@TMTisFree

Quote:

If you want to kill the dog, pretend he is ill.

Certainly you throw out things because they don't meet your criteria. What's with this heavy handed approach that our criteria can only match yours?

Your 'many' link is interesting. (BTW thanks for citing a source) I went to verify it and I see their claims. They link to Mann's papers in some areas. But, they don't seem to link to the other 50 studies here? Also, this appears to not be peer-reviewed or published? (As you said doesn't guarantee certainty but is a first step.) Do the 700 articles against Mann you claim meet the same unpublished unpeer reviewed status as this? Chairman of the Board for your link, IDSO, runs other organizations funded by Exxon . Is this an example of anti-GW independent scientific thought?

Quote:

I am also sure that almost 100% of the hens produce eggs as they want to be feed

Certainly as much as IDSO enjoys his Exxon feed.

As for the WMP in other areas it seems that the dates are moveable? European data shows 800-1300AD. African data shows 1000-1200AD. Antarctic records show nothing going on if not cooler int he period, save for a brief 100 year spike. And again most if not all (depends on the study) of the data is still within Mann's margin of error.

Quote:

For the rest, it appears you prefer outdated polls and surveys instead of convincing scientific evidences. I can't help

My statement was one of where is the scientific consesus. These, so called outdated, polls were 2007 and 2008 with a 97-98% climatologist backing man's release of CO2 having environmental effects. Do you really believe that in under 1 year scientific climate community flipped to be anti-GW?

Last edited by BrianK on 26-Mar-2009 at 04:05 AM.

@Dandy

Quote:

Just to lull mercantile perverted minds that there`s still time enough to make some bucks to the disadvantage of this planet and the future of its inhabitants, without having to fear to get the bill presented or what?

The Gaians want not only your money but to turn you away from the true Christ. Certainly the never ending war for your soul is important to the devil!

@BrianK

Quote:

Certainly you throw out things because they don't meet your criteria. What's with this heavy handed approach that our criteria can only match yours?

Only when criteria is proper and honest Science. Btw I am not the one rejecting 684 papers which demonstrate that there is no "unprecedented" warmer period.

Quote:

Your 'many' link is interesting. (BTW thanks for citing a source) I went to verify it and I see their claims. They link to Mann's papers in some areas. But, they don't seem to link to the other 50 studies here? Also, this appears to not be peer-reviewed or published? (As you said doesn't guarantee certainty but is a first step.)

Search a bit.

Quote:

Do the 700 articles against Mann you claim meet the same unpublished unpeer reviewed status as this? Chairman of the Board for your link, IDSO, runs other organizations funded by Exxon . Is this an example of anti-GW independent scientific thought?

Ahh the good old scarecrow. Already that short with argument? You are riding a dead horse. Do you mean 700 papers from all continents are funded by Big Oil? What about Big Enviro funded 'science'?

Quote:

European data shows 800-1300AD. African data shows 1000-1200AD.

These dates are consistent.

Quote:

My statement was one of where is the scientific consesus. These, so called outdated, polls were 2007 and 2008 with a 97-98% climatologist backing man's release of CO2 having environmental effects. Do you really believe that in under 1 year scientific climate community flipped to be anti-GW?

Already responded in this post and here. In short:

"Polls are like miniskirts: they make you dream, but the essential is hidden."
- Alexandre Sanguinetti, french politician

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Only when criteria is proper and honest Science.

IMO, failing to understand one's statistical boundaries nor fairly representing them is not honest Science.

Quote:

Btw I am not the one rejecting 684 papers which demonstrate that there is no "unprecedented" warmer period.

What are 'papers' seems to me like your earlier post they are likely a website of detractors?

Quote:

Do you mean 700 papers from all continents are funded by Big Oil? What about Big Enviro funded 'science'?

In the case of IDSO he's funded by Exxon. Exxon has spent lots of money only funding scientists with anti-GW causes. Is IDSO corrupt? Perhaps...

Many a time in the thread you have claimed the government funded scienists want to keep their jobs so in turn this only results in pro-GW science being done. As you said the hens want to feed. Yet, on the other side of your toast the anti-GW scienists when shown to have ties and funding from big business (oil - IDSO / tobacco - Heartland Inst.) you seemingly want to claim innocence and no possible way their agenda could be manipulated?

