Rutan on Global Warming [Archive]

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 8th 09, 01:11 AM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote:
>>> http://www.airventure.org/news/2009/090731_rutan.html
>>
>> "He said data shows that concerns about global warming are false. "CO2
>> is plant food, not a pollutant," he said. "It's been 20 times as high
>> as it now. If you have a 1.2 percent increase in cloud formation and
>> precipitation, it offsets a 100 percent increase of CO2 in the
>> atmosphere."
>>
>> Gosh, Burt Rutan is climate genius, too!
>
> So which of his numbers is wrong?

Which of his numbers is relevant?

>> He knows more than the scientists. Impressive!
>
> "Locus ab auctoritate est infirmissimus"

I would say the argument from cluelessness is weakest.

Rutan charged that climate scientists have it wrong, setting himself as a
superior authority. Is he?

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

Brian Whatcott

August 8th 09, 01:38 AM

Dan Luke wrote:
....
> "He said data shows that concerns about global warming are false. "CO2 is
> plant food, not a pollutant," he said. "It's been 20 times as high as it
> now. If you have a 1.2 percent increase in cloud formation and
> precipitation, it offsets a 100 percent increase of CO2 in the atmosphere."
>
> Gosh, Burt Rutan is climate genius, too! He knows more than the scientists.
> Impressive!
>

Makes me wonder what kind of excellent composite aircraft the met
researchers could create, if they put their minds to it!

Brian W

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

August 8th 09, 01:50 AM

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> I would say the argument from cluelessness is weakest.
>
> Rutan charged that climate scientists have it wrong, setting himself
> as a superior authority. Is he?
>

Rutan is in agreement with many climate scientists.

Jim Logajan

August 8th 09, 01:54 AM

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote:
>>>> http://www.airventure.org/news/2009/090731_rutan.html
>>>
>>> "He said data shows that concerns about global warming are false.
>>> "CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant," he said. "It's been 20 times
>>> as high as it now. If you have a 1.2 percent increase in cloud
>>> formation and precipitation, it offsets a 100 percent increase of
>>> CO2 in the atmosphere."
>>>
>>> Gosh, Burt Rutan is climate genius, too!
>>
>> So which of his numbers is wrong?
>
> Which of his numbers is relevant?

I thought they were all relevant. Warmer air holds more moisture, therefore
presumably more cloud formation and precipitation might occur.

The odd thing is, if cloud formation and precipitation increase to
"offset" an increase in CO2, I expect it would happen precisely because the
atmosphere _had_ warmed. So his numbers are "merely" useful in determining
the equilibrium point that the atmosphere might warm to - not that no
warming would take place or that it isn't a concern.

>>> He knows more than the scientists. Impressive!
>>
>> "Locus ab auctoritate est infirmissimus"
>
> I would say the argument from cluelessness is weakest.
>
> Rutan charged that climate scientists have it wrong, setting himself
> as a superior authority. Is he?

Why not comment respectfully on his alleged facts and line of argument
rather than do the online equivalent of sneering?

I don't agree with Rutan, but I'm not a climate scientist either. Are you?

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 8th 09, 02:11 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>> I would say the argument from cluelessness is weakest.
>>
>> Rutan charged that climate scientists have it wrong, setting himself
>> as a superior authority. Is he?
>>
>
> Rutan is in agreement with many climate scientists.
>
No, he isn't. Unless the definition of "many" equals 3 or 4.

Please provide cites.

--
Dan

"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
-Chief Inspector Dreyfus

Jim Logajan

August 8th 09, 02:23 AM

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>>
>>> I would say the argument from cluelessness is weakest.
>>>
>>> Rutan charged that climate scientists have it wrong, setting himself
>>> as a superior authority. Is he?
>>>
>>
>> Rutan is in agreement with many climate scientists.
>>
> No, he isn't. Unless the definition of "many" equals 3 or 4.
>
> Please provide cites.

A few climate scientists are included here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

Next up: a vote to determine which explanation of lift is correct.

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 8th 09, 02:27 AM

"Jim Logajan" wrote:
>>>
>>> So which of his numbers is wrong?
>>
>> Which of his numbers is relevant?
>
> I thought they were all relevant. Warmer air holds more moisture,
> therefore
> presumably more cloud formation and precipitation might occur.

Why do you presume that? The relative humidity of the global atmosphere is
fairly constant. If the temperature of the atmosphere increases, the amount
of water vapor it can contain also increases. That does not mean
"presumably" that more cloud formation and precipitation will occur.

> The odd thing is, if cloud formation and precipitation increase to
> "offset" an increase in CO2, I expect it would happen precisely because
> the
> atmosphere _had_ warmed. So his numbers are "merely" useful in determining
> the equilibrium point that the atmosphere might warm to - not that no
> warming would take place or that it isn't a concern.
>
>>>> He knows more than the scientists. Impressive!
>>>
>>> "Locus ab auctoritate est infirmissimus"
>>
>> I would say the argument from cluelessness is weakest.
>>
>> Rutan charged that climate scientists have it wrong, setting himself
>> as a superior authority. Is he?
>
> Why not comment respectfully on his alleged facts and line of argument
> rather than do the online equivalent of sneering?
>
> I don't agree with Rutan, but I'm not a climate scientist either. Are you?

Indeed not, but I have seen Rutan's assertions refuted by people who are.
When I see a naive layman such as Rutan proclaiming that the scientists are
wrong, I am skeptical. Am I wrong to be so?

--
Dan

"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
-Chief Inspector Dreyfus

[email protected]

August 8th 09, 02:30 AM

Dan Luke > wrote:
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>>
>>> I would say the argument from cluelessness is weakest.
>>>
>>> Rutan charged that climate scientists have it wrong, setting himself
>>> as a superior authority. Is he?
>>>
>>
>> Rutan is in agreement with many climate scientists.
>>
> No, he isn't. Unless the definition of "many" equals 3 or 4.
>
> Please provide cites.

Define what you are talking about.

Just about everyone agrees the past few decades are warmer than previous.

Not everyone agrees the cause is human.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 8th 09, 02:31 AM

"Jim Logajan" wrote:
>>>
>>> Rutan is in agreement with many climate scientists.
>>>
>> No, he isn't. Unless the definition of "many" equals 3 or 4.
>>
>> Please provide cites.
>
> A few climate scientists are included here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming
>

McNicoll's claim was "many".

The Wiki link you provided hardly supports that claim, does it?

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 8th 09, 02:38 AM

> wrote:

> Dan Luke > wrote:
>>
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would say the argument from cluelessness is weakest.
>>>>
>>>> Rutan charged that climate scientists have it wrong, setting himself
>>>> as a superior authority. Is he?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rutan is in agreement with many climate scientists.
>>>
>> No, he isn't. Unless the definition of "many" equals 3 or 4.
>>
>> Please provide cites.
>
> Define what you are talking about.
>
> Just about everyone agrees the past few decades are warmer than previous.
>
> Not everyone agrees the cause is human.

No, just every scientific professional organization in the world.

Not everyone agrees that the Earth orbits the Sun or that it is more than
6,000 years old. So what?

--
Dan

"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
-Chief Inspector Dreyfus

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

August 8th 09, 02:49 AM

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> No, he isn't. Unless the definition of "many" equals 3 or 4.
>
> Please provide cites.
>

After you.

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

August 8th 09, 02:55 AM

Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>> Just about everyone agrees the past few decades are warmer than
>> previous. Not everyone agrees the cause is human.
>
> No, just every scientific professional organization in the world.
>

Can you provide anything, ANYTHING, that supports that wild assertion?

[email protected]

August 8th 09, 03:00 AM

Dan Luke > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
>> Dan Luke > wrote:
>>>
>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say the argument from cluelessness is weakest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rutan charged that climate scientists have it wrong, setting himself
>>>>> as a superior authority. Is he?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rutan is in agreement with many climate scientists.
>>>>
>>> No, he isn't. Unless the definition of "many" equals 3 or 4.
>>>
>>> Please provide cites.
>>
>> Define what you are talking about.
>>
>> Just about everyone agrees the past few decades are warmer than previous.
>>
>> Not everyone agrees the cause is human.
>
> No, just every scientific professional organization in the world.

That's a pretty big claim, and I assume you are talking about AGW,
not just warming, so what do you have to back that claim up?

> Not everyone agrees that the Earth orbits the Sun or that it is more than
> 6,000 years old. So what?

Non responsive; the group under discussion was "climate scientists", not
the general population.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[email protected]

August 8th 09, 03:30 AM

Dan Luke > wrote:
>
> "Jim Logajan" wrote:
> >>>
>>>> Rutan is in agreement with many climate scientists.
>>>>
>>> No, he isn't. Unless the definition of "many" equals 3 or 4.
>>>
>>> Please provide cites.
>>
>> A few climate scientists are included here:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming
>>
>
> McNicoll's claim was "many".
>
> The Wiki link you provided hardly supports that claim, does it?

Try this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 8th 09, 12:53 PM

> wrote in message
...
> Dan Luke > wrote:
>>
>> "Jim Logajan" wrote:
>> >>>
>>>>> Rutan is in agreement with many climate scientists.
>>>>>
>>>> No, he isn't. Unless the definition of "many" equals 3 or 4.
>>>>
>>>> Please provide cites.
>>>
>>> A few climate scientists are included here:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming
>>>
>>
>> McNicoll's claim was "many".
>>
>> The Wiki link you provided hardly supports that claim, does it?
>
> Try this:
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7

Not a single climate scientist in the bunch. Ian Plimer, once a respected
geologist, recently made a complete fool of himself by publishing _Heaven +
Earth_, a book so full of errors and falsehoods that it has made Plimer a
laughingstock.

http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer1a9.pdf

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 8th 09, 02:06 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>>>
>>> Just about everyone agrees the past few decades are warmer than
>>> previous. Not everyone agrees the cause is human.
>>
>> No, just every scientific professional organization in the world.
>>
>
> Can you provide anything, ANYTHING, that supports that wild assertion?

Here's the list, with some links illustrating the various bodies' positions:

American Association of Petroleum Geologists
http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.pdf
American Geophysical Union http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0335.html
American Astronomical Society
http://aas.org/governance/resolutions.php#climate
American Institute of Physics (2004) http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
American Physical Society http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
American Chemical Society http://tinyurl.com/nepc8b
American Statistical Association
http://www.amstat.org/about/pressreleases/climatechange.pdf
InterAcademy Council
Joint Science Academies http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=7821
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
http://www.caets.org/cms/7122/7735.aspx
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
http://www.euro-acad.eu/downloads/memoranda/39._podgorica_declaration,_adopted,_11_oct._2008.p df
Network of African Science Academies
National Academy of Science/National Research Council (US)
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf
International Council for Science
European Science Foundation
http://www.esf.org/activities/esf-conferences/details/2009/confdetail311.html?conf=311&year=2009
American Association for the Advancement of Science
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
Federation of American Scientists http://tinyurl.com/neaehf
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2009geoengineeringclimate_amsstatement.html
Royal Meteorological Society (UK) http://www.rmets.org/weather/liverpool.php
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
http://tinyurl.com/kpsnbz
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Quaternary Association
http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Max Planck Institute http://tinyurl.com/knuex6
European Geosciences Union
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/pos10_climate.pdf
The Royal Society http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

I'd be interested to see your list of professional scientific organizations
who say human activities are *not* responsible for the warming of past few
decades.

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

Stealth Pilot[_2_]

August 8th 09, 02:39 PM

On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 08:06:11 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Just about everyone agrees the past few decades are warmer than
>>>> previous. Not everyone agrees the cause is human.
>>>
>>> No, just every scientific professional organization in the world.
>>>
>>
>> Can you provide anything, ANYTHING, that supports that wild assertion?
>
>
>Here's the list, with some links illustrating the various bodies' positions:
>
>American Association of Petroleum Geologists
>http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.pdf
>American Geophysical Union http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0335.html
>American Astronomical Society
>http://aas.org/governance/resolutions.php#climate
>American Institute of Physics (2004) http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
>American Physical Society http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
>American Chemical Society http://tinyurl.com/nepc8b
>American Statistical Association
>http://www.amstat.org/about/pressreleases/climatechange.pdf
>InterAcademy Council
>Joint Science Academies http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=7821
>International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
>http://www.caets.org/cms/7122/7735.aspx
>European Academy of Sciences and Arts
>http://www.euro-acad.eu/downloads/memoranda/39._podgorica_declaration,_adopted,_11_oct._2008.p df
>Network of African Science Academies
>National Academy of Science/National Research Council (US)
>http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf
>International Council for Science
>European Science Foundation
>http://www.esf.org/activities/esf-conferences/details/2009/confdetail311.html?conf=311&year=2009
>American Association for the Advancement of Science
>http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
>Federation of American Scientists http://tinyurl.com/neaehf
>World Meteorological Organization
>American Meteorological Society
>http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2009geoengineeringclimate_amsstatement.html
>Royal Meteorological Society (UK) http://www.rmets.org/weather/liverpool.php
>Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
>http://tinyurl.com/kpsnbz
>Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
>Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
>International Union for Quaternary Research
>American Quaternary Association
>http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf
>Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
>International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
>Max Planck Institute http://tinyurl.com/knuex6
>European Geosciences Union
>Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
>Geological Society of America
>http://www.geosociety.org/positions/pos10_climate.pdf
>The Royal Society http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
>
>I'd be interested to see your list of professional scientific organizations
>who say human activities are *not* responsible for the warming of past few
>decades.

bloody hell dan you're all over the guy like a dog in heat.
who gives a stuff what the academic situation is.
how do we move forward?
1. we are not going to stop living.
2. we are not going to stop using energy
3. we are not moving into caves
nobody gives a stuff about the harbingers of doom and their silly
global warming religion.

how do we move forward from here?
that's the bloody question.

whats the next fuel that can be put into widespread use????

Morgans[_7_]

August 8th 09, 02:49 PM

Dan, if you are as smart as you think you are, you would realize that the
two sides of this argument will never agree, and it does not matter what
proof you claim to have. In result, you would just quit arguing, and move
on to a different subject, without caring who gets the last word.

The same thing could be said to the other people arguing with Dan.
--
Jim in NC

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 8th 09, 03:08 PM

"Morgans" wrote:

> Dan, if you are as smart as you think you are, you would realize that the
> two sides of this argument will never agree, and it does not matter what
> proof you claim to have. In result, you would just quit arguing, and move
> on to a different subject, without caring who gets the last word.
>
> The same thing could be said to the other people arguing with Dan.
> --

Oh, you're right of course, Jim. I've been in enough of these arguments
here and elswhere to know it's no longer an issue of facts with most people.

But a respected guy like Rutan spouting nonsense in public on a subject he
clearly does not understand is something I couldn't let pass without
comment.

I'll leave it with what I've posted so far; the others can claim victory if
they like.

Dan

T182T at 4R4

Peter Dohm

August 8th 09, 04:00 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" wrote:
>
>> Dan, if you are as smart as you think you are, you would realize that the
>> two sides of this argument will never agree, and it does not matter what
>> proof you claim to have. In result, you would just quit arguing, and
>> move on to a different subject, without caring who gets the last word.
>>
>> The same thing could be said to the other people arguing with Dan.
>> --
>
> Oh, you're right of course, Jim. I've been in enough of these arguments
> here and elswhere to know it's no longer an issue of facts with most
> people.
>
> But a respected guy like Rutan spouting nonsense in public on a subject he
> clearly does not understand is something I couldn't let pass without
> comment.
>
> I'll leave it with what I've posted so far; the others can claim victory
> if they like.
>
> Dan
>
> T182T at 4R4
>
>
There are plenty of good reasons to conserve, but global warming is not
amoung them.

Peter

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

August 8th 09, 05:54 PM

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Just about everyone agrees the past few decades are warmer than
>>>> previous. Not everyone agrees the cause is human.
>>>
>>> No, just every scientific professional organization in the world.
>>>
>>
>> Can you provide anything, ANYTHING, that supports that wild
>> assertion?
>
>
> Here's the list, with some links illustrating the various bodies'
> positions:
> American Association of Petroleum Geologists
> http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.pdf
> American Geophysical Union
> http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0335.html American Astronomical
> Society http://aas.org/governance/resolutions.php#climate
> American Institute of Physics (2004) http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
> American Physical Society
> http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm American Chemical
> Society http://tinyurl.com/nepc8b American Statistical Association
> http://www.amstat.org/about/pressreleases/climatechange.pdf
> InterAcademy Council
> Joint Science Academies
> http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=7821 International
> Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
> http://www.caets.org/cms/7122/7735.aspx European Academy of Sciences and
> Arts
> http://www.euro-acad.eu/downloads/memoranda/39._podgorica_declaration,_adopted,_11_oct._2008.p df
> Network of African Science Academies
> National Academy of Science/National Research Council (US)
> http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf
> International Council for Science
> European Science Foundation
> http://www.esf.org/activities/esf-conferences/details/2009/confdetail311.html?conf=311&year=2009
> American Association for the Advancement of Science
> http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
> Federation of American Scientists http://tinyurl.com/neaehf
> World Meteorological Organization
> American Meteorological Society
> http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2009geoengineeringclimate_amsstatement.html
> Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
> http://www.rmets.org/weather/liverpool.php Australian Meteorological
> and Oceanographic Society http://tinyurl.com/kpsnbz
> Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
> Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
> International Union for Quaternary Research
> American Quaternary Association
> http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf
> Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
> International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
> Max Planck Institute http://tinyurl.com/knuex6
> European Geosciences Union
> Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
> Geological Society of America
> http://www.geosociety.org/positions/pos10_climate.pdf
> The Royal Society http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
>
> I'd be interested to see your list of professional scientific
> organizations who say human activities are *not* responsible for the
> warming of past few decades.
>

I don't need a list of them. Your assertion was that EVERY scientific
professional organization in the world agrees that humans are the cause for
the past few decades being warmer than previous. If there exists just one
professional organization that disputes that your wild assertion is proven
false. The George C Marshall Institute is such an organization.

Mike Granby

August 8th 09, 08:26 PM

On Aug 7, 5:05*pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

> Burt Rutan is climate genius, too! *He knows more
> than the scientists. Impressive!

Rutan's pitch was that he was coming at the problem from the point of
view of someone versed in data analysis. He studied the data, and
decided that there was no trend to support the theory is warming, much
less anthropogenic warming. The most telling chart was the one that
showed global temperatures in comparison to solar output, in that the
fit was about as near perfect as you can get with this sort of thing.

Peter Dohm

August 8th 09, 08:31 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Just about everyone agrees the past few decades are warmer than
>>>> previous. Not everyone agrees the cause is human.
>>>
>>> No, just every scientific professional organization in the world.
>>>
>>
>> Can you provide anything, ANYTHING, that supports that wild assertion?
>
>
> Here's the list, with some links illustrating the various bodies'
> positions:
>
> American Association of Petroleum Geologists
> http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.pdf
> American Geophysical Union http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0335.html
> American Astronomical Society
> http://aas.org/governance/resolutions.php#climate
> American Institute of Physics (2004) http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
> American Physical Society http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
> American Chemical Society http://tinyurl.com/nepc8b
> American Statistical Association
> http://www.amstat.org/about/pressreleases/climatechange.pdf
> InterAcademy Council
> Joint Science Academies http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=7821
> International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
> Sciences http://www.caets.org/cms/7122/7735.aspx
> European Academy of Sciences and Arts
> http://www.euro-acad.eu/downloads/memoranda/39._podgorica_declaration,_adopted,_11_oct._2008.p df
> Network of African Science Academies
> National Academy of Science/National Research Council (US)
> http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf
> International Council for Science
> European Science Foundation
> http://www.esf.org/activities/esf-conferences/details/2009/confdetail311.html?conf=311&year=2009
> American Association for the Advancement of Science
> http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
> Federation of American Scientists http://tinyurl.com/neaehf
> World Meteorological Organization
> American Meteorological Society
> http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2009geoengineeringclimate_amsstatement.html
> Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
> http://www.rmets.org/weather/liverpool.php
> Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
> http://tinyurl.com/kpsnbz
> Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
> Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
> International Union for Quaternary Research
> American Quaternary Association
> http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf
> Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
> International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
> Max Planck Institute http://tinyurl.com/knuex6
> European Geosciences Union
> Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
> Geological Society of America
> http://www.geosociety.org/positions/pos10_climate.pdf
> The Royal Society http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
>
> I'd be interested to see your list of professional scientific
> organizations who say human activities are *not* responsible for the
> warming of past few decades.
>
> --
> Dan
>
> T182T at 4R4
>
I don't understand how you omitted The Union Of Concerned Scientists from a
list in which they would have been such a perfect fit.

Peter

george

August 8th 09, 09:26 PM

My small nitpicking point is that if the Earth wasn't doing whatever
the Earth did we'd be still in the Wurm Glaciation with most of
Northern America and Europe under several hundred feet of ice.

Peter Dohm

August 8th 09, 10:20 PM

"George" > wrote in message
...
> My small nitpicking point is that if the Earth wasn't doing whatever
> the Earth did we'd be still in the Wurm Glaciation with most of
> Northern America and Europe under several hundred feet of ice.

I think that you and I are really on ths same page.

Basically, warming would be mostly a good thing, since there is prabably
more oxigen trapped in the oceans in the form of disolved CO2 than is free
in the atmosphere; but the most recent warming cycle seems to have passed
and we, as humans, never had much to do with it.

Also, let us not forget that the same political groups were shouting about
global cooling (and the comming ice age) about 30 years ago.

OTOH, CO2 really is plant food; but to make full use of it requires exactly
the sort of large scale water management (and conversion to nuclear energy)
to which the "environmentalists" object.

Peter

Brian Whatcott

August 9th 09, 12:27 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Dan Luke wrote:
>>....Just about everyone agrees the past few decades are warmer ...
~*~
>>>>> ... Not everyone agrees the cause is human.
~*~
>>>> No, just every scientific professional organization in the world.

~*~
>>> Can you provide anything, ANYTHING, that supports that wild
>>> assertion?

~*~
>> Here's the list, with some links illustrating the various bodies'
>> positions:
>> American Association of Petroleum Geologists
>> ..and dozens more.... /snipped/

>
> I don't need a list of them. Your assertion was that EVERY scientific
> professional organization in the world agrees that humans are the cause for
> the past few decades being warmer than previous. If there exists just one
> professional organization that disputes that your wild assertion is proven
> false. The George C Marshall Institute is such an organization.
>
>

GC Marshall IS an organization. It is a Republican think tank.
That does not qualify them as a *Scientific* organization.
Far from it! Here's a little essay from the guy who used to RUN this
institute:

[2009 essay, former Marshall Institute Executive Director, Matthew B.
Crawford] wrote that after he commenced with the group in September 2001
"certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It
sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to
suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and
there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its
figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further,
my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive
style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come."

~*~

Here's another note from a head of this think tank.

"... in the late nineties, then GMI President Jeffrey Salmon wrote,
"when the Institute turned its attention to the science of global
warming, it decided it would appeal successfully to industry for
financial support." This fall, the Institute received its first-ever
grant from a corporate foundation-- the Exxon Education Foundation.
(http://web.archive.org/web/20020913050409/http://www.marshall.org/funding.htm)

According to Media Transparency.org, the Institute received $5,757,803
since 1985 from conservative foundations including the Castle Rock
Foundation (Coors), Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, the
Sarah Scaife Foundation, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the
Carthage Foundation. "

But note: Exxon has only placed $840 thousand with them.

Sincerely

Brian Whatcott
p.s. Take care Dan. You might just find a renta-mob comes to
demonstrate outside your house like they sent to the Town Hall meetings
about Health Car Reform? :-)

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 9th 09, 01:06 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Just about everyone agrees the past few decades are warmer than
>>>>> previous. Not everyone agrees the cause is human.
>>>>
>>>> No, just every scientific professional organization in the world.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you provide anything, ANYTHING, that supports that wild
>>> assertion?
>>
>>
>> Here's the list, with some links illustrating the various bodies'
>> positions:
>> American Association of Petroleum Geologists
>> http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.pdf
>> American Geophysical Union
>> http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0335.html American Astronomical
>> Society http://aas.org/governance/resolutions.php#climate
>> American Institute of Physics (2004) http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
>> American Physical Society
>> http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm American Chemical
>> Society http://tinyurl.com/nepc8b American Statistical Association
>> http://www.amstat.org/about/pressreleases/climatechange.pdf
>> InterAcademy Council
>> Joint Science Academies
>> http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=7821 International
>> Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
>> http://www.caets.org/cms/7122/7735.aspx European Academy of Sciences and
>> Arts
>> http://www.euro-acad.eu/downloads/memoranda/39._podgorica_declaration,_adopted,_11_oct._2008.p df
>> Network of African Science Academies
>> National Academy of Science/National Research Council (US)
>> http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf
>> International Council for Science
>> European Science Foundation
>> http://www.esf.org/activities/esf-conferences/details/2009/confdetail311.html?conf=311&year=2009
>> American Association for the Advancement of Science
>> http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
>> Federation of American Scientists http://tinyurl.com/neaehf
>> World Meteorological Organization
>> American Meteorological Society
>> http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2009geoengineeringclimate_amsstatement.html
>> Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
>> http://www.rmets.org/weather/liverpool.php Australian Meteorological
>> and Oceanographic Society http://tinyurl.com/kpsnbz
>> Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
>> Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
>> International Union for Quaternary Research
>> American Quaternary Association
>> http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf
>> Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
>> International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
>> Max Planck Institute http://tinyurl.com/knuex6
>> European Geosciences Union
>> Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
>> Geological Society of America
>> http://www.geosociety.org/positions/pos10_climate.pdf
>> The Royal Society http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
>>
>> I'd be interested to see your list of professional scientific
>> organizations who say human activities are *not* responsible for the
>> warming of past few decades.
>>
>
> I don't need a list of them. Your assertion was that EVERY scientific
> professional organization in the world agrees that humans are the cause
> for the past few decades being warmer than previous. If there exists just
> one professional organization that disputes that your wild assertion is
> proven false. The George C Marshall Institute is such an organization.

*Scientific professional organization*, McNicoll, i. e., an organization of
science professionals. You know, people whose careers are in the sciences.
People who actually *do* science.

My assertion isn't wild, it's factual. The George C. Marshall Institute is
not a scientific professional organization, it is a think tank. What are
you going to offer next, the Heartland Institute?

Keep trying. I know a couple of fake ones; see if you can find them.

As usual, you are playing your ultra literalist game. Shaving the issue
down to an atomic scale point relieves you of the burden of being relevant,
doesn't it?

And where are those cites you promised?

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

Jim Logajan

August 9th 09, 02:56 AM

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> > wrote:
>> Just about everyone agrees the past few decades are warmer than
>> previous.
>>
>> Not everyone agrees the cause is human.
>
> No, just every scientific professional organization in the world.

The scientific organization I belong to didn't poll its members before
adopting its position. I have no doubt the statements issued by many
organizations were decided by the leaders of said groups.

Anyway, so where is the IEEE position?
Or the Quasar Equatorial Survey Team?
Or ... well, you get the idea. Your statement _was_ a tad sweeping.

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

August 9th 09, 03:09 AM

brian whatcott wrote:
>
> GC Marshall IS an organization. It is a Republican think tank.
> That does not qualify them as a *Scientific* organization.
> Far from it!

The GCMI is an organization, it has scientists on staff, thus it is a
scientific organization. If having political or government connections is
disqualifying then the list provided by Dan Luke is wiped out as well.

Gotcha!

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

August 9th 09, 03:11 AM

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> *Scientific professional organization*, McNicoll, i. e., an
> organization of science professionals. You know, people whose
> careers are in the sciences. People who actually *do* science.
>
> My assertion isn't wild, it's factual. The George C. Marshall
> Institute is not a scientific professional organization, it is a
> think tank. What are you going to offer next, the Heartland
> Institute?

The GCMI is an organization, it has scientists on staff, thus it is a
scientific organization. If having political or government connections is
disqualifying then the list you provided is wiped out as well.

Gotcha!

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 9th 09, 03:16 AM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>> Just about everyone agrees the past few decades are warmer than
>>> previous.
>>>
>>> Not everyone agrees the cause is human.
>>
>> No, just every scientific professional organization in the world.
>
> The scientific organization I belong to didn't poll its members before
> adopting its position. I have no doubt the statements issued by many
> organizations were decided by the leaders of said groups.

So? Read the one I posted from the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists. It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members
who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not denying the
overwhelming scientific evidence for same. Then read the rest of the links.
No equivocation there. Do you think they are misrepresenting substantial
portions of their memberships?

>
> Anyway, so where is the IEEE position?
> Or the Quasar Equatorial Survey Team?
> Or ... well, you get the idea. Your statement _was_ a tad sweeping.

The IEEE is an engineering association.

QUEST is not a professional association, it is a research group.

Associations of scientific professionals, you know? Like the AMA for
doctors, the ABA for lawyers. Is this a difficult concept?

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

August 9th 09, 03:23 AM

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> So? Read the one I posted from the American Association of Petroleum
> Geologists. It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease
> members who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not
> denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for same. Then read the
> rest of the links. No equivocation there. Do you think they are
> misrepresenting substantial portions of their memberships?
>

I suggest you review their position on AGW.

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 9th 09, 03:23 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>> *Scientific professional organization*, McNicoll, i. e., an
>> organization of science professionals. You know, people whose
>> careers are in the sciences. People who actually *do* science.
>>
>> My assertion isn't wild, it's factual. The George C. Marshall
>> Institute is not a scientific professional organization, it is a
>> think tank. What are you going to offer next, the Heartland
>> Institute?
>
> The GCMI is an organization, it has scientists on staff, thus it is a
> scientific organization. If having political or government connections is
> disqualifying then the list you provided is wiped out as well.
>
> Gotcha!

Not hardly, McNicoll.

You cannot falsify my assertion by making up your own definition of a
scientific professional organization. Keep trying--a little harder next
time, please.

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

August 9th 09, 03:27 AM

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> Not hardly, McNicoll.
>
> You cannot falsify my assertion by making up your own definition of a
> scientific professional organization. Keep trying--a little harder
> next time, please.
>

Wrong. You cannot have one standard for organizations that support AGW and
another standard for those that do not.

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 9th 09, 03:27 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>> So? Read the one I posted from the American Association of Petroleum
>> Geologists. It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease
>> members who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not
>> denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for same. Then read the
>> rest of the links. No equivocation there. Do you think they are
>> misrepresenting substantial portions of their memberships?
>>
>
> I suggest you review their position on AGW.

Why?

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 9th 09, 03:35 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>> Not hardly, McNicoll.
>>
>> You cannot falsify my assertion by making up your own definition of a
>> scientific professional organization. Keep trying--a little harder
>> next time, please.
>>
>
> Wrong. You cannot have one standard for organizations that support AGW
> and another standard for those that do not.

I don't. I have one standard for what constitutes a scientific professional
organization. You apparently think any organization that employs a
scientist fills the bill. That would include Kraft Foods. You have to do
better than this, McNicoll.

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

August 9th 09, 04:24 AM

Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>> Wrong. You cannot have one standard for organizations that support
>> AGW and another standard for those that do not.
>>
>
> I don't. I have one standard for what constitutes a scientific
> professional organization.
>

So none of the groups you listed have any political or government
connection?

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

August 9th 09, 04:25 AM

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>>
>>> So? Read the one I posted from the American Association of
>>> Petroleum Geologists. It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written
>>> to appease members who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW,
>>> while still not denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for
>>> same. Then read the rest of the links. No equivocation there. Do
>>> you think they are misrepresenting substantial portions of their
>>> memberships?
>>
>> I suggest you review their position on AGW.
>>
>
> Why?
>

Because it's not what you imply it to be.

Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]

August 9th 09, 04:26 AM

Jessica wrote:
>
> "Climate Scientists" = global warming believer.
>

There are many climate scientists that do not support AGW.

Brian Whatcott

August 9th 09, 06:00 AM

An anonymous poster, writing as "Jessica" wrote:
>> [Dan] ... You apparently think any organization that
>> employs a scientist fills the bill. That would include Kraft Foods.
>>
>>
> Huh? Nobody said anything about Kraft Foods until you hauled it into
> the discussion as a phony red herring. Nice try.

Perhaps I can help clarify this concept.

Kraft is a commercial food processor, and distributor.
Kraft employs one or more scientists.
Question:
Is Kraft a Scientific organization?
No; it is a food processor and distributor.

Marshall is a Republican think tank.
Marshall employs one or more scientists.
Question:
Is Marshall a Scientific organization?
No; it is a Republican think tank.

Do you see how this goes now? :-)

Brian W

Jim Logajan

August 9th 09, 06:24 AM

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote:
>> Anyway, so where is the IEEE position?
>> Or the Quasar Equatorial Survey Team?
>> Or ... well, you get the idea. Your statement _was_ a tad sweeping.
>
> The IEEE is an engineering association.

So how come you get to include engineering associations and I don't? You
specifically included:

"International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
Sciences"

> QUEST is not a professional association, it is a research group.

The Max Planck Society, which you got to include, is a research group - not
a professional association. So how come you get to include one and I don't?

(It probably would have been more prudent if you had said something like
"Okay, maybe not every scientific professional organization in the
world...."

This isn't even an interesting side argument. Its only interesting aspect
is to demonstrate yet again how stubborness can be a liability.)

> Associations of scientific professionals, you know? Like the AMA for
> doctors, the ABA for lawyers. Is this a difficult concept?

I used your definition-by-example of "professional scientific
organization" by actually examining the list you provided. In it were not
only an engineering group, but a pure mathematical society (statistics), a
research group, cross-over groups (e.g. petroleum geologists), and so on.

Flaps_50!

August 9th 09, 12:42 PM

On Aug 9, 2:16*pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
*It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members
> who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not denying the
> overwhelming scientific evidence for same. *

You need to remember that the only 'evidence' for AGW comes from
seriously flawed computer models. FACT

Cheers

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 9th 09, 01:06 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>>>
>>> Wrong. You cannot have one standard for organizations that support
>>> AGW and another standard for those that do not.
>>>
>>
>> I don't. I have one standard for what constitutes a scientific
>> professional organization.
>>
>
> So none of the groups you listed have any political or government
> connection?

Did I say that?

Irrelevant to the definition, anyway.

Give it up, McNicoll.: the goalposts stay where they are.

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 9th 09, 01:07 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So? Read the one I posted from the American Association of
>>>> Petroleum Geologists. It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written
>>>> to appease members who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW,
>>>> while still not denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for
>>>> same. Then read the rest of the links. No equivocation there. Do
>>>> you think they are misrepresenting substantial portions of their
>>>> memberships?
>>>
>>> I suggest you review their position on AGW.
>>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> Because it's not what you imply it to be.
Naked assertion with no backup or parameters.

Par for you.

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 9th 09, 01:08 PM

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 9th 09, 01:33 PM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote:
>>> Anyway, so where is the IEEE position?
>>> Or the Quasar Equatorial Survey Team?
>>> Or ... well, you get the idea. Your statement _was_ a tad sweeping.
>>
>> The IEEE is an engineering association.
>
> So how come you get to include engineering associations and I don't? You
> specifically included:
>
> "International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
> Sciences"
>
>> QUEST is not a professional association, it is a research group.
>
> The Max Planck Society, which you got to include, is a research group -
> not
> a professional association. So how come you get to include one and I
> don't?

Fine; take MPS out. I will stipulate it doesn't meet my strict definition
of "professional association." Any others?

> (It probably would have been more prudent if you had said something like
> "Okay, maybe not every scientific professional organization in the
> world...."
>
> This isn't even an interesting side argument. Its only interesting aspect
> is to demonstrate yet again how stubborness can be a liability.)
>
>> Associations of scientific professionals, you know? Like the AMA for
>> doctors, the ABA for lawyers. Is this a difficult concept?
>
> I used your definition-by-example of "professional scientific
> organization" by actually examining the list you provided. In it were not
> only an engineering group, but a pure mathematical society (statistics), a
> research group, cross-over groups (e.g. petroleum geologists), and so on.

Petroleum geologsts aren't scientists?

Before the release of its latest statement, the AAPG alone among scientific
professional societies denied that humans are changing the climate. Now,
albeit in mealy mouthed, wishy-washy language, they have dropped the denial.

But please, make free to remove any more from the list that, in your
opinion, don't qualify as scientific professional societies. Then find one
that fits in the remaining list but denies that AGW is a fact. I say there
isn't one, although, as I told McNicoll, there are at least a couple of
dodgy organizations who claim the title.

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

James Robinson

August 9th 09, 01:46 PM

"Flaps_50!" > wrote:

> On Aug 9, 2:16*pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> *It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members
>> who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not denying
>> the overwhelming scientific evidence for same. *
>
> You need to remember that the only 'evidence' for AGW comes from
> seriously flawed computer models. FACT

That is simply not a fact, in spite of your contention.

Data has been collected from core samples taken from glaciers on the rate
of temperature change over many thousands of years, and it has shown that
the earth's temperature has been increasing at a faster rate since the
industrial revolution than any other time in history. That evidence
supports the fact that the rate of climate change has substantially
increased, contrary to your contention that there is no evidence. The
question then becomes if this is simply normal climate change, but at an
extreme rate, or if humans activity has been the cause of the acceleration.

Peter Dohm

August 9th 09, 04:45 PM

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
>> On Aug 9, 2:16 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members
>>> who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not denying
>>> the overwhelming scientific evidence for same.
>>
>> You need to remember that the only 'evidence' for AGW comes from
>> seriously flawed computer models. FACT
>
> That is simply not a fact, in spite of your contention.
>
> Data has been collected from core samples taken from glaciers on the rate
> of temperature change over many thousands of years, and it has shown that
> the earth's temperature has been increasing at a faster rate since the
> industrial revolution than any other time in history. That evidence
> supports the fact that the rate of climate change has substantially
> increased, contrary to your contention that there is no evidence. The
> question then becomes if this is simply normal climate change, but at an
> extreme rate, or if humans activity has been the cause of the
> acceleration.

There is also the issue of sensor placement and micro climates.

Even if human activity is a cause, or one of the causes, that contributes
nothing to the claim of CO2 as a cause; or, much more likely, an effect.
Just as one small example, the amount of paved area (including tile and
bitumen roofs) is a major part of the heat island effect of cities.

Remember also that there is a tremendous amount of CO2 stored in the
oceans--which release it as their temperatures rise and absorb it as their
temperatures decline. Like water, CO2 is a resource that is here for us to
use.

Peter

Peter Dohm

August 9th 09, 04:51 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Jessica wrote:
>>
>> "Climate Scientists" = global warming believer.
>>
>
> There are many climate scientists that do not support AGW.
>
Very true, and they are probably a substantial majority.

James Robinson

August 9th 09, 05:01 PM

"Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
> "James Robinson" > wrote"
>
>> "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members
>>>> who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not
>>>> denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for same.
>>>
>>> You need to remember that the only 'evidence' for AGW comes from
>>> seriously flawed computer models. FACT
>>
>> That is simply not a fact, in spite of your contention.
>>
>> Data has been collected from core samples taken from glaciers on the
>> rate of temperature change over many thousands of years, and it has
>> shown that the earth's temperature has been increasing at a faster
>> rate since the industrial revolution than any other time in history.
>> That evidence supports the fact that the rate of climate change has
>> substantially increased, contrary to your contention that there is no
>> evidence. The question then becomes if this is simply normal climate
>> change, but at an extreme rate, or if humans activity has been the
>> cause of the acceleration.
>
> There is also the issue of sensor placement and micro climates.
>
> Even if human activity is a cause, or one of the causes, that
> contributes nothing to the claim of CO2 as a cause; or, much more
> likely, an effect. Just as one small example, the amount of paved area
> (including tile and bitumen roofs) is a major part of the heat island
> effect of cities.
>
> Remember also that there is a tremendous amount of CO2 stored in the
> oceans--which release it as their temperatures rise and absorb it as
> their temperatures decline. Like water, CO2 is a resource that is
> here for us to use.

That's all very nice, but if humans do contribute to climate change, I
haven't seen any plausible alternative explanations what causes it. The
scientific community seems to have embraced CO2 as the culprit. Are they
all wrong?

Steve Hix

August 9th 09, 05:47 PM

In article >,
James Robinson > wrote:

>
> That's all very nice, but if humans do contribute to climate change, I
> haven't seen any plausible alternative explanations what causes it. The
> scientific community seems to have embraced CO2 as the culprit. Are they
> all wrong?

There's this thing call the Sun, heard of it?

Look around a bit for work on changes to Mars and Jupiter's climates;
they're affected by *something*, and it's hard to argue that human CO2
production having anything to do with their recent changes.

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

August 9th 09, 07:38 PM

In article >,
James Robinson > wrote:

> "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> >
> > "James Robinson" > wrote"
> >
> >> "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members
> >>>> who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not
> >>>> denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for same.
> >>>
> >>> You need to remember that the only 'evidence' for AGW comes from
> >>> seriously flawed computer models. FACT
> >>
> >> That is simply not a fact, in spite of your contention.
> >>
> >> Data has been collected from core samples taken from glaciers on the
> >> rate of temperature change over many thousands of years, and it has
> >> shown that the earth's temperature has been increasing at a faster
> >> rate since the industrial revolution than any other time in history.
> >> That evidence supports the fact that the rate of climate change has
> >> substantially increased, contrary to your contention that there is no
> >> evidence. The question then becomes if this is simply normal climate
> >> change, but at an extreme rate, or if humans activity has been the
> >> cause of the acceleration.
> >
> > There is also the issue of sensor placement and micro climates.
> >
> > Even if human activity is a cause, or one of the causes, that
> > contributes nothing to the claim of CO2 as a cause; or, much more
> > likely, an effect. Just as one small example, the amount of paved area
> > (including tile and bitumen roofs) is a major part of the heat island
> > effect of cities.
> >
> > Remember also that there is a tremendous amount of CO2 stored in the
> > oceans--which release it as their temperatures rise and absorb it as
> > their temperatures decline. Like water, CO2 is a resource that is
> > here for us to use.
>
> That's all very nice, but if humans do contribute to climate change, I
> haven't seen any plausible alternative explanations what causes it. The
> scientific community seems to have embraced CO2 as the culprit. Are they
> all wrong?

They could be. Remember, the "scientific community" in ages past
supported (among other things):

Geocentric universe
Flat Earth
Phlogiston

As a retired engineer with a similar background to Burt, I have to go
along with him on this.

The earth has cycled through many heating/cooling cycles, with varying
levels of CO2 -- some where CO2 concentration led, some where it trailed
temperature. Remember, the amount of CO2 we are talking about is 0.0004
part of the atmosphere, not some huge figure.

For a graphic view, see:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
This chart takes back 450,000 years and through four ice ages and five
warmings. How can anybody with a modicum of scientific training tell us
that CO2 is causative of temperature?

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Peter Dohm

August 9th 09, 09:34 PM

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>>
>> "James Robinson" > wrote"
>>
>>> "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members
>>>>> who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not
>>>>> denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for same.
>>>>
>>>> You need to remember that the only 'evidence' for AGW comes from
>>>> seriously flawed computer models. FACT
>>>
>>> That is simply not a fact, in spite of your contention.
>>>
>>> Data has been collected from core samples taken from glaciers on the
>>> rate of temperature change over many thousands of years, and it has
>>> shown that the earth's temperature has been increasing at a faster
>>> rate since the industrial revolution than any other time in history.
>>> That evidence supports the fact that the rate of climate change has
>>> substantially increased, contrary to your contention that there is no
>>> evidence. The question then becomes if this is simply normal climate
>>> change, but at an extreme rate, or if humans activity has been the
>>> cause of the acceleration.
>>
>> There is also the issue of sensor placement and micro climates.
>>
>> Even if human activity is a cause, or one of the causes, that
>> contributes nothing to the claim of CO2 as a cause; or, much more
>> likely, an effect. Just as one small example, the amount of paved area
>> (including tile and bitumen roofs) is a major part of the heat island
>> effect of cities.
>>
>> Remember also that there is a tremendous amount of CO2 stored in the
>> oceans--which release it as their temperatures rise and absorb it as
>> their temperatures decline. Like water, CO2 is a resource that is
>> here for us to use.
>
> That's all very nice, but if humans do contribute to climate change, I
> haven't seen any plausible alternative explanations what causes it. The
> scientific community seems to have embraced CO2 as the culprit. Are they
> all wrong?

The short answer is yes!

The slightly longer answer is that the practicioners of hard sciences,
including climatology, have not embraced any such thing. However, there is
a lot of political muscle and avalable grant money behind the CO2 witch
hunt, and you can find plenty of panderers in any field.

That is not to say that we should be converting O2 to CO2 faster than we can
grow evough plants to accomplish the reverse, especially over a long period
of time. However, there does seem to be ample argument that the level of
CO2 in the atmosphere is more of a result of the temperature of the oceans
than of anything that humans have done.

I might add that warming, and the release of CO2 from the oceans is probably
a very good thing. It is the most essential food for plants--which also
thrive in warm conditions--and provides the oportunity to release more O2
back into the atmosphere.

Peter
Build MORE nukes!

Brian Whatcott

August 10th 09, 12:59 AM

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> The earth has cycled through many heating/cooling cycles, with varying
> levels of CO2 -- some where CO2 concentration led, some where it trailed
> temperature. Remember, the amount of CO2 we are talking about is 0.0004
> part of the atmosphere, not some huge figure.
>
> For a graphic view, see:
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
> This chart takes back 450,000 years and through four ice ages and five
> warmings. How can anybody with a modicum of scientific training tell us
> that CO2 is causative of temperature?
>

The solar "constant" is variable but insufficient to account for the
variability being experienced. There are numerous gases with thermal and
ionospheric consequences: water, methane, CO2, volcanic dust etc. (not
to mention the fluorocarbons.) CO2 is not even the most thermally active
atmospheric gas. There are numerous terrestrial feedback loops and
plenty of uncertain coupling factors.

Arguably, Global Weather variation is not even the most severe World
threat, when compared with the continued human growth rate.
Even an engineer ought to be able to predict the end point of ANY
positive constant % growth rate in the use of finite resources.
The exponential curve is inexorable....

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Flaps_50!

August 10th 09, 01:09 AM

On Aug 10, 12:46*am, James Robinson > wrote:
> "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
> > On Aug 9, 2:16*pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> > *It is tepid, equivocal and obviously written to appease members
> >> who are violently opposed to the idea of AGW, while still not denying
> >> the overwhelming scientific evidence for same. *
>
> > You need to remember that the only 'evidence' for AGW comes from
> > seriously flawed computer models. FACT
>
> That is simply not a fact, in spite of your contention.
>
> Data has been collected from core samples taken from glaciers on the rate
> of temperature change over many thousands of years, and it has shown that
> the earth's temperature has been increasing at a faster rate since the
> industrial revolution than any other time in history. *That evidence
> supports the fact that the rate of climate change has substantially
> increased, contrary to your contention that there is no evidence. *The
> question then becomes if this is simply normal climate change, but at an
> extreme rate, or if humans activity has been the cause of the acceleration.

Bob Fry

August 10th 09, 04:21 AM

>>>>> "DL" == Dan Luke > writes:

DL> Gosh, Burt Rutan is climate genius, too! He knows more than
DL> the scientists. Impressive!

Who knew?! Next, Sarah Palin will give a speech on health care
policy.

--
If I could be a bird, I'd be a Flying Purple People Eater because
then people would sing about me and I could fly down and eat them
because I hate that song.
- Jack Handey

Darkwing

August 10th 09, 05:00 PM

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
...
>
> Anyone else see his Oshkosh tirade? Excellent stuff!

Global Warming, yet another pseudo-religion posing as science.

Private

August 11th 09, 12:18 AM

I suspect many here will find this interesting.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=14504

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=argo+measuring+ocean+temperature&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

Happy landings,

Private

August 11th 09, 12:31 AM

"Private" > wrote in message
...
>I suspect many here will find this interesting.
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=14504
>
> http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=argo+measuring+ocean+temperature&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

See also
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486841811817591.html

Happy landings,

Brian Whatcott

August 11th 09, 03:37 AM

Private wrote:
> I suspect many here will find this interesting.
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=14504
>
> http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=argo+measuring+ocean+temperature&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=
>
> Happy landings,
>
>

"An independent Media group of Writers, scholars and Activists"

(Their web description....)

Brian W

curtisgb

August 11th 09, 07:09 PM

On Aug 8, 9:08*am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Morgans" *wrote:
> > Dan, if you are as smart as you think you are, you would realize that the
> > two sides of this argument will never agree, and it does not matter what
> > proof you claim to have. *In result, you would just quit arguing, and move
> > on to a different subject, without caring who gets the last word.
>
> > The same thing could be said to the other people arguing with Dan.
> > --
>
> Oh, you're right of course, Jim. *I've been in enough of these arguments
> here and elswhere to know it's no longer an issue of facts with most people.
>
> But a respected guy like Rutan spouting nonsense in public on a subject he
> clearly does not understand is something I couldn't let pass without
> comment.
>
> I'll leave it with what I've posted so far; the others can claim victory if
> they like.
>
> Dan
>
> T182T at 4R4

Just like Galileo, anyone who points out the inconsistencies and
errors in the "established knowledge" are being hounded and
villified. What's next -- someone who should know better telling them
to "shut up"?

Straight from Sol Alinsky, ignore the data and attack the people.

I'll take an empirical response using data over 1,000,000,000 opinions
any day of the week any month of the year.

Matt Barrow[_8_]

August 12th 09, 02:13 AM

"curtisgb" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 8, 9:08 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Morgans" wrote:
> > Dan, if you are as smart as you think you are, you would realize that the
> > two sides of this argument will never agree, and it does not matter what
> > proof you claim to have. In result, you would just quit arguing, and move
> > on to a different subject, without caring who gets the last word.
>
> > The same thing could be said to the other people arguing with Dan.
> > --
>
> Oh, you're right of course, Jim. I've been in enough of these arguments
> here and elswhere to know it's no longer an issue of facts with most people.

You wouldn't know a 'fact' if it bit you in the ass.

>
> But a respected guy like Rutan spouting nonsense in public on a subject he
> clearly does not understand is something I couldn't let pass without
> comment.
>
> I'll leave it with what I've posted so far; the others can claim victory if
> they like.
>
> Dan

Dan, the master of the logical fallacy (as he so aptly demonstrated).

:Just like Galileo, anyone who points out the inconsistencies and
: errors in the "established knowledge" are being hounded and
: villified. What's next -- someone who should know better telling them
: to "shut up"?

Calling them rapists of the planet? Calling them unAmerican?

:: Straight from Sol Alinsky, ignore the data and attack the people.

:: I'll take an empirical response using data over 1,000,000,000 opinions
:: any day of the week any month of the year.

Like, how it's demonstrated how CO2 follows temp increases rather than leading
them?

Matt Barrow[_8_]

August 12th 09, 02:14 AM

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Granby" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Anyone else see his Oshkosh tirade? Excellent stuff!
>
>
> Global Warming, yet another pseudo-religion posing as science.

Yes, and that explains why it's collapsing so fast.

Morgans[_7_]

August 12th 09, 02:24 AM

"curtisgb" > wrote

> Just like Galileo, anyone who points out the inconsistencies and
> errors in the "established knowledge" are being hounded and
> villified. What's next -- someone who should know better telling them
> to "shut up"?
>
> Straight from Sol Alinsky, ignore the data and attack the people.
>
> I'll take an empirical response using data over 1,000,000,000 opinions
> any day of the week any month of the year.

No, I would liken it to a comparison of the things you should not talk
about in a bar. Religion is one of them.

The simple fact remains that you will not find a single person reading this
thread changing their stance on believing or not believing in global
warming.

Then, the line about wresting with a pig comes in. You both get dirty, but
the pig enjoys it.

Am I wrong? Anyone reading this thread willing to admit that they have
substantially changed their views on global warming, from the information
presented in this thread? Anyone? Just one person?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans[_7_]

August 12th 09, 02:34 AM

"curtisgb" > wrote

> I'll take an empirical response using data over 1,000,000,000 opinions
> any day of the week any month of the year.

If you can believe the data, how it has been collected, where, and how it is
interpreted. THAT is the whole key. Many do not believe that _any_
scientists understand all the nuances about the complex relationship of
different measurements of the climate. Many more do not believe that there
has been data taken for a long enough period of time to draw conclusions
about what is driving what in the climate models. More yet do not think the
models are sufficiently developed to use the data being taken to predict
outcomes.

Discuss this all you want; I am not telling anyone to shut up. My point is,
don't fool yourself into believing you are changing anyone's mind.
--
Jim in NC

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 12th 09, 02:52 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "curtisgb" > wrote
>
>> Just like Galileo, anyone who points out the inconsistencies and
>> errors in the "established knowledge" are being hounded and
>> villified. What's next -- someone who should know better telling them
>> to "shut up"?
>>
>> Straight from Sol Alinsky, ignore the data and attack the people.
>>
>> I'll take an empirical response using data over 1,000,000,000 opinions
>> any day of the week any month of the year.
>
> No, I would liken it to a comparison of the things you should not talk
> about in a bar. Religion is one of them.
>
> The simple fact remains that you will not find a single person reading
> this thread changing their stance on believing or not believing in global
> warming.
>
> Then, the line about wresting with a pig comes in. You both get dirty,
> but the pig enjoys it.
>
> Am I wrong?

No, you're not, and I beg your pardon for not bailing out like I promised.

But idiocy is too irrestable. It must be confronted.

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 12th 09, 03:11 AM

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

> Dan, the master of the logical fallacy (as he so aptly demonstrated).
>
>
> :Just like Galileo, anyone who points out the inconsistencies and
> : errors in the "established knowledge" are being hounded and
> : villified. What's next -- someone who should know better telling them
> : to "shut up"?
>
> Calling them rapists of the planet? Calling them unAmerican?
>
>
> :: Straight from Sol Alinsky, ignore the data and attack the people.
>
> :: I'll take an empirical response using data over 1,000,000,000 opinions
> :: any day of the week any month of the year.
>
> Like, how it's demonstrated how CO2 follows temp increases rather than
> leading them?

Well, now: look who's back!

Matty, you've already demonstrated you're out of your depth on this subject.
Why subject yourself to more humiliation?

Yes, as the Earth emerges from glaciations, CO2 rise follows temp. increases
rather than leading them. That's only part of the story and irrelevant to
the current circumstances. But you haven't the vaguest clue about the
*whole* story, have you? And don't care to *get* a clue, either.

Go away, Matty, before you get smashed again.

(Kdding. Please stick around. I enjoy the loon-whacking.)

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

August 12th 09, 04:25 AM

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
> > Dan, the master of the logical fallacy (as he so aptly demonstrated).
> >
> >
> > :Just like Galileo, anyone who points out the inconsistencies and
> > : errors in the "established knowledge" are being hounded and
> > : villified. What's next -- someone who should know better telling them
> > : to "shut up"?
> >
> > Calling them rapists of the planet? Calling them unAmerican?
> >
> >
> > :: Straight from Sol Alinsky, ignore the data and attack the people.
> >
> > :: I'll take an empirical response using data over 1,000,000,000 opinions
> > :: any day of the week any month of the year.
> >
> > Like, how it's demonstrated how CO2 follows temp increases rather than
> > leading them?
>
> Well, now: look who's back!
>
> Matty, you've already demonstrated you're out of your depth on this subject.
> Why subject yourself to more humiliation?
>
> Yes, as the Earth emerges from glaciations, CO2 rise follows temp. increases
> rather than leading them. That's only part of the story and irrelevant to
> the current circumstances. But you haven't the vaguest clue about the
> *whole* story, have you? And don't care to *get* a clue, either.
>
> Go away, Matty, before you get smashed again.
>
> (Kdding. Please stick around. I enjoy the loon-whacking.)

Well, Dan, Please explain the processes that kindle the initial
temperature rises and whether or not those same processes remain
operative.

You can also explain how the temperature drops while CO2 concentrations
remain elevated.

Could it be that CO2 is NOT a significant cause of climate change?

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Morgans[_7_]

August 12th 09, 04:26 AM

"Dan Luke" > wrote
>
> No, you're not, and I beg your pardon for not bailing out like I promised.

No need to beg me for anything. You're speaking what you must, just as I
am.

> But idiocy is too irrestable. It must be confronted.

_That_ is the fact _I_ am unsure of. <g>
--
Jim in NC

Matt Barrow[_8_]

August 12th 09, 06:05 AM

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>>
>> > Dan, the master of the logical fallacy (as he so aptly demonstrated).
>> >
>> >
>> > :Just like Galileo, anyone who points out the inconsistencies and
>> > : errors in the "established knowledge" are being hounded and
>> > : villified. What's next -- someone who should know better telling them
>> > : to "shut up"?
>> >
>> > Calling them rapists of the planet? Calling them unAmerican?
>> >
>> >
>> > :: Straight from Sol Alinsky, ignore the data and attack the people.
>> >
>> > :: I'll take an empirical response using data over 1,000,000,000 opinions
>> > :: any day of the week any month of the year.
>> >
>> > Like, how it's demonstrated how CO2 follows temp increases rather than
>> > leading them?
>>
>> Well, now: look who's back!
>>
>> Matty, you've already demonstrated you're out of your depth on this subject.

You've demonstrated nothing more than a capacity to barf back, and as with Mann,
it bit you on the ass.

>> Why subject yourself to more humiliation?

By you? Ha, you pompuos adolesant!.

Your recent listing of organizations, for example, was a classic example of
Argument from Authority. So, until you REALLY understand science and it's
methods, keep your stupid trap shut.

>>
>> Yes, as the Earth emerges from glaciations, CO2 rise follows temp. increases
>> rather than leading them.

That's not what you said earlier.

And why did CO2 rise AFTER warming in more recent periods OUTSIDE of glaciation.
>

That's only part of the story and irrelevant to
>> the current circumstances.

> But you haven't the vaguest clue about the
>> *whole* story, have you? And don't care to *get* a clue, either.
>>
>> Go away, Matty, before you get smashed again.

Hey, Dan, have you ever figured out the difference between Humidity and Relative
Humidity.

Did you ever find out why your CO2 refutation was off by a foctor of 100?

And can you explain what happened to Mann's "Hockey Stick", why the IPCC dropped
it?

>> (Kdding. Please stick around. I enjoy the loon-whacking.)

Whacking off again, Dan?

You're completely delusional. You and your goons, birds-of-a-feather are
finished, got it!

> Well, Dan, Please explain the processes that kindle the initial
> temperature rises and whether or not those same processes remain
> operative.
>
> You can also explain how the temperature drops while CO2 concentrations
> remain elevated.

Only with logical fallicies and links to whackjobs that have been refuted or
shown to be blatently fraudulent.

>
> Could it be that CO2 is NOT a significant cause of climate change?

It is so insignificant as to be irrelevant.

The emerging data is showing warming to be something like 98% ocean currents and
solar activity (about a 99% correlation and a good explanation of causation).

That's why the AGW crowd is getting desperate.

Jessica

August 13th 09, 04:01 AM

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>>> Wrong. You cannot have one standard for organizations that support
>>>> AGW and another standard for those that do not.
>>>>
>>> I don't. I have one standard for what constitutes a scientific
>>> professional organization.
>>>
>> So none of the groups you listed have any political or government
>> connection?
>
> Did I say that?
>
> Irrelevant to the definition, anyway.
>
> Give it up, McNicoll.: the goalposts stay where they are.

Political connections are great as long as they don't conflict with
Luke's views on the Global Warming Religion.

Jessica

August 13th 09, 04:02 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Jessica wrote:
>> "Climate Scientists" = global warming believer.
>>
>
> There are many climate scientists that do not support AGW.

Quite true, which is why I used the quotes above. :)

Jessica

August 13th 09, 04:07 AM

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>> Dan, the master of the logical fallacy (as he so aptly demonstrated).
>>
>>
>> :Just like Galileo, anyone who points out the inconsistencies and
>> : errors in the "established knowledge" are being hounded and
>> : villified. What's next -- someone who should know better telling them
>> : to "shut up"?
>>
>> Calling them rapists of the planet? Calling them unAmerican?
>>
>>
>> :: Straight from Sol Alinsky, ignore the data and attack the people.
>>
>> :: I'll take an empirical response using data over 1,000,000,000 opinions
>> :: any day of the week any month of the year.
>>
>> Like, how it's demonstrated how CO2 follows temp increases rather than
>> leading them?
>
> Well, now: look who's back!
>
> Matty, you've already demonstrated you're out of your depth on this subject.
> Why subject yourself to more humiliation?
>
> Yes, as the Earth emerges from glaciations, CO2 rise follows temp. increases
> rather than leading them. That's only part of the story and irrelevant to
> the current circumstances. But you haven't the vaguest clue about the
> *whole* story, have you? And don't care to *get* a clue, either.
>
> Go away, Matty, before you get smashed again.
>
> (Kdding. Please stick around. I enjoy the loon-whacking.)

Wow, holy oversimplification. If the only independent variable in the
world that affected global temperature was CO2, you might have a point.

Frankly, anyone who believes that climates will not warm and cool over
time is nuts. Sort of like the folks that expect barrier islands to
always maintain the same shape or are all surprised that rivers change
course too.

Jessica

August 13th 09, 04:09 AM

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote:
>>>> Anyway, so where is the IEEE position?
>>>> Or the Quasar Equatorial Survey Team?
>>>> Or ... well, you get the idea. Your statement _was_ a tad sweeping.
>>> The IEEE is an engineering association.
>> So how come you get to include engineering associations and I don't? You
>> specifically included:
>>
>> "International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
>> Sciences"
>>
>>> QUEST is not a professional association, it is a research group.
>> The Max Planck Society, which you got to include, is a research group -
>> not
>> a professional association. So how come you get to include one and I
>> don't?
>>
>> (It probably would have been more prudent if you had said something like
>> "Okay, maybe not every scientific professional organization in the
>> world...."
>>
>> This isn't even an interesting side argument. Its only interesting aspect
>> is to demonstrate yet again how stubborness can be a liability.)
>>
>>> Associations of scientific professionals, you know? Like the AMA for
>>> doctors, the ABA for lawyers. Is this a difficult concept?
>> I used your definition-by-example of "professional scientific
>> organization" by actually examining the list you provided. In it were not
>> only an engineering group, but a pure mathematical society (statistics), a
>> research group, cross-over groups (e.g. petroleum geologists), and so on.

So, using only your self-approved super smart groups of "climate
scientists," please tell us what they predict for annual temperature
deltas of Boston and San Francisco for 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, and
30 years from now, and by what formula was their result was obtained.

burt

August 13th 09, 08:39 PM

On Aug 8, 7:08*am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Morgans" *wrote:
> > Dan, if you are as smart as you think you are, you would realize that the
> > two sides of this argument will never agree, and it does not matter what
> > proof you claim to have. *In result, you would just quit arguing, and move
> > on to a different subject, without caring who gets the last word.
>
> > The same thing could be said to the other people arguing with Dan.
> > --
>
> Oh, you're right of course, Jim. *I've been in enough of these arguments
> here and elswhere to know it's no longer an issue of facts with most people.
>
> But a respected guy likeRutanspouting nonsense in public on a subject he
> clearly does not understand is something I couldn't let pass without
> comment.
>
> I'll leave it with what I've posted so far; the others can claim victory if
> they like.
>
> Dan
>
> T182T at 4R4

Rutan's pitch had nothing to do with his climate science expertice.
The pitch dealt with Data Presentation Fraud. Instead of being
critical of Rutan, download his PowerPoint slides and be sure you look
also at the speaker's notes. The PPT file can be downloaded at
http://rps3.com/

Dan Luke[_2_]

August 15th 09, 01:49 AM

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

>>> Go away, Matty, before you get smashed again.
>
> Hey, Dan, have you ever figured out the difference between Humidity and
> Relative Humidity.

You are referring, of course, to your claim the humidity was 99% during the
hottest part of the day in the in the Chicago heat wave. You pulled that
straight out of your ass, Matty, as you do most things you post. I showed
you back then how that was bull**** . You fled, after some lame remark
about the "heat index".

Now you're trying to claim you were talking about the *other* humidity?

Haw-haw-haw! You're an absolute laff riot, Matty.

> Did you ever find out why your CO2 refutation was off by a foctor of 100?

*boggle* Do you imagine Google Groups has stopped working so you can lie
like this with impunity?

It was your Ol' Perfesser, some crank you found on one of your wingnut
hangouts, who was off.

Think back, hard, Matty; concentrate. We've had almost this exact
conversation before. You looked like a fool then and you look like a fool
now.

http://tinyurl.com/ns975r

And speaking of lies, how about the time you claimed you'd plonked Logajan
just so you could avoid answering him? But you hadn't, had you?

> And can you explain what happened to Mann's "Hockey Stick", why the IPCC
> dropped it?

Uh, yes. It was in the 2001 report. There was a new IPCC report in 2007,
using newer research. March of science, right, Matty?

Not that, as it turns out, there was anything substantially wrong with
MBH98. Several subsequent NH temperature proxy studies by other scientists
have produced graphs shaped like...guess what?

I have cites. You know I do.

>>> (Kdding. Please stick around. I enjoy the loon-whacking.)
>
> Whacking off again, Dan?
>
> You're completely delusional. You and your goons, birds-of-a-feather are
> finished, got it!

Mmm, no, Matty. What I've got is a few idle minutes to whack one of the
goofiest denier loons I've encountered.

(That would be you, Matty.)

>> Well, Dan, Please explain the processes that kindle the initial
>> temperature rises and whether or not those same processes remain
>> operative.
>>
>> You can also explain how the temperature drops while CO2 concentrations
>> remain elevated.
>
> Only with logical fallicies and links to whackjobs that have been refuted
> or shown to be blatently fraudulent.

*yawn* Arm waving and spit blowing from Matty.

Do you know what the National Academy of Sciences is, Matty? Do you know
its accuracy record over 140 years of reporting to Congress on scientific
questions? Have you followed the progression of its reports on AGW over the
last two decades? Do you know what it is saying now?

>> Could it be that CO2 is NOT a significant cause of climate change?
>
> It is so insignificant as to be irrelevant.
>
> The emerging data is showing warming to be something like 98% ocean
> currents and solar activity (about a 99% correlation and a good
> explanation of causation).

********. TSI has not risen in concert with temperature and CO2 over the
last 30+ years:

Plenty of cites for this, too. But you don't really don't care, do you?

> That's why the AGW crowd is getting desperate.

You're just whistling past the graveyard, Matty. Hell, even Newt Gingrich
has given it up being a denier. You should, too.

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

Matt Barrow[_8_]

August 17th 09, 10:00 PM

"burt" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 8, 7:08 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Morgans" wrote:
> > Dan, if you are as smart as you think you are, you would realize that the
> > two sides of this argument will never agree, and it does not matter what
> > proof you claim to have. In result, you would just quit arguing, and move
> > on to a different subject, without caring who gets the last word.
>
> > The same thing could be said to the other people arguing with Dan.
> > --

> Rutan's pitch had nothing to do with his climate science expertice.
> The pitch dealt with Data Presentation Fraud. Instead of being
> critical of Rutan, download his PowerPoint slides and be sure you look
> also at the speaker's notes. The PPT file can be downloaded at
> http://rps3.com/

Quite interesting. I've seen severtal of these misrepresentations, but a few new
ones in there.

The explanation of the forcing action of CO2 and how the doubling effect is only
a levels starting a near zero (and rising linearly, rather than logarithmically
and reaching the peak at a much lower level than we're at), is well stated but
could be explained in lieu of the models that predicted wrongly.

Matt