Carbon dioxide levels surpass 400ppm

A question for all of you.

What is the dynamic behind the evolution of sea ice in the Arctic as it follows the polar day/night cycle ?. It is quite straightforward even if it is ignored.

It beats discussing fuel,a minor atmospheric gas an lifestyles.

On Thu, 07 May 2015 16:43:22 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Does any University even give a degree in, "Climate Scientology?"

Many schools offer undergraduate degrees in climate science, or
broader degrees in fields such as Earth science, geophysics,
mathematics, and other areas that source climate scientists. And of
course, it's a standard advanced degree (meaning that the graduate
thesis researched a climate science subject).

There are many areas of science that are well populated with
researchers despite the fact that there is no degree with that
particular name. It's a matter of what you study. Any school offering
science degrees will offer classes in climate science.

If you consider as climate scientists those with at least one cited,
peer-reviewed publication coded for a climate science topic, there are
more than 50,000 of them in the world.

On Thu, 07 May 2015 15:15:03 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Thu, 07 May 2015 16:43:22 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Does any University even give a degree in, "Climate Scientology?"

Many schools offer undergraduate degrees in climate science,

Fiddle sticks.

or
broader degrees in fields such as Earth science, geophysics,
mathematics, and other areas that source climate scientists.

Hey! I have a degree in mathematics. So now I'm a, "climate
scientist." So now I know more about it than you.

And of
course, it's a standard advanced degree (meaning that the graduate
thesis researched a climate science subject).

fiddlesticks.

There are many areas of science that are well populated with
researchers despite the fact that there is no degree with that
particular name. It's a matter of what you study. Any school offering
science degrees will offer classes in climate science.

fiddlesticks. And I'm now a climate scientologist by your standards.
I spit on everything you say.

If you consider as climate scientists those with at least one cited,
peer-reviewed publication coded for a climate science topic, there are
more than 50,000 of them in the world.

50,001 by your standards. But I doubt any one of them could pass an
eight grade math test. I was an engineer for over twenty years and a
retired military officer. Here's a photo. My uniform still fits.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73688745@N05/10489795584/


Vote for Carson
Repeal the nightmares

On Thu, 07 May 2015 18:46:01 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Hey! I have a degree in mathematics. So now I'm a, "climate
scientist." So now I know more about it than you.

No, it means you might have the tools to be a climate scientist, if
you so decided.

You apparently don't understand that very few professional scientists
are working in a field that has the same name as the department which
granted their degree.

Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2015 15:15:03 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Thu, 07 May 2015 16:43:22 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Does any University even give a degree in, "Climate Scientology?"

Many schools offer undergraduate degrees in climate science,

Fiddle sticks.

or
broader degrees in fields such as Earth science, geophysics,
mathematics, and other areas that source climate scientists.

Hey! I have a degree in mathematics. So now I'm a, "climate
scientist." So now I know more about it than you.

And of
course, it's a standard advanced degree (meaning that the graduate
thesis researched a climate science subject).

fiddlesticks.

There are many areas of science that are well populated with
researchers despite the fact that there is no degree with that
particular name. It's a matter of what you study. Any school offering
science degrees will offer classes in climate science.

fiddlesticks. And I'm now a climate scientologist by your standards.
I spit on everything you say.

If you consider as climate scientists those with at least one cited,
peer-reviewed publication coded for a climate science topic, there are
more than 50,000 of them in the world.

50,001 by your standards. But I doubt any one of them could pass an
eight grade math test. I was an engineer for over twenty years and a
retired military officer. Here's a photo. My uniform still fits.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73688745@N05/10489795584/


Vote for Carson
Repeal the nightmares

If you don't click on links don't post them.

On Thu, 07 May 2015 16:55:36 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Thu, 07 May 2015 18:46:01 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Hey! I have a degree in mathematics. So now I'm a, "climate
scientist." So now I know more about it than you.

No, it means you might have the tools to be a climate scientist, if
you so decided.

I don't care.

You apparently don't understand that very few professional scientists
are working in a field that has the same name as the department which
granted their degree.

I understand perfectly. I never worked in the field of mathematics.
I'm a retired engineer and a retired military Communications Officer.
This gig paid better.


