Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > General comments on Bloggingheads.tv
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

General comments on Bloggingheads.tv Post comments about our website here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 01-31-2012, 03:19 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Ruin my cause on a long since abandoned forum. That's rich.

Your original point (?) was that Rutan had no business weighing in on the subject of climate change because he is not a scientist. AND your other brilliant point was to say that the writer of the editorial (which it was not and who you could not identify) mis-stated that 16 scientists signed it. And clearly speaks to the credibility of the entire piece, IMO.


And then you accuse me of picking silly points to argue. Hilarious.
My original point(!) was that you were simply linking to Murdoch propaganda which you were, and I never said "Rutan had no business weighing in on the subject of climate change because he is not a scientist.". But you are correct that the headline of the article falsely claimed it was signed by 16 scientists. "Brilliant point" or not, it's true. And clearly speaks to the credibility of the entire piece, IMO.

Whoever wrote that drivel did not claim authorship, and since you think sixteen guys got together and wrote it, then prove it. This seems unlikely to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
And BTW, my husband is an electro-mechanical engineer and when asked, he said that very often he was involved in scientific endeavors in his R&D work. So I would say that there are many cutting edge engineers (of which even you would have to admit Rutan is one) who could honestly call themselves scientists. Not to mention the fact that an engineer of his stature is certainly qualified to speak about the efficacy of the climate models and statistics which are being offered in the research.
I know about your spouse already (you've alluded to this before), and I am an electro-mechanical engineer who designs, fabs, and consults on equipment for scientific research and would never claim to be a scientist, as this is simply incorrect. Signing a document to that effect by me would constitute fraud, IMO. And a double fraud when I (or Rutan) do not have PHD's in hard science, nor have we published scientific works in any field, let alone those even remotely related to climate science.


Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
And you never explained just what is the the defining feature of science or a scientist that makes it/him unique...except to say DUHHHH!

I suspect that is because you can't.
Please try to follow the discussion before you claim someone has not made a point. The "duhhhh!" was accompanied by a link plus a quote, which you have neglected to acknowledge, let alone refute. I suspect you are now grasping at straws with your false implication that I can't do what I (and Jeff) have already done here.

I do appreciate you falsely summarizing my points though, because dead forum or not, it makes you seem a little detached from reality. Kinda like all your "science" links. You have issues with critical thinking that are degrading your credibility.
Are you saying you don't care because you think no one is reading this?
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 01-31-2012 at 06:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-31-2012, 03:34 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
You think somehow that I am supposed to be cowed by some guy on the internet saying that Rutan is in error. I suppose you also think that I should change my mind about the whole issue because some guy on the internt thinks that Rutan has a completely inaccurate view.

I doubt very much that you have any notion about what the real issues are in this conflict and that is why you have to use some guy on the internet's words instead of your own.
No I don't think any of that stuff, but thanks again for the errant interpretations of my posts. More holes in your credibility.
My actual view is that arguing with you and others on this subject is no different than refuting the claims of birthers, truthers, paranoid conspiracy theorists, and the like. Those who doggedly cling to concepts that fly in the face of overwhelming evidence, and expert consensus.
You have your mind made up and eat up anything that supports your foregone conclusions.
And it's laughable when you, and those like you try to accuse others, especially 98% of the scientific community, of doing the same!
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 02-04-2012 at 02:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-31-2012, 03:35 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Um no...he compared not being as hysterical as he is about the imminent threat of climate change or warming or whatever they're calling it these days to sending Jews to the gas chambers.

That was in response to this from you: No one with an actual, factual ax to grind would need to resort to this kind of false equivalence.
Context? Quotes? Links? Am I to take your word for this?
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-31-2012, 03:39 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
You've finally discovered my dastardly plan.
I'd characterize it as a nasty, annoying, and misleading habit, but call it what you like.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 01-31-2012 at 03:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-31-2012, 04:13 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Engineering is not science. Engineers are not scientists. Engineers make or design things. The test for the quality of an engineer's work is whether or not the things function within the parameters of their designs. Scientists produce papers. The test for the quality of a scientist's work is based on peer approval in regard to the papers he or she has produced. These are intrinsically different tasks, requiring completely different sets of skills (and that's apart from the specific technical skill sets that accompany each discipline.) And you're right, this goes directly to harry's critical thinking skills, at least insofar as she allows us to glimpse them, such as they are, in this forum.
Thank you for your input.
She does seem to know enough to avoid rebutting your statement, unless the post below applies:
Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post

And you never explained just what is the the defining feature of science or a scientist that makes it/him unique...except to say DUHHHH!

I suspect that is because you can't.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-31-2012, 04:50 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: holy cannoli

Oh and Jeff, did you see this page in Rutan's piece refuting climate change?

