|
|
|
|
 |
MalcolmR
 |
|
.
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/120-greenhouse-gas-debate-sees-believers-resort-to-false-claims-and-appeals-to-authority
From the lengthy email exchanges the Slayers had with Professor Grant Petty, of University Wisconsin Madison, we are assured he is a very fine scientist.
However, when it comes to defending his beliefs in the GHE Petty resorted to hand waving, pseudo-scientific claims by asserting the GHE was real because, he said, NASA had measured it. Wrong, Dr. Petty, they haven’t.
Now contrast and compare to the Slayers’ more rigorous approach. For example, recent Slayer recruit, Professor Nasif Nahle, performed a robust replication of RW Wood’s famous 1909 experiment in his laboratories at Monterrey, Mexico in which he demonstrated there is no empirical scientific support for the greenhouse effect. |
Even a very fine scientist cannot find evidence and simply assumes it's true.
The first duty of a scientist is to be a sceptic until he sees the evidence. NASA has no evidence of global warming caused by human production of CO2 and none supporting the greenhouse gas supposition effect. None.
Petty is not alone in making that mistake. Many scientists outside the climate field simply assumed the greenhouse effect and anthropogenic (human caused) global warming was true.
When they noticed some things don't tally, the truly scientific scientists eventually asked themselves questions. In searching for the answers they discovered the reality. Now there are thousands of scientists who have changed camps and become AGW sceptics as a result of simply asking basic questions about AGW.
If scientists have been fooled so easily, it was easy to dupe politicians.
Strong scientists with well-developed spirit of inquiry, strong integrity and strength of character rectify their error. Sadly, many politicians do not. They seemingly lack the strength of character to admit errors. To protect their arse and their ego they keep spouting climate crap.
The human condition.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/119-an-array-of-errors
The Slayers group of scientists formed to examine the greenhouse gas warming supposition. They exposed it as unscientific nonsense.
Aware of extensive damage to science by the global warming bandwagon misrepresenting science, they're broadening into other fields of science via their recently formed Principia Scientific International.
They see a huge need to restore and protect science.
Science is essential for advances in safety, security, health, wellness, ease, comfort, wealth, ...
We cannot afford the destruction of science. Science is essential to our modern way of life. it makes life easier, safer, more comfortable, more productive and efficient, it protects the environment.
Please protect science and our way of life. Debunk BS AGW.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Study finds coral reef growth thrives in warmer waters
BY: AMOS AIKMAN From: The Australian February 03, 2012 6:00AM
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Europe cold snap claims 160 lives
Quote from marine biology professor Maria Byrne in the preceding post on coral reefs: | "Temperature rules metabolism, so it's a no-brainer that if you get more temperature you will get more metabolism." |
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
WSJ Opinion: Climate Change Crack-Up
| Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming. |
By the way, as an aside, he's a physicist yet doesn't seem to understand the reality that Nature alone determines the level of CO2 in the air. That's the scientific conclusion being drawn by scientists on ice core analysis of past CO2 levels and from the CO2 data used by the UN IPCC itself covering the last half century. It's obvious.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12910/Planet-Healer-Obama-Calls-It-In-2008-he-declared-his-presidency-would-result-in-the-rise-of-the-oceans-beginning-to-slow--And-By-2011-Sea-Level-Drops
| Obama Calls It: In 2008, he declared his presidency would result in 'the rise of the oceans beginning to slow' -- And By 2011, Sea Level Drops! |
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Weather cycles cause a drop in global sea level, scientists find
Let's get this straight then: according to JPL funded by government, weather cycles cause lower sea levels. Yet human production of CO2 causes sea levels to rise.
Let's forget that global atmospheric temperatures have not risen since 1998.
Still waiting, CR-V9, for your scientifically measured real-world empirical evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest cyclic global atmospheric warming that ended around 1998. A second question: are you still relying on NASA and JPl for your unfounded and unscientific belief?
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Exposing the great propagandist David Viner misrepresenting science and scaring kids.
And possibly the most widely read story ever on climate alarm
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
Paid for by taxpayers abused by wasteful government
Why are governments using taxpayer money to con taxpayers into more taxes?
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
CR-V9, how's your belief in NASA these days?
