Re: Is Nob Really Dr. Joseph Goebbels?

From: <nyob...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:06:38 GMT

>> And even the people you quote disagree with you. Remember saying the
>> American Meteorological Society thought GW was crap?

>Man made GW. There is little doubt that some warming is going on, it's the
>cause that's in dispute. The AMS says "At present, observations suggest, but
>are insufficient to prove, that atmospheric warming caused by human
>activities has already occurred."

I note that you do not provide links to show them saying what you claim
they do.

Why don't we go see what they actually say, now, on their website?

http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

"Because human activities are contributing to climate change, we have a

collective responsibility to develop and undertake carefully considered

response actions..."

http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/jointacademies.pdf

Lying reduces the effectiveness of your arguments to zero.

>Your categorizing junkscience.com as dubious is yours, it happens to be an
>objective review of the current pseudo scientific crap that floats around,
>essentially unchallenged.

No, actually that is not my categorization. It's the categorization of
realclimate.com, the site *you* referred me to. Junkscience obviously
has an agenda, or else they do not understand science or the difference
between fact and opinion:
(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=229) (last paragraph):

"Our correspondents at the Montreal climate negotiations which
concluded last week report that Esper et al was given a lot of play by
the inaction lobby. The only major news outlet to pick up on the story,

though was Fox News, whose report by "Junk Science" columnist Steve
Milloy here arguably represents a new low in propaganda masquerading as

science journalism. Milloy does not mention that Esper et al is an
opinion piece, not a research article. He also fails to mention that
Esper et al do not actually conclude that a downward revision in the
importance of CO2 actually is necessary; they only attempt to say
(albeit based on faulty logic) what would happen if higher estimates of

climate variation proved right. Milloy also fails to note the final
quote supporting Kyoto, for what that's worth. Of course, it is too
much to expect that Milloy would look into other papers on the subject
to see if there might be something wrong with the reasoning in Esper et

al."

So when you quote agenda-driven hack sites like junkscience, it
drastically lowers the quality of your arguments. Using sites like that
show that you will accept the opinion of ANYBODY that agrees with you.
That you choose to call them 'objective' once again calls your
intelligence into question.

>> Regarding your quoted Gallup poll, by the way
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change):
>> "In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists involved in research
>> in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring
>> now."

>That's like saying ost people involved in audio believe that there are vast
>differences in amplifers even when they measure the same.

Your brain doesn't work very well, now does it.

If you want a better analogy, how about this one: most scientists agree
that we understand enough about electricity and its control to make
amplifiers and other audio electronics pieces that are virtually
indistinguishable from one another, inexpensively. Richard Lindzen
disagrees with those hundreds of his fellow scientists. Lindzen feels
that not everything is understood and that power conditioners will
improve the sound of your system. Nob follows Lindzen, whom nob
considers his 'Messiah.'

>I've quoted people like Lindzen who is one of the formeost experts in the
>field.

And failed to note that MIT as a whole, where Lindzen is but one
professor, seems to believe that GW with a man-made component is a
reality.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2003/co2.html

You can always find one dissenter in any debate. There are credentialed
'scientists' who argue for Intelligent Design, for example. Are you an
adherent of ID as well?

You go with your lone Messiah Lindzen. The rest of the world seems to
feel that the fact that hundreds of other equally qualified, equally
well-credentialed scientists who disagree with your Messiah carries
more weight.

>>You have no morals. You are intellectually dishonest. You clearly do not understand how science
>> works. And you are a baseless liar to boot.

>Projection is an ugly thing.

Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?"

Loser. What I said applies to you. It is not name-calling. It is fact.

>Disagree all you like, but saying this is settled and that there is
>consensus is bull***.

I've never said this is 'settled.' Perhaps in your world having a few
crackpots disagree serves to say there is not consensus. When virtually
every major world-wide scientific organization says that there is
global warming and that man-made influences play a part, I call that
consensus. Of course, I am not pulling out quotes from years ago, or
whatever. I am looking at what they say on their websites now, as in
the case of the AMS.

.