Re: OT - There goes the southern ice cap.... (!!!!)


"flipper" <flipper@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qbn543li2t7e5lurcsp6gmo7mn6r44cska@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 9 May 2007 21:01:18 -0500, "Elvis Kabong"
<ampscience@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"flipper" <flipper@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5k92435j98sh98a64rd48f8lh7mfa9mask@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 8 May 2007 14:01:17 -0500, "Elvis Kabong"
<ampscience@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"flipper" <flipper@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:issv331pcm60ge9kcqtnt1cn227b92t9h3@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:41:13 -0400, Rich Koerner <richk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



flipper wrote:

On Mon, 07 May 2007 13:17:42 -0400, Rich Koerner <richk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<snip>


It's so nice to see you back.

Thank you. I appreciate the sentiment.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&pr=goog-sl

Thanks. I've seen that one. Have you also watched the rebuttal?


There's a rebuttal????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It must have the same characteristics of those in Polished Turd denial.

OK, Flipper..... hook me up.

Shoot me a link.

I got my seat belt fastened, and the root beer is out of reach.

Hit me with it.

Hehe. Well, you can find it on the same link over on the right where
they list 'related' videos.

" Scam of the "Great Global Warming Swindle" "

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573

He doesn't really make a case 'for' global warming except by
inference. What he does is point out what he claims are 'errors' and
mistakes of 'logic', although he makes a few himself.

His defense of models is particularly weak and akin to "but they try
real hard to not screw them up" with an implied appeal to authority
(since they're pros you should trust it), which he points out is a
logical fallacy 'when they do it'.

His argument that they use ad hominem is superficially correct but
flawed on closer examination because 'credibility' is a valid issue
when the proponent relies on the 'trust me' (appeal to authority,
'scientific consensus', etc) approach.

His 'sun spot' critique is particularly disingenuous as he admits to
now knowing where their data comes from, pretends to not make an
'accusation', but constructs a 'manipulation' scenario to make the
charge while denying he's making the charge.

Since he 'corrects' with the 'right' data that raises the issue of
data reliability and contrary to the argument proposed in here a while
back that ice core samples are akin to Moses's original tablets; the
'word' written by the very finger of god, ice core data is derived
from models of what does what to what in order to deduce the what from
what it did. But it depends on really knowing all the whats and how
they work.

Here's an interesting site that discusses some of those issues but
I'll summarize one to illustrate.

http://www.climateaudit.org

Al Gore defends Mann's hockey stick graph by asserting it's 'verified'
by Thompson's ice core data, saying "Those global warming skeptics - a
group diminishing almost as rapidly as the mountain glaciers -
launched a fierce attack against another measurement of the 1000 year
correlation between CO2 and temperature known as the "hockey stick", a
graphic image representing the research of climate scientist Michael
Mann and his colleagues. But in fact scientists have confirmed the
same basic conclusions in multiple ways - with Thompson's ice core
record as one of the most definitive."

Well, the IPCC should watch out for 'self 'melting', then, because
*their* report states "Stable isotope data from high-elevation ice
cores provide long records and have been interpreted in terms of past
temperature variability (Thompson, 2000), but recent calibration and
modeling studies, in South America and southern Tibet (Hoffmann et
al., 2003; Vuille and Werner, 2005; Vuille et al., 2005), indicate a
dominant sensitivity to precipitation changes"

In other words, what Al Gore claims as a temperature record is,
according to the IPCC, predominately a precipitation record (the
dominate sensitivity).

And notice that our 'hand of god' ice core samples aren't so stone
tablet perfect on interpretation.

Ok, let's say you're right and Al Gore is wrong.

'Right'

Pronunciation: 'rIt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English riht; akin to Old High German reht right,
Latin rectus straight, right, regere to lead straight, direct, rule, rogare to ask,
Greek oregein to stretch out
1 : RIGHTEOUS, UPRIGHT
2 : being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper <right conduct>
3 : conforming to facts or truth : CORRECT <the right answer>
4 : SUITABLE, APPROPRIATE <the right man for the job>
5 : STRAIGHT <a right line>
6 : GENUINE, REAL
7 a : of, relating to, situated on, or being the side of the body which is away from
the
side on which the heart is mostly located b : located nearer to the right hand than
to
the left c : located to the right of an observer facing the object specified or
directed
as the right arm would point when raised out to the side d (1) : located on the right
of
an observer facing in the same direction as the object specified <stage right> (2) :
located on the right when facing downstream <the right bank of a river> e : done with
the right hand <a right hook to the jaw>
8 : having the axis perpendicular to the base <right cone>
9 : of, relating to, or constituting the principal or more prominent side of an
object
<made sure the socks were right side out>
10 : acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact <time proved her right>
11 a : being in good physical or mental health or order <not in his right mind> b :
being in a correct or proper state <put things right>
12 : most favorable or desired : PREFERABLE; also : socially acceptable <knew all the
right people>
13 often capitalized : of, adhering to, or constituted by the Right especially in
politics

and

Pronunciation: &n(d), (')an(d), usually &n(d) after t, d, s or z, often &m after p or
b,
sometimes &[ng] after k or g
Function: conjunction
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German unti and
1 -- used as a function word to indicate connection or addition especially of items
within the same class or type; used to join sentence elements of the same grammatical
rank or function
2 a -- used as a function word to express logical modification, consequence,
antithesis,
or supplementary explanation b -- used as a function word to join one finite verb (as
go, come, try) to another so that together they are logically equivalent to an
infinitive of purpose <come and see me>

'wrong'

Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): wrong·er /'ro[ng]-&r/; wrong·est /'ro[ng]-&st/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English *wrang, of Scandinavian origin; akin to
Old
Norse rangr awry, wrong, Danish vrang wrong side; akin to Old English wringan to
wring
1 : not according to the moral standard : SINFUL, IMMORAL <thought that war was
wrong>
2 : not right or proper according to a code, standard, or convention : IMPROPER <it
was
wrong not to thank your host>
3 : not according to truth or facts : INCORRECT <gave a wrong date>
4 : not satisfactory (as in condition, results, health, or temper)
5 : not in accordance with one's needs, intent, or expectations <took the wrong bus>
6 : of, relating to, or constituting the side of something that is usually held to be
opposite to the principal one, that is the one naturally or by design turned down,
inward, or away, or that is the least finished or polished

about

Function: preposition
1 : in a circle around : on every side of : AROUND
2 a : in the immediate neighborhood of : NEAR b : on or near the person of c : in the
makeup of <a mature wisdom about him> d : at the command of <has his wits about him>
3 : engaged in <act as if they know what they're about -- T. S. Matthews>
4 a : with regard to : CONCERNING <spoke about his past> b : concerned with c :
fundamentally concerned with or directed toward <poker is about money -- David Mamet>
5 : over or in different parts of

what

Function: pronoun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hwæt, neuter of hwA who -- more at WHO
1 a (1) -- used as an interrogative expressing inquiry about the identity, nature, or
value of an object or matter <what is this> <what is wealth without friends> <what
does
he earn> <what hath God wrought> (2) -- often used to ask for repetition of an
utterance
or part of an utterance not properly heard or understood <you said what> b (1)
archaic :
WHO 1 -- used as an interrogative expressing inquiry about the identity of a person
(2) -- used as an interrogative expressing inquiry about the character, nature,
occupation, position, or role of a person <what do you think I am, a fool> <what is
she,
that all our swains commend her -- Shakespeare> c -- used as an exclamation
expressing
surprise or excitement and frequently introducing a question <what, no breakfast>
d --
used in expressions directing attention to a statement that the speaker is about to
make
<you know what> e (1) -- used at the end of a question to express inquiry about
additional possibilities <is it raining, or snowing, or what> (2) -- used with or at
the
end of a question usually in expectation of agreement <is this exciting, or what> f
chiefly British -- used at the end of an utterance as a form of tag question <a
clever
play, what>
2 chiefly dialect : 4THAT 1, : WHICH 3, : WHO 3
3 a : that which : the one or ones that <no income but what he gets from his
writings> -- sometimes used in reference to a clause or phrase that is yet to come or
is
not yet complete <gave also, what is more valuable, understanding> b : the thing or
things that <what you need is a vacation> <what angered us was the tone of the
article>
4 a : WHATEVER 1a <say what you will> b obsolete : WHOEVER
- what for
1 : for what purpose or reason : WHY -- usually used with the other words of a
question
between what and for <what did you do that for> except when used alone
2 : harsh treatment especially by blows or by a sharp reprimand <gave him what for in
violent Spanish -- New Yorker>

?

1 a : something unknown, unknowable, or uncertain b : someone (as an athlete) whose
condition, talent, or potential for success is in doubt
2 : a mark ? used in writing and printing at the conclusion of a sentence to indicate
a
direct question

I should dissect your entire post like this, but it's not worth the waste of time.

Too bad you didn't demonstrate any ability to understand the words
assembled in a sentence.


Al Gore made a claim. I provided facts that show the claim to be, at
best, incorrect.

Ad hokem

You have provided no facts whatsoever and neither have those
bought-off pseudo scientists who attempt to confuse the
issues involving extreme climate change. You seem to think
since they seem to be disproving a global warming trend,
that the threat of extreme climate shift is invalid.

Shame on you to call the IPCC "bought-off pseudo scientists."


What's your 'objection' to truth?

Show me some, poseur.

Already did. In particular, Al Gore's claim and the IPCC's assessment
of the same data.


But what I want to know is what is your motivation for being
a zealot

Properly representing data is not 'zealotry'.

Of course not, but you aren't presenting relevant data.

Then your objection is with Al Gore for bringing it up.


You're emotional
reaction to it is.

Ad improbus

Don't be so hard on yourself.


against doing anything sensible

"Sensible', by definition, depends on rational decisions based on the
best available information and distorting precipitation records into
temperature records is neither rational nor 'sensible'.

So why are you presenting irrelevant records? That's *sensible*?

Al Gore presented, what you call, the "irrelevant records." That makes
them subject to review and they don't hold up, according to the IPCC.


like conservation
of natural resources, re-cycling, re-using, pollution reduction,
energy efficiency, less dependence on foreign oil, a technical
boom to the economy

Stating feel good goals says nothing about the 'sensibility' of the
proposed 'solutions'.

Do you really think using energy more efficiently and reducing pollution
are not *solutions* to improving atmospheric conditions?

Again you confound 'goals' with 'proposals', presume unsubstantiated
conclusions, and ignore efficacy, cost, and risk.


To wit, the doctors that bled G. Washington to death had the laudable
goal of saving his life but that didn't make the solution 'sensible'
nor did believing it would work make it so.

Non analogous and you know it, bozo.

It's perfectly analogous. Their 'goal' was just as laudable as the one
you claim, they 'believed' in their 'solution' just as much as you
'believe' in yours and, frankly, had closer to a 'scientific
consensus' about it than you do.

But the laws of physiscs don't recognize 'good intentions', an abiding
'faith' nor 'consensus'.

and erring on the side of caution just
in case you ARE all wrong and by not attempting to change our
energy production and usage methods truly results in such
radical shifts, that your proof is right in front of you, but it's way
too late to do a damned thing about it?

False dichotomy which presumes the conclusion, that the proposed
solutions are the 'only ones' (again confounding 'proposal' with
'goal'), as well as cost free and risk free.

False accusation: never said solutions are the "only ones". Neither
stated or implied solutions would be "cost and risk free."

I'ts not a false accusation as you always imply your 'solution' is the
only one and cost/risk free is implicit in your argument of 'prudent'
to 'err on the side of caution'. And the G Washington bleeding shows
why it is *not * 'prudent' to ignore the costs/risks.


