Rutan on Global Warming

"curtisgb" wrote

I'll take an empirical response using data over 1,000,000,000 opinions
any day of the week any month of the year.

If you can believe the data, how it has been collected, where, and how it is
interpreted. THAT is the whole key. Many do not believe that _any_
scientists understand all the nuances about the complex relationship of
different measurements of the climate. Many more do not believe that there
has been data taken for a long enough period of time to draw conclusions
about what is driving what in the climate models. More yet do not think the
models are sufficiently developed to use the data being taken to predict
outcomes.

Discuss this all you want; I am not telling anyone to shut up. My point is,
don't fool yourself into believing you are changing anyone's mind.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"curtisgb" wrote

Just like Galileo, anyone who points out the inconsistencies and
errors in the "established knowledge" are being hounded and
villified. What's next -- someone who should know better telling them
to "shut up"?

Straight from Sol Alinsky, ignore the data and attack the people.

I'll take an empirical response using data over 1,000,000,000 opinions
any day of the week any month of the year.

No, I would liken it to a comparison of the things you should not talk
about in a bar. Religion is one of them.

The simple fact remains that you will not find a single person reading
this thread changing their stance on believing or not believing in global
warming.

Then, the line about wresting with a pig comes in. You both get dirty,
but the pig enjoys it.

Am I wrong?

No, you're not, and I beg your pardon for not bailing out like I promised.

But idiocy is too irrestable. It must be confronted.

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Dan, the master of the logical fallacy (as he so aptly demonstrated).


:Just like Galileo, anyone who points out the inconsistencies and
: errors in the "established knowledge" are being hounded and
: villified. What's next -- someone who should know better telling them
: to "shut up"?

Calling them rapists of the planet? Calling them unAmerican?


:: Straight from Sol Alinsky, ignore the data and attack the people.

:: I'll take an empirical response using data over 1,000,000,000 opinions
:: any day of the week any month of the year.

Like, how it's demonstrated how CO2 follows temp increases rather than
leading them?

Well, now: look who's back!

Matty, you've already demonstrated you're out of your depth on this subject.
Why subject yourself to more humiliation?

Yes, as the Earth emerges from glaciations, CO2 rise follows temp. increases
rather than leading them. That's only part of the story and irrelevant to
the current circumstances. But you haven't the vaguest clue about the
*whole* story, have you? And don't care to *get* a clue, either.

Go away, Matty, before you get smashed again.

(Kdding. Please stick around. I enjoy the loon-whacking.)

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

In article ,
"Dan Luke" wrote:

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Dan, the master of the logical fallacy (as he so aptly demonstrated).


:Just like Galileo, anyone who points out the inconsistencies and
: errors in the "established knowledge" are being hounded and
: villified. What's next -- someone who should know better telling them
: to "shut up"?

Calling them rapists of the planet? Calling them unAmerican?


:: Straight from Sol Alinsky, ignore the data and attack the people.

:: I'll take an empirical response using data over 1,000,000,000 opinions
:: any day of the week any month of the year.

Like, how it's demonstrated how CO2 follows temp increases rather than
leading them?

Well, now: look who's back!

Matty, you've already demonstrated you're out of your depth on this subject.
Why subject yourself to more humiliation?

Yes, as the Earth emerges from glaciations, CO2 rise follows temp. increases
rather than leading them. That's only part of the story and irrelevant to
the current circumstances. But you haven't the vaguest clue about the
*whole* story, have you? And don't care to *get* a clue, either.

Go away, Matty, before you get smashed again.

(Kdding. Please stick around. I enjoy the loon-whacking.)

Well, Dan, Please explain the processes that kindle the initial
temperature rises and whether or not those same processes remain
operative.

You can also explain how the temperature drops while CO2 concentrations
remain elevated.

Could it be that CO2 is NOT a significant cause of climate change?

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

"Dan Luke" wrote

No, you're not, and I beg your pardon for not bailing out like I promised.

No need to beg me for anything. You're speaking what you must, just as I
am.

But idiocy is too irrestable. It must be confronted.

_That_ is the fact _I_ am unsure of. g
--
Jim in NC

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Dan Luke" wrote:

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Dan, the master of the logical fallacy (as he so aptly demonstrated).


:Just like Galileo, anyone who points out the inconsistencies and
: errors in the "established knowledge" are being hounded and
: villified. What's next -- someone who should know better telling them
: to "shut up"?

Calling them rapists of the planet? Calling them unAmerican?


:: Straight from Sol Alinsky, ignore the data and attack the people.

:: I'll take an empirical response using data over 1,000,000,000 opinions
:: any day of the week any month of the year.

Like, how it's demonstrated how CO2 follows temp increases rather than
leading them?

Well, now: look who's back!

Matty, you've already demonstrated you're out of your depth on this subject.

You've demonstrated nothing more than a capacity to barf back, and as with Mann,
it bit you on the ass.

