post
    Haha, I love it! I am the one who must be twisting things! Brilliant! Obviously sweeping, vague generalizations about "greatest science and scientists" not being government funded in some nebulous time of "early 20th century" are much more factual and truthful.


    And? So what? Attempting to use one of the greatest scientific geniuses in history as the example for an average scientist is ludicrous.
    ^^



    My point.. which you missed by a country mile while attempting to distort and twist what I said into claim by me denigrating Einsteins obvious genius... was that gubberment funding is not a requirement to be a great scientist despite your best efforts to further that idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan View Post
    My, what lovely fallacies riddle your every sentence. Why don't you define what "OMGMGMGMGMGMGMG science" is? How about pointing to departments at universities for it? Government departments devoted to it? What exactly does it entail and when did it start? How much money has been appropriated to it?
    To this point your best attempts to point out any "fallacies" (other than those you are making up on my behalf) have you batting 0. I know you'd like to have people believe that the BILLION$ wasted fighting a threat that only exists in the computer models of those who have the most to gain is real. But scientific observation is putting the MMGW lie to bed rather neatly. I simply do not make your mistake of confusing "science" with what the IPCC, The Goracle, Hansen.. and all the other MMGW pimps have been pushing for years now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan View Post
    Yes, attempting to save the planet is obviously useless.
    Save the planet from what? A threat that only exists in computer models that habitually fail to accurately predict what the weather will do from year to year... month to month... or day to day? Had we not wasted a single cent or moment of effort on MMGW since the Goracle invented it from whole cloth years ago what would be different today? Not a dang thing. The earth would go right on doing what it's been doing for millions of years.

    Save the planet..... good grief.....




    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan View Post
    I agree. I guess that's why you opposed Gulf War II and its nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, either before it was launched or after it was evident that said wmds were imaginary. Oh, wait...
    Ya.. Iraq.. that's really relevant to MMGW. What's next??



    Last edited by AMDScooter; 12-30-2008 at 05:07 PM.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  6. #1506
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,281

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    lol,


    I wonder which one you decided to do. Another non-answer and last word complete with the wave, thanks.

    Do you have those cut and pastes in memory?

    How can one answer a statement that says you don't need credentials or peer review to discredit science or while you ignore the point that someone in the ID field professing scientific method proves God approved virtual sex with beautiful women complete with formulas is now writing opinions about global warming after making your cult comment? Once again, I lost my coffee on that one...
    I knew it was probably too much to ask you actually address points in the article itself. Wanna borrow that kitchen sink from orang?

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  7. #1507
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,281

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    On a related note... and continuing a common theme... it seems MMGW is still responsible for just about every weather event or natural catastrophe despite not a shred of evidence to back up the claim. Get your retch baggies out before reading further.. this article is pretty much a MMGW alarmists wet dream..

    Natural disasters 'killed over 220,000' in 2008

    BERLIN (AFP) – Natural disasters killed over 220,000 people in 2008, making it one of the most devastating years on record and underlining the need for a global climate deal, the world's number two reinsurer said Monday.

    Although the number of natural disasters was lower than in 2007, the catastrophes that occurred proved to be more destructive in terms of the number of victims and the financial cost of the damage caused, Germany-based Munich Re said in its annual assessment.

    "This continues the long-term trend we have been observing. Climate change has already started and is very probably contributing to increasingly frequent weather extremes and ensuing natural catastrophes," Munich Re board member Torsten Jeworrek said.

    Most devastating in terms of human fatalities was Cyclone Nargis, which lashed Myanmar on May 2-3 to kill more than 135,000 people and leave more than one million homeless.

    Just days later an earthquake shook China's Sichuan province, leaving 70,000 dead, 18,000 missing and almost five million homeless, according to official figures, Munich Re said.

    Around 1,000 people died in a severe cold snap in January in Afghanistan, Kyrgystan and Tajikistan, while 635 perished in August and September in floods in India, Nepal and Bangladesh.

    Typhoon Fengshen killed 557 people in China and the Philippines in June, while earthquakes in Pakistan in October left 300 dead.

    Six tropical cyclones also slammed into the southern United States, including Ike which, with insured losses of 10 billion dollars, was the industry's costliest catastrophe of the year.

    In Europe, an intense low-pressure system called Emma caused two billion dollars worth of damage in March, while a storm dubbed Hilal in late May and early June left 1.1 billion dollars' worth.

