El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk science and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk science > and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated > by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
> what say you now?
I say Investor's Business Daily is not a peer reviewed journal.
-- Tom
When Tyrants tremble, sick with fear, And hear their death-knell ringing; When friends rejoice, both far and near, How can I keep from singing.
>> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk >> science and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit >> and advocated by others who know nothing of the truth and human >> nature.
>> what say you now?
> I say Investor's Business Daily is not a peer reviewed journal.
Without knowing exactly who those "peers" are, it's difficult to say.
Still, IBD apparently provides value to its subscribers.
>as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk science >and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated >by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
>what say you now?
I say that you haven't demonstrated in the past sufficient education or intelligence to even voice an opinion on the matter... or on any matters of science. _________________________________________________
> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk science > and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated > by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
> what say you now?
Why don't you try reading the content of the supposed "smoking gun" emails. You might learn something, but since you use Investors Business Daily as your source of information you obviously are wearing a tinfoil hat to protect you from the mind control rays. By the way Investors Business Daily also claimed that Stephen Hawking "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." As Hawking was born and has always lived in the United Kingdom, and receives his medical care from the British National Health Service, Investors Business Daily is a beacon of accuracy.
> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk > science and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and > advocated by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
On Nov 21, 4:00 pm, "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk science > and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated > by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
> what say you now?
I say you're crazy.
Anthropogenic global warming is not junk science. It is recognized as *valid* science by the overwhelming majority of scientists. There are a few objectors, yes - and their number becomes significantly fewer when you exclude likely corporate shills.
However, I will grant you this: trying to give up fossil fuels in favor of warm and fuzzy renewable energy sources like solar power, wind power, geothermal... would lead to a reduction in our industrial capacity. Even if the decline in living standards could be tolerated as a necessity, there is still the question of the industrial base needed for national defense; the world still has well-armed dictatorships in it, like mainland China - and also Russia, it strongly appears.
Fortunately, there is a way out. Nuclear power. The facts are not so unpleasant that they can't be faced.
On Nov 21, 5:10 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> Innews:54%Nm.14994$tz6.4012@newsfe02.iadTom McDonald > <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote: > > I say Investor's Business Daily is not a peer reviewed journal. > Without knowing exactly who those "peers" are, it's difficult to say. > Still, IBD apparently provides value to its subscribers.
Yes, but that only indicates competency in its area of specialization.
They understand the stock market. Global climate is the field of meteorologists. I would not rely on Investor's Business Daily to tell me how to build a particle accelerator.
>>as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk >>science >>and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated >>by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
>>what say you now?
> I say that you haven't demonstrated in the past sufficient education or > intelligence to even voice an opinion on the matter... or on any matters > of science. > _________________________________________________
chuckle, I knew enough to expect this from you. also enough education and intelligence to have worked at Oak ridge national labs, Sandia national labs, and Argonne national labs. had a top secret clearance and more than enough intelligence to be a much sought after contractor. I was the first to describe the proceedure for creating excellant lunar, solar, and planetary images by taking and stacking thousands of frames. wrote an article about it for sky and telescope in '03 even after I could no longer image myself due to a disability caused by statin drugs....just what have you done with your vast intelligence Chris?
>> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk >> science and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and >> advocated by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk > science > and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated > by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
> what say you now?
I say you're crazy.
Anthropogenic global warming is not junk science. It is recognized as *valid* science by the overwhelming majority of scientists. There are a few objectors, yes - and their number becomes significantly fewer when you exclude likely corporate shills.
However, I will grant you this: trying to give up fossil fuels in favor of warm and fuzzy renewable energy sources like solar power, wind power, geothermal... would lead to a reduction in our industrial capacity. Even if the decline in living standards could be tolerated as a necessity, there is still the question of the industrial base needed for national defense; the world still has well-armed dictatorships in it, like mainland China - and also Russia, it strongly appears.
Fortunately, there is a way out. Nuclear power. The facts are not so unpleasant that they can't be faced.
John Savard
the advancement of mankind and civilazation has followed closely the advance of energy availability. first from cooperative effort and slavery, then beasts of burden and wind/ hydro power, then fossil fuels and nuclear power. the next step function increase will likely come from fusion or something even more exotic.
other than that I don't accept your premise that consensis exists and/or if it does that it reflects the facts. the history of science is littered with examples of bad science becomming ingrained in the minds of otherwise brilliant men and has been responsible for many "truths" being held back, sometimes for centuries.
notice I didn't call you crazy or redicule your beliefs.. debate of any kind is best served when minds are not closed and the acedimical philosophy (mitigated skepticism is understood and utilized...read Hume
> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk > science and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and > advocated by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
> what say you now?
