DC Tom Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 Looks like Talking Point Tom won't have a rebuttal until about 12:30 PM Monday once Limbaugh tells him what to think. Nothing to rebut. Make a point. Quote something you understand for once. Or maybe you can tell me again how the problem can be solved with technology that doesn't even exist that can be implemented for a tenth the cost of existing technology via the simple expident of violating basic physical laws. That was fun, last time you did that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 Or maybe you can tell me again how the problem can be solved with technology that doesn't even exist that can be implemented for a tenth the cost of existing technology via the simple expident of violating basic physical laws. But I mean come on man, you have to at least try. Put money into research, and try to roll out some of the technologies that we do have. You can't just do nothing. I mean, if you're going to discuss facts, you may as well have some. Right? Yep, and I don't have time or money to learn about or defend or present every bit of data regarding global warming. That is why I say, if you and Wacka know so much, convince the IPCC to change their minds. I promise they are not allergic to facts and indeed would likely love to be proven wrong as it would mean the planet is not falling apart. You would likely also be paid a good bit of money for your findings and make many people happy. There would then be a lot of companies who would no longer have to restructure themselves to use green technology, and they would save a lot of money. And I'm sure, since you have then proven to be so smart and know so much that so many others don't, that you would have a huge list of job offers and never be found wanting again. I too would be happy if you proved the IPCC wrong. Please do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 It's almost summer there, It's going to get warmer. The sheet is in one of the most northern portions of the continent, thence it will be warmer. There is an active volcano under the ice sheet nearby that lubricates the ice flowing to the sea and is probably warming the water there. The point is... Through the years, the rate of ablation is greater than the rate of accumulation. I agree, what the eff are we going to do... Myself? Nothing I am not going to get all worked up alongside the envios out there. This is one area wher I split with my fellow liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 I think it was you Connor who said he had no science background. Please discuss science when you have learned some. That holds even if you have had some classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 I think it was you Connor who said he had no science background. Please discuss science when you have learned some. That holds even if you have had some classes. If I've done anything except say "I trust these scientists", do let me know. I'm not even going to attempt to present or discuss the science of global warming. I only know that I trust those who have researched it the most and analyzed the data most closely. (You not fitting into that category) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 30, 2008 Author Share Posted November 30, 2008 Nothing to rebut. Make a point. Quote something you understand for once. I understand that actual scientists may know a little more about climatology than Talking Point Tom. American Association for the Advancement of Science The American Physical Society The Joint Science Academies at the 2008 G8 Summit International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences The National Research Council Federation of American Scientists The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change World Meteorogical Organization American Meteorogical Society International Union of Geological Sciences Geological Society of America American Geophysical Union American Astronomical Society The EPA The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration The InterAcademy Council Royal Meteorological Society Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences International Union for Quaternary Research American Quaternary Association International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London International Union of Geological Sciences European Geosciences Union Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences American Society for Microbiology American Statistical Association Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society European Academies of Sciences and Arts NASA American Institute of Physics Network of African Science Academies The European Science Foundation Stephen Hawking The CIA and the Pentagon American Chemical Society The Union of Concerned Scientists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 30, 2008 Author Share Posted November 30, 2008 1)It's 10% over the past 30 years, actually. 30% over the past 250. And solar variations have been measured in the past hundred or so years (this year was actually pretty low, which is probably why it was cooler than usual.) 2)And in discussing the planet's current warming trend, it's usually ignored that those measurements (from 1700 onward) are compared to an abnormal cooling trend (from about 1200 to 1600). 3)And paleoclimatological studies show that the current warming isn't even unprecedented...in fact, going back about a million years, periodic warming such as this is pretty common and regular. 4)And CO2 is a minor (not insignificant, mind you...but minor) contributor to greenhouse warming anyway. I mean, if you're going to discuss facts, you may as well have some. Right? You forgot to source your "facts". I'll do you a favor and fill them in for you. 1) Clown College alumni Penn Gillette 2) The Rusty and the Booze Hound Show, 1230AM, Billings Montana 3) Sarah Palin 4) Alaska Darin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 3)And paleoclimatological studies show that the current warming isn't even unprecedented...in fact, going back about a million years, periodic warming such as this is pretty common and regular. You forgot to source your "facts". I'll do you a favor and fill them in for you. 3) Sarah Palin Well here, we know you're just making sh-- up. Sarah Palin believes the world is only 6,000 years old, youbetcha. <wink> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 Connor and Elliot, what are your science backgrounds? I am a biologist and Tom is a physicist. We know what the scientific method is and the man-made global warming crowd is now a religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 30, 2008 Author Share Posted November 30, 2008 Connor and Elliot, what are your science backgrounds? I am a biologist and Tom is a physicist. We know what the scientific method is and the man-made global warming crowd is now a religion. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1231263 Real Scientists, not Buffalo Bills message board blowhards like you and Talking Point Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallie Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 connor, check out the definition of censensus before you add the word "all".