    The earthquake in Sichuan province was the most expensive overall single catastrophe of 2008, causing around 85 billion dollars worth of damage, helping to make the year the third most expensive on record, Munich Re said.

    With 200 billion dollars' worth of damage, only 2005, when a large number of hurricanes slammed into the southern United States, and 1995, year of the Kobe earthquake in Japan, wreaked more destruction since records began in 1900.

    According to provisional estimates from the World Meteorological Organization, 2008 was the tenth warmest year since the beginning of routine temperature recording and the eighth warmest in the northern hemisphere.

    This means that the ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred in the last 12 years, Munich Re said.

    "It is now very probable that the progressive warming of the atmosphere is due to the greenhouse gases emitted by human activity. The weather machine is running in top gear, bringing more intense severe weather events," it said.

    The number of tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic in 2008 was much higher than the long-term average, and in terms of both the total number of storms and the number of major hurricanes, 2008 was the fourth most severe hurricane season since reliable data have been available, it said.

    The world needed "effective and binding rules on CO2 emissions, so that climate change is curbed and future generations do not have to live with weather scenarios that are difficult to control," board member Jeworrek said.

    Last December, the international community agreed in Bali on a two-year roadmap culminating in a new global climate deal to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.

    Unprecedented in scale and complexity, this accord, due to take effect from 2012, is meant to rein in the greenhouse gases that stoke global warming and throw a lifeline to poor countries exposed to mutated weather patterns.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  8. #1508
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,810

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    I knew it was probably too much to ask you actually address points in the article itself. Wanna borrow that kitchen sink from orang?

    Scooter, your need to have the last word accompanied by the sarcasm may prove a point to you but once again you prefer to use canned responses instead of addressing mine.

    You said no peer review or background in the climate field is needed to prove your point of man's contribution to warming. Instead you use an opinion piece by someone who believes ID is proven in science even though he doesn't have the backing in his field.

    I prefer to let scientists have their actual material reviewed for in science it is not how many OpEds one writes that gains position, it is actual papers on a topic.

    But what really amuses me is your complaint that I don't respond to you when I do as I did above for the third time.

    The standing point to you that still hasn't been answered is the question of whether or not you actually read the material you post, and investigate who is writing it in the light of your rant of warming being a cult. Those were your additional words above the statement that we don't need no stinkin science in science.

    It is my opinion that the writer of the piece you defend fits the description of cult in more ways than one and for that I have no more answers because I am rotflmao at your games, sidesteps, and insults at my expense all the while ranting it is me who does it as if I care what you say.

    Your tactic of numerous posts on a topic must be wearing as thin as all your predictions that disappear into thin air. So many posts and so many missed positions.
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  9. #1509
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,281

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Scooter, your need to have the last word accompanied by the sarcasm may prove a point to you but once again you prefer to use canned responses instead of addressing mine.
    Please do drone on about "last words"... "canned" responses and accompanying "sarcasm". I'll simply point out that all those attributes are found in this new post of yours...

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc
    lol,

    I wonder which one you decided to do. Another non-answer and last word complete with the wave, thanks.

    Do you have those cut and pastes in memory?
    And your last. A healthy serving of your usual hypocrisy. Thanks for sticking to the script.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    You said no peer review or background in the climate field is needed to prove your point of man's contribution to warming. Instead you use an opinion piece by someone who believes ID is proven in science even though he doesn't have the backing in his field.
    ^^ You and Orang playing from the same book I see.



    What I said was:

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter
    Sorry OTOC.. you need not be Einstein... have "climate credentials" or need an IPCC "peer review" to point out the fact that Scientific observation has shot the MMGW theory to sh*t.
    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    I prefer to let scientists have their actual material reviewed for in science it is not how many OpEds one writes that gains position, it is actual papers on a topic.
    And if some guy writes an article showing your "scientists" and their "actual material" and theories are bogus in light of real observations. You simply attack the author and take the following position on what he is saying..



