BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Who says the Science is settled??
Page 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 59

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Who says the Science is settled??
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
As a final note here. I explained how the temperature drives CO2 and received no rebuttal. Am I to believe that this is accepted?

Also. If you have specific questions for me please post them in one or two sentence questions. I will do my best to answer them.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
There is a faction and a great deal of debate using the Vostok Ice Core data. Since many alarmist use this data to make their point I in turn use it to show where their logic is flawed. What is often left out here is that while the temperature is rising in say Vostok, it may be falling elsewhere. So this data only speaks to micro-climates and not the entire earth.


Yet you post nothing to show this "great deal of debate" I all ready explained the lag,you ignored it

this is normal for you

quote:
Ahh yes, one more thing. Determining past CO2 levels is a very difficult thing to do. Correlation with time is also a problem. You see, when the ice freezes, the air bubbles are trapped at some time later. Therefore, the ice is always older than the air trapped within.


Now your an ice core expert?

quote:
When the debate is over the loser will resort to slander Nuff said there.


I ask for sources and links to data and this is what I get? again normal for you

quote:
Dan, you aren't being fair here. I posted a link that gives the same exact graphic that John posted. If you took the time to look you would see the work was done by Christopher R. Scotese. If you take the time to look at the site you will see that there is a great deal that you could learn here, Paleomap Project. In your zest to try to discredit me you seem to overlook all of the great educational materials I have presented. Obviously, this gentleman who has published many journal articles is on the Exxon Mobil payroll (sarcasm off).


Show me one peer reviewed joural artical by this man. It looks like your just making this up now

quote:
Pending a rebutal from Dan I tend to agree that you can't eat all your cake and still have it for later.


I apologized for that indescretion a while back.

The ice core data from all the bores drilled all over the world agree with each other precisly. The two examples I provided do just that. I'm having problems finding Johns data on the web to confirm his graph and assertiom that we have experianced these wild swings in temp before.

All the other data shows it hasn't. the last time we experianced anything like now was 55 million years ago and that rise in temps was due to higher co2 levels as well. That's why there's so much intrest in that period


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
As a final note here. I explained how the temperature drives CO2 and received no rebuttal. Am I to believe that this is accepted?



No you didn't show me your science not your opinion,we've had enough of that all ready


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
on a very rare occasion I might say something that could be considered name calling.


LMAO I said "cloud of assertion, opinion and name calling" Not just name calling.

The fallacies, assertions, false attribution plain opinion presented as fact and the number of times you use the term alarmist as an assumption of being in the wrong are too numerous to go into but a brief incomplete list of negative labels and assertions you have made so far follows

things get twisted for political reasons
the real science and not the politics
Al Gore, do what he is doing. Because he wants to increase taxes, control peoples lives, and make money
making a fortune of the fear generated from the greeneies
profiteering off of a natural disaster
Unlike politicians, these folks actually know what they are talking about
it doesn't meet with someones agenda
as it doesn't meet the needs of the press, mainstream media, politicos, and environmental groups.
funny though that people like Al Gore and the other alarmist
these magicians spill forth their lecherous speech. They use many mirrors and much smoke to deceive and mislead
another in a passing fad of alarmism
trendy environmental concern
debunk many of the alarmist claims
I’m betting the Alarmist will try to present some hokey pokey smoke and mirrors
alarmist are people like Al Gore and such who run around screaming that the earth will explode
It will be difficult for those who have bought in to the alarmist to look at the science and see they have been mislead
no better than what I get from the local fortune teller
gain wealth from the hysteria they have generated
If I was to use Al Gore logic
All this bad science, no wonder the average person can't figure it out.
found many of the greenie sites claiming
There is no doubt that the most vocal supporters of Global Warming catastrophe are the greenies
.Remember about 10 years ago this fool
In AlGorean logic
They often try to mislead in an attempt to promote an agenda
same category as those who thought the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth is flat.
problems and damage from Katrina were caused by the inept government of Louisiana and New Orleans
the doom and gloom scenario spewed fourth from the vile mouths of inept, incompetent, self serving politicians
bunch of writers, politicians, and activist with an agenda. What are you going to believe, the science or the hype?
funny to me is that the alarmist are backed by radical groups such as Green Peace, the Sierra Club, as well as a host of other decidedly environmental activist organizations. In addition, they are backed by the liberal politicians
Synonyms
Alarmist - Opportunist, Environmentalist, Activist, Control freaks, liberals
Skeptics - Deniers, realist, freedom seekers, conservatives
Surely the alarmist like the warm fuzzy feeling they get when they read the hype that supports their position
ultra liberal sites and views as presented by Al Gore and friends
never made it into the mainstream. Doesn't support the agneda
one can easily see this is front group
Al Whore has mislead people. They are clueless about the science.
goons like Al Gore that are in such a hurry to tax and control
your post are all over the place, some are incomprehensible (aka, I have no idea what you are talking about),
all of the BS out there
they are a biased environmental group with an agenda.
The message from them was that don't believe these guys, they are like the flat earth society. They know not what they are talking about.
For anyone to make such a crazy statement
absolutely irresponsible
Al Gores feeble little mind
I find this a lot coming from the "alarmist" side
The greenies love it
constantly mis-lead the public and mis-use the research
The environmentalist will try to do anything in the name of saving the earth from mankind. Good thing they weren't around when cavemen discovered fire, we would still be sitting in caves freezing and eating raw meat.