I see where you are coming from. I especially like:
---- Indeed, in e-mails, they boast of twisting scientific data to suit their views and to "hide" the truth. At one point, a scientist actually gloats over the death of global warming skeptic John L. Daly, saying, "In an odd way, this is cheering news."
If true, this is massive scientific fraud.
----
I wonder what the author could mean by "If true"? Did the scientist gloat, or didn't he? And if he did gloat, what does that have to do with scientific fraud? Thanks for sharing this wacko article - what a hoot.
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:05:02 -0600, "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I knew enough to expect this from you. also enough education and >intelligence to have worked at Oak ridge national labs, Sandia national >labs, and Argonne national labs. had a top secret clearance and more than >enough intelligence to be a much sought after contractor. I was the first >to describe the proceedure for creating excellant lunar, solar, and >planetary images by taking and stacking thousands of frames. wrote an >article about it for sky and telescope in '03 even after I could no longer >image myself due to a disability caused by statin drugs....just what have >you done with your vast intelligence Chris?
If that's true, I'm sorry for your loss. It's terrible when people lose their intelligence.
(BTW, myself, and many others, were using lucky imaging techniques- stacking thousands of frames- well before 2003. I'm guessing from your mental decline that you perhaps meant 1903?)
Regardless of what you dud in the past, your recent posts here demonstrate that you are not competent in the area of science. The fact that you don't believe in AGW is proof-positive of this, as much as not believing in evolution, or not believing the Earth is a sphere. _________________________________________________
On Nov 21, 6:27 pm, "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> notice I didn't call you crazy or redicule your beliefs.. debate of any kind > is best served when minds are not closed and the acedimical philosophy > (mitigated skepticism is understood and utilized...read Hume
It certainly is true that science progresses, and things that were believed and widely accepted in the past as fact are now known to be wrong.
Even so, when the accepted wisdom of the scientific community is saying one thing, that is usually the way to bet 99% of the time.
A start to understanding why might be to read "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" by Martin Gardner.
Basically, global warming isn't rocket science. The Earth is not nearly as hot as the Sun, so while the Sun radiates energy in the form of light and short-wave infrared, the Earth radiates long-wave infrared into space instead - which is why places cool off at night. Carbon dioxide blocks long-wave infrared, and is warmed by it.
Measurements show that the oceans are more acidic than they once were, and are absorbing less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than they once did.
There's no _reason_ to think that global warming is a colossal hoax. Yes, some of the advocates of its seriousness are recommending that things be done to stop global warming that would carry a heavy price tag. If there were no other choices, global warming would indeed be "an inconvenient truth" that people would prefer to ignore.
I think people shouldn't be fooled by the radical environmentalist agenda _or_ the oil company agenda. There is another way.
> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk science > and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated > by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, Neal Micheluttie, Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander P. Wolfec
Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
The American Physical Society (APS) has "overwhelmingly rejected" a proposal from a group of 160 physicists to alter its official position on climate change. The physicists, who include the Nobel laureate Ivar Giaver, wanted the APS to modify its stance to reflect their own doubts about the human contribution to global warming. The APS turned down the request on the recommendations of a six-person committee chaired by atomic physicist Daniel Kleppner from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The committee was set up by APS president Cherry Murray in July, when the society received the proposal for changing its statement, which had originally been drawn up in November 2007. It has spent the last four months carrying out what the APS calls "a serious review of existing compilations of scientific research" and took soundings from its members. "We recommended not accepting the proposal," Kleppner told physicsworld.com. "The [APS] council almost unanimously decided to go with that."
Different positions
The official APS position on climate change says that "emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate" and adds that there is "incontrovertible" evidence that global warming is occurring. The APS also wants reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions to start immediately. "If no mitigating actions are taken," it says, "significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur."
> >>as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk > >>science > >>and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and advocated > >>by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
> >>what say you now?