Why subject yourself to more humiliation?

By you? Ha, you pompuos adolesant!.

Your recent listing of organizations, for example, was a classic example of
Argument from Authority. So, until you REALLY understand science and it's
methods, keep your stupid trap shut.


Yes, as the Earth emerges from glaciations, CO2 rise follows temp. increases
rather than leading them.

That's not what you said earlier.

And why did CO2 rise AFTER warming in more recent periods OUTSIDE of glaciation.


That's only part of the story and irrelevant to
the current circumstances.

But you haven't the vaguest clue about the
*whole* story, have you? And don't care to *get* a clue, either.

Go away, Matty, before you get smashed again.

Hey, Dan, have you ever figured out the difference between Humidity and Relative
Humidity.

Did you ever find out why your CO2 refutation was off by a foctor of 100?


And can you explain what happened to Mann's "Hockey Stick", why the IPCC dropped
it?

(Kdding. Please stick around. I enjoy the loon-whacking.)

Whacking off again, Dan?

You're completely delusional. You and your goons, birds-of-a-feather are
finished, got it!

Well, Dan, Please explain the processes that kindle the initial
temperature rises and whether or not those same processes remain
operative.

You can also explain how the temperature drops while CO2 concentrations
remain elevated.

Only with logical fallicies and links to whackjobs that have been refuted or
shown to be blatently fraudulent.


Could it be that CO2 is NOT a significant cause of climate change?

It is so insignificant as to be irrelevant.

The emerging data is showing warming to be something like 98% ocean currents and
solar activity (about a 99% correlation and a good explanation of causation).

That's why the AGW crowd is getting desperate.

Dan Luke wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...
Dan Luke wrote:
Wrong. You cannot have one standard for organizations that support
AGW and another standard for those that do not.

I don't. I have one standard for what constitutes a scientific
professional organization.

So none of the groups you listed have any political or government
connection?

Did I say that?

Irrelevant to the definition, anyway.

Give it up, McNicoll.: the goalposts stay where they are.

Political connections are great as long as they don't conflict with
Luke's views on the Global Warming Religion.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Jessica wrote:
"Climate Scientists" = global warming believer.


There are many climate scientists that do not support AGW.

Quite true, which is why I used the quotes above.

Dan Luke wrote:
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Dan, the master of the logical fallacy (as he so aptly demonstrated).


:Just like Galileo, anyone who points out the inconsistencies and
: errors in the "established knowledge" are being hounded and
: villified. What's next -- someone who should know better telling them
: to "shut up"?

Calling them rapists of the planet? Calling them unAmerican?


:: Straight from Sol Alinsky, ignore the data and attack the people.

:: I'll take an empirical response using data over 1,000,000,000 opinions
:: any day of the week any month of the year.

Like, how it's demonstrated how CO2 follows temp increases rather than
leading them?

Well, now: look who's back!

Matty, you've already demonstrated you're out of your depth on this subject.
Why subject yourself to more humiliation?

Yes, as the Earth emerges from glaciations, CO2 rise follows temp. increases
rather than leading them. That's only part of the story and irrelevant to
the current circumstances. But you haven't the vaguest clue about the
*whole* story, have you? And don't care to *get* a clue, either.

Go away, Matty, before you get smashed again.

(Kdding. Please stick around. I enjoy the loon-whacking.)


Wow, holy oversimplification. If the only independent variable in the
world that affected global temperature was CO2, you might have a point.

Frankly, anyone who believes that climates will not warm and cool over
time is nuts. Sort of like the folks that expect barrier islands to
always maintain the same shape or are all surprised that rivers change
course too.

Dan Luke wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Dan Luke" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote:
Anyway, so where is the IEEE position?
Or the Quasar Equatorial Survey Team?
Or ... well, you get the idea. Your statement _was_ a tad sweeping.
The IEEE is an engineering association.
So how come you get to include engineering associations and I don't? You
specifically included:

"International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
Sciences"

QUEST is not a professional association, it is a research group.
The Max Planck Society, which you got to include, is a research group -
not
a professional association. So how come you get to include one and I
don't?

(It probably would have been more prudent if you had said something like
"Okay, maybe not every scientific professional organization in the
world...."

This isn't even an interesting side argument. Its only interesting aspect
is to demonstrate yet again how stubborness can be a liability.)

Associations of scientific professionals, you know? Like the AMA for
doctors, the ABA for lawyers. Is this a difficult concept?
I used your definition-by-example of "professional scientific
organization" by actually examining the list you provided. In it were not
only an engineering group, but a pure mathematical society (statistics), a
research group, cross-over groups (e.g. petroleum geologists), and so on.

So, using only your self-approved super smart groups of "climate
scientists," please tell us what they predict for annual temperature
deltas of Boston and San Francisco for 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, and
30 years from now, and by what formula was their result was obtained.