Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On 23/04/2018 01:24, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 11:00:51 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 7:03:51 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

How can one have confidence in AGW when warm temperatures are claimed
to support AGW and cooler temperatures are also claimed to support AGW?
That kind of baloney makes the theory unfalsifiable. IOW, unscientific.

While you are correctly referring to a valid scientific principle, you
should know better, then, to apply it in this way. Cooler temperatures,
by themselves, don't support AGW. Cooler temperatures that can be traced
back to the Gulf Stream weakening - due to *warmer* temperatures in the
far North, causing water from glaciers to make the Atlantic Ocean less
salty, on the other hand, *could* well be confirming evidence of AGW.

The operative word is "could." That's not a quantitative relationship.

The point here is that in a world where the global average temperature
is higher there could still be some places like northern Europe that
have paritcularly favourable warm maritime climates that end up colder
if the Gulf stream weakens substanially.

Deliberately omitting important facts when making an argument is an
indication of dishonesty,

But "could" doesn't represent FACT.

Facts that deniers like to parrot are that in Roman times there were
vineyards in Britain. Back then they were making crude gut rot plonk for
homesick Centurions but now they are making internationally recognised
fine wines. For a long time Renishaw Hall in Derbyshire was the most
northerly vineyard in the world by some margin but not any more.

http://www.renishaw-hall.co.uk/vineyard/

The record is now held by Lerkekasa in Norway which is almost at 60N

https://lerkekasa.no/english/

and oil companies have a sufficiently large financial interest involved
here that it would not be surprising if attempts were being made by
them to introduce misleading arguments into the climate debate.

I think that's a canard. The big oil companies have embraced efforts to
reduce emissions and are doing research into green processes.

Exxon and Kock brothers have been fighting tooth and nail against AGW
and to spread disinformation and doubts using big tobacco tactics to
bamboozle the general public and denigrate climate scientists.

Interestingly when Koch brothers paid to have sceptical researchers look
into climate change and they came back with an answer that wasn't in the
script. Their scientific integrity won out over their allegiance to
their paymasters and also extended the temperature record back to 1750
(albeit with rising uncertainties):

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

I'm being charitable in assuming you may just be parroting dishonest
arguments someone else made up, but you appear to be determined to
refute that hypothesis.

John Savard

I'm a concerned watcher. That means I believe in taking measured steps
to reduce CO2 not only because of possible AGW effects but also because
of other possible effects increased CO2 may have which are presently
unknown, but I am vehemently against Chicken Little propagandists who
demand immediate action regardless of the cost and denigrate those who
hold more measured views.

I only consider no regrets actions worthy of consideration at present
since there is too much cheating. It will take major climate disasters
directly affecting large US cities and/or agriculture before the USA
takes it seriously. Even then deniers for hire will continue to peddle
their lies just as they still do to keep the suckers smoking tobacco.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 17:07:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
In today's world, GW is almost entirely AGW. That is a fact.

That's an unsubstantiated assertion since the effects of increased
cloud
cover due to cosmic ray nucleation have not been quantified.

An increase in cloud cover ought to reduce, not increase, the
warming, right? We observe a warming. If this warming occurs despite
increased cloud cover, this implies that the CO2 effect of the
warming is even larger...


Increased cloud cover cools the Earth by day but warms at night.

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:09:00 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Look, I believe in being a good steward of the earth, trying to curb
excesses, keeping the environment clean and all that.

That's nice.

But I also believe
in people and that we all have a responsibility there, too.

As I've noted, it's a good thing that we have nuclear power available as an
option, because, yes, the economic consequences of a large decrease in energy
use would be serious.

And I also
believe in a Higher Power which many today have disowned.

I suspected as much when I saw the word "steward" above; at this point, if I
didn't already suspect what was coming, I would ask what the relevance of that
was.

One of the
consequences of that is a vaunting arrogance that WE can handle the
situation. Maybe the solution isn't where some believe it to be ...

I was hesitant in replying to this, because I felt that any reply I might make would not be useful.

What I'm about to say may sound to you about like this: "It's okay to believe
in God and the afterlife and go to church on Sunday and all that, but don't go
off the deep end and relate that to the _real_ world!" I can certainly
understand that you would reject *that* position; after all, since religion
should be about how we treat our fellow man, it certainly should inform how we
act in the real world - for example, in opposing injustice, whether Negro
slavery or legal abortion.

I have read that a common theological position among Muslims is that Allah
creates the world over and over again, from moment to moment.

This is a theological position potentially subject to abuse. So a fanatical
Muslim terrorist, standing trial for murder, could, *with a straight face*, say
the following:

Yes, Your Honor, it is true that I pointed a gun at the deceased and pulled the
trigger. But this does not in any way mean that I am guilty of murder. My
pointing the gun at him and pulling the trigger was merely an act of prayer to
Allah, that He would strike down the infidel, for there is nothing in this
world that happens except by His will.

Christianity has rejected both that theological position and this argument. We
are responsible for the expected outcomes in the material world of the actions
we choose; God has the power to intervene miraculously, but He uses it when He
chooses, and that sparingly.

