Re: Global warming hoax

Timberwoof wrote:
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.


A correlation that may not hold water. If you believe that they know what they are doing, and then there are other scientists like Dr Gray say they don't.


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?


The active volcano there... yes, that one.




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.


The sounds of the liberal agenda.


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?


Sounds like you are the one that is creating a conspiracy theory around Bush.



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.

On the day to day events, yes. But I also believe that they'd also need essentially the same data to show long term trends. The fact that they can't predict the weather says a lot. Their computer models are based on assumptions that may not be correct.


>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.

Whose we?

Money is always at the bottom of problems and agendas.



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?

I do, but apparently you do not.



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.

Only that you think that these are factual errors. Yet 0.6 C is in line with normal error analysis. In OTW, there is no hard evidence.


--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: ... "He mentored a lot of other scientists" is just an appeal to ... So who is the idiot pooring out all the CO2 over top of Mauna Loa? ... I would really like a way to follow the money to find out. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • 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: What caused the other Ice Ages before man?
    ... as Bob Grumbine has explained? ... After all, if you catch me taking money out of your wallet, the judge ... regardless of what has caused CO2 changes in the distant past? ... two scenarios is the type of evidence available. ...
    (sci.geo.meteorology)
  • AGW revisited -- James Randi
    ... An unfortunate fact is that scientists are just as human as the ... become convinced that "global warming" is and will be seriously ... that act upon Earth are so many and so variable -- though not ... CO2 is a natural molecule absolutely required for plant ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)