Exposing NASA GISS's James Hansen corrupting science, climate and Nature.
http://www.real-science.com/hansen-dragging-science-historical-lows
For those who don't know, James Hansen is NASA's leading pusher of BS AGW. He is Al Gore's science adviser. He is a supporter of the UN IPCC. He has been exposed as having conflicts of financial interests in pushing BS AGW. He has been shown to serially corrupt science to misrepresent climate.
Still waiting, CR-V9, for your scientifically measured real-world empirical evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest cyclic global atmospheric warming that ended around 1998.
A second question, CR-V9: are you still relying on NASA and JPL for your unfounded belief that contradicts empirical science?
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
NASA Astronaut Urges NASA to Debunk the Current Hysteria Over Global Warming
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and author of more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers, also now points to natural causes of recent climate changes. “The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities,” Vaughan told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on February 6, 2009.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1318281701.html
By the way, the number of scientists making this declaration is now over 1,000. That's just with the US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Global warming engine slows.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/02/03/global-warming-engine-unexpectedly-slows/
| Preliminary reports from the Energy Information Administration’s “Annual Energy Outlook” (which will be fully published in April) suggest that any carbon crisis may not be quite as imminent as thought. Not so long ago, the EIA predicted carbon emissions levels would rise by 37 percent between 2005 and 2035. The EIA — get this – now thinks that global CO2 emissions in 2025 will be 6 percent lower than they were in 2005. |
Talking of the agency's previous quotes now erroneous:| An astrologer would throw up his hands in dismay at this sloppy reasoning and hazy science. |
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
More Than 1000 International Scientists
Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk Fading “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009 & 2010
And counting.
| Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, is a former Division Chief of NASA‟s Marshall Space Flight Center and authored more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers, and currently is a research professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Vaughan, who is a member of the American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the American Meteorological Society (AMS), declared his dissent from man-made climate fears in 2009. ―The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities,‖ Vaughan told Environment and Public Works Committee on February 6, 2009. "I believe that natural causes and associated global environment trends may well have beneficial effects for humanity and wildlife and governmental actions to significantly modify them will be ineffective if implemented and a waste of resources,‖ Vaughan explained. ―I accept that there are local and, perhaps, regional man-made effects on the environment like ̳heat islands‘ and ̳pollutants that accumulate in a valley,‘ for example, where effective efforts can be made to modify detrimental local environmental effects. However, these man-made local effects are on a scale significantly smaller than what is occurring under the envelope of global climate effects caused by nature,‖ Vaughan explained. ―Also, I believe any governmental efforts to control global warming caused by nature will be essentially ineffective. Adapting to changes in the climate caused by natural effects will be far more productive. Something life on the Earth has been doing for thousands of years and will continue to do so for thousands of more years I suspect. The civilizations and associated productivity we have today is the product of the natural climate changes that have occurred on the Earth in the past,‖ he concluded. |
Malcolm
:)
|
CR-V9
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.
WSJ Opinion: Climate Change Crack-Up
| Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming. |
By the way, as an aside, he's a physicist yet doesn't seem to understand the reality that Nature alone determines the level of CO2 in the air. That's the scientific conclusion being drawn by scientists on ice core analysis of past CO2 levels and from the CO2 data used by the UN IPCC itself covering the last half century. It's obvious.
Malcolm
:)
|
Prof. " ... that our industrial emissions are casuing a warming. ..."
Prof. "I suppose it's possible that emisions do do cause a warming but this would suggest not as much as many people thought."
Prof. "Yes, I think most people, like me, believe that industrial emissions will cause warming, but just much less than has been predicted by many computer models." So you're saying he doesn't know what he is talking about?
|
CR-V9
|
|
So your argument is consensus vs consensus?
I thought you said consensus don't matter before? Whatever.
|
CR-V9
|
|
A GOVERNMENT-RUN research body has found in an extensive study of corals spanning more than 1000km of Australia's coastline that the past 110 years of ocean warming has been good for their growth.
[ ... ]
Quite the opposite, in fact: for their southern samples, where ocean temperatures are the coolest but have warmed the most, coral growth increased most significantly over the past 110 years.
[ ... ] And another article on the same subject, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=corals-more-threatened-by-temperature-than-acidifying-ocean [ ... ]
They found that those Porites at the southern end of Australia's west coast have been growing thicker and thicker homes in recent decades as the colder ocean water warms. Farther north, the reverse is true: Porites in already warm subtropical and tropical waters suffer as the ocean heats too much.
