#301
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
On Apr 22, 10:29 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
You have to be aware that the temperature monitoring stations have gone from being in clear countryside with farmland or forest around them to being inside of city limits or suburban areas. This has caused a definite increase in MONITORED temperatures that hasn't been (and cannot intelligently be) corrected for. Individual stations all over the world have shown no changes or even downward trends. What's more, it isn't known if "global temperature averages" even mean anything at all. I believe you're referring to #19 on this list: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php At other times, you've also used #1, #6, #11, #15, #18, #23, and #26. Plus, that "Marco Polo sailed to the North Pole" thing. |
Ads |
#302
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
Howard Kveck wrote:
RBR protocol says that should be "tapped" rather than "nailed." Unless you really did nail this person. Ok, tapped. I like "nailed" because David Letterman once said a highlight of a Clinton State of the Union address was when Clinton pointed out all the women he had nailed in the gallery. It seemed so very presidential. Of course, "tapping" gets used in "The Usual Suspects" so that has a cool history as well. -- Bill Asher |
#303
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
Jack Hollis wrote:
On 22 Apr 2008 00:11:06 GMT, William Asher wrote: My point is that you don't and didn't have any personal recollection of what climate scientists said in the 70's any more than you know what they are saying today. Your point is wrong. I remember the media reporting that scientists were predicting that we were headed for an ice age. These reports persisted for a few years and were reported in multiple news sources. I would also be interested to know how you know what I remember or don't remember. Jack: Here is what you said: "Actually Bill, very few people would deny that it has some impact. However, the question is how much. Unfortunately, the earth's climate is so complex that science is unable to prove the point one way or the other. I'm old enough to remember the climatologists warning that we were heading for an ice age in the 1970s, so I'm skeptical of anything they say." Now I find that instead of you remembering what climatologists said, you are in fact remembering what the media said climatologists said. That is very different, and, as has been demonstrated by the climatologists at RealClimate.org, what the media were reporting was not in fact what the climatologists were saying. If you had bothered to read the RealClimate.org article you would understand this. But you didn't, so you look, well, silly. That you weren't "remembering" what actual climatologists had said is precisely my point. Your memory of historical fact is faulty and clearly not objective. Since you have demonstrated your non-objectivity, as far as I am concerned it casts grave doubts on your ability to objectively analyze the science associated with climate change. You ought to be very nervous about your intellectual position when Kunich is agreeing with you. -- Bill Asher |
#304
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
Tom Kunich wrote:
"Jack Hollis" wrote in message ... So when it comes to human and global warming, I'm an agnostic. It's the only sensible way to look at it. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...Change_Rev_png Tom: Are you using that graph to show that paleo climate is really complicated? If you are, one of the things you should focus on is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) section, and the explanation below on that page. Note how this very large positive temperature excursion is thought to be due to forcing from methane (a greenhouse gas) due to destabilization of methane hydrates. Did you know that one predicted effect of global warming is destabilization of methane hydrates? So yeah, duh, climate is variable, but even within the "natural" variability there are more than enough signs that it is rarely a good idea to dumps a lot of excess radiatively active gas into the atmosphere. Precisely what were you getting at with this figure? That Jack's "only sensible way to look at it" is basically an ostrich-like approach to the problem or are you simply reaffirming my core belief that both you and Jack know diddly about climate physics? -- Bill Asher |
#305
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
In article ,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: "Jack Hollis" wrote in message ... On 22 Apr 2008 00:11:06 GMT, William Asher wrote: You are simply repeating what you were told today by paid climate skeptics who play people like you like cheap fiddles. They say, you parrot, and it gives you some measure of reassurance to continue on with your lifestyle. Complete rubbish. What is really funny is this sort of crap coming from someone touting "reports" from the UN in which the "study" directors REWROTE sections of other scientists reports and made absolutely false claims concerning the opinions of those other scientists. What is *really* funny is the number of times this assertion has been knocked down yet you persist in making it. -- tanx, Howard Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky? He got an icepick That made his ears burn. remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#306
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
On 22 Apr 2008 19:05:00 GMT, William Asher wrote:
Now I find that instead of you remembering what climatologists said, you are in fact remembering what the media said climatologists said. That is very different, and, as has been demonstrated by the climatologists at RealClimate.org, what the media were reporting was not in fact what the climatologists were saying. The media was right that climate scientists were predicting that the earth was heading for an ice age. That fact has been proven. I'm not even ready to say that they were wrong, because for all we know the earth might be heading for an ice age. This is becoming tedious. The fact that science is unable to prove how much human are contributing to the current warming trend, if at all, is undisputable. And anyone who thinks that science can, doesn't understand science. I have no more to say on the issue. |
#307
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
Jack Hollis wrote:
The media was right that climate scientists were predicting that the earth was heading for an ice age. That fact has been proven. If you take the view that a small minority represents all climate scientists then the "fact" is "proven". You might even find a few biologists who "believe" in intelligent design Given the fact that there were no super computers able to provide climate models in the 1970's its hardly surprising that some got it wrong. |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
On Apr 22, 5:03 pm, Jack Hollis wrote:
I have no more to say on the issue. "More?" |
#309
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
On Apr 15, 7:34 pm, "Carl Sundquist" wrote:
It's quite likely Jim Bob Dugger from Arkansas. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...chive/2005/10/... Although they're up to 17 kids (currently). Order up more Tater Tots. No. 18 on the way: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNE710JVDR.DTL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Damn Global Warming | Tom Kunich | Racing | 16 | February 9th 08 04:44 AM |
A little global warming | WeaselPoopPower | Racing | 1 | November 16th 07 06:47 AM |
Global Warming | Tom Kunich | Racing | 212 | November 16th 07 02:41 AM |
Global Warming | Richard Bates | UK | 84 | July 25th 04 11:58 PM |