# Global Warming...

Page 8 of 8
• posted on August 22, 2005, 8:34 pm

On the contrary, the onus is on you to explain why the distant past does matter. You see, the set of things that do not matter is enormous, while the set of things that do matter is narrowly limited. It is not logical that you demand explanations for why some member of that set does not matter. If you have some information and you want to discuss it, you must start by telling us why it matters.
Why does it matter to a discussion of AGW that CO2 was over 5000ppm over 450 million years ago?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on August 23, 2005, 11:33 am
says...

Some would say it is t'other way round.
If the set of things that do matter was narrowly limited we would have near perfect predictions and nothing to argue about.
--
Alan LeHun

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on August 23, 2005, 3:14 pm

I don't see how you could say that. I almost wrote that the set of things that don't matter is infinite, but couldn't quickly decide if there are an infinite number of things or not!
When you set up a controled experiment, you identify the things that matter and control them and you disregard the things that don't matter (and hope you divided them up correctly!)

Well, this just depends on how narrow narrow is, that's all. Now, I was being a bit abstract and I know this is GW related so I readily acknowledge there are a huge number of things that matter. But I still say the set of things that don't is larger.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on August 22, 2005, 2:11 pm

It's so funny, the denialists claim we cannot know the temperatures 100 years ago, but they have no hesitation about claiming the above.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on August 22, 2005, 8:36 pm
says...

I'm sure that they would grab it and run with it if a paper came out with satellite temperature readings from 100million years ago.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on August 22, 2005, 2:02 pm

being

That's not true. The current models create the current conditions quite well, fed in past data.

Yes they have.

Creationist web site. Do yourself a favor and use scientific sources for scientific questions.

Again, you're citing a creationist site. Tsk, tsk.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on August 22, 2005, 8:02 pm

where did you see any reference to creationism in that web site? I looked, not saying it isn't there, just didn't see it. that and you are an idiot who accuses anything that disagrees with your own narrowminded left-wing bs of being "creationist"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on August 22, 2005, 5:04 pm

Analogy. The denialists use the same tactics and approaches as creationists.

No, I accuse anti-scientific types seeing to impose dogma in science as creationists. So far the shoe seems to fit you.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on August 22, 2005, 9:36 pm

ah. so in other words, your asertion was a bald-faced lie.

actually, I am one of the convinced. global warming is taking place and it is anthropogenic. however, not all the facts are in regarding magnitude, consequences, or mitigation possibilities. I just don't like junk science, politically motivated hyperbole, or liars, and you are profoundly guilty of all 3.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on August 29, 2005, 4:41 pm
bill wrote:

Steve Milloy, the author of junkscience.com, the junkscience book, etc. says: "Explanations of human evolution are not likely to move beyond the stage of hypothesis or conjecture. There is no scientific way - i.e., no experiment or other means of reliable study - for explaining how humans developed. Without a valid scientific method for proving a hypothesis, no indisputable explanation can exist. The process of evolution can be scientifically demonstrated in some lower life forms, but this is a far cry from explaining how humans developed. That said, some sort of evolutionary process seems most likely in my opinion. But there will probably always be enough uncertainty in any explanation of human evolution to give critics plenty of room for doubt." <http://www.cato.org/askourscholars/milloy/milloy-020115-2.html Maybe you could call him an evolution-agnostic.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on August 22, 2005, 1:58 pm

Which is aptly named. Why do you believe industry shills over the National Academy of Sciences? IPCC? Scientific journals?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on August 22, 2005, 6:21 pm
Lloyd Parker wrote:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
Because "industry shills" aren't the only ones out there...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on August 22, 2005, 5:00 pm

Yes, you've just cited another one.
Why are you so ready to take the words of this group over thousands of scientific paper? Over the National Academy of Sciences? It can only be because of your political views.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on August 22, 2005, 6:31 pm
wrote:

National
I told you that you were dealing with a cult mentality. ;-)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on August 21, 2005, 4:12 pm
Nehmo wrote:

Yes.
Manhattan.
josh halpern

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on August 21, 2005, 6:49 pm

That's a stupid question. Don't we sead the clouds to make it rain? I know you're talking about global warming but I just couldn't pass up a stupid statement like that. What about all the trees that are being burnt in South American? What about the oil fires set ablaze in Kuwait? And what about the foul air in many cities? When visibility is less than a mile and you can't take a deep breath I suppose you'll say that's not man made and not a weather change.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on August 22, 2005, 5:24 pm

I just rather assumed the OP meant "climate" and wasn't up on his jargon.
So, do we still seed clouds? Does it work?

What about them? You point at trees or smoke, it's pretty hard to tell which, and say "see, weather." Sometimes, yes, weather can make trees fall down. But um lets not be mixing up our causes and our effects here.

What about them?

What about it?
"LA has really nice weather!" "Yes it does. Let's all move there."
"Hey, now that we've all moved here, LA has crappy air." "Yes it does, but the weather is still really nice."

I'm waiting for you to tell me how it is a weather change other than by pointing and saying "well it's obvious to me."

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on August 24, 2005, 10:15 am
ADVICE:
MOVE AWAY FROM SEA SHORE JOCK.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• Share To

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.