    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    But what really amuses me is your complaint that I don't respond to you when I do as I did above for the third time.
    Again with that straw dude eh? My "complaint" was not that you did not respond to me:

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter
    I knew it was probably too much to ask you actually address points in the article itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter
    Boilerplate OTOC... attack the source without addressing a single point he makes. OMFG... he has no "climate credentials"!! BLOG!! Don't attack me!! Who coulda seen that coming?
    My "complaint" is your usual tactic of attacking the source w/o addressing a single point he makes. Be nice if you spent a lil less time being "amused" and making stuff up that you'll claim I said... and a little more time working on a response to what the article says.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    The standing point to you that still hasn't been answered is the question of whether or not you actually read the material you post, and investigate who is writing it in the light of your rant of warming being a cult. Those were your additional words above the statement that we don't need no stinkin science in science.
    No.. the "standing point" is you seem to want to address every issue.. and make a few up for good measure it seems.. to avoid actually responding to the points he makes in the article I posted. You know.. your boilerplate evasion tact.

    FYI: Repeating the lie that I claimed "we don't need no stinkin science in science" is not going to make it any less of a lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    It is my opinion that the writer of the piece you defend fits the description of cult in more ways than one and for that I have no more answers because I am rotflmao at your games, sidesteps, and insults at my expense all the while ranting it is me who does it as if I care what you say.
    Whats to defend? You have not taken a single point of his article to task.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Your tactic of numerous posts on a topic must be wearing as thin as all your predictions that disappear into thin air. So many posts and so many missed positions.
    If you say so pokey. As usual a pleasure..

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  10. #1510
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,810

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Please do drone on about "last words"... "canned" responses and accompanying "sarcasm". I'll simply point out that all those attributes are found in this new post of yours...



    And your last. A healthy serving of your usual hypocrisy. Thanks for sticking to the script.



    ^^ You and Orang playing from the same book I see.



    What I said was:





    And if some guy writes an article showing your "scientists" and their "actual material" and theories are bogus in light of real observations. You simply attack the author and take the following position on what he is saying..





    Again with that straw dude eh? My "complaint" was not that you did not respond to me:





    My "complaint" is your usual tactic of attacking the source w/o addressing a single point he makes. Be nice if you spent a lil less time being "amused" and making stuff up that you'll claim I said... and a little more time working on a response to what the article says.



    No.. the "standing point" is you seem to want to address every issue.. and make a few up for good measure it seems.. to avoid actually responding to the points he makes in the article I posted. You know.. your boilerplate evasion tact.

    FYI: Repeating the lie that I claimed "we don't need no stinkin science in science" is not going to make it any less of a lie.



    Whats to defend? You have not taken a single point of his article to task.



    If you say so pokey. As usual a pleasure..

    Sure Scoot. It's all me.

    The trouble with discussion with you is the way it evolves around an ever changing dance.

    Many posts ago I responded to your statement of:
    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Despite the fact we have already spent BILLIONS on preventing MMGW with absolutely nothing to show for it and are now pumping more co2 into the atmosphere than at any time before Gore invented MMGW. We know no matter what happens:

    Temps rise or fall...
    Polar ice increases or decreases...
    Oceans rise or fall...
    More or fewer hurricanes...
    More or fewer droughts or floods...

    It's all caused by MMGW...

    My same question stands.... who the heck still thinks this is science? MMGW has more in common with a cult than anything else.

    "A SCAM, WITH NO BASIS IN SCIENCE"
    To juxtapose scam, cult, and science with Tipler, who not only has absolutely no climate credentials but writes on topics such as the Science of Christianity, Miracles, and other ID topics gave me a giggle. Perhaps not as much as the one you gave Orangutan, but I have to admit a bit of my coffee did do a nasal pass.