[ ... ]
But a flaw in this study may prove to be the monthly temperature records used. Corals respond to temperatures on the scale of days or weeks—hence bleaching events in the Great Barrier Reef or elsewhere in the world—that can then "slow colony growth for years," says marine biologist John Bruno of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who also studies corals but was not involved in this research. "Unfortunately, this [temperature] information does not exist." It is such fine-grained data on local temperature changes that would be needed to better understand how temperature, acidity and coral growth interact, although it is becoming increasingly clear that impacts from warmer ocean temperatures will determine the fate of coral reefs.
[ ... ]
I don't know why or what for you're waiting from a stupid, dishonest, reckless and whatelse(?) lier?
I've already given up on an apology.
|
P54
|
|
Something for us all to consider:
Why People Believe Misinformation, Even After It's Corrected
http://gma.yahoo.com/why-people-believe-misinformation-even-corrected-162943705--abc-news.html
The more strongly they believed they were right, the more efficient they were at accepting and remembering a correction.
But these days the world is a classroom. Through social media, the Internet, email, and all those technologies that link us together tighter than ever before, we are vulnerable to one of the strongest memory enhancers: repetition.
"People are exposed (to misinformation) over and over again, so it's no wonder that people come to believe it," Butler said. "When they do, if they believe it very strongly, our study shows it's very easy to correct this in the short term. But as they go on about their lives, over time, they forget it. They remember the misinformation."
The Duke study is limited by the fact that the questions were relatively benign. If the questions were highly emotional, as is so often the case these days on subjects ranging from global climate change to presidential elections, the results might be quite different.
"People want to believe or disbelieve certain things," Butler said. "Our research assumes people are open to correction. People who don't want to believe in another candidate, for example, may not be open to even considering that the new information is correct."
So let's stick to science, not politics.
What is stored in a camel's hump? Water? Wrong. And you probably really believed that. Check back next week. |
|
CR-V9
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/119-an-array-of-errors
The Slayers group of scientists formed to examine the greenhouse gas warming supposition. They exposed it as unscientific nonsense.
Aware of extensive damage to science by the global warming bandwagon misrepresenting science, they're broadening into other fields of science via their recently formed Principia Scientific International.
They see a huge need to restore and protect science.
Science is essential for advances in safety, security, health, wellness, ease, comfort, wealth, ...
We cannot afford the destruction of science. Science is essential to our modern way of life. it makes life easier, safer, more comfortable, more productive and efficient, it protects the environment.
Please protect science and our way of life. Debunk BS AGW.
Malcolm
:)
|
Dr. Curry's blog, Climate Etc, is way too technical to me. I couldn't read through it. I gave up after 10~15 minutes or so. I stick with simpler ones.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/
Anyway, these are Dr. Curry's comments on a book "Slaying the Sky Dragon",
from her introduction to the thread, [ ... ] I was hoping to put to rest any skeptical debate about the basic physics of gaseous infrared radiative transfer. There are plenty of things to be skeptical about, but IMO this isn't one of them.
Well, my statement has riled the authors of Slaying the Sky Dragon. I have been involved in extensive email discussion with the authors plus an additional 10 or so other individuals (skeptics). Several of these individuals on John O'Sullivan's email list actually agree with my assessment, even though they regard themselves as staunch AGW skeptics.
Johnson's first chapter is entitled "Climate Thermodynamics", which presents an energy budget for the earth and its atmosphere that does not include infrared radiation. The second chapter is entitled "Computational Black Body Radiation", which seeks to overturn the last 100 years of modern physics and concludes that "back radiation is unphysical". [ ... ]
from the thread, curryja | January 31, 2011 at 8:06 am |
Kai, the first chapter rests on the result of the 2nd chapter (they are both written by Claes Johnson), i.e. there is no back radiation and atmospheric infrared radiative transfer is not important in the earth's energy balance. So if Ch 2 is crackpot, then Ch 1 is also.
curryja | January 31, 2011 at 8:31 am | Reply
Well yes, you admit to solar radiation and black body radiation. But your treatment in the first chapter completely omits atmospheric gases (and cloud) infrared radiative transfer (and includes that ludicrously incorrect diagram from more than 10 years ago that somehow continues to exist on a NASA web site).