The claims of the alarmist are falling apart on a daily basis
Seems the GW crowd cannot argue the facts and the science
So the resort to berating the scientist who speak out against their Ivory Tower which is about to crash to the ground.
When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
spewed out by people like Al Gore and his band of merry ax men
Is it any wonder I don't believe this shysters. What I see is an environmental movement that thinks man is destroying the world. News flash for those pessimist.
bunch of opportunist, like Al Gore, seizing the moment and pushing an agenda in hopes of making large sums of money.
I was actually not to opposed to the whole GW thing until Al Gore did his thing. Since I don't trust the man who invented the internet I knew there was something wrong. Further investigation has shown that Al did a masterful job of misleading the public.
fascist organizations like Greenpeace
assume that Al doesn't think he has a good enough case to engage in real debate.
lead around blindly
Al Gore's fight against humanity. Too many people bought his convoluted sales pitch hook line and sinker. What people don't seem to realize is that Al Gore is in it for the money.
don't need anymore dumb asses up there, seems you already have enough.
they are afraid to get in their web of lies and deceit.

This whole paranoia thing is being used by the environmentalist to meet an ill-conceived goal, by governments to tax and control, and by business to get money (from tax relief, grants, and people sucked into the paranoia).
his smoke and mirrors trick
attempts to mislead
I don't need some fancy model to predict what will happen (because you are soooo clever)
Of course a lot of folks are saying that CO2 drives temperature, A lot of others are saying that Temperature drives CO2. I haven't seen to many that say the two are working together (Actually I did, Dan did and I think John did also, not to mention all those climateologists who you feel dont have the numerical skills you have and shouldn't be taken seriously)which you simply have not been able to prove to date (ignoring everything you have been told about the nature of scientific proof)
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with BS
What universe do you live in where the laws of nature are constantly changing (never said any such thing, just the opposite in fact)
ABC game you play


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
I have to believe that the work done by that much force over such a long period will certainly have an effect


Pure unfounded specualtion that it will have any significant effect on the data collected


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Noted. I tend to take all of your little post and put them together into one big picture. So if it appears that I have not rebutted it is because I put all altogether.


Pure assertion unsupported by your posts. I make many individual logical points and or rebutals and you either ignore them without comment, repeat yourself as though nothing has been said or assert it is all bull $hit.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Al Gore and the internet is a diversion and simply has no place in the discussion here except to mention it in passing.


Well you brought it up and you are still begging the question. In the face of the facts do you still cling to your anti Gore belief or do you admit you misjudged him?

If you do admit misjudgement, how does that fit with your self image as an objective scientist?
This was a very easy myth to check on.

The relevance goes to your credibility as an objective source of opinion regarding anything to do with Gore or his beliefs. If you get it wrong on the easily provable stuff what are the chances of objectivity in a complex and less obvious scenario?


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
I have a highly logical mind


Another simple assertion. You don't exhibit that here. You appear to confuse assertion and opinion with fact. You ingnore logical rebutal. You demonstrate no understanding of either the logic of scientific discovery or the logic of argument.

The general trend is to stick with a closed belief system that revolves around attacking Gore and all he believes in.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
But in all of this you seem to have missed the point


No I didn't, you simply failed to understand the rebutal.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:


Posted 17 March 2008 12:51 PM Hide Post

quote:
There is a faction and a great deal of debate using the Vostok Ice Core data. Since many alarmist use this data to make their point I in turn use it to show where their logic is flawed. What is often left out here is that while the temperature is rising in say Vostok, it may be falling elsewhere. So this data only speaks to micro-climates and not the entire earth.

