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/

wrote:

What part of I have no interest

We agree on one thing -- You have no interest.

*plonk*

Hop

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 wouldn´t 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

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

wrote:

:In sci.physics 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.
:
:And which part of I have no interest in argueing about it are you
:too blazingly stupid to understand?
:

And which part of I was talking to Hop and not to you are you too
blazingly stupid to understand?

plonk


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

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

wrote:
In sci.physics Einar wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics Einar wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics Einar wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics Hop David wrote:
wrote:



Neither is statements like "the rest of the world disagrees".



How's this statement: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

It is the beginning of a hypothesis, so it would be a start.

And no, I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means.

I thing global warming would be a net good thing, so I'm not concerned
and could care less about the arguements either way.

Oh, I'm sorry, the current politically correct term is climate change.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Greenhouse, what about, a type of gasous substance which precense in
sufficient amounts makes the climate warmer than it would be in its
absence...does that suffice for a definition? Now, you only have to
accept that carbon dioxide can make the climate warmer if it?s present
in sufficient amount to do just that. From that would follow arguments
wether that is the case or not.

What part of I'm not going to argue about what "greenhouse gas" means
are you too blazingly stupid to understand?

You appear to be setting a pleasant standard for the argument here

It's your arguement, not mine.

I refuse to particpate.


How have you worked out that Global Warming is a good thing?

Clue number 1:

How many people book vacations to Alaska compared to Barmuda?

Clue number 2:

How many crops, i.e. food, are grown between 45 degrees and 90 degrees
compared to +/- 45 degrees?

Clue number 3:

The population as you go through Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska,
South Dakota, and finally get to North Dakota.

Clue number 4:

People retire and move to Arizona, New Mexico and Florida, not Maine,
Minnesota or Washington.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Oh, a warm balmy planet is a pretty nice thing in fact. You are
entirelly right to point that out. In the deep past of our planet it
actually has spent greater part of its age being warmer than today.
When certain dinosaurs, specifickly those with tall necks, were
walking about, the Earth was so warm that forests grew on the Southern
Polar continent, which appear to have felled theyr leaves during the
months of total darkness.

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.

Such a change isn't going to happen over night, or even within a
person's lifetime, not matter what you see in the movies.

So what?

Met any Romans, Phoenicians, Mayans, Carthaginians, Shangs, Summerians,
Aztecs, Goths, Minoans, Hittites, or Bablyonians lately?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I said, the time of transition is the tricky part. Not the time when
all is over and done with.

The time of transition is already begun. That means things are on the
move already. The only thing we can affect now is the share size of
the change, and hence the extend of adaptation that will come
necessary.

Any such change will come at a rate that you can walk away from.

snip doom and gloom

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Interesting, so you think moving billions of people to be a minor
problem. In case of Chinese rice farmers - it´s not simply a question
of moving or re-educating a very large group of people with sparse
education to begin with, it´s rebuilding the centuries old system of
rice plots that are really one of the ancient engineering marvels -
and are a really large job to successfully replicate. These people are
the ones who produce the bulk of the food for China.

Einar

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
it´s 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

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

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 wouldn´t 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

It´s not an unknown phenomena throughout history that leaders of
countries behave stupidly.

Einar