Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Climate Science for the Amateur

 Pages:  1  

mayko - 29-9-2013 at 12:31

There is an occasional flurry of interest in climatology on this board, as well as some misunderstandings about it. So, I'd like to recommend this educational resource, a free online climatology course from the University of Chicago. I took it about a year ago and although I have a couple of criticisms, I was pleased with the scope and clarity of the course.

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/moodle/


There is also an impressive amount of climatic/geochemical data available to the public. Here are a few good collections.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/


Climatology may seem like something that is out of reach of the home scientist, but there are ways to get involved. Here are a couple of ideas:

http://www.climateprediction.net/
http://skepticalscience.com/Citizen-Science-Climatology-for-...




AJKOER - 29-9-2013 at 12:50

OK, I have stumbled into so-called 'Climate-Science' as a sub discipline in Chemistry addressing free radical gas molecule reactions in photolysis. There has also been times when I wander into the reaction of gases on a solid surfaces producing results different from classical aqueous reactions and gas/gas interactions. These type of interactions are also discussed in the chemistry of catalysts, which is to some extent, are not so such chemistry as physics (or physical chemistry if you prefer). To the extent that the lines between chemistry and physics become (and are becoming) blurred, excuse me if I do not feel that we need more sub-sciences. In my opinion, there is just science.

I am of this opinion as a true understanding (and being able to participate) in these fields require advance degrees in physics, chemistry, mathematical statistics, numerical analysis, ... and a presentation/course in some of the more 'basic' concepts (which, in spite of the label, I imagine can be quite advanced/complex) is of little value, in my opinion without the proper background.

[Edited on 29-9-2013 by AJKOER]

[Edited on 29-9-2013 by AJKOER]

mayko - 29-9-2013 at 13:23

It is true that climatology is a broadly interdisciplinary field, and the UChicago course reflects that, moving from the quantum chemistry of light to physical geology to computer science.

It sounds though like you are saying that a depth-first understanding of all relevant disciplines is necessary to understand an interdisciplinary subject. I'm not sure I agree. For example, in a group working as a team, no individual shares the totality of the group's knowledge, but nonetheless has some idea of the project they are working on.

I enjoyed this article on disciplinary organization:
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...

mayko - 30-9-2013 at 04:32


Methane is indeed a potent greenhouse gas, though it only has a half-life of about 10 years in the atmosphere, decaying to regular old CO2. There is some interesting chemistry involved with its oxidation, which is initiated by the hydroxyl radical in the atmosphere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Removal_pro...


Another class of important non-CO2 greenhouse gasses are chlorofluorocarbons, which are better known for their effect on the ozone layer. The Montreal Protocols which phased them out prevented a substantial amount of warming. [1]

Recently, a super-GHG composed of sulfur, carbon, and fluorine was detected and its emissions volutarily halted. [2] Inert, high-impact GHGs like this have been explored for use in terraforming planets like mars. [3]


[1]Garcia, R. R., Kinnison, D. E., & Marsh, D. R. (2012). “World avoided” simulations with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117(D23), D23303. doi:10.1029/2012JD018430

[2]Sturges, W. T., Oram, D. E., Laube, J. C., Reeves, C. E., Newland, M. J., Hogan, C., … Fraser, P. J. (2012). Emissions halted of the potent greenhouse gas SF5CF3. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 12(8), 3653–3658. doi:10.5194/acp-12-3653-2012

[3]Gerstell, M. F., Francisco, J. S., Yung, Y. L., Boxe, C., & Aaltonee, E. T. (2001). Keeping Mars warm with new super greenhouse gases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(5), 2154–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.051511598

bfesser - 4-10-2013 at 04:33

If I extrapolate mayko's intentions correctly, this thread was intended for posting educational resources, references, etc.—not for bickering and debating climate change, global warming (GW), anthropogenic global warming (AGW), or whatever you choose to call it.

<img src="../scipics/_warn.png" /> No debate in this thread. Please don't make me split or prune it again (further argument may be deleted). <img src="../scipics/_warn.png" />

mayko - 4-10-2013 at 04:53

Your extrapolation was correct. I am torn between letting this nonsense stand and being late for work.

I will just say that I encourage interested parties to investigate the online course, which covers topics such as water vapor feedback and the carbon cycle.

I also note that another role for the amateur is to be informed should they have to write letters to the editor or the like.

franklyn - 15-10-2013 at 06:20

The editorial censor does not allow views dissenting from the approved narative.
The dialog presented here is entirely one sided.


.

bfesser - 16-10-2013 at 07:16

Wrong. This isn't a thread for "views" or "narrative", this is a thread for science, <em>in a science forum</em>. There's no politicized bullshit here&mdash;from any faction. I won't warn you again, any further complaints in this topic will be summarily deleted.

mayko - 16-10-2013 at 17:17

For those who are looking for sea ice data and didn't get it from the general links for some reason, here are some useful links.

Arctic Sea Ice News:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Sea Ice Data (Preprocessed, easy to use):
http://nsidc.org/data/easytouse.html

Sea Ice Data (Serious)
http://nsidc.org/data/sea_ice.html

Cryosphere Today:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/




[Edited on 17-10-2013 by mayko]

mayko - 22-10-2013 at 03:27

In more constructive news, the OpenClimate course has actually recently been repackaged through Coursera:

https://www.coursera.org/course/globalwarming

Who's sorry now

franklyn - 23-1-2014 at 15:46

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/00/tmp/1/12/...

.

bfesser - 23-1-2014 at 16:14

You just selected to show December in the contiguous United States, because it superficially appears to support your hypothesis. You can't just omit valid data from consideration, as you have done. Do it <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2013?trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=1880&last trendyear=201" target="_blank">properly</a> <img src="../scipics/_ext.png">, and include <em>all</em> data.

roXefeller - 29-1-2014 at 18:57

Has anyone mentioned yet the Little Ice Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age) and the Medieval Warming Period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period). The first left accounts of skating in previously unfrozen canals and the second left records of habization in the then hospitable north Atlantic. I know we've arrived at them by reconstruction and not by the climatologic data that you are plotting from the NCDC. So it is hard to throw them up on the same chart as the NCDC, but at the same time it implies a longer view of history is required to interpret the 0.65C average temperature rise of the recent history.

Science is measurement.

franklyn - 22-7-2014 at 09:24

If you don't measure what you claim, that's called philosophy.

http://news.yahoo.com/antarctica-really-getting-icier-study-...
" the expansion being reported now has also been reported by other groups as well using different techniques."

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is , it doesn't matter how smart you are.
If it doesn't agree with experiment , it's wrong.
— Richard P. Feynman

.

hissingnoise - 22-7-2014 at 11:44

Quote:
Even in a warming world, it's not surprising that Antarctica might see growing ice; winds and ocean currents play a huge role in where ice does and does not form, and Antarctica's circumpolar winds push freezing air from the North Pole toward the sea.

Is this a typo I see before me, or is it a ...?


Learn something

franklyn - 31-7-2014 at 11:10

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jzBWmpzifc&feature=youtu.be&...

Here's an example of blatant prevarication.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
If one begins with the premise ( as this polemicist asserts ) that what will result is undetermined , then the question is not only whether climate becomes hotter or not but also whether it becomes colder or not ( conveniently ignored ). The mirror image is missing from the chart , which shows the same results for a colder climate. So spend trillions on a 50 / 50 chance of being right or being wrong , or , spend nothing and the odds of being right or wrong remain the same. The misdirection made is do you want to gamble with the future of the earth ? The point is that it's only a gamble if you bet money on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson's_choice - this is often applied by magicians to restrict choice and promote the illusion any another outcome is impossible.

.

Artemus Gordon - 31-7-2014 at 15:43

franklyn, this is for you:

<a href="http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=41786">Global Warming Hoax</a>

IrC - 31-7-2014 at 16:59

sharknado-0.jpg - 80kB

sharknado-2.jpg - 59kB

AJKOER - 1-8-2014 at 14:22

Mayko:

Is there a course on the net economic consequences of possible climate change with respect to do nothing versus activism?

I am referring to, for example, the potential economic losses on having to rebuild and loss of lives (or, at least the economic value of lives) directly due to extreme weather events ...versus the cost in government support for green projects, higher taxes on things like fossil fuels, loss of jobs in poluting industries net of profits and taxes from the creation of new green industries, deaths averted from cleaner air and water, ..

It seems to me that such a course would be important in educating the populace, at least from a pure economic viewpoint.

[Edited on 1-8-2014 by AJKOER]

Texium (zts16) - 1-8-2014 at 14:56

The way I see it is similar to the cartoon that Artemus Gordon posted: whether or not climate change is really happening or not and whether or not we have anything to do with it doesn't matter because there's no reason not to make the world a nicer place to live. Sure people cite economic and political issues, but those are trivial in comparison with the safety and well-being of the future generations. The world is going to run out of fossil fuels at some point, and if we end up using them all up, there better be a valid alternative at that point, so no time is truly too soon to develop and implement affordable and efficient green energy: it's a win-win in the end.

AJKOER - 1-8-2014 at 15:40

Zts16:

Is it not easier to educate people that the ocean is rising and suggest that they should move?

Or, in the name of activism, spend whatever is needed to slow the ocean from rising in this century?

The cost/benefit analysis in this special case is simple, relocate even if the government has to pay some of the tab.

I believe the most problematic part of any macro analysis is on fixing the horizon. If you argue it should be 100 years, I might argue think much longer term. We, as a species, will leave this planet or face extinction at some point in the future. At that point, would not prior decisions that limit the earth's population, and preserve resources, be more favorable to the likelihood of our colonization of other worlds (promoting the continuing survival of the human species) ? I suspect the answer is yes.

Bottom line, one person's long term is another's short term, and if we assume short term planning is incorrect, what is really the right course?

This thread really should be called climate science for the uninformed.

franklyn - 1-8-2014 at 23:54

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap6YfQx9I64
https://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2010/03/17/pages/7940/index...

Here masquerading in the appearance of authenticity by calling itself 'skeptical ' this house organ of ' true believers ' does nothing but rebuff the observations made highlighting the now proven invalid claims of climate alarmists , steadfastly remaining adamant in self delusion. www.skepticalscience.com/even-princeton-makes-mistakes.html
For obvious reason one cannot have meaningful dialog with such individuals so one should expeditiously marginalize them as opportunity permits. www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYKggC5VOzA

Reason will prevail. The whole of this ' conspiracy ' is not what you think it is.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U

View of an apostate
www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=29227#pid3210...