E.G. Better to "err on the side of caution" and bled Washington to
death than 'risk' him dying. Wasn't either cost or risk free, now, was
it?

Totally irrelevant, smarty farts.

The best you can argue is that you don't understand it but it's quite
appropriate with a 'dire prediction' (potential death from inaction),
a firm belief in the solution (bleeding) and the cost/risk of it being
wrong (not quite so 'prudent to err on the side of')

There is little doubt they would have argued just as voraciously as
you do but they still killed him, 'prudently'.

On the other hand, why are you such a zealot *totally* convinced
that the invasion of Iraq and the continuing occupation was and
is the right thing to do while completely disregarding every report
about how the invasion was all based on lies? What is your
motivation for that?

I don't 'disregard' anything, nor do I have problems with the
definition of 'lie', like you do.

So I am to conclude you equate lies with truth which is why you
don't have a problem with the definition of a lie?

It would be an irrational, idiotic, conclusion but that's never
stopped, or even slowed, you before.

You deform the
definition of a lie into truth just like the deceptive Karl Rove
does to justify his dishonesty and furthermore use this deception
to justify invading a country that was no threat to the US.

Ad homimen fallacy, guilt by association fallacy, irrelevancy, and not
just a few others.


In fact, you're entire 'argument', besides the absurd ad hominems, is
objecting to the revelation of Al's referenced 'temperature record'
being, according to the latest 'scientific consensus', predominately a
precipitation record. You're objecting to truth, which is an argument
for 'lying'.

That would be me using "apropos hominem" which means I know
you are a mental pervert as well as a crypto-neocronycon and dickless
duped drone of Duhbya's therefore I know you have a selfish insidious
agenda and present irrelevant data to not only further your agenda, but also
vainly attempt to disprove data that hundreds of peer-reviewed scientists
agree upon.

Furthermore posting as anonymous sock = zero credibility.

But it's fun jousting with you anyway. You'd better watch out, though.
Those cracks in your cranium are one day going to split wide open,
so your masochism could evolve from minor mental malfunctions
into braindeath and you're getting fairly close to braindeath. It would
be in your best interests to stop coming back for more and more abuse.
Eventually the humiliation of always losing could do in your brain
completely.

Thank you for proving, yet once again, that you are a logic fallcy
from beginning to end.


Al Gore could simply be mistaken, or uninformed. You don't have that
excuse.

I don't claim to be a scientist.

And your point would be, what? That you're unqualified to be
discussing it? That you simply 'believe' as a matter of 'faith' since
you have no rational basis to make an intelligent decision?

Do you? Hmm, you must be that *rocket*"scientist"
who use to post here with a different sock awhile back who was always bragging
about his trip to Mars and back in a flight simulator. It appears that you and he
are the same maroon.

Thank you for proving, yet once again, that you are a logic fallcy
from beginning to end.


Maybe Al Gore is mistaken or uniformed,

That's a rather serious 'problem' coming from someone who asks people
to 'believe' him.

but how about the several
hundred peer-reviewed scientists he refers to?

You imagine it's 'sensible' to simply 'believe' what the person you
just said might be mistaken or uninformed says?

He made a claim about one of those 'peer-reviewed scientists" that,
according to the IPCC, is plain wrong. Given that, why would you
blindly accept any of the rest?

Why don't you write
to them and share your "astounding" revelations? Betcha that
would confound them all, wouldn't you say?

Don't need to 'write' them. It *came* from 'them', the IPCC in this
case.


IOW, why are you so open and "impartial" about doing nothing

Doing 'nothing' seems to be your conclusion from the revelation that
Al Gore's referenced data is invalid.

Bull***! It is you who is concluding that AL Gore's data is invalid

I didn't conlcude it was invalid, the IPCC did.

to justify your doing nothing about energy efficiency, alternative
energy research and development as well as pollution reduction.

False premise and, again, confounding 'goals' with 'proposal'.


about the possibility of radical climate change

'Radical' compared to what? The Paleocene when atmospheric CO2 was 8
times current levels?

First of all, I'd like to see some proof of that.

Been posted multiple times and if you really would 'like to see' then
do some research.

Second, why don't you
put your mouth to a car's tailpipe and tell me how innocuous that
experience was

Hold your head under water for a few hours and then tell me you want
to rid the planet of that 'chemical pollutant' H2O.

Would be a good 'save the planet' mission for you because THAT is the
major greenhouse gas.

and third, who cares what the levels were at that
time when there were no humans living near seashores, no humans
living in huge polluted cites, no humans living near fossil fuel energy
plants or near nuke plants, no humans needing to drink healthy
uncontaminated water. We're talking about NOW and the possible
side effects disconfiguring the future!

The laws of physics are the laws of physics and if your CO2 model
can't explain climate behavior then it isn't valid for predicting
climate now, or in the future.

And there's, at least, a prima facie case that something's seriously
wrong with the models when, according to the best available evidence,
the climate with 7 times the 'predicted' level wasn't anything even
remotely resembling the predictions.

Actually, over the earth's history, atmospheric CO2 concentrations
this *low* is the 'unusual' case.

If you think so and if it's actually true, fine, but it's still irrelevant to today's
present conditon

No it isn't, as already explained.

which is not particulary healthy to human life forms.

Humans, especially in the industrialized countries, which happen to be
the ones you rail most against, have the longest average life spans,
as well as best living conditions, in history.


other than adamantly
trying to disprove every aspect of it as if you are either a bought-off
propagandist, a total moron or a pseudo psychic?

And here we see the true 'zealot' objecting to truth seeking,

No,

Of course it is. I posted Al's claim. I posted the IPCC's opinion and
'scientific consensus' regarding the same data. And you're all in a
tizzy about it. Why? Because someone dared <gasp> test the validity of
the claim.

here we have is another lie instantly transformed into truth
by the insidiously agenda driven author.

Well, if you think Al Gore lied that's your business. I just said he
might be mistaken or misinformed.


such as
discovering the dominate sensitivity is precipitation in the data set
Gore claims to be a temperature record, because 'facts' are irrelevant
to the 'true believer'.

Too bad the insidious driven author and zealot has failed to present
factual data.

False claim.

He seems to prefer the Big Oil paid-off pseudo-scientists

The IPCC.

hired to vainly refute any notion of a man-made extreme climate shift
by any means to confuse the issue because there is a conflict of interests
with the pollutors and the present administration.

Again, the IPCC.


But meanwhile,
you abadon your open impartial approach for zealotry to defend
every military action Duhbya has initiated in Iraq.

False premise as well as false equivalency.

Oh really? Then let's see a genuine denial.

A false premise is a false premise. Nothing more need be said.


What are you? A Satanist? An evil *** who worships death
and destruction from natural disasters and from warmongering?
Whatever you are, anyone can see you are mental pervert with
a diabolical agenda. You suck, you evil self-loathing genetic
defective barbaric unevolved lower primate.

Ad hominem fallacy from the proselytizing zealot...

No, again it's *apropos hominem*: we know you suck,
we know your mentality, therefore we know your
perverse actions.

Thank you for proving, yet once again, that you are a logic fallcy
from beginning to end.


How *dare* anyone
seek truth and confound his religion with facts?

Ad peccatum

At least you admitted it's a matter of 'religion' for you.


Go suck yourself to death.

And, as predicted, a logic fallacy to the very end.

Ok, I think I get it. Because the UN's (the UN you think is irrelevant) IPCC
found a flaw in the data of the peer-reviewed scientists' report on
Extreme Climate Shift that Gore refers to, then you conclude that
the entire report is invalid.
Wow, that's really brilliant logic, flipsock, you anonymous fraud.


Regards,

Rich Koerner,
Time Electronics.
http://www.timeelect.com

Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering,
Music & Studio Production,
Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers

.