The Bible notes that we are not to test God, and it also notes that before the
end of the world, there will be wars and rumors of wars, but the end is not
yet.

Thus, since it is not being claimed that among the unpleasant consequences of
continued high carbon dioxide emissions is *the extinction of every human life
on Earth*, global warming is still within the domain of human responsibility
for human actions, and we are not entitled to assume that God will save us from
the consequences of our own actions.

Since WE caused the situation, WE had better act as if WE are the only ones
around *to* handle the situation, and nobody else is going to clean it up for
us.

Also, the notion that some things are just to horrible to happen, that a just
and merciful God is certain to intervene to prevent them... has been refuted by
experimental evidence.

I refer you to the period from 1933 to 1945, in Germany and adjacent countries,
particularly Poland.

Christians often refer to the Resurrection as the central event of history. But
those who do not share their faith, of course, do not believe that it even
happened. On the other hand, the Holocaust certainly did happen, and to many in
the postwar era, it is viewed as the most dramatic event in human history,
challenging what the human race thinks of itself, challenging optimism about
the future, and challenging certain aspects of religious belief.

This, not simply hostility towards Christianity as such, is why the position
you take in that paragraph arouses a very negative reaction in many.

John Savard

On 24/04/2018 12:08, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:26:24 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 17:07:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

In today's world, GW is almost entirely AGW. That is a fact.

That's an unsubstantiated assertion since the effects of increased
cloud cover due to cosmic ray nucleation have not been quantified.

An increase in cloud cover ought to reduce, not increase, the
warming, right? We observe a warming. If this warming occurs despite
increased cloud cover, this implies that the CO2 effect of the
warming is even larger...

Did you even LOOK at the second chart in

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...tures/70004226

that I posted April 22nd? It shows global temperatures dropping
significantly for the past two years.

If you look at the last diagram at that URL it also explains why - since
if you cherry pick the most extreme El Nino highest point there is a
fair chance of regression back towards the mean trend line which has
been running at +0.2C/decade since 1970's according to the graph at the
bottom of the page you cite as your cherry picked "evidence".

Those long term averages also makes temperatures during one or a few
individual years quite insignificant. But if the trend continues over
decades, then it becomes climatologically significant.

Maybe they are and maybe they aren't.

TBH I am surprised just how well the data smoothed over the solar cycle
of 132 months = 11x12 months approximates a straight line in these data.

So instead of focusing on the last two years, you should instead focus
on the last 20-50 years. Don't throw away half a century of data just
because of temporary short term deviations recently.

The short-term deviations ARE significant if a new factor is in play.
We may want a little extra greenhouse gas if we're heading toward another
another Little Ice Age:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

The short term deviations are only significant if *you* choose to make
them so by deliberately picking the very highest point you can find and
then saying "look sometimes the temperature goes down so AGW is a lie".

Look, I believe in being a good steward of the earth, trying to curb
excesses, keeping the environment clean and all that. But I also believe

Do you really? Then you might at least consider the possibility that
profligate consumption of our finite resources with no consideration for
future generations is *nothing* like good stewardship.

in people and that we all have a responsibility there, too. And I also
believe in a Higher Power which many today have disowned. One of the
consequences of that is a vaunting arrogance that WE can handle the
situation. Maybe the solution isn't where some believe it to be ...

I suppose you expect your God to come along and press the big red reset
button when we have trashed this planet beyond redemption then. We only
have one Earth and if we mess it up badly enough we will end up like the
hapless destitute Easter Islanders who chopped down their last tree.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 04:08:57 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

And I also
believe in a Higher Power which many today have disowned.

This delusion is shared by almost every AGW science denier. Not
surprising, since both are symptomatic of the same mental
dysfunctions.

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:16:10 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:

On 23/04/2018 01:07, Gary Harnagel wrote:

That's an unsubstantiated assertion since the effects of increased cloud
cover due to cosmic ray nucleation have not been quantified.

It is small enough correction that it isn't going to radically alter the
answers. The 0.1% change in solar output over an 11 year sunspot cycle
is barely noticeable in the climate record (but is detectable).

The effect is NOT about solar output. It's about earth's albedo.

Time will tell. Your argument is essentially because every last possible
detail isn't tied down we should ignore the major factor we can control
which is altering the Earth's climate. The inexorable rise of CO2.

So you believe the Little Ice Age was just a little detail?

GW Bush did his damnedest to discontinue funding monitoring of CO2 by
Keeling et al but in the end was forced to give him a congressional
science medal. Science deniers are once again being promoted to
positions of real power in the Trump administration so we expect more
trash the planet for fun and profit policies going forward.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/t...medal-science/

I'm not supporting such a thing. You are doing straw man bull plop by
falsely attributing that stuff to me.

Flat-earther.

Repeated slurs only weaken your already weak responses. You should give
it a rest.

It is pretty much a good description of your position.

I could say the same things about you that I said to Peterson.

Only the wilfully
ignorant and professional deniers for hire claim that AGW is not real
today. The latter usually have previous for claiming that smoking
tobacco doesn't cause cancer and that CFC's don't damage the ozone
layer. (it is quite a good litmus test for prostitute scientists)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

And there goes the same old straw man baloney. You guys are really a
bunch of brown-shirts. Oh, hey, I guess your name says that :-)

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 1:55:58 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:


Increased cloud cover cools the Earth by day but warms at night.

