Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31

Thread: Global Warming is not Anthropogenic

  1. #16
    Familjen Peo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Sthlm
    Posts
    6,627
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Meksilon View Post
    No
    So, you have no education within climate science at all. None. And still you're trying to convince yourself you're smarter than NASA scientists and on top of that compare yourself to Einstein. Typical politician.
    FreeWebspace.net
    FWS opened up in 1996. We are celebrating 18+ years!

  2. #17
    NLC Meksilon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    1,151
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm completly self-taught PHP, HTML, JAVASCRIPT, VBSCRIPT, CSS, VisualBasic too Peo, that doesn't mean I don't know my stuff.

  3. #18
    NLC Meksilon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    1,151
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Like I said to begin with, I'm not arguing that CO2 hasn't had some effect. I've already disproven QM as a definitive model of the microworld as posted on my blog using a simple thought experiment. Unlike Schrödinger's Cat, there is no error in my thought experiment and unlike Schrödinger I don't believe the answer could possibly be "hidden variables", I'm no crackpot I can see that can't possibly work, it would be a Bell inequality. A friend of mine who is a mathematical physicist saw no flaw in it. He was of course insistent that neutrinos don't travel faster than light, and I said well you're not saying that GR is a complete understanding of the universe are you? And he said "no, of course not". The neutrinos are a moot point, the fact though is even physicists don't believe their theories are definitive, my friend doesn't believe any theory (string theory, etc) can ever unify QM and GR. If Einstein knew what we know today his theory would have bee different; and on that point we certainly agree upon. We also agree that QM is a lot easier to understand because it's closer to classical physics than GR is.

    I also know what a straw man argument is, and that I didn't claim to be smarter than Mann let alone smarter than NASA scientists. NASA at least are lot more open about the rest of the so-called EGHE, whereas Mann and all his minions are not.

  4. #19
    Familjen Peo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Sthlm
    Posts
    6,627
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you can't see the significant difference between self-taught skills in HTML and doing scientific research as a climate scientist at NASA you're plain stupid. Period.

    Since you didn't understand my first post to this thread, let me try again. I'm a strong supporter of education and I'm a strong supporter of science. So, I don't exactly appreciate a conspiracy nut posting random bs here claiming to be some expert when you're clearly not. If you truly would like to challenge the science within this field with your 0 years of education, I guess it would make slightly more sense to post on science forums than on a webhosting forum.
    FreeWebspace.net
    FWS opened up in 1996. We are celebrating 18+ years!

  5. #20
    FWS Addict Seraphim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Drawing Board
    Posts
    908
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Peo, I think he's alright in trying to at least learn about it.

    But presenting the topic like some kind of educational material while being yet another armchair expert on the subject with no real experience in the field or credible sources to back it up ends up producing what amounts to nothing more than speculation on the topic.

    There is nothing more solid than a straw man right now on global warming because without reliable data older than the past 100-300 years it is impossible to make a valid comparison. That's why no reputable scientist dares to try and claim any kind of proof on the topic.

    Also, although experimental devices to measure temperature have been around for a long time, none of them were repeatably accurate because without mass production methods each one had to be individually calibrated and were vulnerable to losing that calibration if handled roughly. Combine that with unreliable recordkeeping and scientific practice, and you effectively lose any evidence older than the 1900s as being unreliable in terms of accuracy of insturmentation and recordkeeping practices. The most accurate thermometer until the mass-produced mercury glass was the Gallileo thermometer, and that required extreme care in construction or it would not be accurate.

    Same thing with the solar input situation. Prior to the invention of devices that could directly convert solar energy to electrical energy- which could be quantified reliably and accurately using electrical insturments, the only way to measure solar energy input was to use optical devices to gather sunlight upon a target and then measure the change in temperature of that target. Again insturmentation and methods would vary widely from experimentor to experimentor, the resulting data cannot be trusted for accuracy.

    But unless this forum happens to contain somebody with an on-record college degree in Meterology who can accurately account for all of the processes involved, the best we can hope to agree upon here is a highly limited awareness of the subject and speculation of what is happening.

    Now I can say without needing any college degrees or anything that the past few years have seen an increase in severe storm intensity and frequency, and there are weather records showing tendancies towards temperature extremes with a reduction in the amount of moderate periods. That's something that could be related to global warming phenomena, but it gives no clue at all as to the underlying cause of it.

    Incidentally, NASA is not as innocent as you may think either. As a branch of the government any data they gather is subject to certain levels of censorship until it is felt by the powers that be that it is packaged into a form safe for public viewing. They may know more than they are letting on, or on the contrary they may be more confused than the general public is about the whole matter because they can see what is actually happening and don't know why.
    Last edited by Seraphim; April 25th, 2012 at 23:04.
    SeraphimLabs LLC, persistent hosting for your needs.
    Come what may we'll be there for you, keeping your dreams safe and growing.
    Chat with us, you don't have to be hosted by SeraphimLabs to get general tech help.

  6. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    36
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's a myth! Climate is changing all the time on EARTH! Why do you think climate changed before making dinosaurs and later species died?

  7. #22
    NLC Ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    7,545
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dominatos View Post
    It's a myth! Climate is changing all the time on EARTH! Why do you think climate changed before making dinosaurs and later species died?
    I read your name as "Doritos" at first.
    "They're polyurethane --- toys, Joe. They aren't capable of judgment."

  8. #23
    NLC Meksilon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    1,151
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peo View Post
    If you can't see the significant difference between self-taught skills in HTML and doing scientific research as a climate scientist at NASA you're plain stupid. Period.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Peo View Post
    Since you didn't understand my first post to this thread
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    There is nothing more solid than a straw man right now on global warming because without reliable data older than the past 100-300 years it is impossible to make a valid comparison. That's why no reputable scientist dares to try and claim any kind of proof on the topic.
    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.
    Incidentally, NASA is not as innocent as you may think either. As a branch of the government any data they gather is subject to certain levels of censorship until it is felt by the powers that be that it is packaged into a form safe for public viewing. They may know more than they are letting on, or on the contrary they may be more confused than the general public is about the whole matter because they can see what is actually happening and don't know why.
    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.

  9. #24
    Familjen Peo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Sthlm
    Posts
    6,627
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    Peo, I think he's alright in trying to at least learn about it.
    That would be great, but that's not what he's doing here, if you've been paying attention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    Incidentally, NASA is not as innocent as you may think either.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Meksilon View Post
    Peo, if you really think that I’m not entitled to an opinion – at least politically (if not scientifically)
    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.
    FreeWebspace.net
    FWS opened up in 1996. We are celebrating 18+ years!

  10. #25
    NLC Meksilon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    1,151
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peo View Post
    Ah, you've now changed your tune, saying you're just posting your political opinion.
    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.

  11. #26
    FWS Addict Seraphim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Drawing Board
    Posts
    908
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Last edited by Seraphim; April 28th, 2012 at 09:32.
    SeraphimLabs LLC, persistent hosting for your needs.
    Come what may we'll be there for you, keeping your dreams safe and growing.
    Chat with us, you don't have to be hosted by SeraphimLabs to get general tech help.

  12. #27
    Familjen Peo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Sthlm
    Posts
    6,627
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    FreeWebspace.net
    FWS opened up in 1996. We are celebrating 18+ years!

  13. #28
    NLC Ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    7,545
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Meksilon are you also into AIDS denial?
    "They're polyurethane --- toys, Joe. They aren't capable of judgment."

  14. #29
    NLC Meksilon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    1,151
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peo View Post
    I see why they couldn't stand your ignorance at the science forums.
    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 by Meksilon; April 29th, 2012 at 05:08.

  15. #30
    Familjen Peo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Sthlm
    Posts
    6,627
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well...

    Quote Originally Posted by Meksilon View Post
    were very insistent that I was ignorant and had no idea what I was talking about.
    FreeWebspace.net
    FWS opened up in 1996. We are celebrating 18+ years!

Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming linked to CO2?
    By Meksilon in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: October 24th, 2008, 12:56
  2. Is global warming coming sooner?
    By fl4yar in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: May 27th, 2007, 18:11
  3. Global Warming or not....
    By stuffradio in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: April 10th, 2007, 02:27
  4. Global Warming sucks
    By Bruce in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: January 17th, 2006, 10:25
  5. Help Stop Global Warming
    By byrdgirl13 in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: October 21st, 2003, 03:23

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •