Gravitymaster 0 #1 December 12, 2010 Looks like rushmc and brenthutch were correct. BillVon, Kallend and a few others need to sit in the back of the class wearing a Dunce Hat. I guess the Science isn't so settled after all. I'm glad to hear that it's possible we aren't all going to die like we do in Al Gore's movie. http://69.16.184.196/g9z6c6z5/cds/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?sid=35ab57fe22c2051856bd61b94ab1adbb&l_sid=27695&l_eid=&l_mid=2336201&dopvhost=hw.libsyn.com&doppl=3dc24c9570c6239e7096239e35869b23&dopsig=f75133636edb829936eba325bba60339 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,473 #2 December 12, 2010 And even more dissent over the 9/11 conspiracy! That means it's even more true, since they have more signatures. I guess you'll have to work even harder to overcome your misconceptions. Summer school perhaps? ==================== 1387 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 10447 other supporters have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation. The petition is open to everyone. AE911Truth Action Groups in Full Swing - Here’s the First Monthly Report AE911Truth has Action Groups sprouting up all around the country. We will be reporting to you each month what specific action that we have decided to perform each month – in unison. Seattle, WA, Action Group sets up AE911Truth awareness booth at a public fair – one of dozens across the country The AE911Truth Action Groups are small independent and autonomous groups of AE911Truth petition signers working together to plan and carry out local actions in support of the AE911Truth mission. The purpose is to raise the critical issues of AE911Truth, encourage people to sign the Petition (architects, engineers, and others), to conduct public events, to contact and educate government officials and the media, and generally raise awareness locally about the AE911Truth mission. Almost any existing 9/11 truth activist group can also be an AE911Truth Action group! There is generally no conflict and you can continue doing what you do best. I.e., we would like to have all of the WeAreChange groups around the country also be listed on AE911Truth.org as AE911Truth Action groups. This will be a win-win because 6,000 people a day visit our website and many are looking for local affiliation - which could also build your group. And we, with 1,380 architect and engineer petition signers, can bring additional credibility to your efforts as well. So please sign up your WAC or 9/11 Truth group today. =============================== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #3 December 12, 2010 QuoteAnd even more dissent over the 9/11 conspiracy! That means it's even more true, since they have more signatures. 1387 verified architectural and engineering professionals How big do you think the union of the two is? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 191 #4 December 12, 2010 Quote Looks like rushmc and brenthutch were correct. BillVon, Kallend and a few others need to sit in the back of the class wearing a Dunce Hat. I guess the Science isn't so settled after all. I'm glad to hear that it's possible we aren't all going to die like we do in Al Gore's movie. http://69.16.184.196/g9z6c6z5/cds/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?sid=35ab57fe22c2051856bd61b94ab1adbb&l_sid=27695&l_eid=&l_mid=2336201&dopvhost=hw.libsyn.com&doppl=3dc24c9570c6239e7096239e35869b23&dopsig=f75133636edb829936eba325bba60339 It is Argumentum ad Populum either way. My beef with Global Warming/Global Cooling/Climate Change is that it is a poster child for Junk Science. Is the climate going to change? Yup. Is the presence of mankind over the planet likely to be a factor in climate change? Yup. Is atmospheric CO2 level a factor in climate change? Yup. Is atmospheric CO2 level the only human-related factor in climate change? Not hardly. Is atmospheric CO2 level the single dominant factor in climate change? Not a chance. Is climate change the primary reason for limiting CO2 emissions? Not by a long shot. The fervor with which the True Believers adhere to the Holy Science of Climate Change rather discredits their claims. The treatment of the global weather system as a SISO (single-input single-output) system is simplistic in the extreme, and does not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny. Any scientist worth his salt is a skeptic. A sanity check on one's own work is the hallmark of credible research. Any school of thought that brands those that challenge their particular ism as heretics (or deniers) may safely be dismissed as unworthy of serious consideration. Even though I may agree that rising CO2 levels are a bad thing for a variety of reasons, Al Gore is still full of shit. What he knows for sure about Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer, Gas-Vapor Equilibria and related subjects would not require a 3x5 card to record. The issue is complex, and he is a simpleton. When the basis of one's analysis is flawed, the results are meaningless even if they are accurate. An example is the shaman whose job it is to perform the dance that causes the sun to rise. He does his dance, the sun rises, and all is well. The causal connection between the dance and the sun rising is not good, regardless of how passionately his followers believe that it is. For us to view CO2 levels as a primary issue is akin to worrying about what type of Band-Aid is best for the treatment of cancer. If climate change were anywhere near the top of our list of the most significant issues faced by humanity, we would be in comparatively fantastic shape. As it is, climate change but is a minor symptom of much more serious problems we face, like a nervous tic developed as a side-effect of terminal cancer; fix the tic and you still have terminal cancer. Our worrying about CO2 levels per se is absurd. If we addressed the underlying problems that result in increased CO2 (say population), CO2 would take care of itself. Thus any focus on climate change that distracts us from figuring how to achieve a sustainable population (like that is going to happen) is an exercise in futility. If you're cool with 10 billion (mostly hungry) people, you should learn to love CO2. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #5 December 12, 2010 Look - there has been no legitimat edisagreement whatsoever that the climate models have put forth that temperature is rising. There is no dispute at all that Mann's famous graph shows a hockey stick. The dispite in the latter is how he got that gockey stick. The dispute with the former is manifold: (1) what data did you use to get those numbers; (2) what are the maths involved in reaching those numbers; and (3) The Global Climate Models are hypotheses, for Chrissakes... It is NOT the "Scientific method" to conclude based upon hypotheses. From Wikipedia: Quote To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning Now, tell me, what evidence about the climate in 2080 is observable, empirical and measureable? It won't be for another 70 years. Models, to be science, must be verified. We'll have to wait a while to d that. My goodness, the likes of Hansen and Mann and Jones will likely not be alive when these results are either confirmed or disproved. Thus, the predictions of climate in 2100 are not presenty falsifiable. This puts the focus of climate science (modeling and prediction) in the realm of pseudoscience. INdeed, going again to Wikipedia, there are listed seven factors of pseudoscience: (1) Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims (millions will die from climate change, if the ice sheets melt there will be a 300 meter increase in sea level) (2) Over-reliance on confirmation rather than falsification (the selection bias of climate scientists, the lack of statisticians involved in the groups to help limit it, and stickign with claims that aren't bearing out - like a 15 year pause n warming being utterly inconsisted with the predictions and core theory) (3) Lack of openness to testing by other experts (Mann's stubborn refusal to reveal his codes, the confirmed culture of interfring with FOIA requests, etc.) (4) Absence of progress (the unwillingness and cynicism directed at looking at other explanations, which is the failing to adjust the paradigm wihen it's not all working out) (5) Personalization of issues - holy shit! Read this!: QuoteTight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.[46] Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.[47] Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy). (6) Use of misleading language (They don't have this. just fear-mongering); and (7) Absence from citation databases (Not this, it's the paradigm to rest scientific truth and geopolitical status quo on unproven hypothesis.) I am STILL struggling with even calling climate modeling "science." Also, Bill, note that there is disagreement. NASA's data (which I allege is corrupted by the culture of Hansen and Schmidt in making all kinds of data adjustents to result in always heading "UP" temperatures) now alleges that 2010 is the warmest year ever, beating out 2005 as the warmest year. NOAA, meanwhile, has 1998 as the warmest year. How come "scientists" cannot even agree on what happened in the last 12 years? Could it be because subjective biases are involved? HadCrut doesn't agree with NASA. There is reason for dissent. Dissent is GOOD. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 123 #6 December 12, 2010 Al has already admitted that he did it for votes. Politics and reality are rarely the same. So when do we stop this ethanol disaster and stop subsidizing renewable energy where it is not cost effective.Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #7 December 12, 2010 QuoteAl has already admitted that he did it for votes. Politics and reality are rarely the same. So when do we stop this ethanol disaster and stop subsidizing renewable energy where it is not cost effective. When pigs fly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #8 December 12, 2010 QuoteQuoteAnd even more dissent over the 9/11 conspiracy! That means it's even more true, since they have more signatures. 1387 verified architectural and engineering professionals How big do you think the union of the two is? I'll venture a guess, Scientist around maybe 5000, Architec's , 25,000....figuring at least 500 per state, and I am sure that is a smalll esptimate! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Abedy 0 #9 December 12, 2010 Some nice points here; his English is faaaar more better than mine: Marcus Brigstocke on Climate Change P.S.: And regarding the number thing... 1 million flies can't be wrong. Faeces taste good! Was called "ton ideology" once The sky is not the limit. The ground is. The Society of Skydiving Ducks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #10 December 12, 2010 QuoteAnd even more dissent over the 9/11 conspiracy! That means it's even more true, since they have more signatures. I guess you'll have to work even harder to overcome your misconceptions. Summer school perhaps? science is not a popularity contest.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 26 #11 December 12, 2010 Quote Quote And even more dissent over the 9/11 conspiracy! That means it's even more true, since they have more signatures. I guess you'll have to work even harder to overcome your misconceptions. Summer school perhaps? science is not a popularity contest. I guess Bill miss that point. Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #12 December 12, 2010 The case of the sinking island. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/11/maldives.president/index.html QuoteMohamed "Anni" Nasheed, ....inherits an island nation with several problems. Foremost among them: the very likely possibility that the Maldives will sink under water if the current pace of climate change keeps raising sea levels. The Maldives is an archipelago of almost 1,200 coral islands located south-southwest of India. Most of the islands lie just 4.9 feet (1.5 meters) above sea level. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has forecast a rise in sea levels of at least 7.1 inches (18 cm) by the end of the century. Global warming? Plate tectonics? Too much concrete and ashpalt brought in? An act of God? Global warming is going to drown us all!!!!!!!! Oh wait...next cleansing is by fire, right? We already had "the flood".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
CanuckInUSA 0 #13 December 12, 2010 Anyone notice that the United Nations have concluded yet another one of their "Climate Change" get togethers (this time at the Mexican resort city of Cancun) where the United Nations has vowed that the developed nations will be forking out $100 billion dollars a year to developing nations all under the guise of climate change? Global Communism is coming. It may not happen tomorrow, but it's coming. The UN has their "Agenda 21" that will eliminate personal freedoms of people around the world and they plan on doing it with this guise of climate change. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #14 December 12, 2010 Quote Global warming? Plate tectonics? Too much concrete and ashpalt brought in? An act of God? Global warming is going to drown us all!!!!!!!! Oh wait...next cleansing is by fire, right? We already had "the flood". See...nothing to worry about unless global warming causes the planet to erupt in flames. Or the heat generated causes a meteor or comet to veer off course and smash into the Earth causing mass extinctions. Global Warming is Mother Earth's way of telling us we have too many people. If we won't do something about the population ourselves, she will do it for us. Why do so many people hate Mother Earth? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #15 December 12, 2010 QuoteAl has already admitted that he did it for votes. Politics and reality are rarely the same. So when do we stop this ethanol disaster and stop subsidizing renewable energy where it is not cost effective. Plus, it padded his pocket-book decently. You're right there! Now, they're finding they can make ethanol out of corn cobs and corn husks. That should lower the price of corn for humans and animal feed. Still, I don't see ethanol making a big splash in this country. Not even with NASCAR going to a partial ethanol fuel next year. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #16 December 12, 2010 Quote Quote Quote And even more dissent over the 9/11 conspiracy! That means it's even more true, since they have more signatures. I guess you'll have to work even harder to overcome your misconceptions. Summer school perhaps? science is not a popularity contest. I guess Bill miss that point. Err... Guys, that was his point.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #17 December 12, 2010 QuoteQuoteAl has already admitted that he did it for votes. Politics and reality are rarely the same. So when do we stop this ethanol disaster and stop subsidizing renewable energy where it is not cost effective. When pigs fly. As long as Iowa holds the nations first caucus we will keep subsidizing ethanol production."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 26 #18 December 12, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote And even more dissent over the 9/11 conspiracy! That means it's even more true, since they have more signatures. I guess you'll have to work even harder to overcome your misconceptions. Summer school perhaps? science is not a popularity contest. I guess Bill miss that point. Err... Guys, that was his point. You're a Brit!!! You're supposed to have an unmatched sarcasm-detector! Hint: Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
434 2 #19 December 12, 2010 Im really happy to hear, this because 5,7 billion people on earth cant wait long enough to start consuming the same amount as hardly 310 million people do in USA Since the world is not affected by man made pollution, there is a green card to everyone right away. I will be cind of realistic and reduce the numbers to around 3 billion. How does that sound? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
434 2 #20 December 12, 2010 I forgot to extract those under the poverty line and those who is jailed up, så the number should be significant lower? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #21 December 13, 2010 Quote Global Communism is coming. It may not happen tomorrow, but it's coming. The UN has their "Agenda 21" that will eliminate personal freedoms of people around the world... Absolutely! What could be worse than the prospect of countries actually cooperating to solve common problems? Much better they resort to the old tried-and-true ways: war, or ignoring problems until they become insurmountable. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 191 #22 December 13, 2010 Quote Quote Global Communism is coming. It may not happen tomorrow, but it's coming. The UN has their "Agenda 21" that will eliminate personal freedoms of people around the world... Absolutely! What could be worse than the prospect of countries actually cooperating to solve common problems? Much better they resort to the old tried-and-true ways: war, or ignoring problems until they become insurmountable. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs, eh comrade? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #23 December 13, 2010 QuoteAnyone notice that the United Nations have concluded yet another one of their "Climate Change" get togethers (this time at the Mexican resort city of Cancun) where the United Nations has vowed that the developed nations will be forking out $100 billion dollars a year to developing nations all under the guise of climate change? Global Communism is coming. It may not happen tomorrow, but it's coming. The UN has their "Agenda 21" that will eliminate personal freedoms of people around the world and they plan on doing it with this guise of climate change. The agrement reports that the US is to "give" 1.somethng percent of it GDP to the UN to help countries survive AGW consequences It is about money and power Nothing to do with climate"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
434 2 #24 December 13, 2010 Ignorant! Seen in a country by country perspective http://www.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #25 December 13, 2010 QuoteIgnorant! Seen in a country by country perspective http://www.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption Your 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