curryja | February 7, 2011 at 5:45 am |
This diagram apparently first appeared in a doc designed for K-12 education. The names Eric Barron (currently president of Florida State University) and John Theon were on the doc (back when theon was still employed at NASA and Barron was at Penn State, which places it in the mid 90¨«s). But I assume this diagram was drawn by a staff person, and Barron didn't pay close attention. That is the only way I can explain this. Somehow John O'Sullivan spotted this (or at least publicized this). And it sits on a web site to the present day. In spite of my contacting several people about this. The bottom line is that there is too much form and not enough substance oversight on public communication documents (as opposed to satellite data quality issues, where there is a lot of oversight and checks and balance in place at NASA).
curryja | January 31, 2011 at 9:31 am | Reply
You can see why I am personally not taking this on in any detail, it is just endless. You incorrectly state Kichoff's Law. ¥á¥ë = ¥å¥ë, where Lambda should be a subscript. it says that at a particular wavelength, the fractional absorptivity equals the fractional emissivity, where the fractional part is relative to the intensity of black body radiation at that wavelength. So if an oxygen molecule at temperature 200K receives a bunch of solar radiation in the ultraviolet bands, it will also emit in the ultraviolet bands, but because the oxygen molecule is relatively cold, there is almost no actual energy emitted by an oxygen molecule with temperature of 200K. Your next sentence is a mistaken interpretation of very basic elements of the kinetic theory of gases. And on and on . . .
My point in not rebutting all this personally is that I would need to spend an hour on each incorrect sentence to try to educate people that don't already understand this. Roy Spencer and scienceofdoom have already tried. And there are hundreds of such sentences to rebuke.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/
|
MalcolmR
|
|
CR-V9 wrote:
MalcolmR wrote:
.
WSJ Opinion: Climate Change Crack-Up
| Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming. |
By the way, as an aside, he's a physicist yet doesn't seem to understand the reality that Nature alone determines the level of CO2 in the air. That's the scientific conclusion being drawn by scientists on ice core analysis of past CO2 levels and from the CO2 data used by the UN IPCC itself covering the last half century. It's obvious.
Malcolm
:)
|
Prof. " ... that our industrial emissions are casuing a warming. ..."
Prof. "I suppose it's possible that emisions do do cause a warming but this would suggest not as much as many people thought."
Prof. "Yes, I think most people, like me, believe that industrial emissions will cause warming, but just much less than has been predicted by many computer models." So you're saying he doesn't know what he is talking about?
|
.
CR-V9:
Do you not read my responses to your posts? I've explained to you more than once that on the topic of the so-called greenhouse warming supposition[/URL] there are three broad groups of scientists:
• those who believe in the greenhouse warming supposition and say it will cause (future) catastrophe;
• those who believe in the greenhouse warming supposition yet say it's impact is either negligible or more than offset by Nature's own negative feedbacks. Professor Happer is clearly in this group;
• those who say that the greenhouse warming supposition is complete nonsense and contradicts laws of Nature.
As I've said, there are scientists in all three groups, with eminent scientists especially in the second and third. Although I am not an eminent scientist, like many scientists and engineers I initially assumed the second. I even wrote an article on the greenhouse supposition for a genuine environmental group. Until I started asking myself questions and was challenged by people.
So I investigated. As a result I moved from the second group to the third.
You see, CR-V9 I am sufficiently confident in my knowledge of climate to accept that there are responsible scientists in various categories.
It's remarkable that even many eminent scientists initially assumed AGW (anthropogenic global warming) was real because climate is not their field. They're human. When something stirred their curiosity or doubt though and they researched they came out against the false claims/assumptions.
eg, http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore
Consider climate scientist and environmental policy adviser Professor Tim Ball, who I consider to be the greatest mind on climate and CO2. His recall of facts and his perception are highly impressive. He initially assumed that the greenhouse warming supposition was correct. After questioning himself he changed. He moved from the second group to the third.
By the way, I changed my mind before Professor Tim Ball changed his public position. It's nice though to have his expert validation. Especially given his depth and breadth of knowledge on CO2 and climate.
He even became a co-author in the international team of scientists, engineers and writers who wrote the book Slaying the Sky Dragon. More to come on that in a future response to another of your posts.
Note something significant about the first group: they hold that view despite the lack of real-world empirical evidence. They rely purely on either theory or other people's opinions. Yet those in the second and third group know their overall conclusion is strongly rooted in empirical science. Measurements show the world is not heating catastrophically, nor will it heat catastrophically.