As for your legendary claim of 700 papers. At this point you've done little to convince us they are published and/or peer reviewed, let alone fully disprove Mann.

Quote:

Quote: European data shows 800-1300AD. African data shows 1000-1200AD. These dates are consistent.

So prey tell how long is the WMP is it the under 100 years of Antarctica, the 200 of Africa or the 500 of Europe? And you want to decry Mann wrong when many of these reconstructions still fall within Mann's 95% accuracy boundaries.

Quote:

"Polls are like miniskirts: they make you dream, but the essential is hidden." - Alexandre Sanguinetti, french politician

Sure you hate polls..whatever.

'Scientific Consensus' tells us where the majority scientific opinion resides. In order to get that we poll scientific work and scientists in the know, climatologists. Turns out that vast majority of both are pro-man influenced global warming. If this is a bad way what's your clever idea on how to understand and explain what the current scientific consensus is.

Quote:

That why the modern web area of scientific dissemination and discussion (blogs) is so interesting. It forces scientists to not stay in their ivory tower (most scientists are honest, though).

Perhaps right and perhaps wrong. Certainly on the side against you blogs give everyone an opinion.

More often than not I've seen is Person X writes their (used loosely) science article No matter how bat*** crazy their idea is if a scientist doesn't respond they claim victory. Cuz afterall they are simply so smart that even thousands of scientists don't have a response. After some time some scientist gets fed up and decides to respond. Now Person X claims validity because a scientist took time to show them where they were wrong they must therefore be on the 'true path' and are being attacked by the scientist. This certainly has been harmful to science understanding in the public square.

Putting aside GW/Anti-GW for a moment and looking at other sciences we see the blogs declaring Einstein wrong with definitive proofs and evolutionary theory as bunk. And should a scientist dare to step in and correct something this only proves their crazy idea must be right because scientists always supress the truth. Joe public assumes that everyone is honest and knows what is going on. Oh and the blogs promotes the dangers of mercury in vaccines. How many lives must be lost to outbreaks that could otherwise be prevented if it weren't for the power of stupid?

I hate to break it to you but blogs aren't oracles. They are opinion in print and faulty as any other opinion...

@BrianK

Keep the blinders tightly then. And enjoy the interglacial.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Keep the blinders tightly then. And enjoy the interglacial

I will.

When you want to treat science with the same criteria no matter the outcome give us a call.

Well,since this thing started off as solutions To etc, there is a couple of articles in New Scientist this week that hav turned up, that to certain people scream Conspiracy to silence and divert.

First we have the yet anothre replay of P&F 20 year old Cold Fusion, yay, expired patents, its now freely available, where the group in question, again backed by US military money, ahve used radiation detection plastic to pick up triple alpha tracks which They say are proof of high energy fusion neutrons striking one of the plastics carbon atoms, causing it to split into 3.

Of course, the conspiracy theorists will immediately scream, but what about all the proof of measurements that show its not a never before seen neutorn disintegration of a light nucleus in a set up which is claimed fusion never occurs because neutrons are just not detected, but instead is the KNOWN Boron Proton reaction, which the US Military researchers were Directly looking at in the 90s using direct interaction particle reactions.

The other article is the ,brilliant, idea someone has had, by noticing that methane clathrates preferentially store CO2 over CH4. So their idea is to pump CO2 into the clathrate, thereby displacing the CH4, which can then be burnt for power. They said the first CO2 source will come from Existing Natural Gas extraction fields, which contain a proportion of CO2 already and which needs to be seperated and reinjected. So we already have heavy duty CO2 handling and injection on Existing Gas rigs, but not when theres no more Methane to be extracted from that field. So instead of being kept running,a nd used to sequester CO2 into its previously safe storage, hey, 10s of millions of years safe, all the hardware already in pace and padi for, goverment grants, your laughing? theyre scrapped at high cost, etc etc..

One thing thats intresting at this point.. if a proportion of the Natural gas comes out is CO2, and the natural gas from your wet pit methane digester that you can buy for some stupid excessive price for the home is about 30% CO2, is the proportion of CO2 from the Natural gas fields 30% or some smaller proportion, showing its been made from decomposition of biomatter, maybe even the deeply buried coal fields that extend from yorkshire to the North sea. They generate natural gas in themselves, as is unfortunately known from explosions in mines.