_______________________________________


I said before elswhere :
Scientific Climatology is about as scientific as - scientific stock market trend analysis. Called charting by the quants that practice this arcana. If climate modeling projections were as accurate as proclaimed , with some adjustments they would be able to make a killing in the security exchange and currency arbitrage markets. The applied math is irrespective of any particular data set. Utterly devoid of any payoff , the hacked and finessed charts more than anything indicate those generating them have no understanding of their results. A broken clock is right twice a day, it's all in the timing. Every dog has his day , but that doesn't signal a trend. In its early days, a trend draws strength from the repudiation of the old trend ; in its final days, it lives off the denial of its own end.

— A poignant quotation
Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from
the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of
forming such opinions.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.
The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to
hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.
— Albert Einstein


.

AJKOER - 2-8-2014 at 04:49

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn  
.....

I said before elswhere :
Scientific Climatology is about as scientific as - scientific stock market trend analysis. .....


Actually, the study of climatology is perhaps more like economics, but perhaps a little more scientifically rigorous. In economics, one has a larger set of input variables and not as well understood laws governing their interactions. But in climatology, the inputs are again many, but limited to a few significant players (like CO2, SO2 from vulcanism and burning of dirty fuels, NOx, CH4 from methane hydrates that are temperature sensitive, dust entering the upper atmosphere from volcanic eruptions and meteor impacts, oxygen and ozone levels and interaction with pollutants.., to name a few) that vary with intensity at various times in earth's history. While we may have data records (in the polar ices for example), actual events that caused a temperature aberration are generally not known with certainty. However, the laws of physical matter and interactions, while not entirely understood, has to be superior to what goes on in economics (a heavier reliance on the interpretation of statistical correlations as a guide to causality and the like).

Bottom line, there is perhaps more similarity between these reputed scientific disciplines than one would like to admit.

[EDIT] Talk about an interdisciplinary topic, there is an interesting correlation between sunspots and climate (see http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.ht... . To quote a few points:

"Sunspots and climate
Incidentally, the Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton minima coincide with the colder periods of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about 1450 to 1820. More recently it was discovered that the sunspot number during 1861-1989 shows a remarkable parallelism with the simultaneous variation in northern hemisphere mean temperatures (2). There is an even better correlation with the length of the solar cycle, between years of the highest numbers of sunspots". .....
Intuitively one may assume the that total solar irradiance would decrease as the number of (optically dark) sunspots increased. However direct satellite measurements of irradiance have shown just the opposite to be the case. This means that more sunspots deliver more energy to the atmosphere, so that global temperatures should rise.
Not only does the increased brightness of the Sun tend to warm the Earth, but also the solar wind (a stream of highly energetic charged particles) shields the atmosphere from cosmic rays, which produce 14C (radioactive carbon 14). So there is more 14C when the Sun is magnetically quiescent. This explains why 14C samples from independently dated material are used as a way of inferring the Sun's magnetic history.
Recent research (3) indicates that the combined effects of sunspot-induced changes in solar irradiance and increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases offer the best explanation yet for the observed rise in average global temperature over the last century. Using a global climate model based on energy conservation, Lane et al (3) constructed a profile of atmospheric climate "forcing" due to combined changes in solar irradiance and emissions of greenhouse gases between 1880 and 1993. They found that the temperature variations predicted by their model accounted for up to 92% of the temperature changes actually observed over the period -- an excellent match for that period. Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases."

My take on this is that if one is citing temperature data, one should at least adjust the data for the impact due to solar irradiance. I would also adjust for known recent volcanic events, for example, Krakatoa, possibly using a dummy variable or a model based on volume of mass/SO2 ejected into the upper atmosphere. To quote from Wikipedia on Krakatoa (link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa#Glo... ) :

"In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).[9] Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.[9] .....
The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere, which was subsequently transported by high level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentration in high level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.[14]"

[Edited on 2-8-2014 by AJKOER]

Morgan - 18-10-2014 at 06:13

Tidbit on non-condensable gases.
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatescie...

franklyn - 12-7-2015 at 20:37

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/11/12/environment-climate...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2010/nov/01...
The best one can say of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — criminally irresponsible purveyors of disinformation.
Once and for always it soon can be said , Good-bye to this pathological ' science ', and the morons who wasted their lives promoting it.

Throughout the past century every known cyclical natural variation has happened like clockwork. Of course you won't hear of this from the IPCC.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/07/11/Earth-head...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/mini...


.

macckone - 13-7-2015 at 14:23

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn  
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/11/12/environment-climate...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2010/nov/01...
The best one can say of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — criminally irresponsible purveyors of disinformation.
Once and for always it soon can be said , Good-bye to this pathological ' science ', and the morons who wasted their lives promoting it.

Throughout the past century every known cyclical natural variation has happened like clockwork. Of course you won't hear of this from the IPCC.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/07/11/Earth-head...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/mini...


.

You seem to indicate that the first two articles indicate the ipcc is dishonest while the first link doesn't support it and the second link talks about blatant disinformation from oil companies.

The chances of a maunder minimum triggering a mini ice age without the accompanying volcanic that was instrumental in the last one are very low.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=65

The science behind anthropological climate change is sound the arguments in the climate science community are around how it will effect weather.

For example if the Atlantic conveyor stops will north America and Europe experience cooling or not. Will warming increase snow storms or decrease them.

Some of the answers are not obvious. If larger amounts of water vapor collide with a cold air mass more frequently then you get more snow. Rather this happens or not is weather and long term effects on weather are climate.

[Edited on 13-7-2015 by macckone]

blogfast25 - 13-7-2015 at 15:11

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn  

— A poignant quotation
Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from
the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of
forming such opinions.

— Albert Einstein[/font]


‘franklyn’, who clearly isn’t a scientist (he isn’t even capable of spelling, frankly speaking) and falls hook, line and sinker for preposterous HHO style scams, has us believe his ‘thinking’ is somehow ‘independent’ ('objective', as it were) on AGW, yet merely parrots US Right-wing talking points straight from the Hannity/Limbaugh/Bloviators/Fox talking bubble.

Fond of Einstein quotes (a man who would frankly laugh his socks off with regards to 'franklyn types') here’s one that seems to have been uttered with ‘franklyn's person' in mind:

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

I doubt if 'franklyn' could read and understand an A-level text on say, 'Ideal Gases', frankly. Yet he sits here in judgement of some of the finest scientists on the planet and calls them 'morons'. I suppose it's a small blessing he doesn't spell that as 'morans'.

[Edited on 14-7-2015 by blogfast25]

Shooting the messenger can't change the message

franklyn - 16-7-2015 at 10:37

Within science, progress is unfortunately contingent upon individual values and the nature of its practitioners. It is also dependent upon the social climate. Wherever a society has become subordinated to the rule of an overly privileged native class, scientific objectivity is the first to suffer suppression and incursions by self serving administrative bodies which religiously affirm established dogma and seek to enforce the last word as to what represents scientific truth. This is evident by the focus of contention and reproach at dissenting individuals instead of examining the premise they present.

" Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
— Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

" Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it."
— Andre Gide

" The reason for so much bad science is not that talent is rare, not at all; what is rare is character."
— Sigmund Freud

" Truth, like gold, is obtained by washing from it all that is not gold."


.

diggafromdover - 16-7-2015 at 11:08

What disturbs me about client science is the emotional component. Calling somebody who disputes your theories a moron is not productive. So is equating "deniers" with Nazis. Name calling is in no way an indicator of the validity of one's conclusions. We need transparency, open data, and frank, rational and adult discussion by all individuals.

I would ask that old question "Cui Bono" of all. Who benefits?

If the availability of funding is dependent on the conclusion drawn, is the conclusion still valid?

Show us your raw data. Reveal your models. Stop acting like fact can be determined by an election of "scientists". A thing is, or it is not.


[Edited on 16-7-2015 by diggafromdover]

[Edited on 16-7-2015 by diggafromdover]

blogfast25 - 16-7-2015 at 11:59

Quote: Originally posted by diggafromdover  
What disturbs me about client [sic] science is the emotional component. Calling somebody who disputes your theories a moron is not productive. So is equating "deniers" with Nazis. Name calling is in no way an indicator of the validity of one's conclusions. We need transparency, open data, and frank, rational and adult discussion by all individuals.

I would ask that old question "Cui Bono" of all. Who benefits?

If the availability of funding is dependent on the conclusion drawn, is the conclusion still valid?

Show us your raw data. Reveal your models. Stop acting like fact can be determined by an election of "scientists". A thing is, or it is not.


Can you read? 'Franklyn' just called climate scientists ‘morons’. Name-calling hardly comes from one side only, you twit. 'Franklyn, BTW, isn't just a moron: he's also a moron who is almost universally despised on this forum and well deserved too.

Who benefits? How do climate scientists benefit from this? Please explain, Sir!

Data? They’re all over the Internet. Don’t blame others for your own laziness/reading difficulties. You obviously also don't know a thing about science, or you wouldn't be asking for 'raw data', idiot.


[Edited on 16-7-2015 by blogfast25]

mayko - 16-7-2015 at 12:04

Quote: Originally posted by macckone  

The chances of a maunder minimum triggering a mini ice age without the accompanying volcanic that was instrumental in the last one are very low.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=65



franklyn has been informed of this already, but does not appear to have modified his viewpoint at all. Maybe he's confusing 'having character' with 'being a character'! :P:cool:

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=19430&...

Quote: Originally posted by diggafromdover  

Show us your raw data. Reveal your models.
[Edited on 16-7-2015 by diggafromdover]


Links to raw and processed climate data, as well as the code for GCMs and other relevant climate simulations, can be found here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

aga - 16-7-2015 at 12:12

I'm confused.

Is the 'climate science' currently being done to whittle prediction down to a very fine art indeed, or are the established records of us being in the middle of a sequende of Ice Ages disputed ?


blogfast25 - 16-7-2015 at 12:16

Quote: Originally posted by aga  
I'm confused.

Is the 'climate science' currently being done to whittle prediction down to a very fine art indeed, or are the established records of us being in the middle of a sequende of Ice Ages disputed ?