> > I say that you haven't demonstrated in the past sufficient education or > > intelligence to even voice an opinion on the matter... or on any matters > > of science. > > _________________________________________________
> chuckle, > I knew enough to expect this from you. also enough education and > intelligence to have worked at Oak ridge national labs, Sandia national > labs, and Argonne national labs. had a top secret clearance and more than > enough intelligence to be a much sought after contractor. I was the first > to describe the proceedure for creating excellant lunar, solar, and > planetary images by taking and stacking thousands of frames. wrote an > article about it for sky and telescope in '03 even after I could no longer > image myself due to a disability caused by statin drugs....just what have > you done with your vast intelligence Chris?
Tis really sad to see the stupid puff themselves up to make themselves feel better. If you really did work at Argonne, Oak Ridge and Sandia with top secret clearance you wouldn't be bragging about it. Every year when the ROTC students get ready to graduate someone from the Defense Intelligence Agency visit with me and ask a series of questions about each student. One question that gets asked is if the ROTC student brags about current/future positions within the military and if they talked about security clearance. I always wondered why they asked this kind of question. The answer is simple "Lose Lips Sink Ships" No one who would talk about their security clearance or sensitive position (Sandia/Oak Ridge/Argonne) would ever be hired or hold their job. Given your bragging it is clear you are another member of the tinfoil hat brigade. You could even a basic background check
> >> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk > >> science and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and > >> advocated by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
> >> what say you now?
Ah yes! The wonderfully great scientist who's done all this research, yet he can provide nothing to show for it. But can resort to obscenities Scientist Yeah right
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:58:30 -0800, spud <midni...@theoasis.com> wrote: >No warming for the next 10 years:
I expect you'll be proven quite wrong. The evidence to the contrary is pretty overwhelming.
Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like arguing with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence to support their ideology. _________________________________________________
>> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk >> science and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and >> advocated by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
>> what say you now?
Did you know that not one learned journal in the fields of Climate Research foresaw the global financial crash? Not one! What say you now?
>I expect you'll be proven quite wrong. The evidence to the contrary is >pretty overwhelming.
>Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a >long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like arguing >with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence to >support their ideology. >_________________________________________________
So you willingly disregard the same gov't priests that are paid to promote global warming if they don't write what you believe. That's damn convenient. No requirement to be objective if you are a true believer, eh?
But I'm not a CalTech alum and indoctrinated in uh, the believers group think scientific methods. You know, fitting data to comply with the agenda (er, uh theory?), and actually conspiring to stifle opposing models. http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/11/21/hacked-climate-e...
So it's time to tell me I'm uneducated, unread, unshaven, my intellect can't possibly compare with your's and I spelled something wrong.
spud wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:45:57 -0700, Chris L Peterson > <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:58:30 -0800, spud <midni...@theoasis.com> wrote:
>>> No warming for the next 10 years: >> I expect you'll be proven quite wrong. The evidence to the contrary is >> pretty overwhelming.
>> Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a >> long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like arguing >> with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence to >> support their ideology. >> _________________________________________________
> So you willingly disregard the same gov't priests that are paid to > promote global warming if they don't write what you believe. That's > damn convenient. No requirement to be objective if you are a true > believer, eh?
> But I'm not a CalTech alum and indoctrinated in uh, the believers > group think scientific methods. You know, fitting data to comply with > the agenda (er, uh theory?), and actually conspiring to stifle > opposing models. > http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/11/21/hacked-climate-e...
> So it's time to tell me I'm uneducated, unread, unshaven, my intellect > can't possibly compare with your's and I spelled something wrong.
Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, Neal Micheluttie, Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander P. Wolfec
Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
The American Physical Society (APS) has "overwhelmingly rejected" a proposal from a group of 160 physicists to alter its official position on climate change. The physicists, who include the Nobel laureate Ivar Giaver, wanted the APS to modify its stance to reflect their own doubts about the human contribution to global warming. The APS turned down the request on the recommendations of a six-person committee chaired by atomic physicist Daniel Kleppner from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The committee was set up by APS president Cherry Murray in July, when the society received the proposal for changing its statement, which had originally been drawn up in November 2007. It has spent the last four months carrying out what the APS calls "a serious review of existing compilations of scientific research" and took soundings from its members. "We recommended not accepting the proposal," Kleppner told physicsworld.com. "The [APS] council almost unanimously decided to go with that."
Different positions
The official APS position on climate change says that "emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate" and adds that there is "incontrovertible" evidence that global warming is occurring. The APS also wants reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions to start immediately. "If no mitigating actions are taken," it says, "significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur."