Yet you post nothing to show this "great deal of debate" I all ready explained the lag,you ignored it

this is normal for you


Do I need to post every piece of literature that has used this from the conveniently lie on down. Every last one of your sources use this, I guess maybe you forgot.

quote:
Now your an ice core expert?
Nope, I took the time to read the research. Perhaps you should do the same.

quote:
I ask for sources and links to data and this is what I get? again normal for you

There have been numerous sources for the last 15 pages, I have provided in excess of 40 links to various pieces of research and data. It's not my fault you ignore them.
quote:
Show me one peer reviewed joural artical by this man (Christopher R. Scotese). It looks like your just making this up now


You either cannot find your way around the web site provided or refuse to put forth the effort to look. I don't know which. I attempted to not to fill up a web site with stuff that is found elsewhere. However for the extremely lazy..

quote:
Bocharova N. Yu., and Scotese, C.R., 1993. Revised Global Apparent Polar Wander Paths and Global Mean Poles, PALEOMAP Project Progress Report 56-1293, 20 pp.

Boucot. A.J., Xu, C., and Scotese, C.R., (in prep), Atlas of Lithological Indicators of Climate, Geol. Soc. Amer. Special Paper.

Gahagan, L.M., Scotese, C.R., Royer, J.-Y., Sandwell, D.T., Winn, J.K., Tomlins, R. L., Ross, M.I., Newman, J.S., Mueller, R.D., Mayes, C.L., Lawver, L.A., and Heubeck, C.E., 1988. Tectonic fabric of the ocean basins from satellite altimetry data, in C.R. Scotese and W. W. Sager (eds), Mesozoic and Cenozoic plate reconstructions, Tectonophysics, 155: 1-26.

Golonka, J., Ross, M.I., and Scotese, C.R., 1994. Phanerozoic paleogeographic and paleoclimatic modeling maps, in A.F. Embry, B. Beauchamp, and D.J. Glass (eds), PANGEA: Global Environments and Resources, Can. Soc. Petrol. Geol., Memoir 17, pp. 1-48.

Jurdy, D.M., Stefanick, M., and Scotese, C.R., 1995. Paleozoic plate dynamics, J. Geophys. Res., 100: 17965-17975.

McKerrow, W.S, and Scotese, C.R., 1990. Palaeozoic Biogeography and Paleogeography, Geological Society of London, Memoir 12, 435 pp.

McKerrow, W.S., Scotese, C.R., and Brasier, M.F., 1992. Early Cambrian continental reconstructions, J. Geol. Soc., London, 149: 599-606.

Parrish, J.T., Ziegler, A.M., and Scotese, C.R., 1982. Rainfall patterns and the distribution of coals and evaporites in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic, Palaeogeog., Palaeoclim., Palaeoecol., 40: 67-101. Scotese, C.R. , 1975. Continental Drift, 1st edition, Department of Geology, University of Illinois, Chicago.

Scotese, C.R., 1976. A continental drift "flip book", Computers and Geology, 2:113-116.

Scotese, C.R., 1997. Continental Drift, 7th edition, PALEOMAP Project, Arlington, Texas, 79 pp.

Scotese, C.R., and Baker, D.W., 1975. Continental drift reconstructions and animations, J. Geol. Education, 23:167-171.

Scotese, C.R., and Barrett, S.F., 1990. Gondwana's movement over the South pole during the Palaeozoic: evidence from lithological indicators of climate, in W.S. McKerrow and C. R. Scotese, eds., Palaeozoic Biogeography and Palaeogeography, Geological Society of London, Memoir 12, pp. 75-86.

Scotese, C.R., and Golonka, J. 1992. Paleogeographic Atlas, PALEOMAP Progress Report 20-0692, Department of Geology, University of Texas at Arlington, 34 pp.

Scotese, C.R., and Langford, R. P., 1995. Pangea and the Palegeography of the Permian, in P.A. Scholle, T.M. Peryt, and D.S. Ulmer-Scholle, eds., The Permian of Northern Pangea, volume 1, Paleogeography, Paleoclimates, nad Stratigraphy, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p. 3-19.

Scotese, C.R., and Ross, M.I., (in prep.), An Atlas of Paleoclimate Simulations using the Parametric Climate Model (PCM).

Scotese, C.R., and Sager, W.W., 1988. Mesozoic and Cenozoic Plate Tectonic Reconstructions. Tectonophysics, 155: 27-48.

Scotese, C.R., and Summerhayes, 1986. A computer model of paleoclimate to predict upwelling in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. Geobyte, 1:28-42.