You would do much better asking these questions (or searching for the answers to them) on specialist ACC forums. Most of the 'critics' of ACC here don't even know the difference between "climate" and "weather". You can't fix stupid.

[Edited on 16-7-2015 by blogfast25]

franklyn - 16-7-2015 at 14:13

" The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
" The fundamental cause of trouble in the world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."
— Bertrand Russell

" It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you think you know for sure that just ain't so."
— Mark Twain ( Samuel Clemens )

@ blogfast25 and others here , you know who you are.
Which one of us is absolutely sure here, and which one of us is expressing doubts.


.

aga - 16-7-2015 at 14:44

It's me. i know it is because my pants are aflame again.

Why does this keep happening ?

Not just here, i mean throughout the entire history of Mankind.

Arguments about pointless ego-fueled rubbish when there's so much more interesting stuff to do or talk about !

When the Ego Battle is over, who is going to get mating rights, and over whom ?

(count me out : as security my pants are on fire remember)

blogfast25 - 16-7-2015 at 15:51

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn  

@ blogfast25 and others here , you know who you are.
Which one of us is absolutely sure here, and which one of us is expressing doubts.[/font]



Listen village idiot, you AREN'T expressing any 'doubt' whatsoever, you don't even know what scepticism is. You're a dishonest piece of sh*t and a well-known garbage peddler. And universally despised here, as well you know.

Next time 9 doctors tell you you're ill and 1 that you're going to be OK, don't forget to believe the last one, won't you? Cos that's what you're doing here, you know!

Can't you go and hang out at Breitbart or somefink? Or watch the Sarah Palin channel? Go on, you know you want to!

[Edited on 16-7-2015 by blogfast25]

@ Moderator

franklyn - 16-7-2015 at 16:21

Please don't fall for blogfast25's obvious attempt to end and render this topic into Detritus where it does not belong.
Instead do by all means set the example by removing blogfast25's intemperate outburst to Detritus where it does belong.
— Thank you.


.

blogfast25 - 16-7-2015 at 16:42

Your little ploy won't work, Franky. Ever the paranoid crackpot, eh Franky?

This thread certainly does belong in Detritus, where ALL pseudo-science belongs. That's most of your stuff.

Who on Earth would believe a word from someone (you) who can't even spot a glaring violation of Thermodynamics, huh?

Your whole presence on this forum has N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with science but everything with you peddling your RANCID conspiracies and other crackpot nonsense. WE ALL KNOW THIS.

Don't pretend to be polite either or I'll dig up some of your past stuff too.

Get lost, please.

[Edited on 17-7-2015 by blogfast25]

blogfast25 - 16-7-2015 at 17:04

Here's at least one GOPer who gets it:

Quote:
“Well I’m not a scientist,” Graham responded. “but here’s the problem I’ve got with some people in my party: When you ask the scientists what’s going on, why don’t you believe them? If I went to 10 doctors and nine said, ‘Hey, you’re gonna die,’ and one says ‘You’re fine,’ why would I believe the one guy?”



http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lindsey-graham-climate...

If a mental midget like Graham can be right, could there be hope for 'franklyn'? Probably not...

Could be a career-ending move on the part of Graham, of course!

Flying off the handle now

franklyn - 16-7-2015 at 18:13

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=26429&...

Varmint - 17-7-2015 at 05:46

Blogfast:
Lindsey Graham is a RINO of the lowest caliber. Yes, he comes across as a very nice trustworthy person, but he wears his cloak well. He's actually dirtier than most, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if there was a direct payment "for constituent projects" for his little comment on climate change.

The fact that this topic is still being discussed after people in your own country were caught (email scandal) discussing how best to fudge the data is quite beyond me, especially when those same people were found not to be a little clan working by themselves, but deeply connected to the "climate change cartel" worldwide. I know the true believers are willing to dismiss the deceit because the deceit was uncovered by deceitful means (email hacking), but the fact is, these people were caught, actively discussing how best to propagate the myth by fudging data.

We can continue to discuss various reports, cross-post various studies supporting either "side", but the facts are climate change faithful will do anything to keep the funds rolling in, and of course justify their lies so they can continue to be considered "valid" scientists, expecting of course to remain fundable for the next study grant.

EVERY SINGLE CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVER SHOULD HAVE JUST THROWN IN THE TOWEL WHEN YOUR COUNTRY MATES WERE CAUGHT, BUT THEY CAN'T. THEY WANT, NO, NEED TO BELIEVE THAT HUMANS ARE A BLIGHT ON THE EARTH, AND SHOULD PAY FOR THE DAMAGE THEY DO. NEVERMIND ALL THE BILLIONS OF TONS OF CO2 GENERATED AS THEY JET AROUND TO VARIOUS CONFERENCES DESIGNED TO PRESERVE THE MYTH, THEY NEED US TO BELIEVE AS THEY DO, OTHERWISE WE ARE "DENIERS".

Count me as a proud denier, because I don't care how the emails were obtained, caught is caught, the goose has been cooked, time to relax and eat dinner.

Anyone professing to have an "open mind" on climate change is in just as much denial as the staunch believers. Again, we have "scientists" in their own words, trying to best determine how to falsify data to support the religion they so dearly want to believe in. Also very telling is how those not directly implicated didn't rise to the defense of those caught, nor even have to actively avoid having to impune nor defend them, they knew the media would sweep it under the rug because so many have invested so much time lying to one another, climate change had become "too big to fail". Too big to acknowledge blatant lies and falsified data. A sad commentary on mass-think.

blogfast25 - 17-7-2015 at 06:04

Varmint and franklyn, 'The Dumb and Dumber' of SM. Good luck getting in bed with a nut who can't even recognise a basic HHO scam, Varmint.

You make a nice pair, I've gotta say. A conspiracy theorist and a guy who stated that 'Fox news wasn't far right enough'.

By your 'scandal logic', you can write off any project, political party, even science itself because of scandals and hoaxes. You could even write off Holocaust theory on that basis because there's been the occasional falsification too. But it just doesn't work that way.

Quote:
... and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if there was a direct payment "for constituent projects" for his little comment on climate change.


Evidence? Not the tiniest of shreds of course. But then that's how gutter political commentary works in the US, isn't it?


[Edited on 17-7-2015 by blogfast25]

blogfast25 - 17-7-2015 at 06:11

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn  
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=26429&...


Flying off the handle? No, it's an OBJECTIVE assessment of who you are and why you are here. In a word: TROLLING. Again: WE ALL KNOW THIS.

Why do you choose this forum when clearly you have no interest in science whatsoever? Why not hang out at some third rate con-libertarian bloggies, where you’d probably be feted as a hero for your ‘daring’ crapola views? Where they can keep you updated on the latest Alex Jones/Jeff Rense gossip?

[Edited on 17-7-2015 by blogfast25]

Varmint - 17-7-2015 at 06:20

Bloggie:

That's OK, I know you want to believe in global warming, after all, that's something else you can blame the yanks for.

It's not an inadvertent or occasional falsification you want to dismiss, it's a concerted effort amongst the loudest voices in the global warming community that was disclosed, but your belief is too strong. You've got your falsified data, roll in it, get it all over you so you can enjoy the stink just like a good dog.

And I wear my conservative label with staunch pride because I believe America and the UKs best days are behind us, nothing good has come from progressivism, and if you can't see that, we'll just attribute it to the same blinders you are wearing regarding the global warming cult.

Have a nice day wanker. Now go kiss your boyfriend in public, progressivism has made it not only your right, but something to be celebrated. Enjoy that too, use some tongue.

blogfast25 - 17-7-2015 at 06:30

Quote: Originally posted by Varmint  
Bloggie:

That's OK, I know you want to believe in global warming, after all, that's something else you can blame the yanks for.

It's not an inadvertent or occasional falsification you want to dismiss, it's a concerted effort amongst the loudest voices in the global warming community that was disclosed, but your belief is too strong. You've got your falsified data, roll in it, get it all over you so you can enjoy the stink just like a good dog.

And I wear my conservative label with staunch pride because I believe America and the UKs best days are behind us, nothing good has come from progressivism, and if you can't see that, we'll just attribute it to the same blinders you are wearing regarding the global warming cult.

Have a nice day wanker. Now go kiss your boyfriend in public, progressivism has made it not only your right, but something to be celebrated. Enjoy that too, use some tongue.


I don’t blame ‘the yanks’ for global warming, you twit. It’s a global problem. And despite idiots like you even your fine Republic is falling in line with the rest of the world on the issue.

Quote:
Have a nice day wanker. Now go kiss your boyfriend in public, progressivism has made it not only your right, but something to be celebrated. Enjoy that too, use some tongue.


Nice bit of homophobia you’ve got going on there too. No big surprise then.

You're a dinosaur. Petrification setting in soon...

[Edited on 17-7-2015 by blogfast25]

hissingnoise - 17-7-2015 at 06:44

Blogfast, I believe the antidote to your present difficulties is to be found in wiki's (hilarious?) description of the Dunning-Kruger effect! :D


blogfast25 - 17-7-2015 at 06:54

You could well be right there, HN.

Now when is someone going to move this joke of a thread to Whimsy (at least)?

Varmint - 17-7-2015 at 06:55

Love the dinosaur label too. Because tradition is what makes a nation, and marriage is between a man and a woman.

Don't take my nation's current direction as mainstream, we have a self-loathing America hater (ever read his books or his wife's thesis?) calling the shots, and he's perfectly willing to use extra-legal decrees to do so. Since you are a bit dense (progressive loss of hindsight) extra-legal means outside of legal, not "entirely legal".

He believes in a one world vision, where all of us are rolling around in the same mud pits, begging for relief from our masters.

Me? I prefer to reflect on the glory that once was your nation, and the same for mine. We were the "west", and everyone wanted to be like us. When they couldn't make that happen, they sought to tear us down to their level. Hey, if you like it, fine. But I prefer the UK as the model for civilized society, not the muslim/gay/progressive cesspool it's now become, and like you say, we're hot on your heels thanks to decades of progressivism gone wild.


blogfast25 - 17-7-2015 at 07:03

Quote: Originally posted by Varmint  

He believes in a one world vision, where all of us are rolling around in the same mud pits, begging for relief from our masters.