    lol, here's what Frank Tipler writes about when he isn't penning letters to ex comedy writers with blogs for you to post links as evidence of your position:
    At that point, Tipler assumes the universe will
    begin to contract toward what is called the big crunch,
    the reverse of the big bang. Now, it should be noted that
    most cosmologists currently do not expect that the big
    crunch will happen. The best guess based on current
    observation and theory is that the universe is open; that
    is, it will expand forever. Tipler, however, claims that
    his theory "predicts" that the universe is closed.
    It is a strange sort of scientific prediction, when a
    desired result far in the future is used predict a current
    fact. But, at least we have a falsifiable claim: If
    someday cosmologists convincingly demonstrate that the
    universe is open, then Tipler will be refuted.
    Tipler makes other "predictions" such as the
    masses of the top quark and Higgs boson. But these are
    essentially based on the unrelated calculations of others
    and he is being a bit disingenuous to claim them as his
    own.
    The big crunch is not sufficient for immortality.
    The crunch must happen in a highly specific way in order
    to maintain causal contact across the universe and
    provide sufficient energy for what life must then
    accomplish in order to avoid extinction. In other words,
    the collapse of the universe must be very carefully
    controlled.
    Now if Tipler believed in a supernatural cosmic
    mind controlling everything, he could simply say
    "anything is possible." But he does not escape to
    supernaturalism. Rather he escapes to chaos. He notes
    that the equations of general relativity imply that the
    collapse of the universe is chaotic, meaning that it is
    very sensitive to the conditions that exist at the start of
    the collapse. According to Tipler, the "butterfly
    effect" that characterizes chaos will be utilized to
    guide the collapse of the universe.
    The advanced life form that evolves from our
    twenty-first century robots must collapse the universe
    in a highly controlled way. Assuming it can manage this,
    life then converges on what the French Jesuit Pierre
    Teilhard de Chardin called the Omega Point. Tipler
    associates the Omega Point, as did Teilhard, with God.
    Being the ultimate form of power and knowledge,
    the Omega Point would also be the ultimate in Love.
    Loving us, it would proceed to resurrect all humans who
    ever lived (along with their favorite pets and popular
    endangered species). This is accomplished by means of a
    perfect computer simulation, what Tipler calls an
    emulation.
    Since each of us is defined by our DNA, the Omega
    Point simply emulates all possible humans that could
    ever live, which of course includes you and me. Our
    memories have long dissolved into entropy, but Omega
    has us relive our lives in an instant, along with all the
    other possible lives we could have lived. Those that
    Omega-God deems deserving will get to live even better
    lives, including lots of sex with the most desirable
    partners we can imagine. Even this Tipler places on a
    mathematical basis, computing the relative
    "psychological impact" of meeting the most
    beautiful women whose existence is logically possible
    compared to simply the most beautiful woman in the
    world. He finds this to be [log1010^1,000,000]/[log1010^9] =
    100,000 (p. 257).
    Those deemed undeserving by Omega will be put
    through purgatories, but if they perform satisfactorily
    they may gain heaven. So, we can all correct our
    mistakes. I will live a life where I learn to hit a
    curveball. Hitler will live a life in which he is Jewish.
    Bill Clinton will be President over and over again until he
    finally gets it right.
    Tipler claims that the Omega Point represents the
    God of Judeo-Christian religion. Omega is the God of the
    Jews who told Moses, in Hebrew, "Ehyeh Asher
    Ehyeh" which Tipler translates as "I WILL BE WHAT
    I WILL BE" in place of the conventional "I AM THAT
    I AM." Omega is the God of the early Christians who
    will reassemble the complete bodies of all humans on
    Judgment Day. Omega is the God of Islam, who
    continually destroys and recreates the universe from
    moment to moment and provides for his warriors a
    paradise of total pleasure.


    Now, either tell me what a cult is or tell me that you post links without reading them and understanding the source. Of course the obligatory personal insult will also do.


    Those
    were your points and my response. I included a question to you that still remains unanswered. From the looks of it, my prediction of where this exchange would go is pretty good.

    Cause and effect in debate is something akin to science isn't it? You seem to ignore it with both.

    You want to call it a straw dog? Fine. Just don't light any matches around your position, for you might burn your fingers.

    The logic flow of discussion with scoot....
    MMGW is not a science: it is a cult invented by Gore and one where billions of dollars are wasted on investigation and learning.

    To prove it you use an OpEd on a blog that has no science other than an opinion (backed by no support other than the mere mention of words you agree with) by one whose contribution to science includes making a mathematical formula to describe how:

    Those that Omega-God deems deserving will get to live even better
    lives, including lots of sex with the most desirable partners we can imagine.

    Even this Tipler places on a mathematical basis, computing the relative
    "psychological impact" of meeting the most beautiful women whose existence is logically possible
    compared to simply the most beautiful woman in the world.

    He finds this to be [log1010^1,000,000]/[log1010^9] =
    100,000 (p. 257)
    Thanks for your proof.

    I still don't buy it.

    Now if you didn't mean that we don't need no stinkin science to have a position in science then perhaps you shouldn't make statements like:
    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Boilerplate OTOC... attack the source without addressing a single point he makes. OMFG... he has no "climate credentials"!! BLOG!! Don't attack me!! Who coulda seen that coming?

    Sorry OTOC.. you need not be Einstein... have "climate credentials" or need an IPCC "peer review" to point out the fact that Scientific observation has shot the MMGW theory to sh*t.