Scotese, C.R., Gahagan, L.M., and Larson, R. L., 1988. Plate tectonic reconstructions of the Cretaceous and Cenozoic ocean basins, in C.R. Scotese and W. W. Sager (eds), Mesozoic and Cenozoic plate reconstructions, Tectonophysics, 155: 27-48.

Scotese, C.R., Snelson, S., Ross, W.C., and Dodge, L., 1981. A computer animation of continental drift, J. Geomag. Geoelectr., 32: suppl. III, 61-70.

Scotese, C.R., Bambach, R.K., Barton, C., Van der Voo, R., and Ziegler, A.M., 1979. Paleozoic Base Maps, J. Geology, 87: 217-277.

Ziegler, A.M., Scotese, C.R., and Barrett, S.F., 1983. Mesozoic and Cenozoic paleogeographic maps, in Tidal Friction and the Earth's Rotation II, P. Broche / J. Sundermann, Eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin.


I apologize for any slander or derogatory remarks in this post. It's just your constant inability to read and believe anything other than what the thought police have placed in your head has caused you to constantly attack me personally and to ignore what is placed in front of you. You are dragging me down to your level.

You have yet to answer my questions. I believe I have answered all of yours. If not feel free to ask again.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 12voltdan:
quote:
As a final note here. I explained how the temperature drives CO2 and received no rebuttal. Am I to believe that this is accepted?



No you didn't show me your science not your opinion,we've had enough of that all ready


Actually, I got this answer from a professor at a college. It really is no magic or mystery at all. Rather than me spoon feeding you perhaps you should start doing some research as well. By the way, you will need to use media outlets on both sides of the issue to get the truth. And when you read something on real climate or other such sites I recommend you try to find the actual report and go from there. I have seen research sited on both sides of the equation to support the opposing views. Both sides take the research and distort it to meet their needs. Don't forget, the mainstream media thrives on gloom and doom, it's what sells. So they build up the gloom and doom to sell papers.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ant:
quote:
I have to believe that the work done by that much force over such a long period will certainly have an effect


Pure unfounded specualtion that it will have any significant effect on the data collected


As you wish. It's what we call science. Have you ever applied a force to something and let it set for a while. Over time it will become permanently deformed. For sure the ice at the bottom of the pile has been compressed. That compression has to have some effect on things. So the speculation is surely founded. And if you would take the time to look at proxy records you will see that the farther back in time they go the less reliable they are.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ant:
quote:
Al Gore and the internet is a diversion and simply has no place in the discussion here except to mention it in passing.


Well you brought it up and you are still begging the question. In the face of the facts do you still cling to your anti Gore belief or do you admit you misjudged him?

If you do admit misjudgement, how does that fit with your self image as an objective scientist?
This was a very easy myth to check on.

The relevance goes to your credibility as an objective source of opinion regarding anything to do with Gore or his beliefs. If you get it wrong on the easily provable stuff what are the chances of objectivity in a complex and less obvious scenario?


I haver not misjudged your pal AL. He is an opportunistic politician who knows nothing about Global Warming. His movie and Inconvenient Truth clearly shows that. Proof, The court in the UK found at least 9 lies. There is another organization, perhaps the science and policy institute, that claim there are 32 errors in the film. I looked at both and came up with about 20 misleading or incorrect statements in the film. One of his best is when he talks to more powerful and devastating storms like Katrina. LMAO It was a cat 3 storm when it hit land. The problem with Katrina is it hit a city that is below sea level. That is what we call a man made disaster assisted by nature.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ant:
quote:
But in all of this you seem to have missed the point


No I didn't, you simply failed to understand the rebutal.


Sorry..I don't know what you are referring to here, so rebuttal is impossible.

I ignored the remainder of your snide remarks. I haven't seen any science out of you and Dan for about 4 pages now. I wonder why?


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I have asked the same questions repeatedly, yet I get no answers

1 How is it that nature has controlled and varied the temperature for billions of years, yet, now some believe man is controlling the climate.

2 Provide scientific proof positive that man made CO2 is controlling the climate. If that proof is provided then please show me how CO2 is controlling the atmosphere and the control equation.

Irregardless of the answer to 2

3 The research shows that H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas, Man Made CO2 accounts for less than 10% of all CO2. If man made CO2 is reduced or eliminated how will that change the future? How will this prevent the next ice age?