Thus the first group reveals that even scientists sometimes ignore science's ultimate arbiter: real-world empirical observation.
It's significant that this group is heavily represented by scientists funded by governments driving a policy of taxing or pricing CO2.
The first group contradicts real-world empirical science. Like you, they contradict the core of science.
The second and third groups agree on the empirical science because that's hard numbers and observations. They differ in their interpretation of theories. I can live with that. That's how science advances.
I wonder why you seem to selectively take Prof William Happer out of context. His overall conclusion is clear: we do not need to take action on BS AGW.
Your response is very revealing CR-V9. About you.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
CR-V9 wrote:
So your argument is consensus vs consensus?
I thought you said consensus don't matter before? Whatever.
|
.
CR-V9:
Ah, you do read some of my posts.
To answer your questions:
No, my argument is not consensus vs consensus. Consensus is not science. Consensus is not the arbiter and determinant of science.
I have consistently said consensus is not science. Scientifically measured, real-world empirical evidence is the arbiter and determinant of science.
Feel better now?
Why do you have these lapses, CR-V9.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
CR-V9 wrote:
A GOVERNMENT-RUN research body has found in an extensive study of corals spanning more than 1000km of Australia's coastline that the past 110 years of ocean warming has been good for their growth.
[ ... ]
Quite the opposite, in fact: for their southern samples, where ocean temperatures are the coolest but have warmed the most, coral growth increased most significantly over the past 110 years.
[ ... ] And another article on the same subject, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=corals-more-threatened-by-temperature-than-acidifying-ocean [ ... ]
They found that those Porites at the southern end of Australia's west coast have been growing thicker and thicker homes in recent decades as the colder ocean water warms. Farther north, the reverse is true: Porites in already warm subtropical and tropical waters suffer as the ocean heats too much.
[ ... ]
But a flaw in this study may prove to be the monthly temperature records used. Corals respond to temperatures on the scale of days or weeks—hence bleaching events in the Great Barrier Reef or elsewhere in the world—that can then "slow colony growth for years," says marine biologist John Bruno of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who also studies corals but was not involved in this research. "Unfortunately, this [temperature] information does not exist." It is such fine-grained data on local temperature changes that would be needed to better understand how temperature, acidity and coral growth interact, although it is becoming increasingly clear that impacts from warmer ocean temperatures will determine the fate of coral reefs.
[ ... ]
I don't know why or what for you're waiting from a stupid, dishonest, reckless and whatelse(?) lier?
I've already given up on an apology.
|
.
Thank you, CR-V9.
You provided | And another article on the same subject, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=corals-more-threatened-by-temperature-than-acidifying-ocean |
Your article is headed | Temperatures--Not Acid--Could Cook Coral to Death |
Are you implying Could is now scientific proof?
The article's opening paragraph is false and contradicts reality and science| One of the biggest natural tragedies of recent years is the deterioration of Australia's Great Barrier Reef, a vast structure of coral off the continent's east coast that supports a profusion of wildlife. In addition to overfishing and nutrient pollution, the world's largest natural structure has suffered from rising ocean temperatures. |
I've posted articles and links in this TOV thread showing that scientists and marine operators say that the Great Barrier Reef is thriving. Some even say it's in the best condition they've ever seen it.
Here's a link not posted before. Professor Peter Ridd lives on the coast at the heart of the reef.
http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/barrier-reef-still-pristine-despite-concerns-scientist/1532999.aspx
| As a physical oceanographer, his area of interest has been sediment transportation, and his conclusion is there is no significant threat to the reef from human activity and he is adamant cane farmers are not killing the GBR. |
| He recently told the Australian Cane Farmers Association conference delegates there is no better coral reef ecosystem than the GBR - itias virtually undisturbed, and most is well offshore. |
Do you see this comment from him?| It's been there since the sea level rose 80,000 years ago. |
Again, in reference to your quotes highlighted, why do you take them out of context, CR-V9? Why do you see the need to do that yet again?
By the way, CR-V9 does Professor Ridd's statement on sea level trigger any thoughts in your mind? It rose 120 metres. From memory of a notice in a museum near the northern portion of the great barrier reef around 8,000 years ago sea level rose 30 metres.
The article clearly emphasises that empirical science (measurements) show benefit from warming. That is consistent with past science and with the reality that many of Earth's current coral reefs formed when Earth's past temperature was far warmer than it is today.
