quade 3 #1 December 23, 2010 Forget your politics for a moment and just think about the science that allows us to even measure it. QuoteIn an interview in La Jolla, Dr. Keeling’s widow, Louise, said that if her husband had lived to see the hardening of the political battle lines over climate change, he would have been dismayed. “He was a registered Republican,” she said. “He just didn’t think of it as a political issue at all.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/science/earth/22carbon.htmlquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2 December 23, 2010 Too bad the NYT couldn't keep the politics out of the article.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #3 December 23, 2010 Be that as it may, it's pretty fair in covering both sides. It even goes into some detail about contrarian points of view on page 4 of the article. It does require a person read the entire article though before jumping to conclusions.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #4 December 23, 2010 QuoteBe that as it may, it's pretty fair in covering both sides. It even goes into some detail about contrarian points of view on page 4 of the article. Actually, the first mention of criticism is on page 1. The article is still STRONGLY biased to the pro-AGW mindset, however. QuoteIt does require a person read the entire article though before jumping to conclusions. Rather like you jumping to the conclusion that I hadn't read the entire article?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #5 December 23, 2010 I see you still think the song is about you. Might want to give Carly a call.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #6 December 23, 2010 QuoteI see you still think the song is about you. Might want to give Carly a call. In case you hadn't noticed, you and I are the only ones in the thread at this point, so I'm pretty sure you weren't talking about YOU jumping to conclusions.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #7 December 23, 2010 +1 game, set, match He killed you with that oneKevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #8 December 23, 2010 It's come to my attention that some people can't tell the difference between the generic and specific usage of the word "you.". Because of that, I specifically used "a person" yet still . . . somehow you thought it was still about you. Get a grip.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #9 December 23, 2010 QuoteIt's come to my attention that some people can't tell the difference between the generic and specific usage of the word "you.". Because of that, I specifically used "a person" yet still . . . somehow you thought it was still about you. Get a grip. Get one, yourself - if you had meant it to be a generic statement, you would have added it to the OP or put it in a response to yourself. Your snarky remarks about 'give Carly a call' and 'get a grip' show that you meant it exactly as it was interpreted. English Comp and Ethics 101 class is now dismissed, kindly pay the bursar on your way out.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #10 December 23, 2010 Oh no . . . this thread is CLEARLY all about you now . . . my mistake.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #11 December 23, 2010 No I'm here...you still losing. (Bad) Turn out the lights...you started out slow and your going down hill. Get him on another threadKevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #12 December 23, 2010 QuoteActually, the first mention of criticism is on page 1. The article is still STRONGLY biased to the pro-AGW mindset, however. When a writer doesn't give equal weight to both sides of a story it's not neccessarily a sign of bias when both sides aren't equally credible or equally well supported.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #13 December 23, 2010 QuoteOh no . . . this thread is CLEARLY all about you now . . . my mistake. This is your one warning! [/sarcasim] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #14 December 23, 2010 QuoteForget your politics for a moment and just think about the science that allows us to even measure it. QuoteIn an interview in La Jolla, Dr. Keeling’s widow, Louise, said that if her husband had lived to see the hardening of the political battle lines over climate change, he would have been dismayed. “He was a registered Republican,” she said. “He just didn’t think of it as a political issue at all.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/science/earth/22carbon.html When you have an article that immediately puts forth the link CO2=>"climate change," the presumption that the ecosystem is an SISO system reveals its basis to be junk science. The dynamical equations for climate modeling, as developed by someone with the barest modicum of familiarity with systems analysis, contain rather a few significant terms. For someone to point to the term related to CO2 and claim "this term prevails to the exclusion of all else!" is ignorant in the extreme. Yes, it is a factor; no it is not the dominant factor by any means. If you wish to hold forth on the subject, I can recommend a course of study (assuming you qualify to enter an accredited program) that will bring you up to the barest minimum of credentials to be taken seriously. It should not take you more than three or four years if you apply yourself. In the meantime, rest assured that everything you think you know is wrong. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #15 December 23, 2010 Quote Quote Oh no . . . this thread is CLEARLY all about you now . . . my mistake. This is your one warning! [/sarcasim] made my day (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #16 December 23, 2010 Its not really a political issue outside of the USA. of course the Greens use it as a platform but on the left and right there is mixed views on the science. The fact that it seems to be such a bi polar political issue in the USA highlights the danger of blind obedience to the party line. Clearly the 'Your either with us or against us' mentality is reigns supreme. Worrying.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
skyrider 0 #17 December 23, 2010 Quote Its not really a political issue outside of the USA. of course the Greens use it as a platform but on the left and right there is mixed views on the science. The fact that it seems to be such a bi polar political issue in the USA highlights the danger of blind obedience to the party line. Clearly the 'Your either with us or against us' mentality is reigns supreme. Worrying. it is a Political issue here??? I didn't realise that...I must have missed the memo...I thought it was pure Science, which also means pure hypothesis... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #18 December 23, 2010 Quote Quote Its not really a political issue outside of the USA. of course the Greens use it as a platform but on the left and right there is mixed views on the science. The fact that it seems to be such a bi polar political issue in the USA highlights the danger of blind obedience to the party line. Clearly the 'Your either with us or against us' mentality is reigns supreme. Worrying. it is a Political issue here??? I didn't realise that...I must have missed the memo...I thought it was pure Science, which also means pure hypothesis... Where is your proof?"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
popsjumper 2 #19 December 23, 2010 Quote If you wish to hold forth on the subject....It should not take you more than three or four years if you apply yourself.....In the meantime, rest assured that everything you think you know is wrong. Holy shit! He asked that you think about the science. Call me stupid but I didn't see anything he posted that says he embraces anything one way or another. Even base jumpers look before they leap....well, most of them anyway. Besides that, he asked that we put politics aside and lo and behold...we find that it's impossible for people to do that. That, in and of itself, says more than anything.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
popsjumper 2 #20 December 23, 2010 Quote Where is your proof? In the pudding? Debating the science of it all apparently is really tough. The waters have been clouded by those who don't understand the science and those who have political issues that disregard the realities of the science. Usually by those who suffer both the lack of understanding AND have the political issues. Paul: I think you've asked a bit much of those here. Few, if any, really understand enough of the real science behind it all to put up a decent argument one way or the other. For most of us, it boils down to, "who are you going to believe". Kinda like religion, eh? 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
jakee 1,257 #21 December 23, 2010 Quote Quote Its not really a political issue outside of the USA. of course the Greens use it as a platform but on the left and right there is mixed views on the science. The fact that it seems to be such a bi polar political issue in the USA highlights the danger of blind obedience to the party line. Clearly the 'Your either with us or against us' mentality is reigns supreme. Worrying. it is a Political issue here??? I didn't realise that...I must have missed the memo...I thought it was pure Science, which also means pure hypothesis... Yeah, all the money that gets spent on collecting actual data across all the scientific disciplines is just a smokescreen to make it look more difficult than it actually is. Everyone in the know understands that the way we really got rockets to fly out of the solar system, micro-processors and drugs that wiped out smallpox was just hypothetical guesswork.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 December 23, 2010 QuoteThe waters have been clouded by those who don't understand the science and those who have political issues that disregard the realities of the science I think the waters have been clouded by those who were saying ten and twenty years ago that there would be no more snow in London anymore. And five years ago who said that there hasn't been a significant winter in England and that climate change is the reason. Expect more of the same. Then England gets clobbered two years in a row and THE SAME PEOPLE say, of course! That's exactly what climate change would cause. The science is corrupted because the people doing the science have absolutely obliberated public perception. The climate scientists with their secretive natures, arrogant attitudes, and ascribing every form of weather phenomena to global warrming is really resulting in a backlash. The reason is that even the common peasants who don't understand the science actually have memories. We may not understand the science but we do remember 20 years of telling us that what is happening right as we speak was not going to happen. And now they are telling us to expect more of the same because what wasn't supposed to happen now is supposed to happen. The other thing is that the issue IS political. That's why scientists make predictions. That's why Monbiot writes opinion articles in the Guardian. It's why the NYT has its dot.earth columnist (who does a great job under my criteria because both sides are fed up with him for actually providing both viewpoints). Hansen himself explained that he predicted such calamity in order to make it a political issue - and the environmental movement latched on. There ARE questions. There are significant issues regarding the statistical methods being used not only to predict future climate but to reconstruct past climate. The science today, it appears, is far less settled than it was a mere five years ago. Edited to add: that the point about climate "science" lying in predictions. The climate science community appears to forget that a "prediction" and a "conclusion" are separate things. These predictions are being tested through the next 75-100 years and longer. I don't particularly like the Nostradamus method of science... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #23 December 23, 2010 QuoteQuote If you wish to hold forth on the subject....It should not take you more than three or four years if you apply yourself.....In the meantime, rest assured that everything you think you know is wrong. Holy shit! He asked that you think about the science.Quote He is not qualified to evaluate science. Call me stupid but I didn't see anything he posted that says he embraces anything one way or another.Quote He posted a link to an article which showed no hint of even handedness. Even base jumpers look before they leap....well, most of them anyway. Besides that, he asked that we put politics aside and lo and behold...we find that it's impossible for people to do that. That, in and of itself, says more than anything. I really could not care less about politics as such. Stupidity knows no political persuasion. I reserve the right to be offended when some asks me to be "open minded" when they seek to sell me a bill of goods. When you have issues laden with religious overtones pawned off as "science," it is all the more repellent. BSBD, Winsor P.S. This guy's batting average is over 85%, and he does not take CO2 into consideration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #24 December 23, 2010 Quote Quote Where is your proof? In the pudding? Debating the science of it all apparently is really tough. The waters have been clouded by those who don't understand the science and those who have political issues that disregard the realities of the science. Usually by those who suffer both the lack of understanding AND have the political issues. Paul: I think you've asked a bit much of those here. Few, if any, really understand enough of the real science behind it all to put up a decent argument one way or the other. For most of us, it boils down to, "who are you going to believe". Kinda like religion, eh? You are closer than you know Cause AGW is a religion It takes blind faith to believe it in total"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
brenthutch 384 #25 December 23, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Where is your proof? In the pudding? Debating the science of it all apparently is really tough. The waters have been clouded by those who don't understand the science and those who have political issues that disregard the realities of the science. Usually by those who suffer both the lack of understanding AND have the political issues. Paul: I think you've asked a bit much of those here. Few, if any, really understand enough of the real science behind it all to put up a decent argument one way or the other. For most of us, it boils down to, "who are you going to believe". Kinda like religion, eh? You are closer than you know Cause AGW is a religion It takes blind faith to believe it in total More on the religion of AGW: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/557597/201012221907/The-Abiding-Faith-Of-Warm-ongers.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