4 The Vostok Ice Core data shows that temperature and CO2 rise and fall together. Yet as temperature and CO2 rises dust fall and as temperatures and CO2 fall, dust rises. Please explain why it isn't the aerosols that are controlling the temperature. Keep in mind that the dust in the air will block the sun and make earth cooler thus producing less CO2.

I also brought up the point about actually measuring global temperature and CO2 levels, you both ignored that

I also found evidence that plant life does extremely well in 1000 PPM CO2, you chose to ignore that.

Finally, I showed that looking at 651 days of earth climate is like looking at 1 second of a mans life. I suspect there was no comment there because it is not arguable and it hurts the AGW movement.

P.S. If you have answered these things in the past humor me and do it again. Unfortunately, as I look back through the pages here I see a lot of irrelevant garbage and nonsense. I don't care who is funded by who, it makes no difference. I don't care about all of the little jabs and the massive amount of derogatory berating comments. The personal attakcs do nothing to further your agenda either, please stop dragging me down to your level. As much has I try not to sometimes I can't help it. You guys are a lot like the terrorist we now fight. You keep picking until you get a response at your level. If I could get you guys to stay on topic and discuss the science we would all be farther ahead.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Ok lets try this one last time

I said "Yet you post nothing to show this "great deal of debate" I all ready explained the lag,you ignored it"

and you said "Do I need to post every piece of literature that has used this from the conveniently lie on down. Every last one of your sources use this, I guess maybe you forgot."

Yes my sources use this but you have failed to show any creditable sources against this and all the other ice core data. You opinions are not good enough with no serious science against the cores there is no "debate"

Which incidentally have been drilled all over the world to give a largely accurate picture over thousands of years,Data which you yourself have posted to show your views as well and data that all sources agree with each other. look

Now you claim there's great debate over their results so show me your debate and please no more opinions.


next I said "Now your an ice core expert?"

and you say "Nope, I took the time to read the research. Perhaps you should do the same."

You did? the "research says that the years are well defined



this is from 1855 meters down and clearly show the "annual layers"

so just what research did you read?

Next I say "I ask for sources and links to data and this is what I get? again normal for you"

this was on a very specific piece you posted and I get the generic reply " There have been numerous sources for the last 15 pages, I have provided in excess of 40 links to various pieces of research and data. It's not my fault you ignore them."

I have seen those links and most are not "research" but the point was I wanted to see the data (or at least the source) from one specific page which you didn't find the need to show. The chart is from a book and doesn't say which core. I did some research of my own but the results are for John which I will get to later.

Show me one peer reviewed journal article by this man (Christopher R. Scotese). It looks like your just making this up now



You either cannot find your way around the web site provided or refuse to put forth the effort to look. I don't know which. I attempted to not to fill up a web site with stuff that is found elsewhere. However for the extremely lazy..


I wanted scientific journals you give me books and atlases on continental drift while I can accept them are most likely accurate and it indeed he looks like an expert on that subject it's doesn't show him as an expert on past climate.it's not peer reviewed science in a scientific journal. the reason I want this isn't because I'm "lazy" it's because I want to check the sources. I've been around your denier sites enough to see all the interconnecting links to each other and I'm tired of doing a search for extended periods of time for nothing. I post the sources why can't you?

I apologize for any slander or derogatory remarks in this post. It's just your constant inability to read and believe anything other than what the thought police have placed in your head has caused you to constantly attack me personally and to ignore what is placed in front of you. You are dragging me down to your level.


Thought police? I read the peer reviewed articles coming down the pipeline. It's just data and observations,plain and simple. You have a problem with the scientific community it seem because you don't believe the data that is presented so you live outside the science to try to refute it.

"You have yet to answer my questions. I believe I have answered all of yours. If not feel free to ask again."

You don't believe the science in the first place. I have shown you answers yet you try to discredit them with junk science and for some reason don't get the fact that it is junk. One of the many responses I have had to some of your silly assertions like this

"Good point. And if you look at the last 750,000 years you will see that we are exactly where we should be."

with the chart



carbon dioxide is nowhere near where it should be,it's at the top of the scale but you ignored the data,exactly what you accuse me of doing and didn't bother to answer that graph at all

This is one of many examples of your lack of objectivity and singular attitude towards the science of global warming.

Repeating you baseless assertions time and time again doesn't lend them any credence.

Thats why I'm getting tired of your spewing and yes I'd love to drag you (kicking and screaming) Up to my level. Then at least there could be meaningful debate


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
That compression has to have some effect on things


Really, does it? What exactly and how does that effect the readings? Still just an assertion and opinion.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
I haver not misjudged your pal AL


He is not my pal, I don't even know him. I disagree with his opinion that the science is settled just as I disagree with your opinion that it is settled in a different direction.

Science is never settled; it is always open to change if new data comes to light. That is the nature of science; things can never be proven they can only be disproven.

Even if things seem true for a long time they may continue to seem so forever or may one day be disproved by new data, Newton seemed right on the money until Einstein came along.

As I have repeatedly suggested, read Karl Popper on the logic of scientific discovery. That wasn't a snide remark it was a positive suggestion. You have more to learn than you imagine.

Regarding the logic of argument you have again begged the question and now also shifted the goalposts regarding Al G by changing to attacks on different topics. You also repeated the ad hominem fallacy by refering to Al as my pal in an attempt to discredit me by association with your pet hate figure.

We were discussing your assertion, first of all that he invented the internet and secondly a modified assertion that he falsly claimed to have invented the internet.

I have shown the history of that urban myth. It is a matter of record and very easy for anyone here to check on.

The question remains, do you conceed that you misjudged him when you asserted that he claimed to have invented the internet and if so how do you explain this mistake on your part, especially if you are the objective, hard researching scientist you imagine?

Again this is not a snide attack but a valid series of questions that cut to the heart of your self proclaimed objectivity. This is after all in the very area you claim as your speciality. It is not unreasonable to ask you why you are wrong or to show why you are right and the documented facts are wrong.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
I wonder why?


Because debating science is pointles unless both sides understand and abide by the twin pillars of the logic of scientific discovery and the logic of argument and fallacious arguments. So I have switched to addressing these issues first. If you get the hang of them I will switch back to science. If not there is no point in attempting to reason science with you.

This is not a snide remark it is a simple fact about the nature of argument generally and arguing about science in particular.

It applies to everyone not just you. Dan and John do on the whole seem conversant with both pillars and I remember them most of the time. I'm only human and can stray myself at times but you do it consistantly because you don't appear to see or indeed want to see your error.

Reading through that partial list of your negative asssertions, your constant bias revolving around your feelings for Gore seem pretty obvious and so my premise is that this is what makes it so hard for you to accept or perhaps even see the logic involved. I do believe you have the native intelligence to understand them. You are just stuck on your apriori agenda to attack Gore and his beliefs.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
John

here's your graph again



It's quoted as being from Richard B. Alley a respected scientist that was involved in an ice core in Greenland. I found his paper here (pdf) and his graph shows a much different range from 16 thousand to 10 thousand years ago only varying 1 degree F. However his fist paragraph states

quote:
As the world slid into and out of the last
ice age, the general cooling and
warming trends were punctuated by
abrupt changes. Climate shifts up to half
as large as the entire difference between
ice age and modern conditions occurred
over hemispheric or broader regions in
mere years to decades. Such abrupt
changes have been absent during the few
key millennia when agriculture and industry
have arisen. The speed, size, and extent
of these abrupt changes required a reappraisal
of climate stability. Records of
these changes are especially clear in highresolution
ice cores.


I accept this results,obviously as this is indeed real science by a real scientist. I do note that these Changes occurred at the start of or the end of ice ages and since we are at a relatively stable point of climate history these natural changes don't seem to apply, at least not according to Richard B. Alley.

However as man was here at the end of the last ice age I stand corrected. man has seen abrupt climate change before.

quote:
It's easy to see that the apparently rapid changes we're seeing today are quite normal over the period that humans have occupied N.America.


and

quote:
Since the argument seems to focus on humans causing global warming, I thought it would be enlightening to look at just the period we humans have been here.


So yes you are right

However Once you said this

quote:
I examine temperature data from a variety of sources and they all show that the temperature variations we experience today are not significantly different than what we've experienced many times before in earth's history, both before and after humans were around. Same goes for the CO2 data.


then I have a problem.as these temp changes are different for the reasons I already stated.We are already out of the last ice age and we are not headed into another

I have shown that (from ice cores over 650,000 years) the co2 levels are well (35%) beyond what the data shows as a history and this history extends to 1 million years

So how do you back up that comment "Same goes for the CO2 data."

I am reading that these levels and the speed at which they are rising have not been seen for 55 million years. We have been in a stable temperature for 2000 years and now it's abruptly going up as well as co2 levels. so where do you get your data

quote:
I also wonder where the eco-footprint of some of the others engaged in this discussion might be on the graph. Mine calculates at 5.


mine comes in at 4.7

I'm assuming this is the quiz you are referring to


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 59 
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Who says the Science is settled??

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014