I live near the southern tip of the Great Barrier Reef. During our record cold temperatures in the winter of 2008, southern parts of the reef bleached. Bleaching is a reaction of the symbiotic algae-coral relationship. It's natural and a proven response to changes in temperature. All natural and normal, CR-V9.
CR-V9, I've posted on supposed acidification before. The oceans are decidedly alkaline. Their alkalinity levels have fluctuated normally within constant ranges. Why do such articles claim acidification?
Why do you believe them?
Here's something you can play with CR-V9. http://www.marine.csiro.au/~lband/web_point/
By clicking on the southern portion of the Great Barrier Reef the map outline will produce the water temperature. Then clicking on the northern portion of the reef provides the temperature there. On some days the difference between the southern and northern tips is 4-5 degrees.
In other words along the reef the difference in temperature on any day in the present is around double the most alarming claimed forecast temperature change.
The wildest forecast is well below some of Earth's past changes in temperature through which coral has survived. Indeed, thrived.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading your last two lines, CR-V9,I don't know why or what for you're waiting from a stupid, dishonest, reckless and whatelse(?) lier?
I've already given up on an apology. |
I don't think ill of you for lying. I simply do not trust your posts nor your words anymore. That's disappointing. I enjoy engaging in meaningful discussions with people I can respect.
Yes, you did apologise for one comment. One of seven of your lies that I listed at the time. See my post dated 01-09-2012 18:30 in the thread entitled 'Are You Paying Attention?' http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=985287&page_number=8&
I said in that post| As you can see CR-V9, your lies are not about BS AGW. Your blatantly false and/or reckless statements are about me and my credibility |
As I said in my post 01-16-2012 19:41As I understand your response to my long list (seven)of your lies, you acknowledged one of your lies and apologised for it (On the TOV thread entitled 'Are you paying attention?' at 01-09-2012 07:34). What about the remaining lies listed, CR-V9?
By saying nothing about them it seems you're allowing them to stand as lies?
|
My need is to be able to trust you knowing that you're doing your best to avoid what you list as foolishness, stupidity, recklessness, dishonesty and lies.
I'd prefer to engage in open discussion with you CR-V9. I do not see you as a demon. I simply see you as someone not willing to acknowledge that he went a bit far in his game or his debating tactics.
I don't even need an apology. I simply need acknowledgment that you are conscious of what you are saying and conscious of the consequences of your behaviour on others at TOV. Here's my request: would you be willing please to acknowledge your behaviour and perhaps explain why you chose that behaviour in responding to people on TOV?
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
CR-V9:
Your quotes from Judith Curry are laughable. She failed to do her homework. Tim Casey is a scientist who went to the papers of the early scientists such as Tyndall, Fourier, Arrhenius, ... the so-called fathers of the greenhouse warming supposition. He read their work and found that they didn't understand the fundamentals. That was compounded by their peers misinterpreting their work. Added to that has been the bastardisation of their work by the UN IPCC. And the fraudulent fabrication of the imaginary greenhouse effect.
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/ and http://tyndall1861.geologist-1011.mobi/ combined with some simple, honest critical thinking and questioning produced http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
There are funny stories about Arrhenius' ego. He awarded himself a Nobel Prize and then was removed from the awarding group. His later paper on the greenhouse warming supposition estimated a warming less than half his early estimates.
On this mess Judith Curry bases her comments. She claims 100 years of physics. That's nonsense. What we've seen is that 100 years of modern physics has exposed the basis on which she rests her claim as false. She smashes her own credibility.
You build your case on this naive and error-riddled early science disproven by more modern science and empirical measurements trampled by UN IPCC errors, ignorance and fraud.
Malcolm
:)
|
P54
|
|
EPA’s Carbon Dioxide Rules Endanger Human Health and Welfare
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.11540/pub_detail.asp
|
CR-V9
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
CR-V9 wrote:
MalcolmR wrote:
.
WSJ Opinion: Climate Change Crack-Up
| Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming. |
By the way, as an aside, he's a physicist yet doesn't seem to understand the reality that Nature alone determines the level of CO2 in the air. That's the scientific conclusion being drawn by scientists on ice core analysis of past CO2 levels and from the CO2 data used by the UN IPCC itself covering the last half century. It's obvious.
Malcolm
:)
|
Prof. " ... that our industrial emissions are casuing a warming. ..."
Prof. "I suppose it's possible that emisions do do cause a warming but this would suggest not as much as many people thought."