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:28:36 -0800, spud <midni...@theoasis.com> wrote: >So it's time to tell me I'm uneducated, unread, unshaven, my intellect >can't possibly compare with your's and I spelled something wrong.
You said it, not me.
All I'll say is that you are wasting bandwidth on a science forum, someplace you have no business posting. _________________________________________________
> as has been clear to a casual HONEST observer global warming is junk > science and fraud perpetuated by certain people for thier own profit and > advocated by others who know nothing of the truth and human nature.
> what say you now?
Of the hundreds of journals discussing Global Warming, Climate Change and the like, not one predicted, or even hinted at, the global economic meltdown. Not one! Obviously they are not to be taken seriously.
I have a great deal of respect for you and your method of discussion. I have read each of these when you posted them in an earlier discussion. I do not disregard the assurtions.
I am not saying AGW is not true, but neither am I a BELIEVER. I viciously object to scientists prostituting themselves and there staff for muliti-million dollar grants and promise of hitchiking fame on the coattails on the likeness of the high priest AlGore.
The money granted to gov't agencies, universities and think-tanks to apparently promote an AGW is billions. There is a vested interest in this agenda!
Here's an example. Several years ago I read NASA press releases that indicated measured warming on Neptune, Uranus, Mars and even Pluto. Most long term readers of saa remember this. I simply cannot find them online anywhere, any-search anyway anymore. They have evaporated into the ether. Why is that?
Additionally I have had many enviro' truly friends in my professional lifetime. I have had fine professional people to my home for dinner, wine and converstaion. Many have flatfooted, eye to eye lied to me about research, about models, about conclusions, about objecives.
Enviromentalism is a multibillion dollar international industry. It is no different than Phillip Morris. Yes, I mean it. They will do what they have to to keep the money flowing and chicken little crisis is the easiest way to generate millions. It's all about the money.
I remain skeptical, like my science profs taught me to be.
Steve Oregon
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:33:18 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>spud wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:45:57 -0700, Chris L Peterson >> <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:58:30 -0800, spud <midni...@theoasis.com> wrote:
>>>> No warming for the next 10 years: >>> I expect you'll be proven quite wrong. The evidence to the contrary is >>> pretty overwhelming.
>>> Arguing with those who don't believe we are currently experiencing a >>> long term global warming trend, largely human produced, is like arguing >>> with Oriel. Pointless, because they selectively filter the evidence to >>> support their ideology. >>> _________________________________________________
>> So you willingly disregard the same gov't priests that are paid to >> promote global warming if they don't write what you believe. That's >> damn convenient. No requirement to be objective if you are a true >> believer, eh?
>> But I'm not a CalTech alum and indoctrinated in uh, the believers >> group think scientific methods. You know, fitting data to comply with >> the agenda (er, uh theory?), and actually conspiring to stifle >> opposing models. >> http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/11/21/hacked-climate-e...
>> So it's time to tell me I'm uneducated, unread, unshaven, my intellect >> can't possibly compare with your's and I spelled something wrong.
>Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, Neal Micheluttie, >Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander >P. Wolfec
>Abstract
>The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains >largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we >present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the >past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on >recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest >stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early >Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e) >were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or >exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the >past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature, >lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In >recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern >and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
>"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the >climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to >do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem >has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different >from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
>The American Physical Society (APS) has "overwhelmingly rejected" a proposal from a group >of 160 physicists to alter its official position on climate change. The physicists, who >include the Nobel laureate Ivar Giaver, wanted the APS to modify its stance to reflect >their own doubts about the human contribution to global warming. The APS turned down the >request on the recommendations of a six-person committee chaired by atomic physicist >Daniel Kleppner from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
>The committee was set up by APS president Cherry Murray in July, when the society received >the proposal for changing its statement, which had originally been drawn up in November >2007. It has spent the last four months carrying out what the APS calls "a serious review >of existing compilations of scientific research" and took soundings from its members. "We >recommended not accepting the proposal," Kleppner told physicsworld.com. "The [APS] >council almost unanimously decided to go with that."
>Different positions
>The official APS position on climate change says that "emissions of greenhouse gases from >human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate" and >adds that there is "incontrovertible" evidence that global warming is occurring. The APS >also wants reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions to start immediately. "If no mitigating >actions are taken," it says, "significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and >ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur."