Quote:
Modern Human-Extinction Scares
• PopulationBomb,starvation/crowding-1940sto1970s
• Silent Spring, DDT - 1960s & 1970s (outlawing DDT killed millions)
• Global Nuclear War - 1950s thru 1980s
• Global cooling, Ice Age/starvation - 1956 to 1977
• Hole in the Ozone layer, caused by CFCs, 1970s & 1980s (We now know that the Ozone changes were not caused by human CFCs)
• Nuclear Winter, nuke-caused ice Age - 1980s & 1990s
• Asteroid Impact - 1930 to present (a real, but remote risk)
• Global Warming - 1929 to 1969 and 1987 to 2003
• “Climate Change” - 2003 to present
Is ‘Climate Change’ just another over-blown scare?
Call me nutty, but I think there might be a pattern here.
Global nuke war just a "scare"? DDT is harmless? Ozone hole not caused by humans? Over population not a threat?

I guess most claims toward man made damage to the environment are without any real basis!
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-31-2012, 05:03 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Oh and Jeff, did you see this page in Rutan's piece refuting climate change?



Call me nutty, but I think there might be a pattern here.
Global nuke war just a "scare"? DDT is harmless? Ozone hole not caused by humans? Over population not a threat?

I guess most claims toward man made damage to the environment are without any real basis!
Heh. Thank whatorwhomever that overpopulation and starvation have never been a problem! The unsourced assertion about CFCs is amazingly convincing. But, he wrote something that you can read on the internet, so I guess quoting him is just as good as citing primary sources!
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-31-2012, 05:27 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Heh. Thank whatorwhomever that overpopulation and starvation have never been a problem! The unsourced assertion about CFCs is amazingly convincing. But, he wrote something that you can read on the internet, so I guess quoting him is just as good as citing primary sources!
Yes, especially convincing when entirely untempered by any degree of threat, or potential consequence of inaction.
But very "logical" i.e. since there was no global nuclear war, the threat was exaggerated! Or DDT for sure would only have prevented malaria from spreading, and the continued (proven) collection of the known toxin in the fat cells of every living thing on the planet (with fat cells that is) would have been inconsequential. Wow.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 01-31-2012 at 06:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-31-2012, 06:30 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Context? Quotes? Links? Am I to take your word for this?
Yes, you must take my word for it...or read the post where I originally quoted him.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-31-2012, 07:12 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle;237032
I know about your spouse already (you've alluded to this before), and I am an electro-mechanical engineer who designs, fabs, and consults on equipment for scientific research and would [I
never[/I] claim to be a scientist, as this is simply incorrect. Signing a document to that effect by me would constitute fraud, IMO. And a double fraud when I (or Rutan) do not have PHD's in hard science, nor have we published scientific works in any field, let alone those even remotely related to climate science.
Oh! so now we have raised the bar to "hard science" Clever how you slipped that in (well, not really). Did the introduction say 16 hard scientists...?

What you would claim is irrelevant. I doubt anyone would ever be faced with some piece of paper to sign which says "I am a scientist." Mostly people are asked to provide the credentials from their education or work and one should be very careful not to misrepresent those things. If you are just a cubbyhole guy who follows orders and procedures and doesn't get into the discovery phase of engineering than I guess you should not claim to be a scientist.

And, I have yet to hear from you what it is that constitutes a scientist... But here is something from Wikipedia which might give you pause, but check with Jeff first.

"Engineering is the discipline, art, skill and profession of acquiring and applying scientific, mathematical, economic, social, and practical knowledge, in order to design and build structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes."

"Engineering, much like other science, is a broad discipline which is often broken down into several sub-disciplines."

Quote:
Please try to follow the discussion before you claim someone has not made a point. The "duhhhh!" was accompanied by a link plus a quote, which you have neglected to acknowledge, let alone refute. I suspect you are now grasping at straws with your false implication that I can't do what I (and Jeff) have already done here.
I don't read Jeff's posts. There is no need. I already know what he will say. He usually just makes me want to throw up a little.
And you still haven't told me what makes a scientist a scientist.

Quote:
I do appreciate you falsely summarizing my points though, because dead forum or not, it makes you seem a little detached from reality. Kinda like all your "science" links. You have issues with critical thinking that are degrading your credibility.
Are you saying you don't care because you think no one is reading this
How about you try to follow?...you said that I am hurting my cause. First, I already know that you have no interest in discussing any of this and that you know pretty much nothing about it so it will go nowhere. What is important to you is arguing about stupid stuff like whether or not Bert Rutan is a scientist and giving your visiting guest, Jeff, high fives. Second, I have no cause. This whole controversy is mostly an interesting social phenomenon in my opinion. People like you have chosen a side because you have bought into the 99% propaganda and will never change their minds until the issue is eventually forgotten. It's going to be interesting to see where this thing is at in twenty years.