Prof. "Yes, I think most people, like me, believe that industrial emissions will cause warming, but just much less than has been predicted by many computer models." So you're saying he doesn't know what he is talking about?
|
.
CR-V9:
Do you not read my responses to your posts? I've explained to you more than once that on the topic of the so-called greenhouse warming supposition[/URL] there are three broad groups of scientists:
• those who believe in the greenhouse warming supposition and say it will cause (future) catastrophe;
• those who believe in the greenhouse warming supposition yet say it's impact is either negligible or more than offset by Nature's own negative feedbacks. Professor Happer is clearly in this group;
• those who say that the greenhouse warming supposition is complete nonsense and contradicts laws of Nature.
As I've said, there are scientists in all three groups, with eminent scientists especially in the second and third. Although I am not an eminent scientist, like many scientists and engineers I initially assumed the second. I even wrote an article on the greenhouse supposition for a genuine environmental group. Until I started asking myself questions and was challenged by people.
So I investigated. As a result I moved from the second group to the third.
You see, CR-V9 I am sufficiently confident in my knowledge of climate to accept that there are responsible scientists in various categories.
It's remarkable that even many eminent scientists initially assumed AGW (anthropogenic global warming) was real because climate is not their field. They're human. When something stirred their curiosity or doubt though and they researched they came out against the false claims/assumptions.
eg, http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore
Consider climate scientist and environmental policy adviser Professor Tim Ball, who I consider to be the greatest mind on climate and CO2. His recall of facts and his perception are highly impressive. He initially assumed that the greenhouse warming supposition was correct. After questioning himself he changed. He moved from the second group to the third.
By the way, I changed my mind before Professor Tim Ball changed his public position. It's nice though to have his expert validation. Especially given his depth and breadth of knowledge on CO2 and climate.
He even became a co-author in the international team of scientists, engineers and writers who wrote the book Slaying the Sky Dragon. More to come on that in a future response to another of your posts.
Note something significant about the first group: they hold that view despite the lack of real-world empirical evidence. They rely purely on either theory or other people's opinions. Yet those in the second and third group know their overall conclusion is strongly rooted in empirical science. Measurements show the world is not heating catastrophically, nor will it heat catastrophically.
Thus the first group reveals that even scientists sometimes ignore science's ultimate arbiter: real-world empirical observation.
It's significant that this group is heavily represented by scientists funded by governments driving a policy of taxing or pricing CO2.
The first group contradicts real-world empirical science. Like you, they contradict the core of science.
The second and third groups agree on the empirical science because that's hard numbers and observations. They differ in their interpretation of theories. I can live with that. That's how science advances.
I wonder why you seem to selectively take Prof William Happer out of context. His overall conclusion is clear: we do not need to take action on BS AGW.
Your response is very revealing CR-V9. About you.
Malcolm
:)
|
Maybe you're mistaken me with someone else. I said this before that I don't represent anybody else or any organization. It is all my personal views, opinions, vs I presume your personal views and opinions scientifically, not politically.
Are you saying that if someone believes so called the greenhouse CO2 supposition and its effects on warming but the over all rising is not as much as IPCC has predicted, and it is OK to you scientifically as long as they said IPCC is wrong or warming is not a serious problem?
I don't understand your logic. Where is science in there?
|
CR-V9
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
CR-V9 wrote:
So your argument is consensus vs consensus?
I thought you said consensus don't matter before? Whatever.
|
CR-V9:
Ah, you do read some of my posts.
To answer your questions:
No, my argument is not consensus vs consensus. Consensus is not science. Consensus is not the arbiter and determinant of science.
I have consistently said consensus is not science. Scientifically measured, real-world empirical evidence is the arbiter and determinant of science.
Feel better now?
Why do you have these lapses, CR-V9.
Malcolm
:)
|
That was a reply your post of '1,000 scientists dissent' article. Wasn't it obvious? Myabe not.
One thing, though. Many of them believe so called the greenhouse CO2 warming supposition, but just they don't think its effect on rising temperature is not as much as we have predicted.
|
CR-V9
|
|
MacolmR wrote:
Thank you, CR-V9.
You provided
And another article on the same subject, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=corals-more-threatened-by-temperature-than-acidifying-ocean
Your article is headed
Temperatures--Not Acid--Could Cook Coral to Death
Are you implying Could is now scientific proof?
