rushmc 18 #151 July 1, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Please tell us all why you think a degree in physics is an inappropriate background for an atmospheric scientist? I'm sure we all want to know your reasoning. While you're about it, what are YOUR qualifications in atmospheric physics? Are you a qualified peer-reviewer in the discipline? In ANY discipline? A page from your book I did not say it was or wasnt now did I? Tell us now, then, what you think about physics as a background for a NASA researcher in atmospheric physics. Quote I simply asked if he had a degree of any kind in climate sciences. No, you didn't. You told us he had degrees in physics, as if that somehow disqualified him from knowing anything about atmospheric physics and measurements of atmospheric phenomena. By the rushmc logic, Bill Gates is unqualified to discuss computers, since he doesn't have a degree in computer science. My logic?? I sir did not "disqualify him, I simply ask the question based on position you have taken before?? Speaking of my logic, I think you sir should be proud. You have taken an unlearned dope and learned him something. I, from you oh great educator, watched your professeraness and reposted it back at you. You seem not to be proud so I am cornfussed"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #152 July 1, 2008 Quote>Besides being a complete whaco he is not a climate scientist is he? Remember those halcyon days when you supported him because you thought he was "on your side?" How quickly the flop comes when you realize he's an apostate: ====================================== (Dec 2 2007) Turning away from his landmark testimony before Congress in 1988, Hansen claims now that carbon dioxide is not a main culprit in climate change. Methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and diesel and coal soot trap heat more effectively than does C02, explained Hansen. He also noted these are more easily reduced than C02 emissions and would face fewer of the political hurdles that currently slow efforts to curb global warming. This once hero of you position is now reviled as some kind of nut case. ====================================== If someone changing thier mind is NOW relavant, how about the father of GWing theroy Dr. James Hansen changing his mind? ====================================== I supported him? You are mistaken sir. I made a post from him comments to make a point but I think you should know by now I usually wait a while to jump on any band wagon to let some of the hype pass and facts come out. Nice try though"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #153 July 1, 2008 >I usually wait a while to jump on any band wagon . . . I suppose that is the difference between you and I. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #154 July 1, 2008 Quote>I usually wait a while to jump on any band wagon . . . I suppose that is the difference between you and I. If you say so......."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #155 July 1, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Please tell us all why you think a degree in physics is an inappropriate background for an atmospheric scientist? I'm sure we all want to know your reasoning. While you're about it, what are YOUR qualifications in atmospheric physics? Are you a qualified peer-reviewer in the discipline? In ANY discipline? Cus he aint nevr had non of that thar buk larnin. Sorry, it's my spell checkers fault. It crashes my computer when I try to use it ...or sumptin. Ah yesNow you know why is it hard to care about anything you have an opinion about(hint, it is called arogance) Tolerant??? I'm tolerant of many things ... ignorant/uneducated/uninformed people pretending to understand and criticize scientific research ain't one of them. I could easily accept you just being mistaken about something but you keep coming back again and again and again with more of the same. Seriously dude, what up with that?!?!? BTW, I'm fairly certain you meant 'arrogance' ...although it's sometimes difficult to tell with you. Please correct me if I'm wrong.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,271 #156 July 1, 2008 QuoteI made a post from him comments to make a point but I think you should know by now I usually wait a while to jump on any band wagon to let some of the hype pass and facts come out. No, you decided to make a rhetorical point by claiming (entirely falsely - ie. a lie) that Hansen was now reviled as a nutcase because he had changed his position on global warming. And yet, now that you've realised he still disagrees with you, you decide to label him as an idiot and whaco (sic). Greeeat.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #157 July 1, 2008 Quote Quote I made a post from him comments to make a point but I think you should know by now I usually wait a while to jump on any band wagon to let some of the hype pass and facts come out. No, you decided to make a rhetorical point by claiming (entirely falsely - ie. a lie) that Hansen was now reviled as a nutcase because he had changed his position on global warming. And yet, now that you've realised he still disagrees with you, you decide to label him as an idiot and whaco (sic). Greeeat. I love the way you all twist shit when you cant make a point"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #158 July 1, 2008 >I love the way you all twist shit when you cant make a point . . . The rest of us got it. "RushMC doesn't understand it" does not equal "there is no point." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #159 July 1, 2008 Quote >I love the way you all twist shit when you cant make a point . . . The rest of us got it. "RushMC doesn't understand it" does not equal "there is no point." No point = bogus point Glad it makes sense to you"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,271 #160 July 1, 2008 QuoteI love the way you all twist shit when you cant make a point No twisting needed when the source material is so good, and no point beyond the fact that I find it incredibly funny that you genuinely don't seem to be aware of the ironies, inconsistencies and falsehoods in what you write - even when you are metaphorically bludgeoned over the head with them.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #161 July 1, 2008 Quote you know marg, if i was a lesbian, i'd be having fantasies about you right about now. I dont know if you noticed (though you probably have) but no one ever debates with Marg! Well, almost... a lawyer tried once... Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #162 July 1, 2008 QuotePlease tell us all why you think a degree in physics is an inappropriate background for an atmospheric scientist? I'm sure we all want to know your reasoning. While you're about it, what are YOUR qualifications in atmospheric physics? Are you a qualified peer-reviewer in the discipline? In ANY discipline? So, now an INTEREST is all that's needed? I guess that makes your argument about an economist being able to discuss global warming...WRONG, doesn't it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #163 July 1, 2008 QuoteSo, now an INTEREST is all that's needed? I guess that makes your argument about an economist being able to discuss global warming...WRONG, doesn't it? If the economist's primary area of original research is now atmospheric science, climatology, etc., then he could be qualified. If his primary area of original research is still economics, then not so much.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #164 July 1, 2008 QuoteIf the economist's primary area of original research is now atmospheric science, climatology, etc., then he could be qualified. If his primary area of original research is still economics, then not so much. Or if one is an economist evaluating the impact of climate change and different policies (including the economic impact of doing nothing). There are peer-reviewed journals in the interdisciplinary field, e.g., Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Environmental and Resource Economics, and degree programs, e.g., Harvard's Environmental Economics Program and UCSB's Economics and Environmental Science. The impact of the market is a major area of interest: "Central to environmental economics is the concept of market failure. Market failure means that markets fail to allocate resources efficiently. As stated by Hanley, Shogren, and White (2007) in their textbook Environmental Economics." VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #165 July 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteIf the economist's primary area of original research is now atmospheric science, climatology, etc., then he could be qualified. If his primary area of original research is still economics, then not so much. Or if one is an economist evaluating the impact of climate change and different policies (including the economic impact of doing nothing). There are peer-reviewed journals in the interdisciplinary field, e.g., Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Environmental and Resource Economics, and degree programs, e.g., Harvard's Environmental Economics Program and UCSB's Economics and Environmental Science. The impact of the market is a major area of interest: "Central to environmental economics is the concept of market failure. Market failure means that markets fail to allocate resources efficiently. As stated by Hanley, Shogren, and White (2007) in their textbook Environmental Economics." VR/Marg Agreed. I was thinking more along the lines of the science and not the related policy, though.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #166 July 1, 2008 QuoteAgreed. I was thinking more along the lines of the science and not the related policy, though. Generally concur. And would assert that more robust technical understanding (of the the underlying science & engineering) rarely would hinder environmental economics and likely would increase the validity of an argument ... that's an observation that reflects some of my biases and experiences, tho'. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #167 July 2, 2008 I think it's the Refrigeration and Air Conditioning lobby that's pushing the global warming idea.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
