Ten Facts & Ten Myths On Climate Change

page: 2
86
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 



Long rambling, seriously off-topic, derailing post unrelated to the OP.

Baiting in hopes of moving the discussion away from examining the credibility of your OP...or lack thereof?

The whole Al Gore's untrue love story with Tipper...not too far off topic "Professor"...

Derailing your own thread ....gotta love it..LOL




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


I think we begin to understand more and more the climate : and we will have the capacity to control it ( like any other temperature system ).

(and maybe one day they will discover that the fact that we produce C02 give us more time , before the future ice age : and with time we could make a lot of thing : DEVELLOPING SOLUTIONS, and planetary science ).

[edit on 10-12-2009 by psychederic]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Unlike Gore, I was an NSF Fellow in graduate school. I think that credential carries more weight than Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize




Ah, you mean like B. Obama, who was only an adjunct professor?
BTW, I was a fully tenured professor.


Yes…now would be a good time to keep reminding us of your purported academic credentials, because I am having a very hard time reconciling your OP and posts with any credentialed Professor I have known.

Your avatar of a Professor with his chest puffed out synchs nicely with your online persona though.

In short...I am not buying the OP, it's author or it's poster.

Nothing personal. Have a nice day.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Wow! This site is awesome - you compiled all that yourself ProfEmeritus? Thanks and awesome job!


Interesting that the atmospheric CO2 has increased 8% without increase in temp.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
Why is it whenever I read about some "Professor" debunking Global warming "myths" ...I google him and find out stuff like this?

Robert M. "Bob" Carter,is an adjunct research professor

Science for hire of the worst kind.

Not buying any propaganda today...thanks though.


Are you claiming the author of this thread is Dr. Bob Carter? or are you just implying all scientists with something to say are lying?




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 

You have confused the author of this thread with the author of the article he posted at the top of the first page. "profemeritus" posted an article for discussion...he and the author of that article are different people.

Does that help?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
or are you just implying all scientists with something to say are lying?


this actually tends to be an action typical of the 'denier' or 'skeptic' crowd. that is of course except for cases such as this, where Dr. Bob or some other similar skeptic-scientist refutes the general consensus.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
this actually tends to be an action typical of the 'denier' or 'skeptic' crowd. that is of course except for cases such as this, where Dr. Bob or some other similar skeptic-scientist refutes the general consensus.

For those new to the climate control debate, allow me to translate the above:

"If a scientist agrees with me, he's smart; if a scientist disagrees with me, he's stupid and shouldn't be a scientist."

I guess we do have a 'consensus' among the 'smart' scientists' after all.


This public service translation is brought to you by your friendly neighborhood redneck translation service.


TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mantisfan72

2) The recent increase in snow is caoused by la nina and the sun cycle



Therein lies the issue. How can one logically deduct that the recent cold and snowfall is a product of "Natural Factors" within our environmental system, yet at the same time they possess the nerve to conclude that anything opposite of such is the creation of mankind? That is called cherry-picking, and political "CYA" rhetoric.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





For those new to the climate control debate, allow me to translate the above: "If a scientist agrees with me, he's smart; if a scientist disagrees with me, he's stupid and shouldn't be a scientist."

So true, my friend. That, of course, is why Galileo was stupid. He disagreed with the prevailing scientific thought, and stupidly believed that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
Likewise, Hubble was stupid because he said that the universe consisted of more than just our galaxy. For years, scientists called him crazy.

I could go on and on. The point is that DISCOVERIES involve something new, that was either not known, or NOT ACCEPTED.

It's too bad that many members cannot accept that, my friend.

Great post, as always.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yabby
Yep there is no doubt Carter is just another crank in the employ of the big oil cartels.
He is not even a climate expert (like so many of the deniers).
He is a fraud who is pretty much ignored in Australia.


Ad hominem attacks cannot refute scientific fact, data-sets, nor the countless thousands of field researchers who have time and again proven the models and projections incorrect.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 





Therein lies the issue. How can one logically deduct that the recent cold and snowfall is a product of "Natural Factors" within our environmental system, yet at the same time they possess the nerve to conclude that anything opposite of such is the creation of mankind?

I guess that the AWG bigots have figured out that they can't TAX El Nino.
Give them time, though.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Give them time, though.

Be careful, there. I remember a time not so long ago when it was said the government "would tax breathing if they thought they could get away with it".

I guess they found a way.


TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


hey red, why not back your comment up?

i have seen the lists of scientists who have signed petitions disputing the anthropogenic link and they tend to be filled with names of those not suited to be arguing for or against.

while there are legitimate dissenting opinions they are far out numbered, thus the deniers claims of 'conspiracy' in the scientific community.

am i incorrect in this statement?

while i can see you enjoy word games but lets be clear about this issue.

do you dispute that there is a consensus with in the scientific community regarding an anthropogenic link?

do you also claim that there is not a common trend among the skeptical crowd to cite questionable sources of 'scientific information'. case in point Dr. Bob who is quoted in the OP.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
So you got all the info from rense.com I think even prison planet is a better idea

[edit on 10-12-2009 by mantisfan72]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 





have seen the lists of scientists who have signed petitions disputing the anthropogenic link and they tend to be filled with names of those not suited to be arguing for or against. while there are legitimate dissenting opinions they are far out numbered, thus the deniers claims of 'conspiracy' in the scientific community.

I'll certainly let TheRedneck speak for himself.
However, I must chime in, and repeat, in different words, what my previous post said. All GREAT discoveries result from diversion from the prevailing thought.
Furthermore, on many other threads, I have pointed out that the "peer-review" process is an enclosed loop. It is the blind leading the blind. This is a process I have observed many times, and it is very hard, if not impossible, to get non-prevailing theories published.
NO ONE can claim that AGW is a FACT. It is a THEORY, with no SOLID PROOF. You cannot PROVE something if you don't take into account all of the variables, and the various models used to "prove" AGW can't even agree on what ALL of the variables are.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


hey red, why not back your comment up?

i have seen the lists of scientists who have signed petitions disputing the anthropogenic link and they tend to be filled with names of those not suited to be arguing for or against.

while there are legitimate dissenting opinions they are far out numbered, thus the deniers claims of 'conspiracy' in the scientific community.

am i incorrect in this statement?

while i can see you enjoy word games but lets be clear about this issue.

do you dispute that there is a consensus with in the scientific community regarding an anthropogenic link?

do you also claim that there is not a common trend among the skeptical crowd to cite questionable sources of 'scientific information'. case in point Dr. Bob who is quoted in the OP.


Really? You read through the list of 31,000 people that signed the petition? That's an impressive feat. Here's an open letter to the UN Secretary General signed by 141 scientists that argue against a consensus. You can validate their qualifications at the link on the bottom of the page. I think they use the word consensus in the same way that you and many others use the word "deniers" instead of skeptic. You make it seem as if you're correct when the issue is still undecided.

www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org...



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


CO2 is mesured in tens of parts per million so a 100ppm increase is 4X the amount of CO2

The no co2 global warming in the past 10000 years pre industrial/ethanol topics was to dispel myths that people doing less reaserch may belive

co2 traps twice the wavelenths on the spectrum than water vapor

Even if abiotic oil exists and there is a lot of proff it dosent it fields dont seem to replenish fast enough for our usage

[edit on 10-12-2009 by mantisfan72]

[edit on 10-12-2009 by mantisfan72]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Exemplar
 

Starred. Good post!
For those who claim that no one of importance signed the petition,here are some of the people who signed the petition denying AGW:


Theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson and atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are among the prestigious scientists who have signed the petition. Frederick Seitz, the first president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed before his death in early March.


www.heartland.org...



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal

hey red, why not back your comment up?

Sure. But I might have to quote someone besides the IPCC or the CRU, so you wouldn't accept it.



i have seen the lists of scientists who have signed petitions disputing the anthropogenic link and they tend to be filled with names of those not suited to be arguing for or against.

Wow, there's that 'agree = smart, disagree = stupid' thingy again...


while there are legitimate dissenting opinions they are far out numbered, thus the deniers claims of 'conspiracy' in the scientific community.

Actually, I base my opinions (and yes, they are as much opinions as Mr. Hansen himself) on what I know and what I can learn from considering the published theories. What I have learned so far is that everything I know about science, including advanced science and math courses in public school, a stint in college studying Engineering, and years of personal study in various disciplines, is apparently wrong now because the IPCC says so.


So I really don't know or care what any 'consensus' is. If I could get enough people to have a 'consensus' that Obama was not the POTUS, would he not still be the POTUS in spite of that?

Consensus = belief.

Fact = truth.


do you dispute that there is a consensus with in the scientific community regarding an anthropogenic link?

I will admit there seems to be a consensus among scientists who believe in AGW that AGW exists.


The search of science is not for a consensus, but rather for truth. Therefore, consensus is irrelevant unless facts are presented (and independently verified) to back up claims.


do you also claim that there is not a common trend among the skeptical crowd to cite questionable sources of 'scientific information'. case in point Dr. Bob who is quoted in the OP.

I don't know Dr. Bob. I don't know many 'deniers' actually, save some who is publish in forums from their posts. I do my own research and make my own conclusions. So I am not in a position to answer your question absolutely with any accuracy. I will, however, answer with a question of my own:

Do you claim there is not a common trend among those who believe in AGW to discount anyone who disagrees with them on no more stable a basis than they disagree?

TheRedneck





new topics
top topics
 
86
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join