Re: Global warming hoax

In article <GbGdnaDd9e19BhLZnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
GreyCloud <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:

In article <h8adnSy7No2RvRLZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
GreyCloud <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Timberwoof wrote:


In article <2eGdnT6bzdmQYBDZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
GreyCloud <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Lars Träger wrote:



GreyCloud <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:




Timberwoof wrote:




Just because he taught other scientists doesn't mean that his theories
are now all correct. It could be that his students built on his work,
modified his theories to fit new data, and came up with new theories.
Besides, "He mentored a lot of other scientists" is just an appeal to
authority. It des not address the truth of what he's saying.


And neither does it mean that the rest of the scientists that agree with
GW are correct. Don't forget that CO2 is heavier than air. So how does
it get up high to cause a warming blanket around the planet?


So who is the idiot pooring out all the CO2 over top of Mauna Loa?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CO2_data_mlo.png

Thermal air currents. But then I bet your computer model didn't take
that into account.


No computer models here, gaseous-brain. That graph shows measurements.


Well, woof-biscuit,


You can call me that if you want to, but I won't respect you in the
morning.


Woof!

:-))


can you interpret what you were looking at??


Between 1960 and 2005 the concentration of CO2 at Mauna Loa observatory
increased from 315 ppm to 380 ppm. Aside from annual variations
attributable to changes in plant chemistry during summer and winter, the
concentration increased fairly steadily throughout all that time.


So? Does this form any conclusions for Global warming?
I think not.

By itself, no. But add to that more recently gathered evidence such as
the amazing correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and mean
temperatures and you begin -- I mean people who know what they're
talking about begin to build a hypothesis that works.

It would more be the likelihood of underwater volcanism than anything
else causing the ocean to give up CO2.

What volcano? And why is the CO2 concentration now higher than it's ever
been in the past half million years?



Most likely not.


I predict that whatever interpretation I give, you will find fault with
it. The closer I am to your estimation of correct, the more isulting
your response will be.


I just won't believe in something drummed up by Al Gore is all.

Ad hominem attack. If Al Gore stopped, you still wouldn't believe it.

Like the Mayor said, most scientists are hungry and will do as they are
told when employed. But who knows who hired all of them and for what
agenda. I would really like a way to follow the money to find out.
At the bottom of all squabbles there is money involved.

So in other words, you don't actually have any evidence for this massive
conspiracy of scientists from all kinds of different fields of study.

And you have no explanation for why now scientists are complaining that
the Bush administration is misrepresenting scientific research and even
making scientists rewrite their articles to better fit the Bush agends?


But then, how come they can't predict the weather
properly?


This is actually pretty trivial to answer: There is no way to gather up
enough data about the current state of the weather to make accurate
predictions beyond a few days into the future.


So the same could be said about GW then. There is no way that they can
gather up enough evidence to support it.

You could say that, but you would be wrong. It's easier to make an
accurate model about general trends than about specific events.
Climatologists can predict with some accuracy the number and intensity
of tropical storms and hurricanes, but they cannot predict the
day-to-day development of individual ones. It all has to do with the
amount of information needed for those two tasks.

Which is basicall what Dr.
Gray is saying. Science demands hard evidence, and I'm surprised that
so great a number will overlook this just for money.

Well, since you haven't shown the money thing, we can ignor that.

Guffaw!!!


Yeah. How come you didn't know that? I'll bet you think that problems
making short-term weather predictions make it impossible to make any
long-term climate predictions. Which begs the question of whether you
know the difference between climate and weather.



Guffaw!!!

Well, do you?

Which begs another question if you really know what you are
talking about. Seems to me that you don't.
:-))

Interestingly, I have pointed out numerous factual errors in various
statements you've made, and given references to support my position.
You, however, just say that I'm wrong, insist that your years of
experience back you up, and have not provided either hard facts or
references to support your claims.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... GreyCloud wrote: ... So who is the idiot pooring out all the CO2 over top of Mauna Loa? ... If you believe that they know what they are doing, and then there are other scientists like Dr Gray say they don't. ... I would really like a way to follow the money to find out. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT IEEE Spectrum on Anthropogenic Global Warming
    ... does not mean that scientists are the same way inclined. ... Scientists are in science research to describe nature ... money, bad science drives out good science. ... when i studied the graphs of temperature versus CO2 the ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... GreyCloud wrote: ... Just because he taught other scientists doesn't mean that his theories are now all correct. ... Clouds are made of water droplets which are much denser than air, ... I still hold that this GW thing is about money and nothing else. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: How science is not done
    ... chance of making money is gone. ... You obviously have no experience with either science or scientists. ... It's not that grant money goes to enrich the ... Nobody behaves quite as economists predict. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Vqpros kqm Dorotea
    ... "Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, ... increasing atmospheric CO2 is itself ... the result of rising temperature. ... These particles have a braking effect on global warming, ...
    (soc.culture.bulgaria)