But, I'm so glad that you at least appreciate something about my posts. The "detached from reality" bit is pretty much how I would sum up my opinion of you.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 01-31-2012 at 07:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-31-2012, 11:19 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Yes, especially convincing when entirely untempered by any degree of threat, or potential consequence of inaction.
But very "logical" i.e. since there was no global nuclear war, the threat was exaggerated! Or DDT for sure would only have prevented malaria from spreading, and the continued (proven) collection of the known toxin in the fat cells of every living thing on the planet (with fat cells that is) would have been inconsequential. Wow.
I haven't followed this thread closely, so, has anyone linked to this article?

h/t AR via Dot Earth/NYTimes.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-01-2012, 02:54 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Yes, you must take my word for it...or read the post where I originally quoted him.
Still no link or context. Thinking you are diverting attention or just being lazy I searched for this guys work, and Goddard institute or not, he, like you, is not doing his cause any favors with hyperbolic editorializing. And probably should not hold a government financed research position.
Like I said, there's nuts on both sides of this issue. And truth be told I wish to god you were right, that this is no big deal, or a hoax, or not as bad as it's made out to be, Unfortunately, you're not.

But regardless of who is right or wrong on this issue, the consequences of your side being wrong are far more negative than if the opposite were true IMO:

If the overwhelming majority of Scientists are wrong, but measures are taken to limit CO2 emissions, we will have extended our immediately usable energy supply indefinitely, limited other toxic pollutants, given ourselves the gift of energy independence and the increased national security that comes with it.
The move to produce cleaner, sustainable American energy will offset what ever we lose not buying oil from the now globalized fossil fuel industry.

If you are wrong, then our descendants are going to think you are the biggest assholes that ever walked the face earth, and they will be able to make a very compelling case.

I really, sincerely, and deeply wish you turn out to be right, but we still endeavor to go the cleaner independent route.
But my bullshit meter says you are betting all our farms on a dangerous global corporate agenda. Good luck with that!

Added:Just to be clear, however, Hanson does not include his hyperbolic observations in his work on this subject.
But in light of this I now concede my statement would be more accurate if changed from:
No one with an actual, factual ax to grind would need to resort to this kind of false equivalence.
To:
No one with an actual, factual ax to grind should need to resort to this kind of false equivalence.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 02-01-2012 at 05:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-01-2012, 03:45 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Oh! so now we have raised the bar to "hard science" Clever how you slipped that in (well, not really). Did the introduction say 16 hard scientists...?
Climate science is not hard science?

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
What you would claim is irrelevant. I doubt anyone would ever be faced with some piece of paper to sign which says "I am a scientist." Mostly people are asked to provide the credentials from their education or work and one should be very careful not to misrepresent those things. If you are just a cubbyhole guy who follows orders and procedures and doesn't get into the discovery phase of engineering than I guess you should not claim to be a scientist.
Cubby hole guy? WTF are you on about now? I think you mean "cubicle" but no, I work in a lab. But you think the cubicle thing is an insult or something? Or a reason to doubt someone?
Notice how I didn't lead with this until you started implying special spousal knowledge? I then clearly outlined what I do, and designing, and implementing research equipment involves mostly discovery, as the research is in itself discovery by definition. But do let me know what your "scientist" husband says.

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
And, I have yet to hear from you what it is that constitutes a scientist... But here is something from Wikipedia which might give you pause, but check with Jeff first.

"Engineering is the discipline, art, skill and profession of acquiring and applying scientific, mathematical, economic, social, and practical knowledge, in order to design and build structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes."
Or "applied science" like I said. Thanks for supporting my claim.

Quote:
Engineering is not science. Engineers are not scientists. Engineers make or design things. The test for the quality of an engineer's work is whether or not the things function within the parameters of their designs. Scientists produce papers. The test for the quality of a scientist's work is based on peer approval in regard to the papers he or she has produced. These are intrinsically different tasks, requiring completely different sets of skills (and that's apart from the specific technical skill sets that accompany each discipline.) And you're right, this goes directly to harry's critical thinking skills, at least insofar as she allows us to glimpse them, such as they are, in this forum.
There, you just read Jeff's post, hope you didn't have breakfast yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
"Engineering, much like other science, is a broad discipline which is often broken down into several sub-disciplines."
Notice how they have different words for "science" and "engineering" that's how we delineate things that are not the same! But since the wiki says "other science" then I must be a scientist!!!!
I can't thank you enough badhat! I'm gonna ask for a raise!!!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I don't read Jeff's posts. There is no need. I already know what he will say. He usually just makes me want to throw up a little.
And you still haven't told me what makes a scientist a scientist.
You're right, the very definition of both that I linked to can now be discounted because we have gone far enough down thread for you to inaccurately claim it never happened.



Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
How about you try to follow?...you said that I am hurting my cause. First, I already know that you have no interest in discussing any of this and that you know pretty much nothing about it so it will go nowhere. What is important to you is arguing about stupid stuff like whether or not Bert Rutan is a scientist and giving your visiting guest, Jeff, high fives. Second, I have no cause. This whole controversy is mostly an interesting social phenomenon in my opinion. People like you have chosen a side because you have bought into the 99% propaganda and will never change their minds until the issue is eventually forgotten. It's going to be interesting to see where this thing is at in twenty years.

But, I'm so glad that you at least appreciate something about my posts. The "detached from reality" bit is pretty much how I would sum up my opinion of you.
Now who resorts to the Ad Hominem? Plus backing away from vehemently endorsing and defending your propaganda! I know I've given you a hard time about your reliance on attitude, but I have to say this whole rant is really quite funny.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 02-01-2012 at 03:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-01-2012, 03:57 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
I haven't followed this thread closely, so, has anyone linked to this article?

h/t AR via Dot Earth/NYTimes.
No need to follow it, badhat is just rehashing the same old denier drivel. But she now asserts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
. Second, I have no cause. This whole controversy is mostly an interesting social phenomenon in my opinion.
But that's a great link, thanks!
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-01-2012, 05:57 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Still no link or context.
All you had to do is copy and paste the quotes into a search and they would come up. Come on, you do this all the time.

James E. Hansen
(born March 29, 1941) heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. He has held this position since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.

Quote:
If the overwhelming majority of Scientists are wrong, but measures are taken to limit CO2 emissions, we will have extended our immediately usable energy supply indefinitely, limited other toxic pollutants, given ourselves the gift of energy independence and the increased national security that comes with it.
The move to produce cleaner, sustainable American energy will offset what ever we lose not buying oil from the now globalized fossil fuel industry.
I agree that fossil fuel use is a problem and that we need think carefully about how to limit our dependence. Think of what we'll save in heating fuel if the planet warms !

But we can't forget that they have allowed and continue to allow for a great advances in human progress.
Quote:
But my bullshit meter says you are betting all our farms on a dangerous global corporate agenda. Good luck with that!
Well I certainly can't speak for anyone else on my global corporate board of directors but it is my bullshit meter which makes me skeptical of the goofy hysteria about this subject.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 02-01-2012 at 06:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-01-2012, 06:30 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
All you had to do is copy and paste the quotes into a search and they would come up. Come on, you do this all the time.

James E. Hansen
(born March 29, 1941) heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. He has held this position since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.
I did, that was the thrust of my comment, you did read the rest of the paragraph while you cherry picked my post, right?:
Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Still no link or context. Thinking you are diverting attention or just being lazy I searched for this guys work, and Goddard institute or not, he, like you, is not doing his cause any favors with hyperbolic editorializing. And probably should not hold a government financed research position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I agree that fossil fuel use is a problem and that we need think carefully about how to limit our dependence. Think of what we'll save in heating fuel if the planet warms !

But we can't forget that they have allowed and continue to allow for a great advances in human progress.


Well I certainly can't speak for anyone else on my global corporate board of directors but it is my bullshit meter which makes me skeptical of the goofy hysteria about this subject.
Speaking of all that, Ocean provided a link to a direct rebuttal to Murdoch's Op ed:

Here's the Link

SIGNED by the author:
Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D.
Distinguished Senior Scientist
Climate Analysis Section National Center for Atmospheric Research
La Jolla, Calif.
and actual climate scientists:
Quote:
Richard Somerville, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego

Katharine Hayhoe, Ph.D., Director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech University

Rasmus Benestad, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute

Gerald Meehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences; Director, Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy, Princeton University

Peter Gleick, Ph.D., co-founder and president, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security

Michael C. MacCracken, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, Climate Institute, Washington

Michael Mann, Ph.D., Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University

Steven Running, Ph.D., Professor, Director, Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana

Robert Corell, Ph.D., Chair, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; Principal, Global Environment Technology Foundation

Dennis Ojima, Ph.D., Professor, Senior Research Scientist, and Head of the Dept. of Interior's Climate Science Center at Colorado State University

Josh Willis, Ph.D., Climate Scientist, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Matthew England, Ph.D., Professor, Joint Director of the Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia

Ken Caldeira, Ph.D., Atmospheric Scientist, Dept. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

Warren Washington, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Terry L. Root, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University

David Karoly, Ph.D., ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia

Jeffrey Kiehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Donald Wuebbles, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois

Camille Parmesan, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, University of Texas; Professor of Global Change Biology, Marine Institute, University of Plymouth, UK

