The AGW folks are really starting to change people's minds....

[Cardinal]

Education and intelligence are not synonymous. You guys are just looking for another angle to discredit me personally, rather than the arguments I make. It must frustrate the hell out of you not to be ably to argue my points in your own words.

I'm still curious what Longview works in, with his experience in "lasers and physics" and all.

 

[Threegoofs]

I've just about had it with your lies.

What! Did you not show the CO2 temperature forcing can not possibly happen due to simple math?

Or did I read your post and repeat it basically verbatim here but somehow am missing your point?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm still curious what Longview works in, with his experience in "lasers and physics" and all.

Hard to say. Lasers are very useful tool. You can get extremely accurate long distance measurements measuring the time lag of reflectance with them. You can modulate them and communicate terabit data with them over fiber optics. You can use them for alignments. 3D imaging, spectral analysis, etc. LIDAR comes to mind for seeing wind movement and rain.

If someone wrote a book "1001 uses for laser," they would still only cover a small number of actual usages of lasers.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What! Did you not show the CO2 temperature forcing can not possibly happen due to simple math?

Or did I read your post and repeat it basically verbatim here but somehow am missing your point?

That's right. Scramble for a reason. You'll never get it.

You don't understand. Planar proved AGW can't exist. He did it on his Leap Pad.

He's too proud to bother to publish it and claim the Nobel though. What a guy!

That, Goofy, is a bald faced lie! I never even implied that in any way, shape, or form. I have even explicitly stated AGW is real!

Not stop lying about what I say.

 

[Cardinal]

Hard to say. Lasers are very useful tool. You can get extremely accurate long distance measurements measuring the time lag of reflectance with them. You can modulate them and communicate terabit data with them over fiber optics. You can use them for alignments. 3D imaging, spectral analysis, etc. LIDAR comes to mind for seeing wind movement and rain.

If someone wrote a book "1001 uses for laser," they would still only cover a small number of actual usages of lasers.

Maybe he repairs dvd players.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Maybe he repairs dvd players.

LOL...

Nice hit, but I doubt it. Any more, such technology is throw-away.

I had to laugh at that, but can we be a bit more respectful of each other?

 

[code1211]

You're right! Education and job experience are for ******s! Everything I know I learned on my daddy's knee and don't need none of that northern college sissy-boy crap. That's why I go to my tailor for my annual physical and my doctor for tax advice. Speaking of which, are you having any engine problems, cause I could probably sort that out for you. Sure, I'm an artist and have never done more than refill the windshield wiper fluid, but I don't trust those elitist mechanics and I know I could do just as well, so bring in your car and I'll fix it real good.

The experts are not providing a good record of accomplishment in this field. Calling what they are doing "science" is a bit misleading. We expect quite a bit from our scientists and they deliver with regularity.

The folks who work in the AGW field deliver very little and do so with regularity. They have no accurate predictions, no method asserted to falsify their claims and not one science organization on the planet has declared this notion to be scientific theory.

One foundation of declaring something to be a scientific hypothesis is that the asserter needs to define the method by which the hypothesis can be falsified.

What is this method for AGW?

http://biology.duke.edu/rausher/HYPOTHES.pdf

<snip>
5. Describe what experimental results or observations could falsify your hypothesis.
<snip>

 

[code1211]

Come on, Planar was trying to pull off the idea that he was qualified to counter the consensus of the scientific community comprised of educated scientists working for years in the field of climatology. But he refuses to say what exactly he does, where he got his degree and what he got his degree in. If you didn't already agree with his position there's no way in a million years you'd back him up on this. Have some self respect.

The consensus counters itself by not being able to qualify this notion as a scientific theory. I doubt this even definable in very strict terms as a scientific hypothesis.

Has there ever been a statement defining what method can be used to falsify this notion from one of the science organizations that has joined the consensus?

 

[code1211]

You don't understand. Planar proved AGW can't exist. He did it on his Leap Pad.

He's too proud to bother to publish it and claim the Nobel though. What a guy!

Doubting that something actually does exist and being **** sure that it actually does exist require two very different levels of proof.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I ask who alllll these climatologists are who disagree with AGW and have published their findings in scientific journals and you crap out the Galileo story on top of telling me I should "already know."

Thanks.

Paper by Nicola Scafetta, PHd, Duke Univ. [ Nicola Scafetta, Ph. D. ]

http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Scafetta_EE_2013.pdf


Here are some of the pertinent scientists that question the IPCC :


Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

These are some that say its mostly from natural causes

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa

Scientists that say we just do not know [ that is the position on global warming where I, intellectually, generally reside ]:

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists

Scientists who say the warming will have few negative consequences:

Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Need a defibrillator? Or was that sufficient?

