questionmark Posted November 17, 2009 #51 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Any Majority can be "wrong" in some scientific or political aspect As proven by the saying: Eat S h i t, 100 billion flies can't be wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARAB0D Posted November 17, 2009 #52 Share Posted November 17, 2009 As proven by the saying: Eat S h i t, 100 billion flies can't be wrong! Minority is not obliged to think like the majority - it is only obliged to act like the Majority. Also, a Minority has a right to express its opinion and try persuading the Majority that it is wrong. This particularly moment in AGW case the Minority failed to reach so far, as all explanations provided contradict one or another Physical Law. Ignorant Majority also includes a substantial numbers of scientists, whom the vocal Minority failed to persuade to date. I can see the frustration of this Minority, as it resorts to open insults, addressed to the Majority, thus turning a scientific discussion in a flea-market squabble, as if the insults can substantiate a scientific theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Monkey Posted November 17, 2009 #53 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Just posting these here for future reference, what I have read so far is very interesting: http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Recent_Coolingand_the_Serious_Data_Integrity_issue.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted November 17, 2009 #54 Share Posted November 17, 2009 There is no need to get on your high horse, it was a question in good faith and I would be genuinely interested in the science behind Lets try "Atmospheric Pressure". Venus' atmosphere is the other end of the pressure/thickness scale to Mars and also has a 95%+ CO2 atmosphere so one of them should be a candidate example for serious warming. My 'spurious arguments' would be about man-made global warming not global warming per se. There atmospheric equilibrium is being affect by millions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases being pumped out or by removal of carbon sinks like rainforest and phytoplankton. Any comparison is a meaningless one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted November 17, 2009 #55 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Just posting these here for future reference, what I have read so far is very interesting: http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Recent_Coolingand_the_Serious_Data_Integrity_issue.pdf Hang on, you won't address or accept scientific papers but you'll accept icecap.us . And NICPCC? The work Fred Singer, who btw took money off Philip Morris and the Tobacco institute for research. Sorry but he has proven himself to be a fraud already, why exactly should be trust him or his data? A man who did his work for Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted November 18, 2009 #56 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Hang on, you won't address or accept scientific papers but you'll accept icecap.us . And NICPCC? The work Fred Singer, who btw took money off Philip Morris and the Tobacco institute for research. Sorry but he has proven himself to be a fraud already, why exactly should be trust him or his data? A man who did his work for Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. I think you have to let them fight their Darbian War and at the end see that the Bridgewater's revenues goes down..no matter how many scientist Darby bought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Monkey Posted November 18, 2009 #57 Share Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) There atmospheric equilibrium is being affect by millions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases being pumped out or by removal of carbon sinks like rainforest and phytoplankton. Any comparison is a meaningless one. Why? Lets presume there are no carbon sinks or phytoplankton, lets presume the atmosphere is 95% CO2, lets presume we are on Venus or Mars....why wouldn't the planet be obviously warming ? Hang on, you won't address or accept scientific papers but you'll accept icecap.us . And NICPCC? The work Fred Singer, who btw took money off Philip Morris and the Tobacco institute for research. Sorry but he has proven himself to be a fraud already, why exactly should be trust him or his data? A man who did his work for Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. I am not addressing or accepting anything, just reading and asking. If what you say is correct then both the IPCC and the NIPCC take their money from somewhere politically motivated, it would be nice if equal ammounts of research cash were given by governmental bodies to come at the problem from each direction as they might meet in the middle. I read the IPCC report and now I read the NIPCC report, the NIPCC report interested me because it seems to ask some of the same questions that I had myself about the IPCC report, particularily relating to models/data acquisition/prediction and analysis. "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" - Neils Bohr I have told you before about my own experiences (and participation) with the fraud in peer-reviewed science, so I am not surprised when any scientist is caught being fraudulent, the difference is no-one based government policy and taxation on my ( or NIPCC ) fraud. Edited November 18, 2009 by Moon Monkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam12six Posted November 18, 2009 #58 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Why? Lets presume there are no carbon sinks or phytoplankton, lets presume the atmosphere is 95% CO2, lets presume we are on Venus or Mars....why wouldn't the planet be obviously warming ? I am not addressing or accepting anything, just reading and asking. If what you say is correct then both the IPCC and the NIPCC take their money from somewhere politically motivated, it would be nice if equal ammounts of research cash were given by governmental bodies to come at the problem from each direction as they might meet in the middle. I read the IPCC report and now I read the NIPCC report, the NIPCC report interested me because it seems to ask some of the same questions that I had myself about the IPCC report, particularily relating to models/data acquisition/prediction and analysis. "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" - Neils Bohr I have told you before about my own experiences (and participation) with the fraud in peer-reviewed science, so I am not surprised when any scientist is caught being fraudulent, the difference is no-one based government policy and taxation on my ( or NIPCC ) fraud. For a lot of us, this is the most important point of the whole thing. It's a whole lot easier to believe the data is being presented honestly when there's no one willing to pay for dishonest numbers. Some people will say Big Oil is paying for any dissenting opinions. OK, I can accept that possibility. Some people will say that Gore & Co are paying for pro man-made global warming opinions. I can accept that possibility. I have never heard (and can't imagine hearing) anyone ever make the argument that conservation is a bad thing. The problem with this entire debate is that what most of us are hearing from the GW proponents is, "We're not sure if there's a problem. Data indicates that there might be. If there is a problem, we definitely don't have a solution. Even though we don't have a solution to this possible problem, we're sure a carbon tax is government's proper response to the possible problem.". Now, there are some people who use stronger terms and claim the science clearly shows that there is a problem. These people also know of no solution to the problem. These people also think establishing a carbon credit market makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted November 18, 2009 #59 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Are you denying the polar bears are in danger? LOL yes they are. there are too many grizzlies and they are moving north to find food and mates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE MATRIX Posted November 18, 2009 #60 Share Posted November 18, 2009 it sure is, doing your best to pick the worse news possible so you can take away more freedoms from people. Daniel would you like me to make you a tin foil hat so that the government can't get you and take away your freedom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudo Intellectual Posted November 18, 2009 Author #61 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted November 18, 2009 #62 Share Posted November 18, 2009 with temperatures steadying or even decreasing is it a pure coincidence?? that since 1998 sunspots have been at their lowest and the temperature since 1998 has been dropping? Link September 3, 2009: NASA The sun is in the pits of the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century. Weeks and sometimes whole months go by without even a single tiny sunspot. The quiet has dragged out for more than two years, prompting some observers to wonder, are sunspots disappearing? Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted November 18, 2009 #63 Share Posted November 18, 2009 with temperatures steadying or even decreasing is it a pure coincidence?? that since 1998 sunspots have been at their lowest and the temperature since 1998 has been dropping? Link September 3, 2009: NASA The sun is in the pits of the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century. Weeks and sometimes whole months go by without even a single tiny sunspot. The quiet has dragged out for more than two years, prompting some observers to wonder, are sunspots disappearing? Link Yeah, maybe you should listen to about the 4 millionth post pointing out that 1998 was an anomalous year and any such correlation is worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted November 18, 2009 #64 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Why? Lets presume there are no carbon sinks or phytoplankton, lets presume the atmosphere is 95% CO2, lets presume we are on Venus or Mars....why wouldn't the planet be obviously warming ? Are you kidding me? That is ridiculous assertion make. They are not exponentially increasing their CO2 out put . You claim to understand data but THAT point alludes you! I am not addressing or accepting anything, just reading and asking.If what you say is correct then both the IPCC and the NIPCC take their money from somewhere politically motivated, it would be nice if equal ammounts of research cash were given by governmental bodies to come at the problem from each direction as they might meet in the middle. I read the IPCC report and now I read the NIPCC report, the NIPCC report interested me because it seems to ask some of the same questions that I had myself about the IPCC report, particularily relating to models/data acquisition/prediction and analysis. "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" - Neils Bohr I have told you before about my own experiences (and participation) with the fraud in peer-reviewed science, so I am not surprised when any scientist is caught being fraudulent, the difference is no-one based government policy and taxation on my ( or NIPCC ) fraud. No you are just picking something that fits your ideal, you completely ignored the papers I have put up. No but we could cause what in the short term would be irreparable damage to the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted November 18, 2009 #65 Share Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) Are you kidding me? That is ridiculous assertion make. They are not exponentially increasing their CO2 out put . You claim to understand data but THAT point alludes you! No you are just picking something that fits your ideal, you completely ignored the papers I have put up. No but we could cause what in the short term would be irreparable damage to the planet. it seems that you do not know much at all. venus is at it's max heat it can't get any hotter. martian temp in the summer is 70 degrees f. in the summer. but, 5 feet off the ground it is 40 degrees f. thinness of atmo. the temp on the sun is about 10,000 degrees. however those missing sun spots run at 100,000 degrees. so your right no problem with missing sun spots. i don't need to read some post by someone who excuses everything as being wrong because it disagrees with everything they want to be happening. Edited November 18, 2009 by danielost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted November 18, 2009 #66 Share Posted November 18, 2009 it seems that you do not know much at all. venus is at it's max heat it can't get any hotter. Is this like when you claimed the US state with the highest spending per student was the state with the lowest spending Prey tell, why can't it get hotter exactly? martian temp in the summer is 70 degrees f. in the summer. but, 5 feet off the ground it is 40 degrees f. thinness of atmo. Average planetary temperature is also -61°c so what? Do you have any point to make the temp on the sun is about 10,000 degrees. however those missing sun spots run at 100,000 degrees. so your right no problem with missing sun spots. i don't need to read some post by someone who excuses everything as being wrong because it disagrees with everything they want to be happening. What the hell are you on about? You haven't even addressed the basic point you have just posted some temperatures. Why not post a nice picture of the moon too? I'll put this in simple words for you daniel so it doesn't confuse you. 1) Talking about atmospheric concentration of CO2 on Mars and Venus is 100% irrelevant, they are not showing exponential growth like our atmospheric CO2 is and thus saying it has a lot of CO2 is pointless. 2) 1998 WAS an anomaly and you don't take a peak and say it was high here so we call it stop and call the preceding year decline or stabalisation, that is meaningless junk and has no value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Monkey Posted November 18, 2009 #67 Share Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) Are you kidding me? That is ridiculous assertion make. They are not exponentially increasing their CO2 out put . You claim to understand data but THAT point alludes you! No you are just picking something that fits your ideal, you completely ignored the papers I have put up. What assertation ? What point alludes me ? Exponentially increasing CO2 wqould led to 95% CO2 quite quickly. What models / data / predictions are you putting up ? Is it that I am not willing to simply bend over and take whatever I am told as a fact that bothers you, or is it that I ask questions that are difficult for you to answer ? Edited November 18, 2009 by Moon Monkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted November 18, 2009 #68 Share Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) What assertation ? What point alludes me ? Exponentially increasing CO2 wqould led to 95% CO2 quite quickly. What models / data / predictions are you putting up ? Is it that I am not willing to simply bend over and take whatever I am told as a fact that bothers you, or is it that I ask questions that are difficult for you to answer ? You assertions over the CO2 content of the atmospheres of Mars and Venus being relevant, it isn't. Quickly be what scale? Earth starts with a low CO2 content, how quickly do you think it will increase? Oh and sorry Monkey, you refused to acknowledge papers last time so why should I bother putting them up for you again, you want to address them you go find them, what bother me is that you make claims and refuse to address them. I posted papers from good sources and YOU ignored them saying you won't accept it with see it all. Well their is data in the papers, look at tell us why it is wrong. Edited November 18, 2009 by Mattshark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Monkey Posted November 18, 2009 #69 Share Posted November 18, 2009 You assertions over the CO2 content of the atmospheres of Mars and Venus being relevant, it isn't. Quickly be what scale? Earth starts with a low CO2 content, how quickly do you think it will increase? Oh and sorry Monkey, you refused to acknowledge papers last time so why should I bother putting them up for you again, you want to address them you go find them, what bother me is that you make claims and refuse to address them. I posted papers from good sources and YOU ignored them saying you won't accept it with see it all. Well their is data in the papers, look at tell us why it is wrong. Why are they not relevent ? It is a simple question. Whatever the 'base scale' may be surely a warming could still be noticed at 95%+ CO2. I refuse to acknowledge/approve any 'scientific' anything that I cannot judge / prove for myself....but you know that and seem unwilling to provide me with the models and data upon which you have based your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted November 19, 2009 #70 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Why are they not relevent ? It is a simple question. Whatever the 'base scale' may be surely a warming could still be noticed at 95%+ CO2. I refuse to acknowledge/approve any 'scientific' anything that I cannot judge / prove for myself....but you know that and seem unwilling to provide me with the models and data upon which you have based your opinion. Because they are not earth, they are not in the same location, they are not undergoing the same changes, they are not having the make up of their atmosphere altered, shall I go on? And the simply fact of course is that the solar system ISN'T warming. Yeah of course. You ignore that evidence but happily put out other stuff, you hypocrite. You are simply ignoring the data. Unless you can tell me why the data in the papers I gave you is flawed (and don't bs me with wanting to see the raw data for everything, its a weak hiding place and nothing more. If you knew anything about the subject you could critique the papers no problem) all I can presume is that you do not understand the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARAB0D Posted November 19, 2009 #71 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Because they are not earth, they are not in the same location, they are not undergoing the same changes, they are not having the make up of their atmosphere altered, shall I go on? And the simply fact of course is that the solar system ISN'T warming. Yeah of course. You ignore that evidence but happily put out other stuff, you hypocrite. You are simply ignoring the data. Unless you can tell me why the data in the papers I gave you is flawed (and don't bs me with wanting to see the raw data for everything, its a weak hiding place and nothing more. If you knew anything about the subject you could critique the papers no problem) all I can presume is that you do not understand the subject. Boy, take your time to get to 6 degrees thread and read 10 pages QM posted to prove a scientific nature of AGW. That word-rich document actually recommends to use the other planets' atmospheres as a model for study the earth global warming You are not scientific! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted November 19, 2009 #72 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Is this like when you claimed the US state with the highest spending per student was the state with the lowest spending Prey tell, why can't it get hotter exactly? Average planetary temperature is also -61°c so what? Do you have any point to make What the hell are you on about? You haven't even addressed the basic point you have just posted some temperatures. Why not post a nice picture of the moon too? I'll put this in simple words for you daniel so it doesn't confuse you. 1) Talking about atmospheric concentration of CO2 on Mars and Venus is 100% irrelevant, they are not showing exponential growth like our atmospheric CO2 is and thus saying it has a lot of CO2 is pointless. 2) 1998 WAS an anomaly and you don't take a peak and say it was high here so we call it stop and call the preceding year decline or stabalisation, that is meaningless junk and has no value. because it's atmo is holding as much heat as it can. of course i am not talking about minor changes, talking about major changes. i am sure that the night side gets cooler than the day side since it's day is longer than it's year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted November 19, 2009 #73 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Why are they not relevent ? It is a simple question. Whatever the 'base scale' may be surely a warming could still be noticed at 95%+ CO2. I refuse to acknowledge/approve any 'scientific' anything that I cannot judge / prove for myself....but you know that and seem unwilling to provide me with the models and data upon which you have based your opinion. that's because he bases his opionion on what the government says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Monkey Posted November 19, 2009 #74 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Because they are not earth, they are not in the same location, they are not undergoing the same changes, they are not having the make up of their atmosphere altered, shall I go on? And the simply fact of course is that the solar system ISN'T warming. Yes please do, a bit more scientifically if you don't mind. Yeah of course. You ignore that evidence but happily put out other stuff, you hypocrite. You are simply ignoring the data. Unless you can tell me why the data in the papers I gave you is flawed (and don't bs me with wanting to see the raw data for everything, its a weak hiding place and nothing more. If you knew anything about the subject you could critique the papers no problem) all I can presume is that you do not understand the subject. I am not 'putting out' or being hypocritical, I am not ignoring anything, I am simply open to the discussion. It seems you are not. I posted those links vecause I was reading them and found them interresting. If the NIPCC report is incorrect please tell me where the inaccuracies are. I understand data, models and prediction very well.....like I have said to you many times, I simply prefer to investigate for myself rather than taking things on blind faith for the reasons I have stated many times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted November 19, 2009 #75 Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) Boy, take your time to get to 6 degrees thread and read 10 pages QM posted to prove a scientific nature of AGW. That word-rich document actually recommends to use the other planets' atmospheres as a model for study the earth global warming You are not scientific! So you think thing spouting off how much atmospheric CO2 is in Mars' atmosphere is relevant to increasing CO2 levels on Earth? It isn't. that's because he bases his opionion on what the government says. Get lost Daniel, unlike you I have bothered to look at evidence and actually presented some from scientific sources. You are the one who is coming from the political side. Yes please do, a bit more scientifically if you don't mind. I am not 'putting out' or being hypocritical, I am not ignoring anything, I am simply open to the discussion. It seems you are not. I posted those links vecause I was reading them and found them interresting. If the NIPCC report is incorrect please tell me where the inaccuracies are. I understand data, models and prediction very well.....like I have said to you many times, I simply prefer to investigate for myself rather than taking things on blind faith for the reasons I have stated many times. No you said models were wrong and NEVER answered why instead you went off and said you won't acknowledge scientific papers. I told you why those links aren't reliable. I have asked you to tell me why the papers I posted are inaccurate. I can only presume you don't understand them. But just to make you feel less left out I'll give you a direct reply to the NIPCC from NASA's Gavin Schmidt and Penn States Michael Mann. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/not-the-ipcc-nipcc-report/ Scientific papers aren't blind faith, if you understood them you could critique them, I'll be waiting on the Edited November 19, 2009 by Mattshark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now