Simon Donner, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Canada

Barrett N. Rock, Ph.D., Professor, Complex Systems Research Center and Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire

David Griggs, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University, Australia

Roger N. Jones, Ph.D., Professor, Professorial Research Fellow, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Australia

William L. Chameides, Ph.D., Dean and Professor, School of the Environment, Duke University

Gary Yohe, Ph.D., Professor, Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University, CT

Robert Watson, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Chair of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia

Steven Sherwood, Ph.D., Director, Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Chris Rapley, Ph.D., Professor of Climate Science, University College London, UK

Joan Kleypas, Ph.D., Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

James J. McCarthy, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University

Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D., Professor of Physics of the Oceans, Potsdam University, Germany

Julia Cole, Ph.D., Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona

William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D., President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies

Jonathan Overpeck, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona

Eric Rignot, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Professor of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine

Wolfgang Cramer, Professor of Global Ecology, Mediterranean Institute for Biodiversity and Ecology, CNRS, Aix-en-Provence, France
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 02-02-2012 at 08:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-01-2012, 08:10 PM
cragger cragger is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 632
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
Lighten up, badhat, life is short.
Truly the key to appreciating this thread, and it's previous iterations. Sometimes I think this is all either an elaborate troll or a deliberate attempt to show the silliness of various denialist arguments through an assumed persona, but it doesn't really matter. Viewed from the outside, the whole thing is just so much like listening to Ricky Gervais try to explain something to Karl Pilkington that the motivation is irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-01-2012, 09:38 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by cragger View Post
Truly the key to appreciating this thread, and it's previous iterations. Sometimes I think this is all either an elaborate troll or a deliberate attempt to show the silliness of various denialist arguments through an assumed persona, but it doesn't really matter. Viewed from the outside, the whole thing is just so much like listening to Ricky Gervais try to explain something to Karl Pilkington that the motivation is irrelevant.
Are you avinn a laff?

Sadly, not, I assume.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-02-2012, 03:24 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by cragger View Post
Truly the key to appreciating this thread, and it's previous iterations. Sometimes I think this is all either an elaborate troll or a deliberate attempt to show the silliness of various denialist arguments through an assumed persona, but it doesn't really matter. Viewed from the outside, the whole thing is just so much like listening to Ricky Gervais try to explain something to Karl Pilkington that the motivation is irrelevant.
LOL (in that hyena type Gervais style), Perfect analogy.

Background:
HBO animated podcast
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 02-02-2012 at 03:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-09-2012, 03:50 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
I think the ignorance is in not knowing how to evaluate controversy. If 99% of scientists say one thing, and 1% say another, who would you be more likely to believe? Let's say the 1% does not represent the top authorities in the topic, but rather a random collection of science related people. Who to believe?
I think this is a pretty good summation of the climate controversy and addresses the erroneous 99% stuff. Read it, but only if you feel you can trust it!

So this is the real problem at the heart of the climate debate — the two sides are debating different propositions! In our chart, proponents of global warming action are vigorously defending the propositions on the left side, propositions with which serious skeptics generally already agree. When skeptics raise issues about climate models, natural sources of warming, and climate feedbacks, advocates of global warming action run back to the left side of the chart and respond that the world is warming and greenhouse gas theory is correct. At best, this is a function of the laziness and scientific illiteracy of the media that allows folks to talk past one another; at worst, it is a purposeful bait-and-switch to avoid debate on the tough issues.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 02-09-2012, 06:16 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: holy cannoli

Never mind that this op-ed flies in the face of the original one you started this thread with, It's still an unfair and gross oversimplification of the case made by the experts.

Here's but one tiny example that jumped off the page of your "pretty good summation of the climate controversy":
Quote:
To defend the hypothesis of strong positive climate feedback, global warming supporters must posit that there are exogenous climate effects that are in fact holding down the increase due to CO2. Thus has been born the theory of man-made sulfate aerosols, basically pollution from burning dirty fuels, that is keeping the Earth cool. When the rest of the world gets around to reducing these emissions as has the US, the theory goes, then we will see rapid catch-up warming. Skeptics point out that no one really has any idea of the magnitude of the cooling from these aerosols, and that, ironically, every global warming model just happens to assume exactly the amount of cooling from these aerosols that is needed to make their models match history. Skeptics call this their “plug variable.”
Sounds good, right? Except the author, in more than one place insinuates that the models are based on mere "theories" with little or no supporting evidence.
Except of course for this direct evidence of the cooling effects of "dirty pollutants" presented here:

I read yours now you read mine.

Quote:
DAVID TRAVIS: The 9/11 study showed that if you remove a contributor to global dimming, jet contrails, just for a three-day period, we see an immediate response of the surface temperature. Do the same thing globally, we might see a large-scale increase in global warming.

