homersapien 11,373 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 icanthearyou........who would decide who the top 50 scientists are? They are often as split on many subjects as the people on this board. http://www.ametsoc.org/sss/documents/climateletter.pdf http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how-to-talk-to-a-sceptic/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 A differing view from a former NASA scientist and respected climatologist. http://www.drroyspen...ral-or-manmade/ Respected? LOL! Roy Spencer: "the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show" (He's also into "intelligent design".) I've got a subdirectory devoted to him: http://rationalwiki....iki/Roy_Spencer http://davidappell.b...epic-fails.html Just goes to show you, not all tenured scientists are playing with a full deck. That can go both ways, homer. Agreed. Let's do the math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Way too many politicians, pundits, and outside interests involved in this debate. I just want to know what the top 50 scientists in the world have to say. As of this moment, I believe there is a real problem. However, I think that political forces are guilty of exaggerating the problem on the left and minimizing or totally denying it on the right. The real problem revealed in this debate is, the value of the power and money at stake can obscure the truth. Politically, the power and money are bigger than the truth. Too many of us don't really care about the truth. We just want our side to be proven "correct". Look @ AlGore, who has the most to win from this whole charade. Who on the Right has the most to gain ? No one ? Oh, you'll say 'big oil, big gas, big coal' , and capitalists ? Gee, the very folks who those on the Left ( Hugo Chavez and company ) have been waging war against for long before AGW was even an issue. The much coincidence for my taste. Sorry. That's just pathetic. Please stop for your own sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,616 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 A differing view from a former NASA scientist and respected climatologist. http://www.drroyspen...ral-or-manmade/ Respected? LOL! Roy Spencer: "the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show" (He's also into "intelligent design".) I've got a subdirectory devoted to him: http://rationalwiki....iki/Roy_Spencer http://davidappell.b...epic-fails.html Just goes to show you, not all tenured scientists are playing with a full deck. That can go both ways, homer. Agreed. Let's do the math. Math is only as good as the formula...and the honesty of the numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Ben....too long for me to care to read. .... Yeah, it's about 4 pages. Pretty tough for you I guess. :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 A differing view from a former NASA scientist and respected climatologist. http://www.drroyspen...ral-or-manmade/ Respected? LOL! Roy Spencer: "the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show" (He's also into "intelligent design".) I've got a subdirectory devoted to him: http://rationalwiki....iki/Roy_Spencer http://davidappell.b...epic-fails.html Just goes to show you, not all tenured scientists are playing with a full deck. That can go both ways, homer. Agreed. Let's do the math. Math is only as good as the formula...and the honesty of the numbers. Simple addition doesn't require much of a "formula". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Look @ AlGore, who has the most to win from this whole charade. Who on the Right has the most to gain ? No one ? Oh, you'll say 'big oil, big gas, big coal' , and capitalists ? Gee, the very folks who those on the Left ( Hugo Chavez and company ) have been waging war against for long before AGW was even an issue. The much coincidence for my taste. Sorry. Why do you keep bringing up Hugo Chavez? Why do you think ? The arrogant little prick (RIP) was the only one w/the stones to outright tell the truth about the whole AGW charade. There's a compelling argument. :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,616 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 A differing view from a former NASA scientist and respected climatologist. http://www.drroyspen...ral-or-manmade/ Respected? LOL! Roy Spencer: "the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show" (He's also into "intelligent design".) I've got a subdirectory devoted to him: http://rationalwiki....iki/Roy_Spencer http://davidappell.b...epic-fails.html Just goes to show you, not all tenured scientists are playing with a full deck. That can go both ways, homer. Agreed. Let's do the math. Math is only as good as the formula...and the honesty of the numbers. :)/> Simple addition doesn't require much of a "formula". As usual you use insults to target your detractors. Nice work. And no, millions of years of climate doesn't add up to man made change. We can't even begin to understand the ebb and flow of climate change beyond the last 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,123 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 There's a compelling argument. :-\ It's not an ARGUMENT. It's the answer to a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,123 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 That's just pathetic. Please stop for your own sake. You've said absolutely nothing of substance. Why did you bother with this post ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I would say the answer to this thread is "yes" for everybody! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 A differing view from a former NASA scientist and respected climatologist. http://www.drroyspen...ral-or-manmade/ Respected? LOL! Roy Spencer: "the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show" (He's also into "intelligent design".) I've got a subdirectory devoted to him: http://rationalwiki....iki/Roy_Spencer http://davidappell.b...epic-fails.html Just goes to show you, not all tenured scientists are playing with a full deck. That can go both ways, homer. Agreed. Let's do the math. Math is only as good as the formula...and the honesty of the numbers. :)/> Simple addition doesn't require much of a "formula". As usual you use insults to target your detractors. Nice work. And no, millions of years of climate doesn't add up to man made change. We can't even begin to understand the ebb and flow of climate change beyond the last 100 years. Sorry, but no insult was intended. Not even sure where you saw one. I thought you were referring to the number of "wacky" tenured professors who profess AGW is real. My remark was meant to add them up on both sides and compare them to the sane ones. And for a layman, you seem awfully certain about what science can and cannot do. Where does that come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 That's just pathetic. Please stop for your own sake. You've said absolutely nothing of substance. Why did you bother with this post ? To do you a favor and try to stop the bleeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 There's a compelling argument. :-\ It's not an ARGUMENT. It's the answer to a question. You are correct. My bad. I still find it funny how you interject personalities into the discussion. At least it's a change from Al Gore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,616 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 A differing view from a former NASA scientist and respected climatologist. http://www.drroyspen...ral-or-manmade/ Respected? LOL! Roy Spencer: "the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show" (He's also into "intelligent design".) I've got a subdirectory devoted to him: http://rationalwiki....iki/Roy_Spencer http://davidappell.b...epic-fails.html Just goes to show you, not all tenured scientists are playing with a full deck. That can go both ways, homer. Agreed. Let's do the math. Math is only as good as the formula...and the honesty of the numbers. :)/> Simple addition doesn't require much of a "formula". As usual you use insults to target your detractors. Nice work. And no, millions of years of climate doesn't add up to man made change. We can't even begin to understand the ebb and flow of climate change beyond the last 100 years. Sorry, but no insult was intended. Not even sure where you saw one. I thought you were referring to the number of "wacky" tenured professors who profess AGW is real. My remark was meant to add them up on both sides and compare them to the sane ones. And for a layman, you seem awfully certain about what science can and cannot do. Where does that come from? It comes from the continued failure of men and women to learn from anything and act like they have all the answers. Science is only as good as the adherence to the rules of science. In most cases, men and women like to bend the science curve to improve their footing on a particular topic. The review of science is man made, which means there are flaws within it. Every single day a new report comes out that contradicts the findings of a previous research or scientific finding. Just because my stance is rooted in the basic doesn't mean I'm wrong.....or right. It means I'm skeptical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,123 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 There's a compelling argument. :-\ It's not an ARGUMENT. It's the answer to a question. You are correct. My bad. I still find it funny how you interject personalities into the discussion. At least it's a change from Al Gore. Who interjected AlGore into the AGW business. It wasn't I, it was AL FREAKING GORE ! That's the odd part which some how YOU PEOPLE fail to comprehend. You have to ask yourself, how a dim bulb like AlGore has parlayed a unremarkable 2 terms as VP into having a net worth far more than his President, or ANY former President or VP ever. No, don't bother thinking about any of that. He's just a " personality " , huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 A differing view from a former NASA scientist and respected climatologist. http://www.drroyspen...ral-or-manmade/ Respected? LOL! Roy Spencer: "the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show" (He's also into "intelligent design".) I've got a subdirectory devoted to him: http://rationalwiki....iki/Roy_Spencer http://davidappell.b...epic-fails.html Just goes to show you, not all tenured scientists are playing with a full deck. That can go both ways, homer. Agreed. Let's do the math. Math is only as good as the formula...and the honesty of the numbers. :)/> Simple addition doesn't require much of a "formula". As usual you use insults to target your detractors. Nice work. And no, millions of years of climate doesn't add up to man made change. We can't even begin to understand the ebb and flow of climate change beyond the last 100 years. Sorry, but no insult was intended. Not even sure where you saw one. I thought you were referring to the number of "wacky" tenured professors who profess AGW is real. My remark was meant to add them up on both sides and compare them to the sane ones. And for a layman, you seem awfully certain about what science can and cannot do. Where does that come from? It comes from the continued failure of men and women to learn from anything and act like they have all the answers. Science is only as good as the adherence to the rules of science. In most cases, men and women like to bend the science curve to improve their footing on a particular topic. The review of science is man made, which means there are flaws within it. Every single day a new report comes out that contradicts the findings of a previous research or scientific finding. Just because my stance is rooted in the basic doesn't mean I'm wrong.....or right. It means I'm skeptical. I guess we'll have to disagree then. You apparently see science as a lists of truths or facts, which it is not. Science is the process that develops and supports what ultimately becomes those facts. That process actually depends on everyone's work being subject