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1231263 Real Scientists, not Buffalo Bills message board blowhards like you and Talking Point Tom. Why don't you tell us your background which appears to me to be a DNC parrot and someone that can cut and paste from web sites? What science courses have you taken (if any)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 I understand that actual scientists may know a little more about climatology than Talking Point Tom. American Association for the Advancement of Science The American Physical Society The Joint Science Academies at the 2008 G8 Summit International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences The National Research Council Federation of American Scientists The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change World Meteorogical Organization American Meteorogical Society International Union of Geological Sciences Geological Society of America American Geophysical Union American Astronomical Society The EPA The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration The InterAcademy Council Royal Meteorological Society Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences International Union for Quaternary Research American Quaternary Association International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London International Union of Geological Sciences European Geosciences Union Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences American Society for Microbiology American Statistical Association Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society European Academies of Sciences and Arts NASA American Institute of Physics Network of African Science Academies The European Science Foundation Stephen Hawking The CIA and the Pentagon American Chemical Society The Union of Concerned Scientists Once again, demonstrating your ability to quote other people yet yourself know nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 Elliot, You too can also belong to the AAAS and the ASM (I'll let you figure out which ones they are) if you subscribe to the journal Science or any of the ASM journals. I did when I was in grad school. What the hell is the ASM doing having an opinion on global warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 But I mean come on man, you have to at least try. Put money into research, and try to roll out some of the technologies that we do have. You can't just do nothing. I didn't say we shouldn't do research. I said we shouldn't be trying to low-ball rolling out technologies that don't even exist yet. See the difference? I actually WANT to see the research done. Yep, and I don't have time or money to learn about or defend or present every bit of data regarding global warming. That is why I say, if you and Wacka know so much, convince the IPCC to change their minds. I promise they are not allergic to facts and indeed would likely love to be proven wrong as it would mean the planet is not falling apart. You would likely also be paid a good bit of money for your findings and make many people happy. There would then be a lot of companies who would no longer have to restructure themselves to use green technology, and they would save a lot of money. And I'm sure, since you have then proven to be so smart and know so much that so many others don't, that you would have a huge list of job offers and never be found wanting again. I too would be happy if you proved the IPCC wrong. Please do it. Who said I said the IPCC is wrong? At my most pessimistic, I'd say they accidentally lucked into being right. The "science" behind global warming is well and truly pathetic at this point - what real science is being done on the subject is lost in a tidal wave of "An Inconvenient Truth" nonsense and pablum. My complaint about global warming is that the science is being done very, very badly: data analysis is often preordained according to strict rules designed to give a predetermined result (e.g. linear regression performed for no reason other than "everyone else is doing it", and on a non-linear system no less); contrary data is ignored as a matter of convention and doctrine with no consideration given to the quality of the data (e.g. the aforementioned paleoclimatological studies), a lack of understanding of the normal modes of the climatological system resulting in conclusions that are impossible to verify (e.g. can anyone actually tell me how common three degrees of warming over a half-century is?) Hell, I went through half a dozen papers last night (real papers, not the bull sh-- elliot links to)...not one had any estimates of error, in measurement or data analysis. That, in itself, is patently ridiculous, and demonstrates how poor the quality of the science is on the topic. Again, I want to see the science done. And I know ecologists and ecological engineers who feel the same way. As for the IPCC being open to facts...you're kidding, right? You honestly believe The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is open to anything that contradicts their funded mandate? The IPCC is part of the reason the science sucks so badly: they're not a scientific organization, they're a policy organization that forces a specific, narrow point of view on the scientific community, and one of the best examples I know of for keeping government out of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 The earth has actually cooled the last 8 or nine years. The same period coincides with Solar Minimum: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/im...n_predict_l.gif I'm just saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 Once again, demonstrating your ability to quote other people yet yourself know nothing. When Elliot gets like that, he reminds me of an Evangelical Preacher citing bible verses to prove the return of Jesus is at hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 What the hell is the ASM doing having an opinion on global warming? Grant money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environme...nvironment.html The Inquisition, What a Show! The Inquisition, Here We Go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 You forgot to source your "facts". I'll do you a favor and fill them in for you. 1) Clown College alumni Penn Gillette 2) The Rusty and the Booze Hound Show, 1230AM, Billings Montana 3) Sarah Palin 4) Alaska Darin You're kidding, right? You can look up EVERYTHING I posted. The CO2 measurements are everywhere - you'd have to be a total pinhead to not find them. Ditto the cooling from the 1200's to the 1600's...the Little Ice Age is well-documented. Measurements of solar activity: you can get the raw data at http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/getdata.html. A few useful ones (e.g. calcium radiation emissions) go back about a hundred years, sunspot counts go back three hundred. Here's a study that derives activity for the past eleven thousand years. The paleoclimatological studies I refer to were written up a couple of years ago in Scientific American. Here's a nice, more rigorous and yet - in deference to your idiocy, easier to read - reference to Nature for you. You can follow citations from there for other examples and more data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts