-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
Global Warming is not Anthropogenic
- Thread starter Meksilon
- Start date
I read your name as "Doritos" at first.
Peo, if you really think that I’m not entitled to an opinion – at least politically (if not scientifically) than why not tell Al Gore the same? He’s certainly no scientist. He has ZERO understanding of science; yet they allow Inconvenient Truth to be taught in schools (here in Australia)! Is there a difference (HTML to Climate Science)? Yes; but did you think to ask is there a similarity? All it comes down to is reading – law, history, or just about anything else so yes there’s a difference, obviously, but there’s also similarity.
Peo, I take resentment when people construct straw man arguments. I never claim to be anything that I'm not. If I've made an error point it out, otherwise don't insinuate that I’m an idiot, I don’t do it to you. The sceptic doesn't have to PROVE anything. Look what happened to Ignaz Semmelweis when he went against the clear scientific consensus of the time without being able to back up his theory with science. I don't have to PROVE that SensaSlim is a hocus-pocus product with no provable benefit - but what happened to Ken Harvey who was brave enough to say it? SensaSlim threatened to sue him if he didn't retract his statements, which he didn't so they went ahead and sued him. And since their shonky product was nothing more than an exercise in - that's right - datamining I'm sure, guess what product can no longer be legally sold in Australia? That's right - SensaSlim. Seemed their lawsuit backfired on them. BTW, my heart goes out to Harvey because I’ve been saying the same about BioMagnetic for about 3 or 4 years (or however long they’ve been in existence).
And yes I have posted on science forums before.
See, here we have an understanding. Yes we have very good and reliable data going back a few hundred years; but what we don't have is global thermometer data. The fact that the instrumental data varies quite significantly from the proxy data NOW tells us more than likely it would also have in the past - or in other words, that the proxy data is not a complete picture of global mean surface temperature but is useful in indicating overall trends, etc. This is why no serious scientist will come out and give an actual estimated global mean surface temperature for the MWP or even a single year within it. So when I say there's strong evidence that it achieved higher temperatures than today - the evidence being glacial (glaciers that haven't yet retreated to MWP levels) not to mention land cultivation, etc - I'm not claiming that the MWP was warmer; I'm simply refuting the assertion made by some scientists that there's "no reasonable reason" to think that the MWP was anything more than "localized" or that it was "actually not all that warm".
Do you want to know another fact? Raw whether station data is not used, nor should it be used. It is always standardised to account for errors in the readings and other anomalies; and to account for when the stations gets moved. This is all fine and good, except that for a very large number of these the raw data has been discarded or destroyed so it cannot be scrutinized by third parties. Am I claiming this to be a serious issue? No – I’m claiming it to be poor scientific method when the original data is no longer available.
Their consistent message, however, for over 10 years is that CO2 is only part of the EGHE. As early as 2001 or maybe earlier they’ve been talking about the role Methane and Black Carbon have playing a significant role reducing CO2’s responsibility to around half. And it’s all on their website.
That would be great, but that's not what he's doing here, if you've been paying attention.
Obviously NASA is in on the conspiracy too... LOL
I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself here but I advice anyone with true concerns about science to instead post your questions to a scientist, possibly at a science forum. This is not the place for you to post conspiracy theories claiming it as fact.
Ah, you've now changed your tune, saying you're just posting your political opinion. That's clearly not what you've been claiming in your bombastic ramblings to this thread. If you stop posting your conspiracy theories and limit your posts to what politicians should do about global warming then I don't have a problem with it. After all you're a politician and not a scientist. I hope you can see the difference otherwise I'll have to close the thread.
No that's not what I said. That's another straw man argument. I have a political opinion, which (obviously) is that we should do nothing. I know people who are equally sceptical on the science who's political opinion is to do a "token effort". And I'm not a politician, I'm a member of a political party. Which is as much as being a politician as being a subscriber to science magazine is to being a scientist. Al Gore has his views taught in schools, and he is no scientist.
Again though, I have a history of being right. I said that male circumcision prevents HIV infection just months after the first two studies were released. It is now a WHO recommendation. One forum I discussed it on were quite open, but the others were very insistent that I was ignorant and had no idea what I was talking about (I actually don't think anyone else on those forums actually looked at the studies). I also said that Quasars violated Hubble's Law from 2005 on; and I'm proven correct in the sense that it is now (essentially) the scientific consensus that quasars are not the distance objects they thought they were in 2005. NASA even said at the time that the NGC 7319 quasar was distant and the observation due to lensing. Do you want to hedge bets on whether biomagnetics has any therapeutic benefits? I've also said, repeatedly, that E-Cat is a scam; and in a year or two from now I'll be proven right on that too. Either that or the world's energy needs will be forever satisfied by cold fusion. And for the record I defend Pons and Fleischmann. Not because they contributed something of vital importance to science, but because they felt they had to embellish the details of their experiment for funding; and it backfired big time. Yet you have Mann and his minions talk about things like "sea level rises" and no one even bats an eye.
Seraphim
Active Member
But your history doesn't mean you are correct now, as none of those other topics have any common scientific concepts with what is being discussed at the moment. Otherwise people would be more inclined to believe me when I point out issues that will come up in the future that should be addressed in the design phases of current projects. Trying to remind them of that later on and you rub them the wrong way because it comes off as "I told you so". Predicting the future is more difficult than finding and following a pattern, and anyone that tries it will also conveniently forget to mention that more often than not they only predict things that could eventually happen without specifying a time period for it.
Cold Fusion research has slowed down because we haven't yet found a way to produce the Muons that catalyze the process using less energy than we get back from the resulting fusion. They are also notoriously short-lived and hard to contain, and there are far too many problems in making and containing the muons for that technology to be considered usable any time soon. I'm actually partial to the straight up 'hot' fusion in the polywell type device, but again the reason we aren't using fusion power is because to date it has always required more energy to get fusion to take place than the energy we can get back from it. Although not at all an expert on the matters of nuclear physics, I at least know enough of what is involved to know that it's not so easy to make things like that work right. They will of course eventually find a way to do it, but no way of knowing how long it will take to do. But that all aside, it's been revealed that Fusion actually does produce dangerous radiation. The entire reactor assembly and shield becomes radioactive after even short periods of operation due to neutron bombardment. Though it is still safer than Fission reactors as it does not appear to produce any exceptionally long-lived isotopes.
It's fine to armchair expert these things when you at least know enough about what is going on to correctly present it as an awareness thing, but trying to preach these topics like you know it all only makes you look like someone who needs to wear a tinfoil hat. Maybe Ben is right, we almost should have a conspiracy theories subsection somewhere on the forum just for keeping all of this stuff out of the way of people who find it annoying. I'd gladly debate the finer points of astrophysical phenomena with you, armchair expert to armchair expert.
Cold Fusion research has slowed down because we haven't yet found a way to produce the Muons that catalyze the process using less energy than we get back from the resulting fusion. They are also notoriously short-lived and hard to contain, and there are far too many problems in making and containing the muons for that technology to be considered usable any time soon. I'm actually partial to the straight up 'hot' fusion in the polywell type device, but again the reason we aren't using fusion power is because to date it has always required more energy to get fusion to take place than the energy we can get back from it. Although not at all an expert on the matters of nuclear physics, I at least know enough of what is involved to know that it's not so easy to make things like that work right. They will of course eventually find a way to do it, but no way of knowing how long it will take to do. But that all aside, it's been revealed that Fusion actually does produce dangerous radiation. The entire reactor assembly and shield becomes radioactive after even short periods of operation due to neutron bombardment. Though it is still safer than Fission reactors as it does not appear to produce any exceptionally long-lived isotopes.
It's fine to armchair expert these things when you at least know enough about what is going on to correctly present it as an awareness thing, but trying to preach these topics like you know it all only makes you look like someone who needs to wear a tinfoil hat. Maybe Ben is right, we almost should have a conspiracy theories subsection somewhere on the forum just for keeping all of this stuff out of the way of people who find it annoying. I'd gladly debate the finer points of astrophysical phenomena with you, armchair expert to armchair expert.
Last edited:
I see why they couldn't stand your ignorance at the science forums. That doesn't mean we have to put up with it here. Again, post at a science forum and choose a slightly more humble approach considering your lack of education within the area and someone might be willing to explain things to you.
Meksilon are you also into AIDS denial?
My "ignorance"? Really? So anyone who thinks global warming is not anthropogenic is, by definition, ignorant? And Al Gore, is he ignorant too? Or is it because he says what the "consensus is" that he isn't?
I'm not currently active in science forums, but I do talk to scientists regularly and debate our views; and not one of them would dare call me "ignorant" - we have a mutual respect for how we come to our scientific viewpoints, I certainly don't come to mine through "ignorance".
(edit) And another thing - "can't stand me"??? Hardly, it’s been my experience that on science forums you are more than welcome to post such topics and engage in discussion and debate.
Last edited:
