Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    The reason that Climate Alarmists refuse to enter into debate is that they would lose very badly. Below is a very informative rebuttal by Christopher Monckton to an article by noted Climatologist Michael Mann ( author of the infamous hockey stick used by Al Gore).

    Foreword by Anthony Watts  An essay by Monckton of Brenchley follows, but I wanted to bring this graphic from Dr. Mann’s recent Scientific American article to attention first. In the infamous…

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by cityboy View Post
      The reason that Climate Alarmists refuse to enter into debate is that they would lose very badly. Below is a very informative rebuttal by Christopher Monckton to an article by noted Climatologist Michael Mann ( author of the infamous hockey stick used by Al Gore).

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/2...e/#more-106064

      We get your point, which is apparently pumping millions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing and has no effect on climate. If for every link you post the opposing side provided 5 contradicting it your opinion wouldn't change, so why not let it rest? I think as far as debate goes, it's the same tactic young earth creationists use when real scientists won't debate them (except for Bill Nye). They say the other side is afraid to lose but the real reason is they don't want to give them the legitimacy and attention they crave. As I posted some time ago, you may be right, or you may be wrong. If you are wrong, what do we do then? That's the real question.
      “Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. They smelled of moss in your hand. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”
      ― Cormac McCarthy

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Glen View Post
        If you are wrong, what do we do then? That's the real question.
        My $.02, from the previous thread:

        "A better use of our time and money to help some of the potentially affected countries would be to try to educate them to stop hacking each other to death with machetes, but somehow that doesn't make the news. Maybe because there's no "green money" to be made on that."

        "Where is the "Foundation to help relocate poor people in Bangladesh"? I will happily donate to that; but I begrudge every penny I'm forced to donate to the corrupt UN."

        So the answer is, we will do nothing. Because to do anything that actually helps the situation will not bring grant money and campaign contributions.

        Comment


        • #94
          So, if we can't solve every problem, we shouldn't try to solve any problem?
          He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Professor Hobbit View Post
            So, if we can't solve every problem, we shouldn't try to solve any problem?
            The world is already spending 1 billion a day on reducing CO2. Is that not enough for you?

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Glen View Post
              We get your point, which is apparently pumping millions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing and has no effect on climate.
              Glen we are doing something about. I'm sorry if you feel 360 billion a year is not enough for you.

              A question for all. The Pre-industrial CO2 level was 280ppm. Which would be worse cutting it in half or doubling it?

              I should mention that I'm not posting for you or redhawk or the professor since you minds are clearly made up and unchangeable. Too bad the counter stopped working. I think you'd be surprised at how many undecideds are still out there. I'm trying to provide them a balanced view by providing the facts rather then say the debate is over.
              Last edited by cityboy; 03-25-2014, 01:24 PM. Reason: Clarification

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by cityboy View Post
                Glen we are doing something about. I'm sorry if you feel 360 billion a year is not enough for you.

                A question for all. The Pre-industrial CO2 level was 280ppm. Which would be worse cutting it in half or doubling it?

                I should mention that I'm not posting for you or redhawk or the professor since you minds are clearly made up and unchangeable. Too bad the counter stopped working. I think you'd be surprised at how many undecideds are still out there. I'm trying to provide them a balanced view by providing the facts rather then say the debate is over.

                I've said numerous times not being a scientist I can only go with gut feeling, like yourself. I am always willing to reconsider my opinions on things, but your posts aren't doing it. Nothing personal, just the way it is. Per my previous post, it is your mind that is made up, not mine.
                “Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. They smelled of moss in your hand. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”
                ― Cormac McCarthy

                Comment


                • #98
                  Glen, I already indicted what would change my mind. It seems that I'm the exception here however.
                  I respect your opinion and as I stated I'm not trying to change anyone's. In fact I've always tried to respect other's opinions no matter the subject. I've always felt that way.
                  Here's a story.
                  Many years ago a Jehovah Witness knocked on our door. My father spent 1 hour debating the guy. After he was done I asked him why. He said it was fun. To me it was a huge waste of time. That was 40 years ago and I still feel that debating never changes anyone's opinion. As I say I'm presenting the other side so others who have not decided can judge for themselves.
                  I can accept that someone thinks I'm dumb but I think it rude for them to publicly to say it.
                  What I can't accept is if someone accuses me of working for Big Oil or the 1% or comparing me to holocaust deniers (no one has done it in this forum). Also when I hear that the science is settled and the debate is over I get a little ticked off and know I'm being fed a line of bull.
                  Time will prove either you or I right one way or the other. Fortunately science isn't decided by opinion.
                  Since this is beginning to remind me of my father I will end it here although I reserve the right to post something here if its interesting or adds to the discussion.
                  Have a nice day.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by cityboy View Post
                    Glen, I already indicted what would change my mind. It seems that I'm the exception here however.
                    I respect your opinion and as I stated I'm not trying to change anyone's. In fact I've always tried to respect other's opinions no matter the subject. I've always felt that way.
                    Here's a story.
                    Many years ago a Jehovah Witness knocked on our door. My father spent 1 hour debating the guy. After he was done I asked him why. He said it was fun. To me it was a huge waste of time. That was 40 years ago and I still feel that debating never changes anyone's opinion. As I say I'm presenting the other side so others who have not decided can judge for themselves.
                    I can accept that someone thinks I'm dumb but I think it rude for them to publicly to say it.
                    What I can't accept is if someone accuses me of working for Big Oil or the 1% or comparing me to holocaust deniers (no one has done it in this forum). Also when I hear that the science is settled and the debate is over I get a little ticked off and know I'm being fed a line of bull.
                    Time will prove either you or I right one way or the other. Fortunately science isn't decided by opinion.
                    Since this is beginning to remind me of my father I will end it here although I reserve the right to post something here if its interesting or adds to the discussion.
                    Have a nice day.

                    Cityboy,

                    Thanks for your response. No hard feelings I hope. I like your story. I made the mistake of opening my door once to similarly inclined folks and also debated. It was exhausting and at the end I wanted to send my dog after them. Unfortunately he is not an aggressive breed.
                    “Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. They smelled of moss in your hand. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”
                    ― Cormac McCarthy

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by cityboy View Post
                      A question for all. The Pre-industrial CO2 level was 280ppm. Which would be worse cutting it in half or doubling it?
                      .
                      I'm pretty sure either would be have a pretty serious effect on the climate. which one would be worse? Take your pick. Ice age or sauna.

                      Originally posted by cityboy View Post
                      I should mention that I'm not posting for you or redhawk or the professor since you minds are clearly made up and unchangeable.
                      .
                      Quite the opposite. Show me evidence and data against climate change, which outweighs evidence for climate change, and I'll change my mind.
                      Not statements about media bias or vested interests or "follow the money". They may be true, or not, but that's not data.
                      Not attacks on people's characters, whether they are hypocrites or not. They may be a hypocrite, but that's not data.
                      Not public opinion polls. Opinions aren't facts, no matter how many people share them.
                      Not cherry picked 15 year bits of data that ignore larger trends.
                      Not focusing only on the atmosphere and ignoring ocean temperatures, and sea ice loss, and glacier melting.
                      Correct data is not necessarily complete data. you have to consider ALL the available data, not just the one piece that confirms your beliefs.

                      On the subject of the "pause" (if you look at only atmospheric data from a very specific time period). Here is a debunking of that bit of nonsense. Not that it will prevent it from popping up again and again in future threads.

                      <p>The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.</p>


                      I'm very curious if the skeptics have any response to the ocean temperature and heat-content data. It's pretty obvious that the heat is mostly ending up in the oceans, and yet I keep seeing that same "15 year pause" data that completely ignores ocean temps.
                      He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Professor Hobbit View Post
                        I'm very curious if the skeptics have any response to the ocean temperature and heat-content data. It's pretty obvious that the heat is mostly ending up in the oceans, and yet I keep seeing that same "15 year pause" data that completely ignores ocean temps.
                        Professor we are getting outside my expertise but my gut tells me we are discussing apples and oranges.

                        What is the difference between heat content and temperature?

                        My guess from a layman's perspective is that heat content is calculated whereas temperature is measured.

                        You indicate that only surface temperature is in a pause. That's not what I heard. Based upon temperature measurements Global ocean temperatures are also paused (although not as long as surface temps).
                        Here is my source: http://climate4you.com/

                        If you click on Ocean in the left margin you will see graphs of actual Ocean temperatures as measured by NOAA. To get to them click on recent ocean temperatures and scroll down to graphs showing temperature down to 100m from 1955 to 2010. The global ocean temperature shows a pause of roughly 7 to 8 years. The individual ocean graphs show temperature trend down for both Atlantic and Pacific but a strong upward trend for the Indian ocean.

                        All this data confirms what I've read about a pause in Ocean temperatures too.

                        Now before anyone claims my source is a skeptical site (I don't know) I'll point out that after each graph a link is provided to the NOAA data source for download.

                        I don't know anything about your source but it does not contain any actual links to data. I'll assume that their calculations are correct because I think it is formula driven. That does not tell me what assumptions are being made or if they are correct so I'll go with the actual temperatures measured by NOAA.

                        You may feel differently and feel heat content is more important though.
                        This is why I initially said apples and oranges.

                        Comment


                        • Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time

                          Comment



                          • Steven Goddard? Seriously?



                            He has the same qualifications as I do to comment on climate.

                            At least post a link to a peer reviewed scientist, not a hack.
                            “Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. They smelled of moss in your hand. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”
                            ― Cormac McCarthy

                            Comment


                            • Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time

                              Yes, I am serious. It is a simple graph that shows no global warming over the past 100 years, which is arguably a very short time in the history of the earth.

                              I do not know the creator of the post, so can't comment on the hack accusation.

                              I guess you are saying the graph is incorrect?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Troy64 View Post
                                Yes, I am serious. It is a simple graph that shows no global warming over the past 100 years, which is arguably a very short time in the history of the earth.

                                I do not know the creator of the post, so can't comment on the hack accusation.

                                I guess you are saying the graph is incorrect?
                                Troy,

                                I would suggest that weather occurs over 12 months, not just Oct-March. So a better chart would show temperature changes, if any, for the entire year. I would also like to see a corresponding chart for ocean temperatures. It still doesn't settle the debate over whether this is a normal cycle or anthropogenic, but in the end I hope I am wrong about my suspicions.
                                “Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. They smelled of moss in your hand. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”
                                ― Cormac McCarthy

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X