I was not. It is the article's healine which was written by the reporter, I'd guess. But it implys it is possible to kill warning could kill Coral reef. That was what I read. Maybe it's my reading comprehension, again.
Again, your first post of the article said "the past 110 years of ocean warming has been good for their growth." which you seemed not to care to notice. That's all. I just don't understand some of things you've posted. They seem all over the place as long as they say AGW is not true.
You post your side of stories and I post, not as many as you though, other side of stories to balance them out.
Ocean acidification may be worst in 300 million years: study
http://news.yahoo.com/ocean-acidification-may-worst-300-million-years-study-154404963.html
Am I implying 'may be' as scientific proof? Mind you, NO.
What do I think? I don't know. I said this before million times.... Yes, I lied again it's not million times. You caught me, again.
I think AGW is real and true. But its effect on warming and/or climate change I have no idea. How fast. How bad or good. I let experts, scientists argue over it. I'm not even their peer. I'm not gonna spend 15~20 mins at Wikipidia or Google to figure it out. They've been studying this things for years. And they're much smarter than me to begin with.
Reading your last two lines, CR-V9,
I don't know why or what for you're waiting from a stupid, dishonest, reckless and whatelse(?) lier?
I've already given up on an apology.
it seems to be time to clear the air.
I don't think ill of you for lying. I simply do not trust your posts nor your words anymore. That's disappointing. I enjoy engaging in meaningful discussions with people I can respect.
[ ... ]
My need is to be able to trust you knowing that you're doing your best to avoid what you list as foolishness, stupidity, recklessness, dishonesty and lies.
I'd prefer to engage in open discussion with you CR-V9. I do not see you as a demon. I simply see you as someone not willing to acknowledge that he went a bit far in his game or his debating tactics.
I don't even need an apology. I simply need acknowledgment that you are conscious of what you are saying and conscious of the consequences of your behaviour on others at TOV. Here's my request: would you be willing please to acknowledge your behaviour and perhaps explain why you chose that behaviour in responding to people on TOV?
Malcolm
'a demon', wow, that's new. I've never been called that before. Aren't you supposed to be possesed by demons? Can a man be a demon? Anyway, I waited for an apology from you, though. By the way feeling is mutual.
What's up with my behaviour in responding to other people on TOV? I don't get it.
One more thing, from another thread...
CR-V9 wrote:
I'm pleased you're not citing NASA or JPL for your unfounded belief that contradicts empirical science? I'm guessing you took note of the many recent posts on TOV busting NASA and JPL. No, JAMSTEC is one of scientific institutions I've listed for a long time. Please stop lying about me.
|
|
CR-V9
|
|
One mor thing.
In another thread yousaid...WWF and Goldman Sachs together:
http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?uNewsID=201668
And who controls Goldman Sachs? Rothschilds.
The initiative is based on a lie. CO2 is essential plant food and does not—and CANNOT—raise global temperatures.
Regardless, Nature alone completely determines global atmospheric CO2 levels due to interaction between atmosphere and ocean and other CO2 sinks. Are you implying humans and our activities are not part of Nature?
|
CR-V9
|
|
About Dr. Curry.
She is a professor of climate science, I think. I wouldn't call her laughable. If you read the thread of Sky Dragon you'll see discussion on greenhouse effect in details. It's just too much to read and too technical for me. And Sky Dragon Slayers' explaination of heat/radiation transfer between warmer object to less warmer one is even strange to me.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
CR-V9, after reading your responses I'm finding it difficult to believe you're serious. So I'm wondering if it's your sense of humour?
I said| I do not see you as a demon. |
You replied with| 'a demon', wow, that's new. I've never been called that before |
You said| No, JAMSTEC is one of scientific institutions I've listed for a long time. Please stop lying about me. |
When Professor Curry has relied upon invalid conclusions made 160 years ago in what was then an infant field from the 1850's and claims that as 100 years of modern physics and her claims contradict real-world observations and empirical scientific measurements, I think I'm entitled to laugh.
You said| And Sky Dragon Slayers' explaination of heat/radiation transfer between warmer object to less warmer one is even strange to me. |
Then again, you've repeatedly declared that you're not bothered with the details ...
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
A non-scientist has managed to work it out for himself using some thinking.
http://ancientdestructions.com.au/site/destructions/little-ice-age-ipcc.php
Malcolm
:)
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