Vote for Carson
Repeal the nightmares

On Thu, 7 May 2015 23:21:06 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:


50,001 by your standards. But I doubt any one of them could pass an
eight grade math test. I was an engineer for over twenty years and a
retired military officer. Here's a photo. My uniform still fits.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73688745@N05/10489795584/



If you don't click on links don't post them.

Don't tell me what to do.


Vote for Carson
Repeal the nightmares

On Friday, 8 May 2015 00:55:38 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:

You apparently don't understand that very few professional scientists
are working in a field that has the same name as the department which
granted their degree.

Therein lies the great strength of science and AGW climate study in particular.

If one branch should suddenly swerve off-course [however unlikely] there are a billion other jigsaw pieces to which the first must fully interlock to complete the overall picture.

Even glaring mismatches can add their own [eventual] reinforcement to the overall puzzle, by directing new thinking to find the actual cause of any failure to lock neatly into the whole.

The present AGW denialist's failure to smear their own crap all over the picture does not suggest a qualification in anything associated with *real* science. Their mismatch to science and their fumbling and aggressive stance further reinforces this picture. It is they who must change their thinking or [simply] provide really solid new evidence of the failure of all converging sciences to interlock perfectly into AGW.

Note that this is not remotely a denial of allowing new thinking. Far from it. It just requires increasingly robust evidence or stronger mathematical proofs of underlying faults in the multifaceted structure of AGW science as a whole.

Religio-paranoid convictions [even as a group] seems very unlikely to provide the strong rebuttal evidence required to turn the vast AGW ship around before we hit the ice they only pretend to predict. They don't even speak the language of science, let alone are fluent in its countless local accents, which make up mankind's ongoing understanding of our universe.

A red bus does not become a green bus through wishful political thinking. A red traffic light does not change to green through religious conservatism. Or an unflinching faith in the teachings of their own personal, but toothless, prophet.

Science does not [cannot] bend to negative anthropomorphism and ad hominem attacks. It is too large, too multi-layered, too inter-joined, too tightly woven, too connected and far too powerful an idea, in itself, to founder on simple name calling.

Above all, it is wide open to the free discussion of interesting mismatches.. Provided, of course, that the supposed mismatch can be prodded and poked and breathed into something capable of independent life by those who will die trying to understand the new problem. It must be something real which can be safely nurtured until it finds its real place in the vastly complex, universe of science as a whole. Or carefully filed away [forever] to be discussed again in the light of new data and later discoveries.

Every new idea must compete for attention amongst all those who know their stuff inside and out. Those who must live in terror of being remembered as being proved wrong by some unknown student. There's the real strength of science. Every expert has to question everything they thought they knew yesterday. Or risk being trampled by the countless great minds of those who follow in wave after wave to the steady march of time.

Each new, bright student has the potential to unleash Armageddon in his own faculty. But must usually be satisfied with yet another iteration in the light of promising new data. Unlike sportsmen and bankers, who can be bought or threatened into changing the results, science has its own countless and ruthless competitors. Fresh new minds join the ranks of the knowledge relay on a daily basis all around the world. Each and every one of them seeking a precious flaw in the accepted fabric of science. Or seeking a way to weave a beautiful new pattern into every [former] expert's cloth.

You can fool some of the people some of the time. But only a fool questions scientists for their dishonesty. Their reputations last only as long as the next, peer-reviewed paper allows. Their income as well as their far more precious reputations keeps their noses clean. Or they will soon die as charlatans out in the cold wastelands.

On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 3:15:58 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:

chrisb wrote nothing important, so it was deleted for humanitarian reasons

The hypocrisy of warmingistas, whether they be scientists, celebrities, bureaucrats, leftist politicians or merely useful idiots such as chrisb, peterson or collins, provides ample evidence that the potential problems related to CO2 emissions have been overstated.

Surely, if they believed that there was really a problem they would already have cut their own emissions to near zero, which is exactly what everyone, everywhere would have to do in order to achieve "climate justice."

On Friday, 8 May 2015 13:27:13 UTC+2, wrote:

Surely, if they believed that there was really a problem they would already have cut their own emissions to near zero, which is exactly what everyone, everywhere would have to do in order to achieve "climate justice."

Objection m'Lud!

Argumentative and repetitive leading of the witnesses!