With Neoliberalism on the rampage, you'll soon be begging for relief too. Unless you're one of them, of course (vulture capitalists).

You're hankering for a past that never even existed. A mythology. Something to tell your grand kids at bed time but no more real than John Wayne. You have no idea of Western history whatsoever, except for a sanitised version created by those with a vested interest in it.

[Edited on 17-7-2015 by blogfast25]

annaandherdad - 17-7-2015 at 07:54

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Blogfast, I believe the antidote to your present difficulties is to be found in wiki's (hilarious?) description of the Dunning-Kruger effect! :D



Had to look that up, very funny. A climate article I've seen recently:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/i-rejoice-that-it-is-...

Varmint - 17-7-2015 at 08:29

The cool part is, we don't need to refute bad science, they did that in their own words as they sought how best to mislead their fellow worshippers.

I know you'll all eventually get it, let's just say you're slow.

And that's OK to be slow, you just need to hang in there, I have faith in you.

franklyn - 17-7-2015 at 08:42

John Stuart Mill was godfather to Bertrand Russell. He argued that we could never be sure if a silenced opinion did not hold some portion of the truth. He argued that even false opinions have worth, that in refuting false opinions , ideas that are true are verified. Without having to defend one’s ideas, Mill argued, these would become devalued and we would forget why we held them at all. Every novel scientific idea is born in thought uninhabited by imagined popular conceptions that must be overcome and left behind.

" Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge "
— Charles Darwin

If an alleged scientific conclusion is settled , one must ask how is it that it is forbidden to attempt to show it false in order to verify it , which is the very basis of all we know in science. As for myself I remain confident in my doubts.


.

Varmint - 17-7-2015 at 09:11

Here's the liberal progressive mindset in full bloom.

http://www.progressivestoday.com/shoot-republicans-says-form...


aga - 17-7-2015 at 14:19

I'm still confused.

Was Hutton wrong, being misled by the drumlins, or are we not in the middle bit of a series of ace-ages ?

If so, it follows that the World climate has increased and decreased in temperature rather a few times already, and that we are on the upslope of an Increase, which will be followed by a Decrease (again).

If not, then mammoths are still to be had !

Does anyone have any recommendations for a good mammoth safari company ?

annaandherdad - 17-7-2015 at 21:31

This is more fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klgp_qDiRhQ

blogfast25 - 18-7-2015 at 06:08

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn  
As for myself I remain confident in my doubts.[/font]




Forum Retard: STOP PRETENDING you're a sceptic. You're not: by your own admission you're a simpleton DENIER.

How could you be a sceptic when you clearly don't KNOW ANYTHING about science and probably couldn't solve x + 5 = 0, even if your life depended on it?

To be sceptical of something requires a good basic knowledge of that same thing.

You're a banal libertarian and Left-baiter, masquerading as a 'sceptic'. You are in a word a FRAUD. Hardly a surprise given the enthusiasm you embraced another CRIMINAL fraudster with, then told others they should 'keep an open mind' about his water-based perpetuum mobile.

You should really, really think about your fake claims of scepticism when the next time you start flailing your Down Syndrome arms about on some proto-fascist discussion forum, claiming ACC scientists are ‘morons’, ‘frauds’ and ‘hoaxers’, you dishonest piece of cow dung.

I just received a U2U from someone (who will remain unnamed) who believes you might be 'phdchemist'. Well, we all know you're not but what does it tell you that some believe you are, eh arsehole?


[Edited on 18-7-2015 by blogfast25]

blogfast25 - 18-7-2015 at 06:19

Quote: Originally posted by Varmint  
Here's the liberal progressive mindset in full bloom.

http://www.progressivestoday.com/shoot-republicans-says-form...



The idea that this sick nutcase represents anything but himself shows the sort of discourse that seems to shape your pea-sized brain.

It's as idiotic as believing Dylann Roof represents GOPers or Cons.

It's a sickness of the public US 'political discourse' that some on BOTH sides deploy that kind of gutter sniping pseudo-arguments.

Keep showing your true colours, Varmint: those of a third rate bloggie Left -baiter, detached from any semblance of reality. Not to mention those of a 12 year old...

Try and get out of your paranoid bubble and read this (Richard Hofstadter):

http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-ame...

[Edited on 18-7-2015 by blogfast25]

Varmint - 18-7-2015 at 08:01

Boggie:

I read the emails, there is no need to even discuss the global warming subject ever again. It's settled. People set out to mislead millions (billions?) of people, and had great success. The only troublesome part at this point is there are so many that are still willing to believe, even after the disclosure.

I guess the type of people who continue to believe are the hardcore self-loathers, the type of people who discount an exceptional United Kingdom and United States as mere myths.

I wish you all the best in your life of discord, where on one hand you loathe yourself for being a part of man's destructive influence on the planet, while perplexingly loving your arrogant worship of self as the final voice for not only this forum, but I'm quite sure those in your entire realm of influence suffer it as well.

People don't like arguing with you not because you are right, but because you will fight tooth and nail to justify your stated position, yet when proven wrong, have a hard time admitting it. Without your blinding arrogance, the "thumper" thread would have been one page at best, but did you get down on bended knee and apologize straight-away? Of course not. Your blinding arrogance wouldn't allow it.



blogfast25 - 18-7-2015 at 08:39

Vermin:

I'm not wrong on ACC. People who invoke 'self loathingness' haven't got an argument but a ridiculous, non-empirical fantasy. Undoubtedly you're the kind of 'patriot' who claims to love his country but happens to hate about 50 % of people who live in it.

The notion that ACC science is a conspiracy is nuttier than trooferism and birtherism combined. And yet that notion lies at the heart of your denialism: 'ACC scientists are attacking my country! Help! COMMIE alert!' Conspiratorial, paranoid thinking is pervasive among the US far right, see also The John Birch Society who'd be your allies in this 'it's a HOAX!' attitude.

Re. thumpers, that's your self-serving interpretation but not that of those of who defended thumpers. My scepticism was justified (it always is, if done properly). The experiment conducted with aga proved the matter for once and for all. That's good science. More to come too on that front. I believe. Manichean twits like you won't get that, of course. Apologies aren't needed if one acts in good faith. Much was learned by all sides on that thread.

Your exceptionalist stance on the US and UK, combined with your rancid homophobia make me wonder what other abhorrent views you're not putting on display here. But your own assertion that Fox isn't right wing enough for you allows me to guesstimate...

You should really read that Hofstadter article and hold it up as a mirror.


[Edited on 19-7-2015 by blogfast25]

franklyn - 18-7-2015 at 17:17

Meteorological measurements over the last ~ 130 years indicate mean global temperature has risen just under 1 ºC. Oh my we're all doomed we're going to be toast. :D Irreverently mocking alleged anthropomorphic causation , the premise promoted for this ' cataclysm ' is that people smoking cigarettes increases the CO2 content of the atmosphere which retains a greater portion of incident solar radiance warming everything up. The alarmist claim further proposes that an imaginary line will be crossed popularly named a ' tipping point ' beyond which any action to remedy this impending catastrophe will be ineffectual , urgently calling for inaction now to stop smoking cigarettes.

All of the tabulated data , studies, and modeling whether for or against the assertion that this trend can only increase , is in the overall scheme of things completely irrelevant to the issue. Climate science as it calls itself is about as significant as Paleontology is to human affairs. The problem as it is understood and accepted by all sides of the dialog is accumulation of latent heat from the sun. Expressed more accurately it is a matter of albedo , the amount of sunlight absorbed relative to the amount reflected. The means for very rapidly altering the earths albedo to counteract any assumed excess warming by dispersing aerosols into the upper atmosphere , has existed for well over 50 years and counting. The beauty of this turnkey technology is that it is entirely reversible as well as available on demand as circumstances warrant.

The prospect of global cooling however is not so readily addressed. There is no technology yet proposed which can deviate a trend toward colder climate. That is a problem that should be scientifically considered much the same way as the possibility of a meteor impact is considered , rare but devastating in scope. If you think global warming is bad you should try global freezing.


If it hasn't been grasped yet by the casual visitor , blogfast25 is an example of psychopathic personality disorder. You can look it up and see how many traits you can identify in this person replete with them. blogfast25 and other similarly afflicted persons demand it is imperative they Must be in control , for only they can save the world.

In this regard one should observe lessons from history. Here quoted from Political Ponerology ( the study of societal evil )
" Many thoughtful persons keep asking the same anxious question: how could the German nation have chosen for a Fuehrer a clownish psychopath who let no one doubt his pathological vision of superman rule ? Under his leadership , Germany then unleashed a second criminal and politically absurd war. In the last half of this war , very capable highly-trained army officers honorably performed inhuman orders , senseless from the political and military point of view , issued by a man whose psychological state corresponded to the routine criteria for being forcibly committed to a psychiatric hospital."

In light of the prosaic mundane nature and understanding of a supposed change in climate , it must be plainly obvious to even the most detached , that the far reaching messianic plans contrived to alter the structure of modern society are the ravings of disturbed people acting in concert for their own dark and twisted urges.


.

[Edited on 19-7-2015 by franklyn]

blogfast25 - 18-7-2015 at 17:38

Quote:
Many thoughtful persons keep asking the same anxious question: how could the German nation have chosen for a Fuehrer a clownish psychopath who let no one doubt his pathological vision of superman rule ? Under his leadership , Germany then unleashed a second criminal and politically absurd war. In the last half of this war , very capable highly-trained army officers honorably performed inhuman orders , senseless from the political and military point of view , issued by a man whose psychological state corresponded to the routine criteria for being forcibly committed to a psychiatric hospital


Whoever wrote this hasn't got the foggiest idea about Nazism and how it finally came to power. You quoting this doesn't surprise me in the slightest. It's ahistorical tosh, balderdash and piffle. Try 'The Nazi Behemoth' for a decent and acclaimed analysis (book review and summary):

http://www.wbenjamin.org/Behemoth.html

Your first sentence shows also how little you understand of ACC. Nor have you written that yourself, it's cut and paste: too many long words for a near-illiterate like you.

Franklyn, your main problem is that you DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW ANYTHING. This you have in common with so many of your gutter 'libertarian' brethren.

It's perfectly possible to criticise ACC and I agree with some of these criticisms. But you don't do that: you claim it's a HOAX, then masquerade as a 'sceptic'. To believe that is as crazy as believing in trooferism and birtherism, two conspiracies I'm sure you buy into as well.

Still, you do make me laugh, so that's something, I guess! :D:D:D:D


[Edited on 19-7-2015 by blogfast25]

mayko - 18-7-2015 at 18:27

Quote: Originally posted by aga  
I'm still confused.

Was Hutton wrong, being misled by the drumlins, or are we not in the middle bit of a series of ace-ages ?

If so, it follows that the World climate has increased and decreased in temperature rather a few times already, and that we are on the upslope of an Increase, which will be followed by a Decrease (again).


Ice-age dynamics are certainly an interesting topic; they are a regular, cyclic process which is driven by orbital forcing, in which small variations in the Earth's orbit, over long time scales, cause significant changes in solar radiation received. The last ice age ended about 10kyears ago, and the last geologic age, the Holocene, has been a warm, stable interglacial period. You are correct that all things begin equal, the planet would begin to cool sometime in the next several millenia, though it's been suggested that even that could be pushed back, given the long atmospheric lifetime of a CO2 pulse.

You're correct that the earth's climate has changed throughout geologic time, but remember that these changes are causal; some thing or group of things *happened* in order for them to occur. Our understanding of the underlying physical systems are a large part of how we can attribute certain current events to human actions, rather than typical natural cycles.

The size and speed of the current climatic event are also relevant, in distinguishing them from glacial/interglacial cycles. 4.5 deg C is the difference in global temperature between an ice age and an interglacial. franklyn can scoff about 1 deg C over 130 years, but that's more than 20% of that difference, occurring on top of warm interglacial temperatures, and over a century, rather than millenia.

Here's a figure from [1], showing radiative forcing (basically, how hard the Earth is being thermally pushed) over the last 20kyears, as well as rates of change of greenhouse gas concentrations (a major causal agent in radiative forcing)

joos.png - 60kB

[1] Joos, F., & Spahni, R. (2007). Rates of change in natural and anthropogenic radiative forcing over the past 20 , 000 years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(5), 0–5.


franklyn - 21-7-2015 at 17:53

Quote: Originally posted by mayko  
from glacial/interglacial cycles. 4.5 deg C is the difference in global temperature between an ice age and an interglacial. franklyn can scoff about 1 deg C over 130 years, but that's more than 20% of that difference, occurring on top of warm interglacial temperatures, and over a century, rather than millenia.


Yes entirely true and devoid of demonstrated connection to human causation.

From here
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph

In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.

800 year lag corresponds exactly with what is known
http://www.britannica.com/science/medieval-warm-period
http://www.britannica.com/science/medieval-warm-period/image...

The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.


Anyway this is all academic. As I already said , climatology is as significant in human affairs as Paleontology. If the events so vigorously promoted entirely without a verifiable premise , should come to pass the technical fix is readily made. Only then perhaps would adjustment be warranted in the world's economy. But don't count on it , none of us will be alive to see this anyway.


.

blogfast25 - 21-7-2015 at 18:28

Since as your claim ACC is a HOAX the onus is on you to PROVE this. Randomly quoting sceptics blogs doesn't do that.

Like troofers you need to prove there's a conspiracy going on, involving thousands of scientists, to deliberately mislead the public.

Undoubtedly in your diseased mind, these scientists are guilty of 'cultural Marxism' (or something like that), to try and destroy the 'Greatest Nation on Earth'. PROVE it, instead of quoting sources you don't understand, Mr 'fuck Conservation of Energy'!

Quote:
JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Not quite an ACC scientist then? Didn't think so, like her there are 13 in a dozen! I'm sure I could sell her a HHO scam too. Peas in a pod, you and her.

Her actual profile:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Joanne_Nova

Pfff... that's all you've got????

A history of ACC denialism:

http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2010/05/climate-sc...



US conservatives' obsessions: God, Gunz, Homos, Evilution and ACC (AGW). Thank the Lawd quantum stuff gets a free pass! :):D:cool:



[Edited on 22-7-2015 by blogfast25]

franklyn - 21-7-2015 at 19:21

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  

Fond of Einstein quotes ( a man who would frankly laugh his socks off with regards to ' franklyn types ' )
here’s one that seems to have been uttered with ‘ franklyn's person ' in mind:

“ Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein


Arguing for the supremacy of stupidity , he first cites me as singularly representative , in the minority , which syllogistically marks him a striking paragon of the majority.

I guess that is what is meant by ' 97 per cent ' of them.

.

Varmint - 22-7-2015 at 03:10

Franklyn:

You are wasting your time. Notice how bloggie has a problem with anyone who doesn't embrace homosexuality, unfettered invasion by "immigrants", and doesn't continue to believe in the hoax of global warming after the release of the now infamous emails? It's because he has bent over, resigned any semblance of right and wrong, and chosen to discount history as flawed, all because that's what the progressive told him he needed to do to become (not remain) a good human being.

If you don't embrace gays, you are a HOMOPHOBE. If you don't embrace the influx of people who want to ruin your country since they've already done such a good job ruining their own, you are a statist or their favorite, a RACIST!!! And lastly, if you take the liar's emails at face value (how best do we mislead the global warming devotees when the data doesn't support the conclusion we'd like), you are a DENIER!!!

A damned dirty rotten HOMOPHOBE, RACIST, DENIER!!! Apparently there are many people for whom the name-calling is simply too much for their fragile psyche to bear, and so they go along to get along in order that they not worry about hushed whispers behind their backs.

His protestation that the US has finally joined the world on these issues isn't really a cause for concern on those issues, really he's just glad that the US is well along the way to becoming just as fucked up as his once enviable nation. He's even been instructed to believe the "west" is a failure. Nevermind we've lead the world in every single area, technology, science, healthcare, industry, and quality of life, but since every one of those flies in the face of the crowd that considers justice is only achieved when everyone is suffering equally, he just can't bring himself to continue to embrace the now frowned upon concepts of UK and USA exceptionalism.

They are a "myth" in his world, because if he doesn't parrot the progressive line, they stand ready to call him HOMOPHOBE, RACIST, and DENIER!!!, again, he just can't handle it. This of course is directly supported by his own propensity to call people names, He's been hurt so badly by it, he expects it will have the same impact on others as it has had on him.

As far as the posts you make, I will concur, you are doing yourself no good linking to quackery. You simply do not need to, the global warming "science establishment" was caught actively colluding on how best to mislead the global warming flock. We don't NEED sources. We don't need scientists that can read the liars emails for us and parrot the obvious to give our side the means to argue "our 500 scientists think your 500 scientists smell like poopy diapers!!", all need for that was negated when their "scientists" were caught red-handed.

Simply: Don't bother. If the liars emails weren't enough, then there is literally NOTHING IN THE WORLD you can do to change their minds. Even if their America ruining sweetheart -0-bama were to announce "of course global warming is man-made, not the heat of course, not changing weather patterns, but the religion of global warming is absolutely man-made, we can all thank Al gore for that bit of wisdom, and thank him we must because it has become one of our most cherished weapons against the evils of capitalism, patriotism, and the blight known as exceptionalism." Yep, powerful tool for the weak of mind, and that's what they want, weak minds.


mayko - 22-7-2015 at 03:41

Quote:
... people smoking cigarettes increases the CO2 content of the atmosphere which retains a greater portion of incident solar radiance warming everything up. The alarmist claim further proposes that an imaginary line will be crossed popularly named a ' tipping point ' beyond which any action to remedy this impending catastrophe will be ineffectual , urgently calling for inaction now to stop smoking cigarettes.


I know you're being 'irreverent', but this remark reveals deep (though popular) misunderstandings about the relevant processes.

Surface carbon is stored in several broad reservoirs, typically divided into the ocean, the landmass, and the atmosphere. When a tobacco plant grows, it shifts carbon from the atmosphere to the land. When it is smoked, the carbon is pushed back into the atmosphere. This is a small loop in the carbon cycle.

So, if you cut down and burn a ton of tobacco, all things being equal, a ton of tobacco plants will grow in their place - no net increase in the amount of carbon being cycled. By contrast, if you dig up and burn a ton of coal, no burial process steps up to compensate. A ton of carbon is added to the cycle, where it did not previously exist.

(In the real world, all things are NOT equal, of course. Suppose we paved over the tobacco field with asphalt - now tha ton of carbon can't cycle out of the atmosphere! This is called land-use change, and it has a small, but important impact on global trends, and can be a regional climatic driver. )


Quote:
The problem as it is understood and accepted by all sides of the dialog is accumulation of latent heat from the sun. Expressed more accurately it is a matter of albedo , the amount of sunlight absorbed relative to the amount reflected.


Albedo refers to the reflectivity of the earth's surface, which does impact how much of the sun's energy remains on the surface as heat. But this is NOT an 'accurate expression' of 'the problem as it is understood and accepted'. The greenhouse effect does not operate on visible light; it acts on the rate at which infrared light leaves.


Quote:
The means for very rapidly altering the earths albedo to counteract any assumed excess warming by dispersing aerosols into the upper atmosphere , has existed for well over 50 years and counting. The beauty of this turnkey technology is that it is entirely reversible as well as available on demand as circumstances warrant.


It isn't actually that simple; solar radiation management has definite downsides, such as global dimming (and a consequent reduction in photosynthesis as availiable sunlight decreases) and large, serious uncertainties (which can only be explored ahead of time via the much-maligned global circulation model). Most importantly, it is NOT 'entirely reversible', since it doesn't address the change in greenhouse effect. That means that, should the aerosol spraying ever stop, the forestalled warming will snap into place, not over the course of a century, but over years.
And what assurance can you give that such a scheme *could* be implemented on an international scale, when even modest emissions cuts haven't been.

You have been informed of these complications and criticisms, more than once. You have repeated these claims multiple times without addressing any of the issues raised, and it rather undercuts your credibility. It's almost as embarassing as this nugget. Please shitpost elsewhere; I'm trying tho have a decent thread here.

Further reading:
Robock, A. (2008). 20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 64(2), 14–18. doi:10.2968/064002006




IrC - 22-7-2015 at 04:28

"Undoubtedly you're the kind of 'patriot' who claims to love his country but happens to hate about 50 % of people who live in it."

Twisted thought heard so often from libs it becomes nauseating. If that 50 percent is working to destroy America then hatred is all they deserve. America is about far more than merely being born here. Those who work to destroy the work and dreams of generations have no place in the land.

The endless personal attacks and insults is equally nauseating. So does the hypocrisy of those whining about coal while they spend endless hours online burning electricity. If the cause is true then go home. Shut off all power, park your cars. Never drive again and do not even burn candles at night. Stop using any form of power, stop all activity adding carbon to the cycle. Gore is a prime example of this hypocrisy, flying endlessly adding more to the destruction of life each year than most will in a lifetime. Gaining hundreds of millions from his fly by ministry of GW while building lavish living places for his personal use. Many others like him do the same, all burning more coal through electricity demands than most small towns. Spewing out more jet exhaust each year than most will in a lifetime. Instead of adding to the problem spending endless time using resources hysterically battling so called 'deniers' who in reality merely see through the hypocrisy why don't you live by example instead of adding to the problems. Go invent a new clean source of power with all the time, energy, and resources you waste in endless battles on the plains of futility.

Varmint - 22-7-2015 at 04:56

IrC:
Particularly rewarding was having several "global warming" conventions either snowed out, or attendance in jeopardy from extreme low temperatures.

Of course just like they ignore the disclosed emails, the "faithful" have no problem changing the name of their "cause" to reflect any and all conditions.

About the only one they haven't tried to adopt (give them time) is ACAWC (Anthropagenic Completely Average Weather Conditions).

Too hot? Global warming.

Too cold? Climate change.

Too average? Weather stagnation.

All of course caused by man, and the kicker is, the faithful lap it up because it just feels so damn good to loathe yourself for having been born.

hissingnoise - 22-7-2015 at 05:54

Quote:
Particularly rewarding was having several "global warming" conventions either snowed out, or attendance in jeopardy from extreme low temperatures.

So Vermin, what exactly do you find particularly rewarding about being so dirt-stupid as to be unable to understand the difference between "weather" and "climate"?


IrC - 22-7-2015 at 06:04

I am sure man has some effect on climate but reacting with hysterical immediate gloom and doom is counterproductive and wrong. Devoting all the time and effort into a war of mindset instead of working on new energy sources is insanity. Those claiming they have more right to exist than those they think inferior for any reason is even more insane. Demanding the immediate destruction of the quality of life for billions to satisfy their cause is right up there with the last two points. Life as we know it cannot function without energy and nothing is going to change this. Therefore the sane approach is to put all effort into inventing clean sources of the energy required without sacrificing the immediate quality of life for the masses. This is not where their efforts are being directed and if one was to do the bookwork, follow the money, if they had all the carbon taxes they dream of robbing from the people I have no doubt less than a penny of every dollar of it will go to the cause of fixing the problems. More than 99 cents of it will go to enriching the elites who claim they have more rights than others. They will spend it on their Gore mansions, on jetting around to meetings, on lavish parties while laughing all the way to the banks they control while at the same time dictating to humanity every aspect of the lives they are 'allowed' to live. What the left blinds themselves to is the fact conservatives see the hypocrisy and this is the true source of the war on beliefs.

blogfast25 - 22-7-2015 at 06:13

Quote: Originally posted by Varmint  


Have a nice day wanker. Now go kiss your boyfriend in public, progressivism has made it not only your right, but something to be celebrated. Enjoy that too, use some tongue.


No one's asking you to embrace gays. But outbursts like that? What are they, huh?

Quote: Originally posted by Varmint  


All of course caused by man, and the kicker is, the faithful lap it up because it just feels so damn good to loathe yourself for having been born.


How anyone can believe such an utterly stupid notion is truly beyond me.

[Edited on 22-7-2015 by blogfast25]

blogfast25 - 22-7-2015 at 06:19

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
I am sure man has some effect on climate but reacting with hysterical immediate gloom and doom is counterproductive and wrong.


That is not how that science evolved, not even remotely.

Your whole approach as a Cons is to maintain the existing order, in which the elites will indeed further enrich themselves at the expense of the working class, yet you come and accuse AGW science of doing that! It's bizarre beyond words... :o:(

[Edited on 22-7-2015 by blogfast25]

Varmint - 22-7-2015 at 06:28

pissingnoise:

If the climate is changing, tending towards warmer temperature as is insisted by you self-loathers, then the conferences wouldn't have been impacted by anything but balmy weather. You do of course recognize the connection between climate and weather, do you not? Or is that connection only established or acceptable when it supports your religious attachment to self-loathing?

I know, you guys are grasping at straws, what else can you do when the priests of your religion were caught lying to the flock?

Don't take it personally dear chap, there is a certain subset of mankind that is pre-programmed to believe man is to blame for all the universe's ills. Not only are we threatening the habitat of crickets as we seek to build our disgusting symbols of our wanton arrogance (building in California), but we even littered the moon with our throw-away mentality by leaving stuff behind from the Apollo missions. Not to be outdone, the EU smashed a space probe into an asteroid in the penultimate example of littering space "because we can".


hissingnoise - 22-7-2015 at 06:35

Blogfast, I suppose the grudging admission that man's activities have "some effect" on climate counts as progress!


blogfast25 - 22-7-2015 at 06:49

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Blogfast, I suppose the grudging admission that man's activities have "some effect" on climate counts as progress!



Most of them do now. Jo Nova does. But the effect is tiiiiiinnnyy, you know? :D:D

Varmint/franklyn is of course in the really stupid category: in his jolly world view it's all a conspiracy, man! Larger than 9/11! AGW scientists can teach The Chimperor a thing or two! No Bond villain has yet come up with anything that can match it!

And just because we hate ourselves too...


[Edited on 22-7-2015 by blogfast25]

hissingnoise - 22-7-2015 at 06:51

Quote:
]pissingnoise: If the climate is changing . . . ?

Even stick insects know that global warming is occurring, but you, apparently, haven't yet quite reached their admittedly low level of "awareness'!

In that context, to call you 'simpleton' simply does not do you justice!


Varmint - 22-7-2015 at 06:57

bloggie:

How else can one justify your continued belief in a religion that was caught lying to you? People line up in droves to figuratively self-flaggelate themselves for their perceived impact on the planet, the air, the disrespectful littering of the moon. It's in their DNA to feel guilt.

It's not my fault you happen to come off as "one of them", you've allowed yourself to accept gay as "normal", you've accepted non-contributors as members of society every bit as "valid" as those supporting them, and you go out of your way to belittle those who do not toe the progressive line of utter and complete bullshit.

Go back and read your posts, especially those to me on these topics. The thing you seem to be most pissed off about is they hooked you into their claptrap, and I avoid it with great pride.

I'm not against gays, I'm against gays wanting special privilege.

I'm not against "brown people", I'm against them ruining their countries, then coming up here to ruin mine while playing the poor helpless" card as they suck on the government teat.

I don't loathe black people (my son in law is black), but I loathe those that continue to use race and "slavery" as bludgeons. They've been given ample opportunity to get their act together, but the fact is, worldwide, the North American black is seen as a problem of their own creation.

The vast majority of blacks I work with currently are "islanders" from Jamaica, and other islands throughout the Caribbean. Each and every one of them is a hard working, dedicated, and are happy to make something of themselves. And each of them shakes their heads in disgust at the laziness, the entitlement mentality, and the outright unwillingness to put in any effort of any kind by their American counterparts. What the islanders will do though is take advantage (not in a negative connotation) of various workplace offerings like paying for ongoing education, something they understand as good for them, good for the company. Their counterparts? They simply cannot be bothered, "I ain't got time fo that shit", and when they see the islanders moving up the same corporate ladder they have access to, they will actually look down on the islanders for "trying to be white, and being rewarded for it."

Have a nice day bloggie, and don't forget to tell me how stupid I am, what a dinosaur I am, how none of what I say could possibly be true, because I didn't drink the progressive Koolaid.

It's just what you guys do, so don't hold back, it won't affect me in any way, but I know you've been conditioned to believe that shouting down the opposition makes you feel better.



IrC - 22-7-2015 at 06:58

All this talking increases the problem because it uses energy created from burning coal. What have any of you done personally to reduce the problems you believe exist. Talking does not count.

blogfast25 - 22-7-2015 at 07:05

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
If that 50 percent is working to destroy America then hatred is all they deserve. America is about far more than merely being born here. Those who work to destroy the work and dreams of generations have no place in the land.


Right. Show me a mechanism by which you'll identify these 'undesirables' and what you'll do to ensure they're removed. Understand also that the other side often feels the same about you.

This is the US's modern Greek drama in a nutshell: while the two halves ('libs' and 'cons') of the 99 % are at each others throats, the 1 % walks away with the bone. The one that's made of solid gold.

[Edited on 22-7-2015 by blogfast25]

blogfast25 - 22-7-2015 at 07:10

Quote: Originally posted by Varmint  

Have a nice day bloggie, and don't forget to tell me how stupid I am, what a dinosaur I am, [...]



You've seared it into my memory. Hard to forget, after that...

The rest of your spiel is irrelevant: what do blacks, gays and your putrid Conservatism have anything to do here?

[Edited on 22-7-2015 by blogfast25]

blogfast25 - 22-7-2015 at 07:13

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
All this talking increases the problem because it uses energy created from burning coal. What have any of you done personally to reduce the problems you believe exist. Talking does not count.


That's deeply dishonest IrC: you would be the first to totally RIDICULE any individual efforts made and declared. And why shouldn't you? After all it's a pyramid scheme to help the 1 % to carbon credits, is it not?

Individuals can and will make a (small) contribution to solving the problem. But a global problem requires state actors to take action. No individual can make a national electricity grid carbon neutral, only nation STATES can do that. Follow on from there and we might be going somewhere towards halting global warming.


[Edited on 22-7-2015 by blogfast25]

franklyn - 22-7-2015 at 08:10

Quote: Originally posted by Varmint  

I'm not against gays, I'm against gays wanting special privilege.


@ Varmint
Being from New York the birth place of the queer movement , there are people here from every walk of life and belief , being intolerant marks one as the exception. I'm against assholes demanding special privilege. Blog's cannot abide that there can be dissenting or even minority view. When he resorts to Ad Hominem diatribes , it's an open concession of having lost the argument. The hissingnoise fan club cannot complete a thought which is greater than one line of text , endlessly chanting the same religious mantra.

@ mayko
I recognize you are a thoughtful and informed on this topic and likely read the primary sources. I freely concede much of my information is from secondary sources , commentators who interpret the data and take a different perhaps contrarian view. This alone speaks to the inherent uncertainty of prognostication. Assertions that the conclusion is incontrovertible are disingenuous. The proponents of this agenda are the ones undermining public confidence in the study of climate modeling. If the present trend should continue it will be 2 ºC in another 130 years. Us deniers will concede then that the debate is over. The premise that a change in climate is preventable by going ' green ' means regressing to a far more ecologically destructive preindustrial economy and can do absolutely nothing for the fact that change is beyond human ability to control on a planetary scale , and is for all practical intents and purposes unavoidable. The only available option for preventing large scale impact to the environment due to a hotter climate is the one you disapprove of for your own ulterior reasons.


.

IrC - 22-7-2015 at 09:11

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  
That's deeply dishonest IrC: you would be the first to totally RIDICULE any individual efforts made and declared.


Just as with hissies use of the term grudging you both imply you know what I think, what I know, where I am coming from and what I would do. On top of calling me a liar, i.e., dishonest. Problem is in all of the above points you know nothing. Zero knowledge, zero information. You do not know me. Add to this the fact that you hissie have a common MO and that is speaking in the vast majority of threads to others with insults, rudeness, judgmental attitudes, in general have a tendency to treat a very large percentage of members here with absolute contempt to the extreme. I have known ropes with better personalities.

"Right. Show me a mechanism by which you'll identify these 'undesirables' and what you'll do to ensure they're removed. Understand also that the other side often feels the same about you."

I have no need to identify 'these undesirables' nor any need to have them removed. This is the MO of the left as history has demonstrated many times for example Stalin, Mao, POL Pot, Che, others. How ironic and illuminating that the left treats these names as heroes. Actually discussed being done to the right in America (the quote being get rid of at least 25 million) by leftist radicals meeting in the 80's as reported by an FBI informant.

This is all history and cannot be refuted. How many innocent have and yet future will pay the price for the mindless insanity of those on the left. Thus far in the hundreds of millions in just the 20th century alone. The conservatives you despise (by your own many comments) have the mindset to live and let live. Thus it is only those who think as you (and all on the left) do who entertain thoughts of removing 'undesirables' for to live and let live is as alien a thought to you as simple common decency and compassion for their fellow citizens. Again borne out in history many times. As far as identifying the left there is no need they identify themselves every single time they speak. Neither is there any need to remove any since by their very natures they always bring on their own downfall. No effort is required by any on the right. Conservatives prefer to live in peace and be left alone. The left mistakes this as weakness and ignorance since they are so blind to rational thinking truth escapes them.

To say man has some effect on the temperature is no 'grudging' admission it is merely thermodynamics, the energy not lost to radiation is additive. Yet how many quadrillion joules does it take to raise the temperature by one degree in the entire mass of rock water and air of the planet and what percentage is man caused and what amount of change to the albedo of earth as a whole is man caused for in this lies the entire dispute. What percentage of heat is caused by cycles in the activity of the sun and why is this always concealed or omitted in the data. The predictions are based upon a poorly designed computer model evidenced by both failed predictions over the years as well as all the efforts at altering the data to conceal the reality which has been revealed upon many occasions. These efforts are counterproductive for they destroy any credibility GW proponents would hope to have. Again those who prefer truth and reality see the hypocrisy and will never be swayed by lies. Trying to make yourselves appear right through use of insults and treating opponents with contempt merely serves to strengthen the resolve of those on the right. As is usual you underestimate both the intelligence, strength, and resolve of all those you despise.

blogfast25 - 22-7-2015 at 09:43

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  


"Right. Show me a mechanism by which you'll identify these 'undesirables' and what you'll do to ensure they're removed. Understand also that the other side often feels the same about you."

I have no need to identify 'these undesirables' nor any need to have them removed.


You said it, you own it, dear:

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
If that 50 percent is working to destroy America then hatred is all they deserve. America is about far more than merely being born here. Those who work to destroy the work and dreams of generations have no place in the land.


Abuses of power are not the prerogative of either the Left or the Right, as well you know.

What you utterly fail to understand is that WHOEVER you will be voting for ('Dem' or 'Rep') doesn't have your interests at heart at ALL. So keep thinking polar and believing Jeb! (or Hillary) could lead to your salvation.

As one thinking Conservative wrote a few days ago:

Quote:
Funny thing is, if Bush wins, 99% of Republicans will consider his election "Mission Accomplished" and go back to sleep until they receive the inevitable outsourcing pink slip.


Couldn't have said it better myself.

I may be 'left' but I've more respect for solid Conservative thinking than you might expect. But not for the anti-science/anti-reason Klown Kar that is the GOP preznit candidates. Good luck with signing your own life away, while crapping your panties about non-existent communist goblins!

I don't know you? You're right. And you don't know me either.

blogfast25 - 22-7-2015 at 09:52

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn  
Blog's cannot abide that there can be dissenting or even minority view.



You shitpost here all the time. Spare me your fake persecution complex.

Why should I have respect for anyone promoting water based perpetuum mobiles and defending the main culprit of that affair as the 'unfortunate inventor'? (Don't make me link now!)

You are bonkers and most here know it. So you get a little counter fire, so what? Go cry in your tomato juice. And DON'T confuse truth with civility, you snake oil merchant.

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn  
The premise that a change in climate is preventable by going ' green ' means regressing to a far more ecologically destructive preindustrial economy


More nonsense from the village idiot. These are the fears denial is based on. No surprise that a pathological paranoid like you believes it. Balderdash and piffle!

No group is more afflicted by conspiratorial paranoid thinking than the US libertarian conservative side of politics. QED.


[Edited on 22-7-2015 by blogfast25]

Varmint - 22-7-2015 at 10:38

IrC:

Spot on. I don't despise gays, I despise them having "pride parades" which are really designed to be in your face "tell us we're not creepy, or else" parades. Pride in what? I'm not "proud" to be hetero, I just AM. Instead, they need the rest of us to embrace their "lifestyle" not as a matter of social harmony, but a militant, again, in your face, "accept us or else". Much was make about the bakery not caring to make a cake for a gay wedding. Well, that to me sounds like the perfect opportunity for some gay entrepreneurs to set out to create bakeries that specifically cater to the gay element. And they should have every right to refuse service to "straight" couples, just as, in a truly just world, the "straight" bakery should have been able to refuse service to anyone they choose.

I don't despise other religions, I despise that they have the nerve to try and have all vestiges of my religion, in a largely "my" religion country removed because it offends them, yet they want to impose Sharia law on ME.

I don't despise Mexicans, or even those who seek a better life. What I do despise is those breaking laws and invading our country illegally, and I doubly-despise those that enable them (including those who hire them) by postulating it's "their right" to break our laws and have the leftists cut them in on the social security they haven't paid into, or the social services they overwhelm, again, not having paid a dime themselves to support said services.

I don't despise blacks, just those that assume I am part and parcel of their problem. Their problem is on of culture, or stark lack thereof. When the black kid that studies hard and gets good grades is shunned or even beaten for "acting white", that's not a problem I caused, that's a fundamental, ingrained, institutionalized victimhood mentality that is actively being propped up by the race baiters. Remember Tawana Brawley? Why is Al Sharpton -0-bama's "race czar"? Because he actively promotes the victimhood counter-culture, and that's their built in excuse for every bad action. How about asking that smart black kid if he or she can help you learn too? LOL, much easier to claim the white man is holding you back, and beat the smart kid for being white, then blame it on the white guy because he didn't embrace your bad behavior as valid.

I have no vested interest in gay culture. I'm not glad they exist, I'm not sad they exist, what's wrong with just not giving a shit what somebody else does if it doesn't affect me or impune my character? I'm not less of a person for not embracing them, if they were so certain of their "lifestyle" they wouldn't need my approval anyway. So why the demand I embrace them? Why the demand that those with views diametrically opposed "serve" them? It's all about special treatment. They don't want equality, they want to be "special".

Similarly, blacks never wanted equality, they want special treatment. Newsflash: No one, even in the ancient history of my family tree ever had a slave, or even knew anyone who had a slave. It's not merely location, its a money thing. Probably 95% of people never understood how much a slave actually cost. Not ongoing upkeep, but pure purchase price. None of my family ever got anywhere near anyone with that kind of money. And they think blacks were routinely mistreated as slaves? Hollywood lie. The initial cost was so high, and the loss of expected productivity so daunting, the extreme vast majority of slave owners did everything they could to keep their workers healthy and in good spirits, this wasn't about making life easy on the homestead, this was about insuring the productivity of vast plantations.

The saddest part is how far we've gone backwards since "the civil rights movement". I'm not daring to suggest it was a bad idea, I'm plainly stating it was a turning point where "they" decided they could get more by just choosing to ride the wave the wave of resentment, rather than stand firm and let it pass by. It opened the door to what seems to be an endless string of favoritism and outright pandering, but it's not paying off for anyone, it's simply getting worse.

As usual, the biggest player in all of this is the media. No where on earth could you refer to someone with running water, heating and air-conditioning, multiple TVs, multiple vehicles, and a family wearing $250/pair sneakers as "poor", but our media does. You might have all of the same stuff, same sized house, same cars, same TVs, same strange attraction to sneakers, and if you have a jet-ski or boat, now suddenly YOU ARE RICH, and the subject of much disgust and hand-wringing, all because you dared to work some overtime, had a second job, or whatever "offense" you committed that allowed you to have MORE.

The leftist solution is simple, everyone should "suffer" the same. They aren't saying everyone should enjoy the same level of success, because success is an evil white concept, but everyone should be on "a level playing field", which of course is code for bust down those that are prone to succeed, and prop those who have no intention of succeeding up, so we're all approximately the same. That's the dream anyway, until they find out they too have to step down a few notches, then of course it's not the idea that was wrong, somebody just broke the starry-eyed implementation.



aga - 22-7-2015 at 10:52

I despise gay people who introduce themselves as such.

The annoyance is that they prod forth their sexual inclination for an introduction, as if that is the primary thing to note of their entire existence.

If it were a job interview, i'd be accused of being homophobic, whereas i'd actually be looking for someone more interested in the Work than their own sexual proclivities.

"Hi. My name's Steve. Thanks for the chance to work with you here in ..."
"Hi. My name's Steve and i'm Gay, in a Stable gay relationship with Steve."

I'd choose the first Steve, regardless of if he were gay or not.

mayko - 22-7-2015 at 11:04


Quote:

we don't need to refute bad science, they did that in their own words as they sought how best to mislead their fellow worshippers. [...] I read the emails, there is no need to even discuss the global warming subject ever again. It's settled. [...] We can continue to discuss various reports, cross-post various studies supporting either "side", but the facts are climate change faithful will do anything to keep the funds rolling in, and of course justify their lies so they can continue to be considered "valid" scientists, expecting of course to remain fundable for the next study grant.


This is not just a painfully transparent ploy to avoid engaging with the physical basis of the issue and the data at hand (or as I like to call it, 'doing science'). This is also a terrible perspective on scientific scandal and fraud.

There is nothing specific to address, since Varmint just keeps repeating that they've read the leaked CRU emails (so have I, broskalooni, and Cablegate they ain't). So the best response is to contrast this putative fraud with a known, uncontroversial case, such as the Schon affair.

Although Schon was caught fabricating data, it occurred to no one to claim that his field, solid-state electronics, was rotten to the core. Moreover, no one needed to play cyber-James Bond to catch him. Suspicion turned upon his results, first when anomalies were discovered in his publications, and this solidified when his results could not be replicated.

By contrast, the HadCRU temperature data had been in broad agreement with other datasets, such as NASA's GISS, for a long time. Some time after CRU's Phil Jones had been cleared of wrongdoing by multiple independent investigations, the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature record was established, again agreeing in broad detail with the CRU data. Unless Varmint wants to invoke a conspiracy of tinfoil proportions, in a very competitive field of research, there's no case for simply throwing all extant data in the garbage.

Speaking of garbage, since this is pretty much the only plank in Varmint's platform on the subject, I feel ok piping their posts directly to /dev/null, homophobia and all.

If you really must pursue such conspiracies, there is already a thread in which they are on-topic: Economy drives global warming advocates?. This is a thread for the sharing of resources among people who are actually interested in geophysics.

IrC - 22-7-2015 at 11:25

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  
Quote: Originally posted by IrC  


"Right. Show me a mechanism by which you'll identify these 'undesirables' and what you'll do to ensure they're removed. Understand also that the other side often feels the same about you."

I have no need to identify 'these undesirables' nor any need to have them removed.


You said it, you own it, dear:

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
If that 50 percent is working to destroy America then hatred is all they deserve. America is about far more than merely being born here. Those who work to destroy the work and dreams of generations have no place in the land.


Abuses of power are not the prerogative of either the Left or the Right, as well you know.

What you utterly fail to understand is that WHOEVER you will be voting for ('Dem' or 'Rep') doesn't have your interests at heart at ALL. So keep thinking polar and believing Jeb! (or Hillary) could lead to your salvation.

As one thinking Conservative wrote a few days ago:

Quote:
Funny thing is, if Bush wins, 99% of Republicans will consider his election "Mission Accomplished" and go back to sleep until they receive the inevitable outsourcing pink slip.


Couldn't have said it better myself.

I may be 'left' but I've more respect for solid Conservative thinking than you might expect. But not for the anti-science/anti-reason Klown Kar that is the GOP preznit candidates. Good luck with signing your own life away, while crapping your panties about non-existent communist goblins!

I don't know you? You're right. And you don't know me either.


Rational truthful thinking must be hard for you. I said "If that 50 percent is working to destroy America then hatred is all they deserve. America is about far more than merely being born here. Those who work to destroy the work and dreams of generations have no place in the land".

Both statements are absolutely true and rational, simple common sense. If one is working to destroy your home they deserve no kindness whatsoever. No respect, no love. The opposite of love is hatred. Likewise those working to destroy your home have no place in it. Only a complete idiot fool would gladly house their destroyer. It was you that by the way your thought process work who turned this into the actual act of removing those enemies quote ""Right. Show me a mechanism by which you'll identify these 'undesirables' and what you'll do to ensure they're removed. Understand also that the other side often feels the same about you."". I did not say this you did, I do not own this you do for it is your own words not mine. The difference since obviously you cannot see it with understanding is your approach requires violence whereas the physical act of removal was not brought up in any of my words yet this is what you are claiming I am saying. Virtually all of your error comes from your preconceived notions based upon how you would handle things as well as your preconceived notions on how others would. Evidenced by yet another statement from you "IrC: you would be the first to totally RIDICULE any individual efforts made and declared." where there is nothing you can bring in as evidence showing this is how I would act or what I would do. This is nothing more than a false accusation by you based upon no more than your own perverted thought process. Further evidence of how you would handle things therefore in your mind this is how another would act "And why shouldn't you? After all it's a pyramid scheme to help the 1 % to carbon credits, is it not?". It could not have been made more clear by you. That is, you assume others would do as you would think to do. Problem with this is you are wrong every time, at least until you are considering someone who thinks as you do. Another example is your statement of belief a conservative would vote for Jeb. A Rhino would, a true conservative would not. Myself I would vote for satan before Jeb at least I know where he stands, what he would do. The devil does not hide his evil, Jeb does. Yet again you do not know me nor do you know how I or any true conservative would think or act. Quite simply because you endlessly project upon all others your thinking, you mistakenly assume others will think and act in any given circumstance the way you would. A crook says to himself so what if I'm crooked everyone else is. The error is obviously everyone else is not although far too many are today. Anyone who would take the oath to defend America and the constitution while promoting an uncontrolled criminal invasion is crooked. If elected there is zero doubt this is precisely what Jeb would do evidenced by both his words as well as actual past policy decisions. What you seem to not understand is the difference in how the right VS the left would handle things. The right would use the law to protect and preserve the rule of law. The left craps on cop cars or did you miss the OWS demonstrations.

On topic you just have to love stories like this:

http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-expedition-foiled-by-...


fanta_large.jpg - 81kB

[Edited on 7-22-2015 by IrC]

blogfast25 - 22-7-2015 at 11:33

Quote: Originally posted by aga  
I despise gay people who introduce themselves as such.



You do realise why gay people up to very recently where mostly in the 'closet', right? How many people do you actually know that introduce themselves as 'Hi, I'm Steve and I'm Gay!', huh?

My best friend in a work place many years ago was gay and refused to let it be known to his colleagues. For fear of commentary, judgement and worse. No 'Hi, I'm Gay' for my bud, apparently.

Same with 'they want special rights'. What? Equality is special rights now?

Or 'Gay pride parades': Varmint, if you can't see the context there then you're an ahistorical imbecile and illiterate.

The 'modern' attitude to gays is: 'I don't mind them BUT [insert idiocy of your choice].

blogfast25 - 22-7-2015 at 11:36

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  


On topic you just have to love stories like this:

http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-expedition-foiled-by-...


Alex Jones, dear? I leave that to franklyn. His cup of tea, totally. Don't forget to take Jones' super male vitality pills! :P

As regards the rest, a big, big YAAAAWNN! Next time try RED, ALLCAPS, BOLDED ITALICS.


[Edited on 22-7-2015 by blogfast25]

Varmint - 22-7-2015 at 12:09

Mayko:

LOL. Another global warming sect came to the rescue with similarly fudged data, game over?

Look, I know you want to believe, there is nothing anyone can do to help you. If all of the global clans came together, said there is something wrong with recording temperatures in a new way (duh) and their newly adjusted data shows there is no trend up or down, you'd be hunting the internet for someone, anyone who would prove them wrong. You are invested, you've embraced data from people who cannot be trusted, and you'll use data from another sect to try and prop up your new religion. This will never change, and all I can say is I admire your willingness to be mislead. Most people have a hard time committing so completely, you set a new standard.

mayko - 22-7-2015 at 12:17

Varmint, your disdain for replicability in science is clear. Please restrict your evidence-free postings to the Whimsy thread linked above, where they will be on topic.

blogfast25 - 22-7-2015 at 12:32

mayko:

When Varmint's car breaks down he takes it to a (preferably white and straight) potato merchant because you can't trust certified car mechanics, you see?

Varmint's suspicious of AGW because he thinks teh gey are stealing his tax dollars to buy pink underwear with. ;)

[Edited on 22-7-2015 by blogfast25]

Varmint - 22-7-2015 at 12:34

mayko:

My disdain for global warming "scientists" is EVERYONE (including yourself) knows they are being paid to present a specified outcome. This is why they had to come up with sanctioned name-calling for those who choose not to worship at their altar.

If their science was good, there would be no reason to stoop so low.

So, embrace it, live it, take solice in it, and just call me a DENIER, that's what the mothership tells you to do, avoid their instruction at your own peril.

blogfast25 - 22-7-2015 at 12:44

You're right Varmint, scientists shouldn't be salaried for their toil. Perish the thought!

aga - 22-7-2015 at 12:44

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  
The 'modern' attitude to gays is: 'I don't mind them BUT [insert idiocy of your choice].

Personally i have absolutely no interest at all in what other people do with their reproductive organs or other sphyncters.

I am not best pleased when their sexual preferences are rammed in my face at first meeting, as if that is all that matters to anyone, ever.

It is simply egocentric bad manners.

Having been annoyed with this for a while, i have a concise yet explicit repartee prepared regarding my own sexual inclination.

I don't get out much, so highly unlikely that i'll have to deploy it.

blogfast25 - 22-7-2015 at 12:47

Quote: Originally posted by aga  


I am not best pleased when their sexual preferences are rammed in my face at first meeting, as if that is all that matters to anyone, ever.



Are these gays you talk of genetically modified? Mine just don't do that! :D

And yes, sexual orientation still matters a WHOLE LOT to some people, aga. Don't pretend to be blind!

[Edited on 22-7-2015 by blogfast25]

MrHomeScientist - 22-7-2015 at 12:49

Quote: Originally posted by mayko  
Varmint, your disdain for replicability in science is clear. Please restrict your evidence-free postings to the Whimsy thread linked above, where they will be on topic.

Please restrict all postings in this thread and related ones to Whimsy, IMO. This is all time that could be much better spent talking about actually relevant chemistry topics. This is all just name-calling back and forth with no possible resolution.


Nobody ever convinced anybody of anything over the internet.

 Pages:  1