to question and verification. That is why scientific papers must list materials and methods. The fact that ongoing work at the edge of knowledge is sometimes determined to be wrong, for whatever reason, is not a reflection of the failure of science, it's one of the strengths. The first hurdle is the editorial board of the journal in which you want to publish. If you get by that, the entire field gets to take a crack at it. Even then, it will forever remain subject to review and change. But the nature of science is evolution at the edges. Revolutionary change - meaning a change at the basic level - while possible, is extremely rare. I just don't see a basic scientific phenomenon that, by modification, would unhinge the very theory of AGW. There is a disconnect between the statement "We can't even begin to understand the ebb and flow of climate change beyond the last 100 years" and why that should be so. We can understand some of the "ebb and flow" of climate change from past epochs. And these changes can be typically noted independently in various, wide ranging fields. The science of doing so has gradually been built over the decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 There's a compelling argument. :-\ It's not an ARGUMENT. It's the answer to a question. You are correct. My bad. I still find it funny how you interject personalities into the discussion. At least it's a change from Al Gore. Who interjected AlGore into the AGW business. It wasn't I, it was AL FREAKING GORE ! That's the odd part which some how YOU PEOPLE fail to comprehend. You have to ask yourself, how a dim bulb like AlGore has parlayed a unremarkable 2 terms as VP into having a net worth far more than his President, or ANY former President or VP ever. No, don't bother thinking about any of that. He's just a " personality " , huh? No, actually I have to ask myself what in hell this has to do with global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 The enhanced edit bar is not available to me for some reason. Government monopsony distorts climate science, says SPPI The climate industry is costing taxpayers $79 billion and counting Washington, DC 7/22/2009 09:12 PM GMT from TransWorldNews The Science and Public Policy Institute announces the publication of Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism. Key findings: Climate_money The starting point in June 1988 - James Hansen's address to Congress Some Excerpts: The enhanced posting bar is not available to me for some reason. The graph will not post. The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Most of this spending was unnecessary. Despite the billions wasted, audits of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of global warming theory and to compete with a lavishly-funded, highly-organized climate monopsony. Major errors have been exposed again and again. Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks, which profit most, are calling for more. Experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 $10 trillion in the near future. Hot air will soon be the largest single commodity traded on global exchanges. Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon‐Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skepticsless than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five‐thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008. Read the entire report here (PDF) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,123 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 No, actually I have to ask myself what in hell this has to do with global warming. Follow the money. The guy screaming the loudest about AGW coincidentally is making the most OFF of it. Gibbs Rule # 39 : There is no such thing as coincidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,616 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 A differing view from a former NASA scientist and respected climatologist. http://www.drroyspen...ral-or-manmade/ Respected? LOL! Roy Spencer: "the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show" (He's also into "intelligent design".) I've got a subdirectory devoted to him: http://rationalwiki....iki/Roy_Spencer http://davidappell.b...epic-fails.html Just goes to show you, not all tenured scientists are playing with a full deck. That can go both ways, homer. Agreed. Let's do the math. Math is only as good as the formula...and the honesty of the numbers. :)/> Simple addition doesn't require much of a "formula". As usual you use insults to target your detractors. Nice work. And no, millions of years of climate doesn't add up to man made change. We can't even begin to understand the ebb and flow of climate change beyond the last 100 years. Sorry, but no insult was intended. Not even sure where you saw one. I thought you were referring to the number of "wacky" tenured professors who profess AGW is real. My remark was meant to add them up on both sides and compare them to the sane ones. And for a layman, you seem awfully certain about what science can and cannot do. Where does that come from? It comes from the continued failure of men and women to learn from anything and act like they have all the answers. Science is only as good as the adherence to the rules of science. In most cases, men and women like to bend the science curve to improve their footing on a particular topic. The review of science is man made, which means there are flaws within it. Every single day a new report comes out that contradicts the findings of a previous research or scientific finding. Just because my stance is rooted in the basic doesn't mean I'm wrong.....or right. It means I'm skeptical. I guess we'll have to disagree then. You apparently see science as a lists of truths or facts, which it is not. Science is the process that develops and supports what ultimately becomes those facts. That process actually depends on everyone's work being subject to question and verification. That is why scientific papers must list materials and methods. The fact that ongoing work at the edge of knowledge is sometimes determined to be wrong, for whatever reason, is not a reflection of the failure of science, it's one of the strengths. The first hurdle is the editorial board of the journal in which you want to publish. If you get by that, the entire field gets to take a crack at it. Even then, it will forever remain subject to review and change. But the nature of science is evolution at the edges. Revolutionary change - meaning a change at the basic level - while possible, is extremely rare. I just don't see a basic scientific phenomenon that, by modification, would unhinge the very theory of AGW. There is a disconnect between the statement "We can't even begin to understand the ebb and flow of climate change beyond the last 100 years" and why that should be so. We can understand some of the "ebb and flow" of climate change from past epochs. And these changes can be typically noted independently in various, wide ranging fields. The science of doing so has gradually been built over the decades. You just answered my reason as to why we shouldn't believe lock, stock, and barrel in the science behind man made climate change. Thank you. In other words, we don't have all the facts and that's why the science is flawed at this point in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 No, actually I have to ask myself what in hell this has to do with global warming. Follow the money. The guy screaming the loudest about AGW coincidentally is making the most OFF of it. Gibbs Rule # 39 : There is no such thing as coincidence Why should I debate with someone who feels reading 4 pages of a referenced article on the subject is just too burdensome to consider? I don't care to exchange quips and talking points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 A differing view from a former NASA scientist and respected climatologist. http://www.drroyspen...ral-or-manmade/ Respected? LOL! Roy Spencer: "the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show" (He's also into "intelligent design".) I've got a subdirectory devoted to him: http://rationalwiki....iki/Roy_Spencer http://davidappell.b...epic-fails.html Just goes to show you, not all tenured scientists are playing with a full deck. That can go both ways, homer. Agreed. Let's do the math. Math is only as good as the formula...and the honesty of the numbers. :)/> Simple addition doesn't require much of a "formula". As usual you use insults to target your detractors. Nice work. And no, millions of years of climate doesn't add up to man made change. We can't even begin to understand the ebb and flow of climate change beyond the last 100 years. Sorry, but no insult was intended. Not even sure where you saw one. I thought you were referring to the number of "wacky" tenured professors who profess AGW is real. My remark was meant to add them up on both sides and compare them to the sane ones. And for a layman, you seem awfully certain about what science can and cannot do. Where does that come from? It comes from the continued failure of men and women to learn from anything and act like they have all the answers. Science is only as good as the adherence to the rules of science. In most cases, men and women like to bend the science curve to improve their footing on a particular topic. The review of science is man made, which means there are flaws within it. Every single day a new report comes out that contradicts the findings of a previous research or scientific finding. Just because my stance is rooted in the basic doesn't mean I'm wrong.....or right. It means I'm skeptical. I guess we'll have to disagree then. You apparently see science as a lists of truths or facts, which it is not. Science is the process that develops and supports what ultimately becomes those facts. That process actually depends on everyone's work being subject to question and verification. That is why scientific papers must list materials and methods. The fact that ongoing work at the edge of knowledge is sometimes determined to be wrong, for whatever reason, is not a reflection of the failure of science, it's one of the strengths. The first hurdle is the editorial board of the journal in which you want to publish. If you get by that, the entire field gets to take a crack at it. Even then, it will forever remain subject to review and change. But the nature of science is evolution at the edges. Revolutionary change - meaning a change at the basic level - while possible, is extremely rare. I just don't see a basic scientific phenomenon that, by modification, would unhinge the very theory of AGW. There is a disconnect between the statement "We can't even begin to understand the ebb and flow of climate change beyond the last 100 years" and why that should be so. We can understand some of the "ebb and flow" of climate change from past epochs. And these changes can be typically noted independently in various, wide ranging fields. The science of doing so has gradually been built over the decades. You just answered my reason as to why we shouldn't believe lock, stock, and barrel in the science behind man made climate change. Thank you. In other words, we don't have all the facts and that's why the science is flawed at this point in time. Well, that went completely over your head. I guess I didn't explain it very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,123 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I don't care to exchange quips and talking points. No idea what you're talking about,but I've read plenty about this topic, enough to know that some 4 pages of what ever isn't going to change my mind. You don't want to see the big picture and admit the glaring obvious. The arctic isn't disappearing, the polar bears are doing just fine, and the seas aren't marching inland to swallow up Disney World or London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,616 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 He has to compensate in some manor...errr manner We get to read all about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.