Let me guess, climate change is past it's shelf life date, dark this and dark that of astrophysics has no pulling power apart from inside the walls of universities or moderated forums, the empirical icon who sneered about Christianity had a Christian service and a Christian burial in the end.

Living with the simple things in life is heaven, dying with contrived notions in your head is, well, isn't much of a life.

Start with the day/night cycle and the rotational cause behind it and then move on to the Polar day/night cycle and its rotational cause.

https://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/spwebcam.cfm

Towards the twilight years of life there is a sense of peace as the cycles you choose to ignore in life catch up with you as life goes on in all its greatness.

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 8:49:56 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:09:00 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Look, I believe in being a good steward of the earth, trying to curb
excesses, keeping the environment clean and all that.

That's nice.

But I also believe
in people and that we all have a responsibility there, too.

As I've noted, it's a good thing that we have nuclear power available as an
option, because, yes, the economic consequences of a large decrease in energy
use would be serious.

And I doubt if that will amount to much since there are too many kooks
who are against it. Interestingly, many of THOSE kooks are also AGW
extremists.

And I also
believe in a Higher Power which many today have disowned.

I suspected as much when I saw the word "steward" above; at this point, if I
didn't already suspect what was coming, I would ask what the relevance of
that was.

One of the
consequences of that is a vaunting arrogance that WE can handle the
situation. Maybe the solution isn't where some believe it to be ...

I was hesitant in replying to this, because I felt that any reply I might
make would not be useful.

What I'm about to say may sound to you about like this: "It's okay to believe
in God and the afterlife and go to church on Sunday and all that, but don't
go off the deep end and relate that to the _real_ world!" I can certainly
understand that you would reject *that* position; after all, since religion
should be about how we treat our fellow man, it certainly should inform how
we act in the real world - for example, in opposing injustice, whether Negro
slavery or legal abortion.

I have read that a common theological position among Muslims is that Allah
creates the world over and over again, from moment to moment.

This is a theological position potentially subject to abuse. So a fanatical
Muslim terrorist, standing trial for murder, could, *with a straight face*,
say the following:

Yes, Your Honor, it is true that I pointed a gun at the deceased and pulled
the trigger. But this does not in any way mean that I am guilty of murder. My
pointing the gun at him and pulling the trigger was merely an act of prayer
to Allah, that He would strike down the infidel, for there is nothing in this
world that happens except by His will.

Christianity has rejected both that theological position and this argument.
We are responsible for the expected outcomes in the material world of the
actions we choose; God has the power to intervene miraculously, but He uses
it when He chooses, and that sparingly.

I don't believe God will "intervene" when we do stupid things or when we
willfully go against common decency. He usually works on an individual
basis anyway.

The Bible notes that we are not to test God, and it also notes that before
the end of the world, there will be wars and rumors of wars, but the end
is not yet.

Thus, since it is not being claimed that among the unpleasant consequences
of continued high carbon dioxide emissions is *the extinction of every
human life on Earth*,

Some are claiming that very thing, so isn't it interesting that they STILL
want a crash solution? :-)

global warming is still within the domain of human responsibility
for human actions, and we are not entitled to assume that God will save
us from the consequences of our own actions.

I agree.

Since WE caused the situation, WE had better act as if WE are the only ones
around *to* handle the situation, and nobody else is going to clean it up for
us.

I just don't see any reason for hasty action and abuse of one's fellow
beings.

Also, the notion that some things are just to horrible to happen, that a
just and merciful God is certain to intervene to prevent them... has been
refuted by experimental evidence.

I refer you to the period from 1933 to 1945, in Germany and adjacent
countries, particularly Poland.

Christians often refer to the Resurrection as the central event of history.
But those who do not share their faith, of course, do not believe that it
even happened. On the other hand, the Holocaust certainly did happen, and
to many in the postwar era, it is viewed as the most dramatic event in
human history, challenging what the human race thinks of itself,
challenging optimism about the future, and challenging certain aspects of
religious belief.

The holocaust was not the greatest loss of life by a factor of 10.

This, not simply hostility towards Christianity as such, is why the position
you take in that paragraph arouses a very negative reaction in many.

John Savard

Position? What position is that? I am just skeptical that one should jerk
one's knees when Chicken Little starts shouting. I think there is concern,
but no reason to become rabid.

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:59:09 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 04:08:57 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

And I also believe in a Higher Power which many today have disowned.

This delusion is shared by almost every AGW science denier. Not
surprising, since both are symptomatic of the same mental
dysfunctions.

I would say that YOU are the delusional one as it is arrogance that drives
your beliefs.

“To believers, the atheist and the religiously corrupt boil down
to the same person, the self-righteous: one denies Truth to fit
his own agenda; the other manipulates Truth to fit his own agenda.�
― Criss Jami

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:55:58 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Increased cloud cover cools the Earth by day but warms at night.

Not so. Increased cloud cover reduces the cooling effect at night.
But if there is less heat entering the system during the day, temps
will trend lower.