NARRATOR: This is the crux of the problem. While the greenhouse effect has been warming the planet, it now seems global dimming has been cooling it down.

This new understanding is something that climate modelers like Peter Cox have to contend with.

DOCTOR PETER COX (University of Exeter): Climate change, to the current date, appears to have been a tug of war, really, between two manmade pollutants. On the one side, we've got greenhouse gases that are pulling the system towards a warmer state, on the other hand, we've got particles from pollution that are cooling it down. And there's a kind of tug of war going on between the two, in which the middle of the rope, if you like, determines where the climate system is going in terms of warming or cooling.
This "theory" is not just supported by evidence gathered during the no-fly days following 9/11, but by decades of data gathered in Russia, Australia, Germany and Israel, to name a few:
Quote:
MICHAEL RODERICK: And then one day, just by accident, I had to go to the library to get an article out of Nature. And, as you do, I couldn't find it, and I just glanced at a...through the thing, and there was an article called "Evaporation Losing Its Strength," which reported a decline in pan evaporation over Russia, the United States and Eastern Europe.

And there, in the measurements, they said that the pans had, on average, evaporated about a hundred millimeters less of water in the last 30 years.

NARRATOR: Mike knew how much sunlight was needed to evaporate a millimeter of water, so he put the two sets of figures together, the drop in evaporation with the drop in sunlight.

MICHAEL RODERICK: So you just do the sum in your head: a hundred millimeters of water, less a pan evaporation, two and a half mega joules, so two and a half times a hundred is two hundred and fifty mega joules. And that was, in fact, what the Russians had measured with the decline in sunlight in the last 30 years. It was quite amazing.
And a study done in the Maldives:
Quote:
The Maldives seem unpolluted, but in fact the northern islands sit in a stream of dirty air descending from India. Only the southern tip of the long island chain enjoys clean air, coming all the way from Antarctica.

So, by comparing the northern islands with the southern ones, Ramanathan and his colleagues would be able to see exactly what difference the pollution made to the atmosphere and the sunlight.

Project INDOEX, as it was called, was a huge multinational effort. For four years, every possible technique was used to sample and monitor the atmosphere over the Maldives. INDOEX cost $25,000,000, but it produced results; and they surprised everyone.

VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN: The stunning part of the experiment was this pollutant layer, which was three kilometers thick, cut down the sunlight reaching the ocean by more than 10 percent.
All this is just from one miniscule, glossed over assumption by your hero. There are many more holes that could be shot in his analysis, demonstrating that this subject is beyond your scope, and his, and definitely beyond my inclination to waste my time pointing them out, as this or any other information that contradicts your need to trivialize the research will clearly never make a dent in your commitment to the climate-science-conspiracy theory.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 02-09-2012 at 07:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-09-2012, 06:45 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Never mind that this op-ed flies in the face of the original one you started this thread with, It's still an unfair and gross oversimplification of the case made by the experts.

Here's but one tiny example that jumped off the page of your "pretty good summation of the climate controversy":


Sounds good, right? Except the author, in more than one place insinuates that the models are based on mere "theories" with little or no supporting evidence.
Except of course for this direct evidence of the cooling effects of "dirty pollutants" presented here:

I read yours now you read mine.



This "theory" is not just supported by evidence gathered during the no-fly days following 9/11, but by decades of data gathered in Russia, Australia, Germany and Israel, to name a few:


And a study done in the Maldives,:


All this is just from one miniscule, glossed over assumption by your hero. There are many more holes that could be shot in his analysis, demonstrating that this subject is beyond your scope, and definitely beyond my inclination to waste my time pointing them out, as this or any other information that contradicts your need to trivialize the research will clearly never make a dent in your commitment to the climate-science-conspiracy theory.
The instant an argument conflates "theory" with "hypothesis" it becomes clear that whoever is mounting the argument is either stupid or dishonest. Either way, they've conceded the point by definition.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-09-2012, 07:01 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
The instant an argument conflates "theory" with "hypothesis" it becomes clear that whoever is mounting the argument is either stupid or dishonest. Either way, they've conceded the point by definition.
Exactly, and I really enjoyed the projection of an overall tone of fairness and balance, kind of like badhat's obvious source of 24/7 TV news inspiration.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 02-09-2012 at 07:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-09-2012, 07:58 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Exactly, and I really enjoyed the projection of an overall tone of fairness and balance, kind of like badhat's obvious source of 24/7 TV news inspiration.
jesus! you don't even understand jeff's point (btw, he doesn't either) and yet you just can't keep your hands from clapping together.

Beevus and Butthead ride again
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 02-09-2012 at 08:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-09-2012, 08:08 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: holy cannoli

I can't read your whole post right now but I will just address this first bit...

