If this is global warming...

Page 5 of 16  
wrote:

I just like to beat up blowhards.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Ahh ... all in a good cause, then. Carry on.
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 15, 8:20 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Neither should receive funding. The last comment I heard from a _real_ NASA scientist on the study of "Global Warming" was an adhomition to us to refer to the study of "Global Temperature Change", reminding to avoid presuming a conclusion.
Now, if a scientist wants funding to study some factor that can influence global change she doesn't write a proposal to prove a particular change, she writes a proposal to measure that factor and evaluates it's effect on global change.
This is not like English composition where the author presumes a conclusion and then 'proves' it by writing about ti.
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

================ Money. The deniers have been receiving millions of dollars from ExxonMobil (and others) to create a state of disinformation. Only recently has ExxonMobil been outed and they have now agreed to stop. Just like the tobacco companies and smoking.
-Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"DouginUtah" wrote in message

Hypocritical horseshit!
To stop what? Manufacturing hydrocarbon based products so you could do things like brush your teeth and drive to work this morning? Were you comfortable in your cozy house last night up there in Utah with the heat on?
_If_ there is a culprit, don't blame anyone but the guy you see in the mirror.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"

Please identify one scientist who has received millions of dollars from ExxonMobil for publishing disinformation in a peer-reviewed journal.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They've spent the money, but they've failed to get it published. All those "reports" put out by global warming discreditors have been *rejected* by peer-reviewed journals. Press releases and news articles, yes. Proper scientific journals, no.
A science historian at UC San Diego analyzed 928 randomly selected research papers on climate change published from 1993 through 2003, from of a pool of around 10,000. Not *one* rejected the idea that human activity is warming the planet.
Zip. nada.
A quote:     Of all the papers, 75% fell into the     first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly     accepting the consensus view; 25%     dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking     no position on current anthropogenic climate     change. Remarkably, none of the papers     disagreed with the consensus position.
Read it for yourself:
<http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/Papers/Scientific%20Consensus%20on%20climate.pdf
My apologies for bringing peer-reviewed papers into the discussion.
Charles Koester
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That ought to make one suspicious.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charles Koester wrote:

PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

(snippage of unsubstantiated rant.)

Are you actually suggesting that EVERY ONE of the scientists who believe in the facts of global warming is doing so to make money? Please provide some evidence. And are further suggesting that EVERY ONE of the very few scientists who disbelieve in global warming is incorruptible? And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers? Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys. Unless you can provide hard evidence of your position, like maybe 10.000 scientific papers to offset those that have been published, your argument is completely invalid. Please note that I don't know you and we might well be good friends if we met--I am only discussing your arguments, not your persona.

Send that one to the Bush Administration, which has been quashing science that disagrees with its ideological position. See Scientific American's recent editorial--sorry I no longer have the issue. DAGS.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Scientific American hasn't been a credible publication for a long time. Pretty much ever since John Rennie took over as editor, their selection of what to publish has been obviously driven far more by a leftist political agenda than by any scientific considerations.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

My subscription lapsed and was never renewed for that reason. Another magazine you don't want to subscribe to is Smithsonian. Good, but they sell their list to every leftist cause out there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Same here exactly. I returned their renewal notice to them, accompanied by a note explaining that as long as Rennie was editor, I would not be renewing.

Yep -- noticed the same thing there too. My subscription to Smithsonian lasted only a single year, for precisely that reason.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Schmall wrote:

No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to. The models are so complex and multi-variate that there is no "fact of GW" there is simply a variety of positions to explain currently observed phenomena - none of which is indisputable or clearly refutes the other. My objection is not to the study of GW and its causes/effects. My objection is the vast overstatement about just how much we really *know* about it. To listen to you and others, one would thing there is little left to debate. It's simply not so.

The government has a lot more money to spend on research than the big eeeeeevil oil companies. Government with lots of money is a recipe for corruption.

No - *your* position is bogus. Science is NOT about consensus or who has the most papers published. It is about *data*. The fact that there remains a vibrant discussion among serious scientists about these issues but that this debate is NOT being published ought to give you a hint as to how corrupted the GW debate has become by politics.

And you can send it to Gore and his crowd who by every measure have been far worse in their prostitution of science of political gain. The Bush administration are pikers by comparison. Gore's global whining campaign bears no resemblance to science, data, or logic, but gets lots of traction among he earth worshipers.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:55:45 -0600, Tim Daneliuk

No, it's not about _data_, it's about figuring out how the world around us works. One needs data to do that, but data alone doesn't tell us much. It's not until you have a falsifiable model that you can test against that data that you are doing science. Until that time you are merely cataloguing.
The trouble with the notion that human activity causes global warming is that the model is hideously complex and the amount of data available for the purpose of testing it is exceedingly small. And it's difficult to get more data by research since to conduct a half-assed test one needs data spanning 10,000 or more years and to conduct a thorough one one needs data that covers the entire period from from the beginning of a series of glaciation cycles to the beginning of the next period of glaciation cycles, and to collect _that_ data will take _millions_ of years, and we don't have any way to obtain such data globally in detail except to wait for it. At least not unless there is some breakthrough method of determining the data from the geological record.

A problem with this discussion is that the global warming advocates are asserting that no contrarian results are being published, however is that indeed the case or are they lying about that? I don't have the time or means to conduct a comprehensive literature survey of climatology, so don't expect me to answer that question.

Uh, what's wrong with being an "earth worshiper"? We do _live_ here after all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote: <SNIP>

Nothing, as long as you acknowledge it as being a religious and mystical activity, not a scientific one and don't insist therefore that everyone else join you ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

For now. Stephen Hawkings has suggested that we need to get busy on that colonization stuff.
But ... what does he know? he's just some school teacher in a wheel chair.
Bill
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So you'd support launching Orions?
No? Then how do you propose to move large numbers of people to another planet?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

I don't.
That's Hawkings idea.
I propose that we take really, really good care of the one we have until we are CERTAIN we have found another and KNOW how to get there.
I don't call that 'earth worship' ... but simple prudent stewardship.
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Nothing, unless you begin to believe that unaltered nature is more important and valuable than human life or society- which is what that particular slander stems from.
I believe in keeping my area clean as I can, and trying to be kind to the other living things around me- but I'll be damned if I would consider knocking down my own house to plant trees for the birds to live in, or any other such nonsense. I support the parks and forest and water conservation- but I also support new power plants and parking lots. Everything has it's place- and that includes us. The damn frogs just are not more important to me than my own family and neighbors, and that's the way it should be.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    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.