|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
On Jul 30, 3:56 pm, Joe Strout wrote:
In article .com, wrote: If you stick to serious scientific journals, like Science (which I've read on a weekly basis since college), it's clear that there has never been any serious controversy about whether the current warming is anthropogenic, nor the extent to which CO2 and other gasses are to blame (and yes, there are others, but that's the main one). No such theory exists. All we have are vague, untestable notions. Nonsense. We're talking about detailed climate models here; nothing vague or untestable about them. Bull ****. Put up or shut up. You AGW whackos are full of reassurances and empty of any actual theory. If you believe otherwise then why don't you show us. Go ahead. What are you waiting for, a hand engraved invitation. Show us. Put us in our place. Go ahead. Okey dokey, but I only have 5 minutes before I need to leave for the day. You can tell us tomorrow. Aaaaaah. I knew it. All you AGW whackos are phoneys. Let's see what a mere 5 minutes or less of Googling turns up (should be faster than rifling through recent issues of Science, though not as effective -- I invite you to visit a "library" and try the latter for yourself) Until then would you like to retract your statements above. .... http://www.ocean-sci.net/1/45/2005/o...ts/060405.html OK, that only took about one minute, but it shows you (or at least, shows those willing to see), as requested. And you're not worth any more of my time than that. I don't expect you to be convinced, because you are a AGW-denying loon with a political axe to grind, and you'll reject any-sized mountain of evidence if it conflicts with your politically motivated agenda. But you asked, so there it is. No please go away, and take your anti-science babbling elsewhere. -- "Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work. Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/ |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like"gun control" and Global Warming!
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
Einar wrote:
: :What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China, preciselly :due to the share size of theyr respective populations. A disturbtion, :even only a temporary one, say a year or two, of theyr food production :could very quickly have things falling apart over in those two :countries, and the world wouldnīt be able to rescue them preciselly :due to the size of theyr respective populations. : Then you'd think these two countries would be all in favour of radically restricting their own output of CO2. They're not. Why do you think that is? : :If you yet again do scoff "why should I care" remember both countries :have got nuclear arms as well as the means of theyr delivery over :large distances. Both countries are after all spacepowers as well as :nuclear powers. You still are not in the least worried? : The rest of the planet could vanish into a new stone age tomorrow and in a just a few years India and China would have things right back where they are now. Then what? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
Einar wrote:
: :Fred J. McCall wrote: : Hop David wrote: : : wrote: : : : : Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees". : : : : : : : :How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. : : : : How's this statement: CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, having much : smaller impacts than many others like water vapor and methane. : : :Which still makes it a greenhouse gas. : So's oxygen. Shall we do away with that? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
Joe Strout wrote: In article . com, Einar wrote: Now, the problem isn?t that it?s dangerous for the climate to be warm. No, the problem lies with the time of transition between the two different climate regimes. You may scoff at that, but literally a number of societies may not survive through that time of transition, i.e. till the time that the transition is over and the climate has stabilized again. That's a fair summary. A warming climate is going to change weather patterns, causing droughts and desertification in previously fertile areas, and increased rainfall (leading to soil erosion and flooding in places) elsewhere. And, of course increased sea levels, putting most countries' most valuable real estate underwater. All fine and dandy from a 1000-km, 1000-year view, but quite a bit of a bummer if you happen to be living someplace where you've become accustomed to growing food, or having topsoil, or not having your house underwater. And oh yes, it also can result in some substantial local climate changes -- illogical as it seems to simple-minded deniers, a global warming of climate may well plunge turn most of western Europe's local climate into something more like Siberia, as the currents which currently cause its temperate climate shut down. Of course, I live on the front range of the Rocky Mountains; there won't be much flooding here (the ice caps melt every summer anyway), and it's already quite dry. Things could get a bit worse for me, but not a LOT worse. It's the people on the coasts that I really feel for. Unfortunately, more than half of all people in the U.S. live on or near the coast, and the situation is probably similar for other countries with significant coastline. Sure, they can all relocate inland, giving up New York, San Diego, LA, Boston, Washington DC, etc. etc., but you may see that this is a rather expensive and messy proposition, and best avoided if possible. I suspect that many of the deniers are simply hoping that it won't happen until after they're dead -- screwing our children and grandchildren for perceived short-term gains. But that's not a philosophy I would subscribe to, even if I didn't hope to be here for a long time myself. Fortunately, the tide has shifted, and the deniers are now a pathetic minority with no power. Even the Denier-in-Chief has publicly admitted reality, and started making the right sort of noises about it, albeit without much enthusiasm. The next President will no doubt do more. It's probably not too late, at least not to avoid the worst of it. But we do need some new carbon-neutral (or better) energy sources, and we need them soon. See the link in my sig for one I believe to be quite promising. -- "Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work. Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/ Quite often enough newpapers and TV stations bungle the informing the public part. In addition, a number of green activists also do overdo it as it comes to the likelly end conclution. So it may be understandable that if some of the public may be confused about, which is the truly dangerous part of the equation, i.e. the transition or the endgame. Naturally, the shrill overdooers, who sometimes paint a picture of a dying Earth, are used by denyers to paint those with rational arguments as being irrational scare crows. Cheers, Einar |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
wrote: On Jul 30, 4:20 pm, Einar wrote: wrote: On Jul 30, 2:46 pm, Einar wrote: wrote: AGW theory is nothing but vague, untestable rhetoric. It exist only in the fervent imagination of numerous whackos like yourself. (You are demostrating as much right here.) No! We need to squawk loud and often about this SUBVERSION of the integrity of Science by political agendas. When lies are all over the media being held up as "science" someone needs to point it out and when prizes are given for bogus research they need to be taken back and the schools embarrassed! In short all this MISUSE of OUR science for political purpose needs to stop and it's only going to stop if WE start speaking out instead of going along with those pretending there is a "scientific" debate where there actually is none! Oddly enough, I agree with all this. It just seems to be the exact opposite of what you were doing a few paragraphs ago. That's because your own thinking is so ephemeral you don't know what you think from one moment to the next. Expert on evolutionary theory. Extrapolate a bit on that. Google Groups. Even though itīs not on topic, does that mean you agree with scientists that evolution is real Of course. and that you accept the currently given scientific age for the planet? Specifically? That the age of the planet exceeds 3.5 billion years. You accept that? Yes. Now that I've answered you question you answer mine. You stated the following: Einar: . . . it's clear that there has never been any serious controversy about whether the current warming is anthropogenic, nor the extent to which CO2 and other gasses are to blame (and yes, there are others, but that's the main one). There has been only the ordinary haggling over the details. I, Claudius Denk, responded as follows: Denk: No such theory exists. All we have are vague, untestable notions. If you believe otherwise then why don't you show us? Go ahead. What are you waiting for, a hand engraved invitation? Show us. Put us in our place. Go ahead. Well how about it Einar are you a scientist or a nose picker? Tell us this wonderful theory you've been concealing from us all this time, you clever little monkey. Joe has already posted it abow. As you clearly have not bothered to read the material he supplied, there would be litle point for me to post the same material or dig up something ellse for you to ignore to the same degree. Read through his posts, read the material he supplied, and if there are additional questions, then I may feel it worth it to dig up some additional material. Einar |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
Fred J. McCall wrote: Einar wrote: : :Fred J. McCall wrote: : Hop David wrote: : : wrote: : : : : Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees". : : : : : : : :How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. : : : : How's this statement: CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, having much : smaller impacts than many others like water vapor and methane. : : :Which still makes it a greenhouse gas. : So's oxygen. Shall we do away with that? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn We are not pumping tons in the billions of oxygen into the athmosphere. Einar |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
Fred J. McCall wrote: Einar wrote: : :What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China, preciselly :due to the share size of theyr respective populations. A disturbtion, :even only a temporary one, say a year or two, of theyr food production :could very quickly have things falling apart over in those two :countries, and the world wouldnīt be able to rescue them preciselly :due to the size of theyr respective populations. : Then you'd think these two countries would be all in favour of radically restricting their own output of CO2. They're not. Why do you think that is? : :If you yet again do scoff "why should I care" remember both countries :have got nuclear arms as well as the means of theyr delivery over :large distances. Both countries are after all spacepowers as well as :nuclear powers. You still are not in the least worried? : The rest of the planet could vanish into a new stone age tomorrow and in a just a few years India and China would have things right back where they are now. Then what? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn Itīs not an unknown phenomena throughout history that leaders of countries behave stupidly. Einar |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" | Jonathan | Policy | 9 | December 22nd 06 07:19 AM |
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" | Jonathan | History | 9 | December 22nd 06 07:19 AM |
"Science" Lightweight Addresses "Global Warming" (and Chinese Food) | Planetoid2001 | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 21st 06 10:33 PM |
"Science" Lightweight Addresses "Global Warming" (and Chinese Food) | Astronomie | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 21st 06 04:01 PM |
"Science" Lightweight Addresses "Global Warming" (and Chinese Food) | Phineas T Puddleduck | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 21st 06 03:23 PM |