Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:17:57 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

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.

Unless the climate change levels the Rockies, Europe's climate will
remain temperate.

Joe Strout 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). There has been
only the ordinary haggling over the details.


I suggest that you look at the large number of paleoclimate studies (a
field I work in) and see how the previously "discredited" MWP and LIA
(but they were widely accepted before the hockey stick) have come back
with a vengeance and they appear to be global in extent. When you have
temperature variations as large or larger than the present warming
(which might possibly be turning around, but it's too early to say)
without anthropogenic forcing, then the large positive feedback numbers
required by the CO2 forcers just might become a bit more tenuous. I
suggest reading Geophysical Research Letters as they have a much higher
rate of publications on this subject. There's lots of scientific debate
going on. In fact a GRL paper about the possible feedback role of clouds
should be coming out soon.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Einar wrote:

[...]

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.

No, tell me it's not true!

Cheers,

Rich

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

Einar wrote:
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.

Maybe not, but 'dem filthy rotten plants *are* !!!!

Cheers,

Rich


Einar

In sci.physics Einar wrote:

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.

Why would billions move other than perhaps to go farm what is now
cold waste land?

I've been in Asia and have see rice paddies built; there is nothing
marvelous about a rice paddy.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article .com,
wrote:

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.

I did, about five lines further down. Three detailed models (including
one meta-analysis showing that the models with the highest effect of
increased CO2 are likely to be the closest match to reality), easily
found in a minute or two of Googling.

Ker-plonk.

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

In article .com,
Einar wrote:

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.

There's no point, Einar. We have here a specimen of one of those
anti-scientific loons, who will ignore any amount of evidence, no matter
how loudly they demanded it and how quickly we produced it. They have
an agenda to follow and an axe to grind, and won't let mere facts or
logic get in their way. We should stop feeding the trolls -- just
killfile them instead.

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:17:57 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

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.

Unless the climate change levels the Rockies, Europe's climate will
remain temperate.

Maybe, maybe not -- this may be one of those chaotic effects, much like
the local weather, that is very hard to predict in detail. But there is
pretty strong evidence that if the Atlantic "conveyor belt" shuts down,
Europe's climate will cool substantially and rapidly (in a matter of
decades); it's happened before, and it may be happening again now:

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/issues/climatechange/rapid.asp

Best,
- Joe

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:31:06 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:17:57 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

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.

Unless the climate change levels the Rockies, Europe's climate will
remain temperate.

Maybe, maybe not -- this may be one of those chaotic effects, much like
the local weather, that is very hard to predict in detail. But there is
pretty strong evidence that if the Atlantic "conveyor belt" shuts down,
Europe's climate will cool substantially and rapidly (in a matter of
decades); it's happened before, and it may be happening again now:

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/issues/climatechange/rapid.asp

No, the Gulf Stream is a minor contributor to Europe's climate:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/03/0..._research.html

On Jul 31, 4:27 am, Einar wrote:
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,

I read it. I couldn't figure out what it had to do with the issue
under discussion. Why don't you clarify it for us, jackass.

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.

I guess you can't post a link to something that exists only in your
imagination.

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.

Why not provide an honest response to an honest question?