    That little wavy guy must be getting tired from being overused, for there was no scientific observation supplied either in your original post or subsequent posts regarding our exchange over my response to you. Just opinion from a guy who seems more of a cultist than a scientist in your supplied proof against the science of climate studies. But that was your original complaint wasn't it? That you consider global warming a cult and not science?
    Last edited by otoc; 12-31-2008 at 10:13 AM. Reason: added a summary again to hopefully move on...
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  11. #1511
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,281

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    ^^^Feel free to post on the actual article any time. As usual.. a pleasure to watch you spin a new straw man with every response...

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #1512
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,810

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    ^^^Feel free to post on the actual article any time. As usual.. a pleasure to watch you spin a new straw man with every response...

    Scoot, how many times do I have to respond to it? What scientific study does Tippler base his opinion on? He's an expert that proves your point that warming is a cult?

    From Tippler:
    Another shocking thing about the AGW theory is that it is generating a loss of true scientific knowledge. The great astronomer William Herschel, the discoverer of the planet Uranus, observed in the early 1800's that warm weather was correlated with sunspot number. Herschel noticed that warmer weather meant better crops, and thus fewer sunspots meant higher grain prices. The AGW people are trying to do a disappearing act on these observations. Some are trying to deny the existence of the Maunder Minimum.
    And what the facts are:
    Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds

    By Ker Than, LiveScience Staff Writer

    Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.

    Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon.

    While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.

    Wobbly Mars


    Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output. Abdussamatov also blamed solar fluctuations for Earth’s current global warming trend. His initial comments were published online by National Geographic News.

    “Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email interview last week. “The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth and on Mars always will be practically parallel."

    But Abdussamatov’s critics say the Red Planet’s recent thawing is more likely due to natural variations in the planet’s orbit and tilt. On Earth, these wobbles, known as Milankovitch cycles, are thought to contribute to the onset and disappearance ice ages.

    “It’s believed that what drives climate change on Mars are orbital variations,” said Jeffrey Plaut, a project scientist for NASA’s Mars Odyssey mission. “The Earth also goes through orbital variations similar to that of Mars.”

    As for Abdussamatov’s claim that solar fluctuations are causing Earth’s current global warming, Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says the idea is nonsense.

    “That’s nuts,” Long said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t make physical sense that that’s the case.”

    In 2005, Long’s team published a study in the journal Science showing that Earth experienced a period of “solar global dimming” from 1960 to 1990, during which time solar radiation hitting our planet’s surface decreased. Then from the mid-1990’s onward, the trend reversed and Earth experienced a “solar brightening.”

    These changes were not likely driven by fluctuations in the output of the Sun, Long explained, but rather increases in atmospheric clouds or aerosols that reflected solar radiation back into space.

    Other warming worlds

    Others have pointed out anomalous warming on other worlds in our solar system.

    Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University who monitors studies and news reports of asteroids, global warming and other potentially apocalyptic topics, recently quoted in his daily electronic newsletter the following from a blog called Strata-Sphere:

    “Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets ... Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?”

    Peiser included quotes from recent news articles that take up other aspects of the idea.

    “I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system,” Peiser said in an email interview. “Perhaps this is just a fluke.”

    In fact, scientists have alternative explanations for the anomalous warming on each of these other planetary bodies.

    The warming on Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun’s heat.

    Researchers credited Pluto’s warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.

    And the recent storm activity on Jupiter is being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle that churns up material from the gas giant’s interior and lofts it to the surface, where it is heated by the Sun.

    Sun does vary

    The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent—not substantial enough to affect Earth’s climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet’s current warming trend, scientists say.

    “The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record,” said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.

    The link between solar activity and global warming is just another scapegoat for human-caused warming, Mann told LiveScience.

    “Solar activity continues to be one of the last bastions of contrarians,” Mann said. “People who don’t accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change still try to point to solar activity.”

    The Maunder Minimum

    This is not to say that solar fluctuations never influence Earth’s climate in substantial ways. During a 75-year period beginning in 1645, astronomers detected almost no sunspot activity on the Sun. Called the “Maunder Minimum,” this event coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, a 350-year cold spell that gripped much of Europe and North America.

    Recent studies have cast doubt on this relationship, however. New estimates of the total change in the brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum suggest it was only fractions of a percent, and perhaps not enough to create the global cooling commonly attributed to it.

    “The situation is pretty ambiguous,” said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum.

    Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said.

