turtlespeed 226 #126 October 6, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote quit obscuring the agenda with facts. don't you ever tire of that ? a word is worth a word. a link is worth 1,000 on average. but we must concoct an agenda conversion! as i write this i am listening to cat scratch fever -ted nugent- Thread drift and side conversations happen, bro - you're just going to have to deal with it. Speaking of which - Did you see the new gun they have out on sale? Is it supposed to make your codpieces look more manly??? NOW I understand . . . No, the last time I saw you, I wasn't wearing a cod piece. that was all me.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #127 October 6, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote quit obscuring the agenda with facts. don't you ever tire of that ? a word is worth a word. a link is worth 1,000 on average. but we must concoct an agenda conversion! as i write this i am listening to cat scratch fever -ted nugent- Thread drift and side conversations happen, bro - you're just going to have to deal with it. Speaking of which - Did you see the new gun they have out on sale? Is it supposed to make your codpieces look more manly??? Don't you own a 44 Mag? I certainly do amoung others.. and it makes the good ole boys at the range go all limp when I go to shoot and mine are bigger and more accurate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #128 October 6, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote quit obscuring the agenda with facts. don't you ever tire of that ? a word is worth a word. a link is worth 1,000 on average. but we must concoct an agenda conversion! as i write this i am listening to cat scratch fever -ted nugent- Thread drift and side conversations happen, bro - you're just going to have to deal with it. Speaking of which - Did you see the new gun they have out on sale? Is it supposed to make your codpieces look more manly??? NOW I understand . . . No, the last time I saw you, I wasn't wearing a cod piece. that was all me. Yeah... I bet airport metal detectors are fun for you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #129 October 6, 2010 oh you , so complimentry ! as i write this i am listening to on broadway -george benson- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #130 October 7, 2010 QuoteQuote>try this one on for size Hmm. New Zealand? A small country, but a very nice place overall. Let's try the whole world: ================== NOAA: 2010 Tied with 1998 as Warmest Global Temperature on Record Summer 2010 the second warmest on record, Arctic sea ice continues its 14-year decline September 15, 2010 The first eight months of 2010 tied the same period in 1998 for the warmest combined land and ocean surface temperature on record worldwide. Meanwhile, the June–August summer was the second warmest on record globally after 1998, and last month was the third warmest August on record. Separately, last month’s global average land surface temperature was the second warmest on record for August, while the global ocean surface temperature tied with 1997 as the sixth warmest for August. ====================== D'oh! Odd how the 30's suddenly became less warm, isn't it? Gotta love that 'value-added' data. Meanwhile, Arctic ice continues to gain thickness and Antarctic ice continues to increase. Homer definitely suits the warmist zealots. And then of course there is the "science is settled" comments made just this week http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.6f90940f6d9bb44d73f1c586d3a44fbb.8c1&show_article=1 My point of course is that we really do not know and yes I read the article and its conclusions"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #131 October 7, 2010 >My point of course is that we really do not know Well, _you_ may not know. The following organizations do know: National science academy of Australia National science academy of of Belgium National science academy of of Brazil National science academy of of Cameroon Royal Society of Canada National science academy of of the Caribbean National science academy of of China Science Institut de France National science academy of of Ghana National science academy of Leopoldina of Germany National science academy of of Indonesia National science academy of of Ireland Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy National science academy of of India National science academy of of Japan National science academy of of Kenya National science academy of of Madagascar National science academy of of Malaysia National science academy of of Mexico National science academy of of Nigeria National science academy of Royal Society of New Zealand National science academy of Russian Academy of Sciences National science academy of of Senegal National science academy of of South Africa National science academy of of Sudan Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences National science academy of of Tanzania National science academy of of Turkey National science academy of of Uganda National science academy of The Royal Society of the United Kingdom National science academy of of the United States National science academy of of Zambia National science academy of of Zimbabwe InterAcademy Council European Academy of Sciences and Arts International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences Network of African Science Academies Royal Society of New Zealand Royal Society of the United Kingdom General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences National Research Council (US) American Association for the Advancement of Science American Chemical Society American Institute of Physics American Physical Society Australian Institute of Physics European Physical Society European Science Foundation Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies American Geophysical Union European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union Geological Society of America Geological Society of Australia International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics National Association of Geoscience Teachers The American Meteorological Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Royal Meteorological Society (UK) The American Quaternary Association International Union for Quaternary Research American Institute of Biological Sciences American Society for Microbiology Australian Coral Reef Society Institute of Biology (UK) Society of American Foresters The Wildlife Society American College of Preventive Medicine American Medical Association American Public Health Association Australian Medical Association World Federation of Public Health Associations World Health Organization The American Astronomical Society American Statistical Association The Institution of Engineers Australia International Association for Great Lakes Research Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand Canadian Geoscience Council How many national or worldwide scientific/engineering organizations claim that AGW is NOT happening? Zero. How many of those organizations aren't sure? American Association of Petroleum Geologists American Geological Institute American Institute of Professional Geologists Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #132 October 7, 2010 Quote>My point of course is that we really do not know Well, _you_ may not know. The following organizations do know: Bill, even you have to admit that they just think they know. They do CLAIM that they know. But they really don't. They just believe, and have faith that they do know.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #133 October 7, 2010 Isn't it AMAZING that the only people who seem to can't quite figure it out, are those whose jobs depend on keeping things "unsettled" or keep posting the bullshit as found in company newsletters or publications. There also seems to be a Dominion Theology bias in those who believe that GOD gave them the right to use and abuse the planet as they see fit..... I guess that is being fruitful for them Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #134 October 7, 2010 Quote>My point of course is that we really do not know Well, _you_ may not know. The following organizations do know: How many national or worldwide scientific/engineering organizations claim that AGW is NOT happening? Zero. Consensus != science, sorry. Get back to us when they start actually using the scientific method and changing the hypothesis instead of the data. QuoteHow many of those organizations aren't sure? Ah, yes, so the people that have gotten 70 billion plus for research are all pure as the driven snow, while the people that have gotten 30 million are paid hacks.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #135 October 7, 2010 >Ah, yes, so the people that have gotten 70 billion plus for research are all >pure as the driven snow, while the people that have gotten 30 million are >paid hacks. Uh, OK. If your claim is that the people who get the most money for it are more likely to believe what their funding source asks them to, then that's the death knell for the deniers; oil and coal research money outweighs climactic research funding by an order of magnitude. In any case, people who might lose their job if they understand the science have a pretty powerful motivation to misunderstand. It's like the curator of the creationism museum puzzling over evolution. He's got a vested interest in misunderstanding it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #136 October 7, 2010 >Bill, even you have to admit that they just think they know. True. Of course, you have to admit that you don't know if the moon is made of cheese, or if the earth is really the shell of a turtle. You just have faith that those things are not true. (Come to think of it . . .) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #137 October 7, 2010 Quote>Bill, even you have to admit that they just think they know. True. Of course, you have to admit that you don't know if the moon is made of cheese, or if the earth is really the shell of a turtle. You just have faith that those things are not true. (Come to think of it . . .) I guess if that is how you want to look at it, you can be wrong again. The only true way to decifer all of the data is to HAVE all of the data. The existence of gathered data is not significant enough to know for certain whether or not the earth is undergoing a normal flux in climate or not. The only way to know is to have accurate data, as is collected of the climate today, of that 100,000 years ago or so. It's a big planet, change takes a while, until it doesn't. no one with a language or data gathering capabilities was around during the last major change. So no one can honestly say that they "Know".I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #138 October 7, 2010 >I guess if that is how you want to look at it, you can be wrong again. Have you ever been on the Moon or in orbit? No? Then you simply have faith that the Moon is not made of cheese, or that the Earth is not held up by a big turtle. By your standards, you have to honestly say "you don't know." (Foolish standards, of course, but one assumes that you do not change your standards based purely on your political support of what you are discussing.