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post

To defend the hypothesis of strong positive climate feedback, global warming supporters must posit that there are exogenous climate effects that are in fact holding down the increase due to CO2. Thus has been born the theory of man-made sulfate aerosols, basically pollution from burning dirty fuels, that is keeping the Earth cool. When the rest of the world gets around to reducing these emissions as has the US, the theory goes, then we will see rapid catch-up warming. Skeptics point out that no one really has any idea of the magnitude of the cooling from these aerosols, and that, ironically, every global warming model just happens to assume exactly the amount of cooling from these aerosols that is needed to make their models match history. Skeptics call this their “plug variable.”

Sounds good, right? Except the author, in more than one place insinuates that the models are based on mere "theories" with little or no supporting evidence.
From what I know pretty much everyone admits that there are aerosols cause cooling. Also I don't think that the author is saying that models have no supporting evidence. What he is warning against is that too much reliance has been placed on models.

What he is saying is that things have not gone the way Mann et al have said they would in countless ways...so now the alarmists are trying to figure out a way to explain why with as much bravado as they had when they originally claimed that the planet is melting. I do see that they are hedging a lot more than they used to, however.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 02-09-2012 at 08:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-09-2012, 08:16 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
jesus! you don't even understand jeff's point and yet you just can't keep your hands from clapping together.

Beevus and Butthead ride again
I agreed with his point, and made an additional one. But please don't let this information get in the way of you making a mockery of yourself. Well done!

You and your quoted propagandist have been shown to be the ones confusing theory and hypothesis. But please continue with your efforts to obscure your embarrassment.... Some of your best work yet.

Added: just saw your edit, "(btw, he doesn't either)". You can't help but build on a mistake, can you? Or did you think this would turn it around for you?
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 02-09-2012 at 08:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-09-2012, 08:46 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Never mind that this op-ed flies in the face of the original one you started this thread with, It's still an unfair and gross oversimplification of the case made by the experts.
I don't see that the article flies in the face of the op-ed. And, I don't anticipate that you'll be able to show me how it does, either. But I know you'll give it a try complete with accusations that I am deliberately trying to skirt the issue and hide from your cogent points. Maybe jeff will make a guest appearance.

Quote:
All this is just from one miniscule, glossed over assumption by your hero.
And yet again you have said pretty much nothing and how does posting an article make this guy my hero? As I said in my previous post, it is pretty well agreed upon that aerosals have a cooling effect. Just as most agree that the greenhouse effect will cause warming. These are basics. The big question is how much and over what time period. As the article states pretty well, that is where the questions have arisen. Apparently the fact that none of the ominous predictions have come true doesn't give you pause but that's religion for you.

Quote:
There are many more holes that could be shot in his analysis, demonstrating that this subject is beyond your scope, and his, and definitely beyond my inclination to waste my time pointing them out, as this or any other information that contradicts your need to trivialize the research will clearly never make a dent in your commitment to the climate-science-conspiracy theory
So cute the way you think that anyone would think you know much about this stuff and that you could shoot a hole in anything except your own foot.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 02-10-2012 at 11:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-09-2012, 08:53 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
I agreed with his point, and made an additional one. But please don't let this information get in the way of you making a mockery of yourself. Well done!

You and your quoted propagandist have been shown to be the ones confusing theory and hypothesis. But please continue with your efforts to obscure your embarrassment.... Some of your best work yet.

Added: just saw your edit, "(btw, he doesn't either)". You can't help but build on a mistake, can you? Or did you think this would turn it around for you?

Wow, what a coup! You caught me editing my comment!

And another edit (since I don't have to get to the theatre yet)

Here's the post by Jeff. He made no point and he certainly didn't address yours. He was just making one of his typically abstruse (look it up) and meaningless points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff
The instant an argument conflates "theory" with "hypothesis" it becomes clear that whoever is mounting the argument is either stupid or dishonest. Either way, they've conceded the point by definition.
And here is how you pretend that you are making another point. Pathetic. (gee I hope I haven't used pathetic too often in this thread!)

Quote:
Exactly, and I really enjoyed the projection of an overall tone of fairness and balance, kind of like badhat's obvious source of 24/7 TV news inspiration.
Well done.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 02-09-2012 at 09:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-10-2012, 02:29 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Wow, what a coup! You caught me editing my comment!

And another edit (since I don't have to get to the theatre yet)

Here's the post by Jeff. He made no point and he certainly didn't address yours. He was just making one of his typically abstruse (look it up) and meaningless points.



