OT: Climate sensibility

wrote:

And?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LDosser wrote:

Has there been a measured increase in methane? If not then whatever the cows are producting is being removed somewhere else in equal measure.
This sort of argument by ridicule is effective until one thinks about it for a bit, then one realizes that one is being propagandized.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Kind of like pointing out that the CO2 is higher than it has been since humans have been measuring it and faiing to point out it has been a Whole Lot higher in the past?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LDosser wrote:

Show me an argument by ridicule based in that concept.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I was suggesting 'propaganda. But you knew that.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LDosser wrote:

No, I was referring specifically to the method of argument. It bugs me when people who I basically agree with use cliched and misleading arguments because when people figure out that they've been mislead they tend to shoot both the messenger and the message.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
Tons of a GAS. Billions.
And yet we still pump less than 1% of what is emitted by all other sources combined.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Kevin" wrote: ------------------------------------- I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! “Prediction is very difficult – especially if it is about the future.” - Niels Bohr ---------------------------------------- When you by them books and they eat the covers............
Lew
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kevin wrote:

And therein lies the problem, where "respected" apparently loses its meaning:
"And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers."
The "facts" are that the modeling data, which was the basis of the above statement, appears to have been destroyed/"misplaced", making peer review, if not impossible, too difficult to pursue.
This is very dubious "scientific method", and invites suspicion and doubt.
Are they that sloppy in their scientific method? Or do they have something to hide?
Come now, if they can't do a better job than this, "respect" does enter into the discussion.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kevin wrote:

Heh!
NATURE was one of the publications that boycotted climate-change skeptics.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

'most-respected'? And they engage in That level of rhetoric. 'formerly-respected' more like.
Climate models get tweaked to fit the expectations. BTST.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is climate-scepticism a "butch" thing?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:08:17 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin

What is the alarmist's new agenda? Perhaps...
"Well, we ran out of luck and they discovered our cheating. Let's keep the sham going and attack their masculinity. Yeah, that ought to keep them busy and let us get on with our devious plans until we can find a new angle to cheat 'em." We'll see, eh?
OMG, I just thought of something. If male skeptics are butch, and all you guys are alarmist _believers_, does that make you...?
-- Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm). -----------
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, Dear!
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:31:25 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"

Don't be calling me that, especially after you're de-closeted, mister.
-- Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it's "global warming" when there's a heat wave, but it's "climate change" when there's a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming. Am I missing something here? --Brett Stephens, WSJ Opinion 12/09/09
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, was the Benny Hill side. :o)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:30:02 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"

I never realized he was gay until someone pointed me at the Wiki for him after his death. He had some nice nekkid girls on his show and he faked the macho thing well, I guess.
-- Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it's "global warming" when there's a heat wave, but it's "climate change" when there's a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming. Am I missing something here? --Brett Stephens, WSJ Opinion 12/09/09
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html
Are you a Moron? I was gainfully Employed in Climate Research for three years. I have seen the tweaking.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:23:32 -0800 (PST), the infamous Kevin
Respected by whom? Perhaps fewer after that editorial.

Ah, neutrality at last! Hmm, or is it? The first paragraph
"The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551)."
as well as their denying that anything substantive came from the leaks, makes it appear that my hope was dashed. Begone, alarmists! That editorial sure as shit wasn't peer-reviewed, bubba.
Feh!
-- Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm). -----------
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Oh, and Russia now joins New Zealand and Australia for cherry-picked data to prove AGW::
<http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate - goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated- data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/>
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
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.