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #139 October 7, 2010 Quote>My point of course is that we really do not know Well, _you_ may not know. The following organizations do know: National science academy of Australia National science academy of of Belgium National science academy of of Brazil National science academy of of Cameroon Royal Society of Canada National science academy of of the Caribbean National science academy of of China Science Institut de France National science academy of of Ghana National science academy of Leopoldina of Germany National science academy of of Indonesia National science academy of of Ireland Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy National science academy of of India National science academy of of Japan National science academy of of Kenya National science academy of of Madagascar National science academy of of Malaysia National science academy of of Mexico National science academy of of Nigeria National science academy of Royal Society of New Zealand National science academy of Russian Academy of Sciences National science academy of of Senegal National science academy of of South Africa National science academy of of Sudan Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences National science academy of of Tanzania National science academy of of Turkey National science academy of of Uganda National science academy of The Royal Society of the United Kingdom National science academy of of the United States National science academy of of Zambia National science academy of of Zimbabwe InterAcademy Council European Academy of Sciences and Arts International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences Network of African Science Academies Royal Society of New Zealand Royal Society of the United Kingdom General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences National Research Council (US) American Association for the Advancement of Science American Chemical Society American Institute of Physics American Physical Society Australian Institute of Physics European Physical Society European Science Foundation Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies American Geophysical Union European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union Geological Society of America Geological Society of Australia International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics National Association of Geoscience Teachers The American Meteorological Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Royal Meteorological Society (UK) The American Quaternary Association International Union for Quaternary Research American Institute of Biological Sciences American Society for Microbiology Australian Coral Reef Society Institute of Biology (UK) Society of American Foresters The Wildlife Society American College of Preventive Medicine American Medical Association American Public Health Association Australian Medical Association World Federation of Public Health Associations World Health Organization The American Astronomical Society American Statistical Association The Institution of Engineers Australia International Association for Great Lakes Research Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand Canadian Geoscience Council How many national or worldwide scientific/engineering organizations claim that AGW is NOT happening? Zero. How many of those organizations aren't sure? American Association of Petroleum Geologists American Geological Institute American Institute of Professional Geologists No They have a theory As yet unproven"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #140 October 7, 2010 QuoteQuote>Bill, even you have to admit that they just think they know. True. Of course, you have to admit that you don't know if the moon is made of cheese, or if the earth is really the shell of a turtle. You just have faith that those things are not true. (Come to think of it . . .) I guess if that is how you want to look at it, you can be wrong again. The only true way to decifer all of the data is to HAVE all of the data. The existence of gathered data is not significant enough to know for certain whether or not the earth is undergoing a normal flux in climate or not. The only way to know is to have accurate data, as is collected of the climate today, of that 100,000 years ago or so. It's a big planet, change takes a while, until it doesn't. no one with a language or data gathering capabilities was around during the last major change. So no one can honestly say that they "Know". How many ice cores have you interpreted? Did you have a really good time deciphering all the ocean core samples" Comparative analysis can do a pretty good job of compaing the gases, the chemistry, as well as species from then and now. That data goes back a hell of a lot farther than our civilization Paleoclimatology is a very boring but very enlightening discipline that a bunch of really stupid people wish to ignore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #141 October 7, 2010 Quote>I guess if that is how you want to look at it, you can be wrong again. Have you ever been on the Moon or in orbit? No? Then you simply have faith that the Moon is not made of cheese, or that the Earth is not held up by a big turtle. By your standards, you have to honestly say "you don't know." (Foolish standards, of course, but one assumes that you do not change your standards based purely on your political support of what you are discussing.) I have seen relevant data and photographs and have actually seen the curvature of the Earth. I have seen video and photo evidednce from space, and from the moon, that supports the physical evidence collected. Your analogies are incorrect, though. What you are comparing to, pattern vs. actual is not the same. You are trying to suggest that data that shows patterns are the same as data that can be photographed.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #142 October 7, 2010 >I have seen relevant data and photographs and have actually seen the >curvature of the Earth. Ah! So since you have SOME data, you believe that the Earth is a sphere - despite not having actually seen it as a sphere yourself. So you consider the data you have to be "enough" based on your faith in it. We have hard data that shows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing its concentration in the atmosphere increases the heat retained by the atmosphere. We have proven this in labs and via observation. We have hard data that shows that a celestial body that increases its heat retention increases its overall temperature. Basic thermodynamics proves this. We have hard data that shows that, over the past 150 years, the Earth has warmed dramatically, and that that temperature increase has coincided with the increase in greenhouse gases. Which is why every scientific/engineering organization on the planet, outside of the ones that rely on fossil fuels for their livelihoods, supports the concept of AGW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #143 October 7, 2010 Quote>I have seen relevant data and photographs and have actually seen the >curvature of the Earth. Ah! So since you have SOME data, you believe that the Earth is a sphere - despite not having actually seen it as a sphere yourself. So you consider the data you have to be "enough" based on your faith in it. We have hard data that shows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing its concentration in the atmosphere increases the heat retained by the atmosphere. We have proven this in labs and via observation. We have hard data that shows that a celestial body that increases its heat retention increases its overall temperature. Basic thermodynamics proves this. We have hard data that shows that, over the past 150 years, the Earth has warmed dramatically, and that that temperature increase has coincided with the increase in greenhouse gases. Which is why every scientific/engineering organization on the planet, outside of the ones that rely on fossil fuels for their livelihoods, supports the concept of AGW. Just because you are satisfied with the conclusions, does not make it so. 150 years ago did they have insturments that were as accurate as we have today? NO mistakes in the readings are ever made? No interpretation of the data is necessary?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #144 October 7, 2010 QuoteUh, OK. If your claim is that the people who get the most money for it are more likely to believe what their funding source asks them to, then that's the death knell for the deniers; oil and coal research money outweighs climactic research funding by an order of magnitude. 30 million outweighs 70 billion plus? Yeah, ok Bill. QuoteIn any case, people who might lose their job if they understand the science have a pretty powerful motivation to misunderstand. Like Kevin "where's the warming" Trenberth?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #145 October 7, 2010 QuoteWe have hard data that shows that, over the past 150 years, the Earth has warmed dramatically, and that that temperature increase has coincided with the increase in greenhouse gases. Really? So, why does CO2 increase LAG temperature in the REST of the historical record, then? QuoteWhich is why every scientific/engineering organization on the planet, outside of the ones that rely on fossil fuels for their livelihoods, supports the concept of AGW. The ones depending on the 87 billion plus in research funding, yes.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #146 October 7, 2010 >So, why does CO2 increase LAG temperature in the REST of the historical >record, then? Because dinosaurs didn't have SUV's. >The ones depending on the 87 billion plus in research funding, yes. Funny how the ones who depend on the >$3 TRILLION a year from fossil fuel sales reached a different conclusion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #147 October 7, 2010 >Just because you are satisfied with the conclusions, does not make it so. Correct. The fact that dozens of scientific organizations and millions of scientists are - that DOES make it so. All the right wing rhetoric in the world will not repeal the laws of thermodynamics, and a dozen Michael Crichton paperback books do not negate a lab experiment on CO2 absorption spectra. >NO mistakes in the readings are ever made? Sure there were. That's why they were repeated over and over, and that's why decades of measurements from tens of thousands of locations were used instead of just one. Now a question for you - think there have never been any mistakes made in geology? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #148 October 7, 2010 Quote>So, why does CO2 increase LAG temperature in the REST of the historical >record, then? Because dinosaurs didn't have SUV's. Way to duck the question. Quote>The ones depending on the 87 billion plus in research funding, yes. Funny how the ones who depend on the >$3 TRILLION a year from fossil fuel sales reached a different conclusion. Sales != research funding.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #149 October 7, 2010 Quote>Just because you are satisfied with the conclusions, does not make it so. Correct. The fact that dozens of scientific organizations and millions of scientists are - that DOES make it so. All the right wing rhetoric in the world will not repeal the laws of thermodynamics, and a dozen Michael Crichton paperback books do not negate a lab experiment on CO2 absorption spectra. And all the 'consensus' in the world doesn't change the historical record. Quote>NO mistakes in the readings are ever made? Sure there were. That's why they were repeated over and over, and that's why decades of measurements from tens of thousands of locations were used instead of just one. And then changed when the data didn't fit the hypothesis.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #150 October 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteWe have hard data that shows that, over the past 150 years, the Earth has warmed dramatically, and that that temperature increase has coincided with the increase in greenhouse gases. Really? So, why does CO2 increase LAG temperature in the REST of the historical record, then? QuoteWhich is why every scientific/engineering organization on the planet, outside of the ones that rely on fossil fuels for their livelihoods, supports the concept of AGW. The ones depending on the 87 billion plus in research funding, yes. Do you know how funding works? USUALLY the funding goes to those who have a viable chance of actually doing the research that will lead to some valid data. In the case of an OIL company... I think they view what is VALID data a tad differently.. and a group of oil industry geologists... uh yeah... they will find anything that can try to muddy the waters... their jobs are at stake Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