And here is how you pretend that you are making another point. Pathetic. (gee I hope I haven't used pathetic too often in this thread!)
OMG bathatalice, your pride in ignorance is mind numbing. You seem to think that if you don't understand something, it's nothing. You can edit all you want, my question to you regarding the edit, was if you thought it made your assertion that I didn't understand Jeff's input more coherent by including him in the misunderstanding.
My additional point was regarding your quest for supporting evidence coming from sources that claim "balance", but since that was the whole post, I was confused as to how you determined that I, or Jeff for that matter, didn't understand his conclusion. This claim seemed, and still seems, totally nuts.
Jeff's point was that the author of your op-ed was confusing theory with hypothesis. I would be happy to cut and paste the definitions of the terms for you, in case you are late for a performance.

Here's the quote from the article again:

Quote:
To defend the hypothesis of strong positive climate feedback, global warming supporters must posit that there are exogenous climate effects that are in fact holding down the increase due to CO2. Thus has been born the theory of man-made sulfate aerosols, basically pollution from burning dirty fuels, that is keeping the Earth cool. When the rest of the world gets around to reducing these emissions as has the US, the theory goes, then we will see rapid catch-up warming. Skeptics point out that no one really has any idea of the magnitude of the cooling from these aerosols, and that, ironically, every global warming model just happens to assume exactly the amount of cooling from these aerosols that is needed to make their models match history. Skeptics call this their “plug variable.”
It just pains you that some one you think is an idiot can so readily shoot holes in your conspiracy theory editorials. But, like a true conspiracy theorist, you deny it happened.
What has badhatalice taught us in this thread so far?:
*Science is religion
*Engineers are scientists
*Engineering involves the same discipline as science
*Theories are the same as hypotheses
*Global dimming is a theory, not a hypothesis
*"plug variables" in climate models are theories unsupported by research
*if someone makes a point not directly related to her links, then it's not a point.

That's all I have time for, maybe others can add to the list?
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-10-2012, 03:06 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
...
That's all I have time for, maybe others can add to the list?
I think I'm done here. If definitional questions in regard to basic words are "abstruse" and too difficult to deal with coherently, then there just aren't any useful tools here. Have fun in the asylum!
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-10-2012, 05:06 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
To defend the hypothesis of strong positive climate feedback, global warming supporters must posit that there are exogenous climate effects that are in fact holding down the increase due to CO2. Thus has been born the theory of man-made sulfate aerosols, basically pollution from burning dirty fuels, that is keeping the Earth cool. When the rest of the world gets around to reducing these emissions as has the US, the theory goes, then we will see rapid catch-up warming.
So here the author is saying that supporters have a hypothesis. EDIT: (just so's you know) The author would justifiably call strong positive climate feedback a hypothesis because that part of the AGW story is just that, an unproved hypothesis in his estimation. It isn't at all settled what the feedback is for CO2 but they (the other side) certainly are interested in making a strong case that it is great and potentially cataclysmic. Unfortunately for their hypothesis (since they kinda have an ax to grind) the observable phenomena are not co-operating. So they have decided to put forth the theory of man-made sulfate aerosols that is keeping the Earth cool to explain why the earth hasn't warmed as expected.

He switched to theory in the second case because he believes it's proper to call it a theory because it has been tested and found viable. What he doesn't agree with is the reliance on the theory to explain why the climate hasn't warmed as expected.

So apparently your problem is with the use of the word hypothesis. Or is your problem his use of the word theory? Or is your problem his use of both or either?

You don't like that he used the word defend with the word hypothesis? You don't like that he said man-made sulfates aerolsols keeping the earth cool is a theory?

Please tell us what it is that makes you so crazy...use as much paper as you need. You can ask Jeff to help you if you get stuck. (that'll be fun to read) Make up as many insults as you need to to obscure the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

And by all means ignore one of the main points of the article because it is an assault on your faith:

Quote:
Skeptics point out that no one really has any idea of the magnitude of the cooling from these aerosols, and that, ironically, every global warming model just happens to assume exactly the amount of cooling from these aerosols that is needed to make their models match history. Skeptics call this their “plug variable.”
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 02-11-2012 at 12:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-11-2012, 01:45 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: holy cannoli

OMG
OMG
OMG

I've been talking to you as though you know something about AGW science. But I just realized that you don't know anything about this. That's why you obsess about stuff like whether or not Bert Rutan is a scientist or what is a hypothesis or a theory.

OMG

__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 02-11-2012 at 02:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-18-2012, 12:51 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: holy cannoli

Another sane analysis which wonders what will happen in the climate change debate.

Quote:
Because the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) depends on a feedback mechanism between increase in CO2 and an increase in atmospheric water – a mechanism about which there is considerable, scientifically justified doubt – it is possible that CO2 has effectively no influence on global climate.
Too bad that heartlandgate thingy didn't work out so good for the alarmists. Try, try again.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.