Simple rule, Allow a planet to run itself, and it will do a reasonable job of overall keeping itself fairly stable. For Non human values of stable. Mess around with extracting such, stripping others and burning 10 million years of energy storage in 100 years, and well, how can you complain when you detonate TNT instead of just setting fire to it. By the way, you can set fire to TNT, and it will just burn. I wouldnt advise it of course. 8)

And a startup company in the US, California, ahs apparently been promised, over time, Up to $500 million of startup cash, if their new design for rooftop solar panels turns out be useable and production capable. For $500 million Id expect a 1 Megawatt Orbital Solar power unit, within 12 months.. Because not only everything eists, its been round for so many decades you can make it License Free. Once you have that enery in orbit, you can then start looking at fully automated lunar mining robots. EtcEtc.. childrens stuff, Not much off Deep Space One and Mars Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, etc etc.

Everythings there, just stop trying to get what you can from everyone else using Paper, and instead Sell what you can make. Thatll put you at least 20 years ahead of the game.

_________________
The older and more respected a scientist is, the longer it takes to prove him wrong.

@BrianK

Quote:

When you want to treat science with the same criteria no matter the outcome give us a call.

and in today's news: Dust plays role in warmer global temps: study

A decrease in airborne dust and volcanic emissions has contributed to warming the North Atlantic Ocean in the past three decades, a study showed.

Link

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

Quote:

A decrease in airborne dust and volcanic emissions has contributed to warming the North Atlantic Ocean in the past three decades, a study showed.

Interesting article. Thanks.

@Interesting

The next soviet world. Soon.

Bye
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Interesting

The original article is here. Not a single word of CO².

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

A town in Norway had two nights ago the coldest march temperature recorded in 43 years with a temperature of -26.8c. It was quite cold the night before as well as it had -25.8c.

In general we have a unusual amount of cold spells and record low temps this year. The average temp has still been slightly above normal though, but still far from as warm it has been in previous years.

Last edited by Tomas on 27-Mar-2009 at 08:40 PM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

The original article is here. Not a single word of CO².

This appears to be either the fallacy of special pleading or the fallacy of ad ignorantiam.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. " -- Carl Sagan

@TMTisFree

Quote:

The next soviet world. Soon.

yeah great our freedom in exchange for junk science.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @TMTisFree Quote: The original article is here. Not a single word of CO². This appears to be either the fallacy of special pleading or the fallacy of ad ignorantiam. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. " -- Carl Sagan

And your reply is off topic.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK Quote: BrianK wrote: @TMTisFree [quote]The original article is here. Not a single word of CO². This appears to be either the fallacy of special pleading or the fallacy of ad ignorantiam. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. " -- Carl Sagan

And your reply is off topic.
[/quote]

@BrianK

Your reply was off topic, out of context, unrelated to the article and as such totally irrelevant: a total non-sense you are used to. Also note that you are offsetting your carbon quota by permanently using your computer to write irrelevances and random unrelated quotes, irreversibly endangering our atmosphere and soon reaching a tipping point in obfuscated rhetoric. A clear climatic irresponsibility in fact.
Finally a good believer as you, also forgot to note that their observational data have not been confirmed by others and are wrong because IPCC models do not show such discrepancies. A study funded by Big Oil, certainly.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Yesterday, between 20h30 and 21h30, local time, to celebrate a new star in the sky (the ISS has a new pair of long solar arrays) brighter than Venus, I switched on all the lights inside and outside the house:



I also turned on the dishwasher, the laundry machine, the 2 driers and made sure my 2 cars will be ready for Monday, for good measure. All lights were OK.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Your reply was off topic, out of context, unrelated to the article and as such totally irrelevant:

To no surprise I disagree. A critique of statements and why they fail is perfectly within the realm of discussion on any topic.

@BrianK

A perfectly correct, true, accurate, relevant and objective statement: not a single word of CO² in this full paper dealing with ocean temperature fluctuations and that correctly uses observational data to drive a physical model (not the other way round used by full fledged crackpot pseudo-scientists and acknowledged by their smaller and smaller horde of blind believers).



.../...

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 29-Mar-2009 at 02:28 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".