    This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100, as predicted by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
    I do appreciate an opinion, but just because it agrees with yours if it doesn't have scientific proof to back it, it remains opinion. Tippler only gives opinion, and really one not based in reality.

    Now. How about an answer regarding your original point to which I responded. Time for the dance to end.

    If warming is a cult, where do you place Tippler in the arena in which he is considered educated? That was my point that you continue to skirt.

    Or am I to gather with you, the concept of cult only goes one way?
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  13. #1513
    Joined
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SO CAL USA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,602

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    The Maunder Minimum

    This is not to say that solar fluctuations never influence Earth’s climate in substantial ways. During a 75-year period beginning in 1645, astronomers detected almost no sunspot activity on the Sun. Called the “Maunder Minimum,” this event coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, a 350-year cold spell that gripped much of Europe and North America.

    Recent studies have cast doubt on this relationship, however. New estimates of the total change in the brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum suggest it was only fractions of a percent, and perhaps not enough to create the global cooling commonly attributed to it.

    “The situation is pretty ambiguous,” said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum.

    Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said.

    This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100, as predicted by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
    But, after a decade-and-a-half of reality, which resists exaggeration, it has become apparent that warming is indeed pretty modest. Jim wrote this in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2001:
    "Future global warming can be predicted much more accurately then is generally realized ... we predict additional warming in the next 50 years of 0.75 ºC [plus or minus] 0.25ºC, a warming rate of 0.15ºC [plus or minus] 0.05ºC per decade."
    This warming rate — the real one — is approximately 4 times less than the lurid top figure widely trumpeted by the United Nations and repeated ad infinitum in the press. And, just to drive my point home, here's what Mr. Hansen wrote last month in his latest paper in the online journal Natural Science:
    Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decisionmakers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate ... scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. ...
    I wonder if anyone ever reads the posts or just rushes off to find evidence on what a meatball the linked writer is? So which is it. Hansens own admission that the temp rise will be minimal,much less than the 12 F released in IPCC,or opinions,such as the new studies that suggest the maunder minimum was not the real culprit.Where is this study? Low sunspot activity this year and worldwide freezes are likely just coincidence? LOL. Cant use the term global because someone previously posted in reply to me that global doesnt mean worldwide,LOL. Simple fact,the 1872 proof of co2 as a greenhouse gas also proves there is a ceiling beyond which NO FURTHER WARMING WILL OCCUR DUE TO CO2 LEVELS.Its in the link. Read up on the science,its basic stuff unlike climate models which dont contain the basic equation containing the co2 ceiling,and BTW are just theories and CAN'T be proven like the CO2 theory WAS.This was also linked to before,but ignored likely to the habit of NOT reading the links or maybe just not understanding them.Or maybe because the Father of Climatology is another one of the disregarded nutballs.The Maunder Minimum theory as cause for the Little Ice Age also CANT be proven,but we'll be seeing in the next 20 years as freezes continue that its one pretty damn good one compared to MMGW.100s of years of cold weather coinciding with low Sun activity,NAH can't be the Sun causing temp changes,thats absurd,to paraphrase one of the above "scientists".
    Oh Yeah MODELED the Maunder Minimum.
    asrock x370 taichi,16g gskill flarex3200 wd250mu 3wdblack 1 tera
    Asrock 990FX FX8120 8G Gskill 2133 2x WD2T 6.0 pc p+c 950w
    Asrock 890FX 1090t 2x4 Gskill 1866 RipJaw WD 1T 6.0 mushkin 850w
    DFI 790FXB M3H5 PII 965 8 Gskill RipJaw 1866 WD1T 6.0 ocz 750 w
    DFI 790FXB M3H5 PII 965 2x4 Gskill Rip Jaw 1600 Ocz evo720
    DFI 790FXB M2RSH PII 955 2x1Gskill 1600 Saph 4670 Ocz Evo 720W
    DFI 790FXM2RS PII 720 2x1gig Gskill 1600 Sapphire HD3400
    DFI Lp ultra D SLI Opti 148@300x10 @33c 1 gig Crucial ballistix 4000

  14. #1514
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    46
    Posts
    13,823

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    All this talk of global warming, either man made or not, will become completely useless if Yellowstone blows it's top.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473925,00.html

  15. #1515
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Hansen proposes taxing the crap out of everyone to stop the warming.

    I'd post a non-blog entry for otoc, but the MSM doesn't seem to be "on the story" as fast as the bloggers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •