Global Warming The debbil made me do it

mariposas rand mair fheal clouded the waters of pure thought with:
In article m.com,
Bill Ward wrote:

CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas.

Water's been around at least as long, and there's a lot more of it.

how long does water persist at above 100 percent relative humidity

Why do you hate Jesus so much?

--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

In article ,
(§ñühw¤£f) wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal clouded the waters of pure
thought with:
In article m.com,
Bill Ward wrote:

CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas.

Water's been around at least as long, and there's a lot more of it.

how long does water persist at above 100 percent relative humidity

Why do you hate Jesus so much?

i dont
yes he was a punk
but he turned his life around
getting a education a job as a legal aide
supporting his child and wife

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

On Mar 12, 1:56 pm, Lloyd wrote:

I don't pretend to speak for bloggers and media types -- simply
counting them would be exhausting.

However, disagreeing with the conclusions of however august a body of
eminences does not make one a liar

It does if you state something that is false. Like "the earth is 6000
years old." Is that a lie?

(see wikipedia entry under
"Galileo" -- the "authorities of the time had some pretty compelling
evidence that the sun revolved around the earth -- a repeatedly
observed phenomenon).

Oh come on. Science? Scientific authorities? It was church dogma.

Do you really think science is just like it was back then? If so, I
assume you refuse to use any technology, any modern medicine, etc.


You're being rhetorical, and poorly, that.

The "Church Dogma" was based on Aristotelian cosmology coupled with
poor interpretation of scripture bound to daily observation from the
surface by every person on the planet with eyes to see. The sun looks
like it is moving across the sky, Jerusalem is the center of the world
(thus the tern "orient" a map), and the earth is the center of the
heavens. Simple, and fit the philosophical underpinnings of the Church
and of the elite. There was order in the universe, and it was
hierarchical.

Any knowledge or learning happening at the time was the product of
those educated in the Universities founded, funded, and run by the
church. So yes -- they were the authorities of the day. Who would
gainsay them? Some illiterate peasant?

There's plenty of evidence that others in the Roman Catholic Church
agreed with Galileo -- the problem was saying it out loud. The
established order was nothing to be trifled with and this was quite a
blow.

As far as the age of the earth, nothing you say can be a lie -- since
a lie by definition is stating something that is known to be untrue.
(By the way -- this number is held only by those who clung to Usher's
faulty addition. There is plenty of room in the Genesis account to
accommodate countless millennia, to wit, "1:1 In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form,
and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.").

And as far as "Do you really think science is just like it was back
then? " I answer people are no different now then they were then --
deceitful, with hidden agendas, proud, unthinking, unfeeling,
ignorant, and so on.

The difference today is that we can counter preposterous claims and
appeal to the reasons of any that will listen. But this assumes
reasonable debate, not a shouting match.

Gore's movie showed all sorts of natural events that have absolutely
nothing to do with Global warming -- nothing -- and since that
propaganda came out people have latched on to all the doom and gloom
and shout "we must do something for the sake of the children!"

Let every mouth be stopped.

And yet if dare make the case that the jury is most definitely out on
the effects -- long and short term -- the trends, and the possible
consequences of modification of current activity (though even the IPCC
stated that there would be no change to current warming trends even if
all CO2 output were constrained to 2000 levels), you will endure
censure.

Yet the "high priests" who try to run public opinion will decry anyone
who dare challenge their suppositions, no matter how reasonable the
critique.

How is that so different?


Dan

On Mar 12, 3:06 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal
wrote:
In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:



"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22:

There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.

Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books

No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what
happened when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up
against well-financed, fervent opposition.

And you would have been at the head of the line to lynch him, you
hypocritical piece of ****.

copernicus was wrong
he was still using perfect circles epicycles etc

kepler was the first one with a simple model
using a single ellipse per planet
and nothing else

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

Do you always write in Haikus?

Just wondering....

In article ,
Dan wrote:

On Mar 12, 3:06 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal
wrote:
In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:



"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22:

There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming
scientific consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds
himself without a pipeline into the grant money gravy train.
Scientists have to eat just like the rest of us.

Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books

No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what
happened when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up
against well-financed, fervent opposition.

And you would have been at the head of the line to lynch him, you
hypocritical piece of ****.

copernicus was wrong
he was still using perfect circles epicycles etc

kepler was the first one with a simple model
using a single ellipse per planet
and nothing else

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

Do you always write in Haikus?

tankas for the memories

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

"Dan" wrote:

Boy; I go away for a few hours and look how the work piles up!



