Printable View
So at least Roy Spencer is consistent:
He also states that cigarettes are not anywhere as near harmful as health experts state and is rolling in loads of ExxonMobil and Big Tobacco cash. :deal2::devil:
I'd give him my money until it hurts and then some.:dunce2:
Yes that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gutmensch
Glad to see you started taking the bloggosphere seriously as a source by the way
And don't forget Intelligent Design. NASA has discovered that the scientists are lying alarmist atheists!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spe...lligent_design
What's with all the strawmen? Do you guys seriously think I am that dumb?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I am not taking the "bloggosphere" seriously as 100% truth. But nevertheless those blogs raised some doubt on the article (I forget who posted it) brought up. SO I said, oh my skepticism was right because you guys dismissed it as if I have been drinking cool-aid this entire time.
Jeeze, I come around and say I am shocked the IPCC report let a blunder that big happen and you decide to take another jab at me. I'm gonna grab my Ben and Jerry's and have a nice cry while watching The Notebook.
We are not angry, just a little disappointed
It's as though I've entered a time machine and gone back 4 years, Fragony still here fighting global warming. ;)
How (have you been)Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
nice to see ya
Been working a lot.
Hi Koga!
Hah!
I'm going to go burn some trees in celebration.
I TOLD YOU GLOBAL WARMING WAS REAL! NOW ALIENS WILL DESTROY US! YOU PEOPLE HAPPY?
We wouldn't be in any of this mess if only all you pesky sceptics would read the serious, leftwing, enviromentalist press: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...-civilisations.Quote:
Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists
Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report
It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.
Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.
This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by a Nasa-affiliated scientist and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University
Louis - So it wasn't a lame excuse for Jeff the mailman when Strike blamed 'some alien probe thingy that did ouch' for those suspicious scratch marks on his behind.
Humanity was heard to say at a press conference, "Bring it on."
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Forget about Men in Black. When those aliens come, I'm going to call you.
Whaddya charge for keeping them the heck away from my Texas' love interests from now on?
Louis - in a bid to keep what little of his dignity he's got left decides to not google for a 'Cowboys vs Aliens' picture.
Good God.
Wouldn't all our radio and tv broadcasts have a more significant signal.
After all by their thinking aliens would have to investigate every Venusian planet... Might explain their preference for probing :)
I believe that.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
I'm not sure. Those signals diminish quite rapidly, while you can detect the components of the atmosphere quite far away (it's the next (or two) generation(s) technique of detecting planets with oxygen atmospheres iirc). I'm guessing that the light signal doesn't scatter as much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Anyway, unless they use bioweapons, wiping out humanity is probably going to do massive ecological damage and the nuclear arsenal is still nasty enough to do it by itself, so I think the odds are quite low.
Haven't you seen 'The Day the Earth Stood Stll'. A big robot will arive, when it gets the go ahead it will break up in millions of nanobots. These nanobots form a swarm and destroy all human life without harming as much as a fly.
(If we do not act right now)
More peer-reviewed genius. :coffeenews:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I wonder how much of this is on purpose. You know, to humourusly tackle all that 'Scientists of Penn State University say....', 'NASA scientist says...'Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
A whole lot of people have been employed by NASA over the years. Quite a few of them go on to make a living of as 'NASA scientist reveals that'. That there is no global warming, no evolution, that communism is a satanic plot against American children. And now, that aliens will destroy earth unless we tackle global warming.
Louis- ever since I was a small boy I have known, a deep feeling, like the intuition of the howling prairie wolf, that the aliens would select me out of all the people in my trailer park...
"Climategate" conclusively proven to have been a fabrication
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...-manufactured/Quote:
A couple of the report conclusions are worth pointing out:We found no basis to conclude that the [Climategate] emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence.That’s clear enough, I think. They also said:
There is no specific evidence that [Mann] falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions amounted to research misconduct.A big claim by the deniers is that researchers were using "tricks" to falsify conclusions about global warming, but the NSF report is pretty clear that’s not true. The most damning thing the investigators could muster was that there was "some concern" over the statistical methods used, but that’s not scandalous at all; there’s always some argument in science over methodology. The vague language of the report there indicates to me this isn’t a big deal, or else they would’ve been specific. The big point is that the data were not faked.
What does this mean for global warming? A lot of these attacks can be traced back to the famous "hockey stick" diagram, showing how Earth’s temperatures have been increasing rapidly in recent times. This graph is what really clinches the idea of man-made global warming, and so has been the epicenter of the manufactroversy. The fact that Dr. Mann has been cleared again, and that his data are good, shows that this graph is even more solid — or at least is not as weak as so many would lead you to believe.
And what does this mean about "ClimateGate"? That’s clear enough: all the outrage, all the claims of fraud and fakery, were just — haha — hot air. (Groan)
I would be feeling smug, except this is something which has been known for a long, long time and has already done tremendous amounts of damage to the scientific cause. The mass media won't publish this in any level of the coverage they provided to the initial allegations, as correcting when the media was wrong is borrrrrrrrrring. Instead, the doubts sown by the anti-science advocates and their apologists in politics and the media will tragically persist in many a mind for a long time to come.
However, I will feel smug if Delingpole ever has the balls to admit that he was wrong to trust the allegations, and truly wicked for promoting them as the truth. It's the very least he deserves.
CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08...first_results/
"It is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone."Quote:
What does this mean for global warming?
So I'm a little bored and read the Wiki article. The summary I got was that massive CO2 emissions saved us from another ice age and that left on their own, global temperatures would continue to cool for the next 4,000(!) years.
Isn't a glacier harder to farm than a desert?
sadly yes, it'll wreck even a decent plough!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...y-interesting/
Quote:
One would need to demonstrate:Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure).
- … that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
- … and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
- … and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
- … and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/cr2011.jpg
Figure 2: Normalised changes in cosmic rays since 1953. There has not been a significant downward trend. The exceptional solar minimum in 2008-2010 stands out a little.
The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points, and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way out on a limb. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence that (particularly) point 2 will not be satisfied (see for instance, Pierce and Adams (2009), and a new paper by Snow-Kropla et al).
good read, cheers.
I think we are finally getting at the bottom of this, thanks to Al Gore. If you aren't 100% sure we have to be absolutely terrified of CO2 you are really a racist. Must make sense somehow but I'm really bad at leftist logic. But then again that IPPC chief already compared sceptics with nazi's so it has to be true
One wonders if Delingpole ever worked in Ibiza, given the amount of foam that froths out of the poor man's mouth:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ism-says-gore/Quote:
So we see that in each case above [Gore and Krugman's comments about climate change deniers], the response of the left-liberal political/media establishment to a contentious subject in which it is losing the argument is not to fight back with better arguments but simply to close down the debate altogether with smears, lies and authoritarian bullying. Funnily enough, Stalin used a similar ploy against the scientists who disagreed with his pet genetics expert Lysenko. And the Nazis used the same technique against inconvenient Jewish physics when they wrote their pamphlet 100 Scientists Against Einstein. If this is where things are going then those of us, at least, who believe in frank debate, freedom of speech and empiricism should be very worried. We are entering dark times and worse, much worse, is still to come.
And the pot calls the eminent Dr. Kettle black. I still see no apologies for his reporting on "Climategate". I'm almost tempted to write him a letter.
Muhaha leftmensch trying to hit where it hurts, implicitely admitting it's all ideology. Splendid
Geertz immedaitely comes to mind:
It is one of the minor ironies of modern intellectual history that the term "ideology" has itself become thoroughly ideologized....Almost universally now the familiar parodic paradigm applies: "I have a social philosophy; you have political opinions; he has an ideology."