 

[Threegoofs]

If anyone is wondering who the 3% of scientists who disagree with AGW theory are, they are listed above.

For a list of the 97% who agree, pick up any multidisciplinary, biology, earth science, or climatology journal. Their names are all below the titles of 97% of the papers.

 

[code1211]

If anyone is wondering who the 3% of scientists who disagree with AGW theory are, they are listed above.

For a list of the 97% who agree, pick up any multidisciplinary, biology, earth science, or climatology journal. Their names are all below the titles of 97% of the papers.

You, of course, are referring to the 97% of the 33% who state an opinion.

97% of 33% is about 32%.

Using the standards of AGW Science, though, your statement might be correct, but only by using the standards of AGW Science where any old thing you want to assert is accepted without question.

Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change
<snip>
From the 11,994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
<snip>

 

[Threegoofs]

You, of course, are referring to the 97% of the 33% who state an opinion.

97% of 33% is about 32%.

Using the standards of AGW Science, though, your statement might be correct, but only by using the standards of AGW Science where any old thing you want to assert is accepted without question.

Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change
<snip>
From the 11,994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
<snip>

In other words, what you are saying is that the papers supporting AGW are outpublished by papers who oppose AGW 32:1, yet somehow you deny that this represents some sort of consensus.

Wacky.

 

[code1211]

In other words, what you are saying is that the papers supporting AGW are outpublished by papers who oppose AGW 32:1, yet somehow you deny that this represents some sort of consensus.

Wacky.

No. I'm only repeating exactly what the study you reference says.

Only 32% of the papers on climate change endorsed AGW. It's right there.

Only by using AGW Science Math are you able to convert 32% to 97%.

 

[Threegoofs]

No. I'm only repeating exactly what the study you reference says.

Only 32% of the papers on climate change endorsed AGW. It's right there.

Only by using AGW Science Math are you able to convert 32% to 97%.

Ok. Use the 32:1 ratio if that makes you feel better.

 

[opendebate]

And the cultists parrot the same old debunked talking points incessantly. Thanks for the demonstration.

You don't think it's real?

 

[Diogenes]

Ok. Use the 32:1 ratio if that makes you feel better.

What it really means is that 32% of the second string is looking for more grant money. Or maybe the editors are biased... :mrgreen:

 

[Threegoofs]

What it really means is that 32% of the second string is looking for more grant money. Or maybe the editors are biased... :mrgreen:

Or maybe it confirms the obvious conclusion people involved in the sciences make - there is a clear consensus that AGW is real.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Or maybe it confirms the obvious conclusion people involved in the sciences make - there is a clear consensus that AGW is real.

Yes.

AGW is real.

Now quantify it for us please.

 

[code1211]

Ok. Use the 32:1 ratio if that makes you feel better.

I've got to hand it to you. You're as consistent as the notion is wrong.

 

[code1211]

People who deny AGW are so far gone they believe all the world's scientists are in a giant conspiracy to destroy the economy. Whether or not certain people drive hybrids isn't going to change their minds.

Deny what? There is not a single scientific organization on the planet that calls this notion a Scientific Theory.

The entire construct does not even pass the low test to become a scientific hypothesis.

You claim that there are people out there who deny that something that doesn't exist does exist?

You have a little proving to do.

 

[windowdressing]

It would make a difference to me if Obama didn't burn up all the fossil fuel one man possibly can every time he goes on vacation as he tells us about man made warming and its awful consequences for humanity.

you're kidding, right? this is all you got? O.K. ... go with it and make sure you turn off the light when you come up from your basement ...

 

[code1211]

Or maybe it confirms the obvious conclusion people involved in the sciences make - there is a clear consensus that AGW is real.

Yes, Virginia, there is a consensus.

It exists in the hearts and the minds of believers everywhere.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

you're kidding, right? this is all you got? O.K. ... go with it and make sure you turn off the light when you come up from your basement ...

So when Obama preaches AGW and threatens to go around congress to enforce laws on AGW and then takes his and her 727s to Hawaii you don't wince just a bit?:lol:

 

[windowdressing]

So when Obama preaches AGW and threatens to go around congress to enforce laws on AGW and then takes his and her 727s to Hawaii you don't wince just a bit?:lol:

I've always thought PRESIDENTS -- all of them -- were too extravagant with our money, but in the larger scheme of things, it pales by comparison to other things they do ... and I get tired of cons making big deals about things Obama does but didn't when republicans were in office ... that's what I mean by "this is all you got?"