But what's happened in *this* debate is that the tyranny of the
cautionary principle takes hold and thus we MUST all agree or else we
are imposing grave danger on all!

Maybe we are.

But we're abiding an even more pernicious danger if we toss out the
civil discourse that has forwarded all our progress in so many areas
to this time, and is the only hope for addressing these problem if
they are as real as some believe.

Of course. There's always more talking to do.

But it is absurd to believe that we can double the atmospheric volume of the
most important, persistent greenhouse gas and nothing much will happen. The
very idea defies the laws of physics.

So, sure; let's continue the civil dialog. But let's not pretend that
there's any doubt that there will be consequences for what we're doing, or
that it won't be our fault if those consequences are disatrous for future
generations.

"Jay Maynard" wrote:

There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming scientific
consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds himself without a
pipeline into the grant money gravy train. Scientists have to eat just
like the rest of us.
Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To see how wrong this is, all you have to do is see how scientists who dare
to disagree and to try to publish research that would disprove the theory
are excommunicated by the scientific community.

So you really believe it. The Great Conspiracy is Silencing the Seekers After
Truth!

I don't think you understand just how crazy that is.

You're saying the National Academy of Sciences (to mention just one) is lying
in it's global climate position statement.

Do you realize you are riding the same bus with the wackos who claim that the
scientific community is conspiring to hide the truth about what causes AIDS?

....that you're floating on the same barge with the loons who claim that the
scientific community is conspiring to promote the evolution "religion"?

....that you're marching in the same parade with the nuts who claim all those
rocket scientists faked the moon landings?

You need to check the crowds you're running with.


Hell, man, even Newt Gingrich admits it's game over. Time to move on.

Nobody is right 100% of the time.

Only when they agree with you, right?

On 2008-03-13, Dan Luke wrote:
To see how wrong this is, all you have to do is see how scientists who dare
to disagree and to try to publish research that would disprove the theory
are excommunicated by the scientific community.
So you really believe it. The Great Conspiracy is Silencing the Seekers After
Truth!

No conspiracy needed, just observation. A scientist who sees what happens to
others who try to publish disproving research is not going to be inclined to
try it himself. The rest of them just know that their grants depend on
supporting the concept.

You need to check the crowds you're running with.

I don't believe in guilt by association.

Nobody is right 100% of the time.
Only when they agree with you, right?

I'm not right 100% of the time, either. OTOH, when I see scientists
excommunicated (and I use that word quite deliberately) for daring to
publish in opposition to the idea that man is somehow wrecking the global
climate, my hackles go up.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

"Jay Maynard" wrote:

No conspiracy needed, just observation. A scientist who sees what happens to
others who try to publish disproving research is not going to be inclined to
try it himself. The rest of them just know that their grants depend on
supporting the concept.

Right: they're all cowards lying for money. Very believable.

You need to check the crowds you're running with.

I don't believe in guilt by association.

Nobody is right 100% of the time.
Only when they agree with you, right?

I'm not right 100% of the time, either. OTOH, when I see scientists
excommunicated (and I use that word quite deliberately) for daring to
publish in opposition to the idea that man is somehow wrecking the global
climate, my hackles go up.

1) Who's been excommunicated, and by whom? Let's see some hard evidence.

2) Apparently, you don't know how reputations are made in the modern
scientific world. By going along with the crowd? No; by publishing something
new that changes established theory.

3) You are still dodging the central flaw of your conspiracy theory: that
tens of thousands of scientists and their professional associations are
perpetrating a hoax. That is simply nuts, for the same reason all such
conspiracy theories are nuts.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:JvRBj.19502$TT4.12916@attbi_s22...
There's a perfectly rational explanation for the "overwhelming scientific
consensus": any researcher who dares disagree finds himself without a
pipeline into the grant money gravy train. Scientists have to eat just
like the rest of us.

Perfectly rational? It's absurd.

To believe it, you have to believe that virtually every practicing
geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books

No, you only have to know history. Look up Copernicus, and what happened
when his perfectly rational heliocentric theories ran up against
well-financed, fervent opposition.

Not analogous.

Copernicus was opposed by the Church according to its dogma.

The consensus on AGW grows out of research conducted independently by
thousands of scientists using the modern scientific method.

Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the books to
perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.