Five Small Problems with AGW science.

On 2/19/10 6:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:24:17 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

NATU Setting the climate record straight

A co-chair of the IPCC's beleaguered second working group discusses
recent criticisms

http://cl.exct.net/?
qs=926acdd1e8d6491ea2e8fb55d81badb5354e09a09f6cce5 b381c56c97d6a7584


The IPCC is not like a political party with a manifesto that it's
preaching and a rapid-rebuttal office. But the IPCC will need to decide
whether it is in the business of simply undertaking its five-year
assessments or being the source of information and being able to
respond, on an ongoing basis, to enquiries.

Is this a "free association moment" for you, Wormley? The issue was
comparison between Venus and Earth and using that to PROVE that ... what?
AGW is caused by CO2? I pointed out how absurd that is, as Venus (and
even my planet, the now frozen rock Mars) has much more CO2 than Earth.


It doesn't much matter what the thread title is, Marvin--You are
attempting to disparage the science of climatology without scientific
justification. This behavior of the "teapot types" was discussed this
afternoon on NPR's Talk of The Nation Science Friday.

Why are the likes of you so vehemently railing against thousands of
climatologist around the world, representing tens of thousands man-
years studying the changes is weather over long periods of time.
Long before there was an IPCC.

Furthermore, the great quantity of research data spanning many
decades is rather overwhelming--The earth is warming at rates not
accounted for by natural causes. We humans continue to pour copious
quantities of CO2 into the environment and it is driving climate
change.

Most every thread you have comment in (usually you just attack
posters, organizations and data sources without scientific scrutiny)
is easily rebutted by the issues referred to in this document:

http://www.swissre.com/resources/222...te_sceptic.pdf


There are not enough sensors on other planets to explain what is
happening right here right now.

Look at the observables, Marvin!

On Feb 19, 8:15*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

* *Why are the likes of you so vehemently railing against thousands of
* *climatologist around the world,

1) Scientists aren't so smart. They try to convince people that God's
own account of the Creation wasn't true, thus leading them to doubt
the accuracy of the Bible, and lead them into the snares of
temptation!

2) Environmentalists have a long, well established, track record of
trying to make things difficult for America's hard-working business
leaders - and for those industrial activities linked to national
defense. Russia and China don't have to worry about pesky
environmentalists - and they'll soon be running our country if we have
to fight with one hand tied behind our back!

The trouble is that I myself think that reason #2 actually *has* some
validity - but I don't let my politics lead me to wishful thinking
about the science.

John Savard

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:44:17 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

1) Scientists aren't so smart. They try to convince people that God's
own account of the Creation wasn't true...

Well, they've already done that. It doesn't require much effort-
whichever god's account you might be referring to.

You're not usually so irrational. Is somebody else using your identity?
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On 2/19/10 9:44 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
On Feb 19, 8:15 pm, Sam wrote:

Why are the likes of you so vehemently railing against thousands of
climatologist around the world,

1) Scientists aren't so smart. They try to convince people that God's
own account of the Creation wasn't true, thus leading them to doubt
the accuracy of the Bible, and lead them into the snares of
temptation!

That's a given! When theology conflicts with science, science wins!
Some people think the god thing is real.


2) Environmentalists have a long, well established, track record of
trying to make things difficult for America's hard-working business
leaders - and for those industrial activities linked to national
defense. Russia and China don't have to worry about pesky
environmentalists - and they'll soon be running our country if we have
to fight with one hand tied behind our back!

Many hard-working business leaders couldn't give a rats ass about
living within the resources of the earth.


The trouble is that I myself think that reason #2 actually *has* some
validity - but I don't let my politics lead me to wishful thinking
about the science.

John Savard

On Feb 19, 9:01*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:

You're not usually so irrational. Is somebody else using your identity?

The question was: why are people disputing AGW. So my answer was what
*they* think, not what I think. Although I may be rational, I don't
use smileys regularly.

John Savard

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:15:27 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 2/19/10 6:56 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:24:17 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

NATU Setting the climate record straight

A co-chair of the IPCC's beleaguered second working group discusses
recent criticisms

http://cl.exct.net/?
qs=926acdd1e8d6491ea2e8fb55d81badb5354e09a09f6cce5 b381c56c97d6a7584


The IPCC is not like a political party with a manifesto that it's
preaching and a rapid-rebuttal office. But the IPCC will need to decide
whether it is in the business of simply undertaking its five-year
assessments or being the source of information and being able to
respond, on an ongoing basis, to enquiries.

Is this a "free association moment" for you, Wormley? The issue was
comparison between Venus and Earth and using that to PROVE that ... what?
AGW is caused by CO2? I pointed out how absurd that is, as Venus (and
even my planet, the now frozen rock Mars) has much more CO2 than Earth.


It doesn't much matter what the thread title is, Marvin--You are
attempting to disparage the science of climatology without scientific
justification. This behavior of the "teapot types" was discussed this
afternoon on NPR's Talk of The Nation Science Friday.

Why are the likes of you so vehemently railing against thousands of
climatologist around the world, representing tens of thousands man-
years studying the changes is weather over long periods of time.
Long before there was an IPCC.


You are really silly, and so is governments and
schools if there are thousands of climatologists,
ten should be enough, good meteorologists are
needed, not climatologists.


Furthermore, the great quantity of research data spanning many
decades is rather overwhelming--The earth is warming at rates not
accounted for by natural causes. We humans continue to pour copious
quantities of CO2 into the environment and it is driving climate
change.


Speculation at best, BS otherwise,
messages still get deleted.


Most every thread you have comment in (usually you just attack
posters, organizations and data sources without scientific scrutiny)
is easily rebutted by the issues referred to in this document:

http://www.swissre.com/resources/222...te_sceptic.pdf


There are not enough sensors on other planets to explain what is
happening right here right now.

Look at the observables, Marvin!


We need a good laugh, explain how
Global Warming causes cold and snow again.

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:24:35 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

The question was: why are people disputing AGW. So my answer was what
*they* think, not what I think. Although I may be rational, I don't
use smileys regularly.

Sorry. The thread got fragmented from the original, so most of the
previous discussion was missing.

There are those who would (and have) misrepresented regulars around
here.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:10:30 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

That's a given! When theology conflicts with science, science wins!
Some people think the god thing is real.

Science doesn't have anything to say about the "god thing". It has a lot
to say about a number of religious beliefs, though.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On 2/19/10 10:42 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:10:30 -0600, Sam
wrote:

That's a given! When theology conflicts with science, science wins!
Some people think the god thing is real.

Science doesn't have anything to say about the "god thing". It has a lot
to say about a number of religious beliefs, though.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Thanks for correcting my point!

On 2/19/10 10:35 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
You are really silly, and so is governments and
schools if there are thousands of climatologists,
ten should be enough, good meteorologists are
needed, not climatologists.

Climatologists come into play when planning infrastructure,
urban planning (expansion and renewal), disaster prediction
(such as flooding) and planning for water resources.

As far as the weather--that happens independent of what the
meteorologists predicted.