|
One for the not so swift among us-
|
One for the not so swift among us-
SamJenson wrote: http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/ne...olingworld.pdf Boy, are you lost. Try he http://groups.google.com/group/climatechange?hl=en |
One for the not so swift among us-
"jps" wrote in message ... In article qDvdg.8579$Ar6.6872@trnddc02, says... http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/ne...olingworld.pdf Yes, and scientific know-how and technology has been drifting backwards since 1975, right? Wrong. But you go ahead and believe what you want. Those of us with a better sense of responsibility towards those who will come after us will do what we can to make sure they remain safe. You sit on your ass and contemplate your navel if that suits you. jps You're a ****ing idiot with a prediction rate as low as you're iq. |
One for the not so swift among us-
SamJenson wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... In article qDvdg.8579$Ar6.6872@trnddc02, says... http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/ne...olingworld.pdf Yes, and scientific know-how and technology has been drifting backwards since 1975, right? Wrong. But you go ahead and believe what you want. Those of us with a better sense of responsibility towards those who will come after us will do what we can to make sure they remain safe. You sit on your ass and contemplate your navel if that suits you. jps You're a ****ing idiot with a prediction rate as low as you're iq. Sam, your childish and petty name calling does nothing for your credibility. As well as your 1975 technology. |
One for the not so swift among us-
"SamJenson" wrote in message
news:8Kwdg.8611$Ar6.5092@trnddc02... "jps" wrote in message ... In article qDvdg.8579$Ar6.6872@trnddc02, says... http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/ne...olingworld.pdf Yes, and scientific know-how and technology has been drifting backwards since 1975, right? Wrong. But you go ahead and believe what you want. Those of us with a better sense of responsibility towards those who will come after us will do what we can to make sure they remain safe. You sit on your ass and contemplate your navel if that suits you. jps You're a ****ing idiot with a prediction rate as low as you're iq. "you're iq" ??? |
One for the not so swift among us-
Gene Kearns wrote: On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:34:18 GMT, Sean Corbett wrote: For those people wanting to make such a linkage.... what about all of the other planets? Aren't they increasing in temperature too? Or does Mars get special treatment? What about the temperature on the moon? Heck, I'm jsut glad it's finally warming up a bit around here! it's in the 80's which ceems to be normal for this time of year. at the first part of the week it was in the low 60's and at night , the lower 50's. Seems like thats the way is is in S. Illinois in the middle of May. Heater one week and AC the next. Boat is getting polished up tonight....... |
One for the not so swift among us-
Harry Krause wrote:
Wait, wait, don't tell us...you're the spawn of Fritz and Robbins, right, Jenson? I thought that was Jackoffs claim to fame! |
One for the not so swift among us-
In article ,
says... You wrote: In article qDvdg.8579$Ar6.6872@trnddc02, says... http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/ne...olingworld.pdf Yes, and scientific know-how and technology has been drifting backwards since 1975, right? Wrong. But you go ahead and believe what you want. Those of us with a better sense of responsibility towards those who will come after us will do what we can to make sure they remain safe. You sit on your ass and contemplate your navel if that suits you. Were you aware that Mars' temperature is also rising? Explain this. Well, I'm not sure but I am pretty sure that's not my most pressing planetary concern since I don't live there. You may want to consult your Martian planet-mates on the Mars situation. jps |
One for the not so swift among us-
In article 8Kwdg.8611$Ar6.5092@trnddc02, says...
"jps" wrote in message ... In article qDvdg.8579$Ar6.6872@trnddc02, says... http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/ne...olingworld.pdf Yes, and scientific know-how and technology has been drifting backwards since 1975, right? Wrong. But you go ahead and believe what you want. Those of us with a better sense of responsibility towards those who will come after us will do what we can to make sure they remain safe. You sit on your ass and contemplate your navel if that suits you. jps You're a ****ing idiot with a prediction rate as low as you're iq. What a well formed retort! Predition rate? Is that the number of men your mother had to beg in order for you to be sired? jps |
One for the not so swift among us-
Sean Corbett wrote: You wrote: In article qDvdg.8579$Ar6.6872@trnddc02, says... http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/ne...olingworld.pdf Yes, and scientific know-how and technology has been drifting backwards since 1975, right? Wrong. But you go ahead and believe what you want. Those of us with a better sense of responsibility towards those who will come after us will do what we can to make sure they remain safe. You sit on your ass and contemplate your navel if that suits you. Were you aware that Mars' temperature is also rising? Explain this. Moot point, but since you bring up the issue, there are more than one factor making up global or planetary warming. The thing is, take a look at the trend, ie: how much warming over a given period, and you'll find that it isn't linear. The earth's temperature is rising not only because of natural causes, but man made. |
One for the not so swift among us-
Don White wrote: Harry Krause wrote: Wait, wait, don't tell us...you're the spawn of Fritz and Robbins, right, Jenson? I thought that was Jackoffs claim to fame! That made me feel like puking. |
One for the not so swift among us-
|
One for the not so swift among us-
Sean Corbett wrote: You wrote: Sean Corbett wrote: You wrote: In article qDvdg.8579$Ar6.6872@trnddc02, says... http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/ne...olingworld.pdf Yes, and scientific know-how and technology has been drifting backwards since 1975, right? Wrong. But you go ahead and believe what you want. Those of us with a better sense of responsibility towards those who will come after us will do what we can to make sure they remain safe. You sit on your ass and contemplate your navel if that suits you. Were you aware that Mars' temperature is also rising? Explain this. Moot point Not at all. Mars and our planet share a primary source of heat, a source that has been more active over the past few years. , but since you bring up the issue, there are more than one factor making up global or planetary warming. Yet you'd ignore the primary one? Look at what a miniscule difference in distance from the sun does to weather in say, Toronto and Miami. The thing is, take a look at the trend, ie: how much warming over a given period, and you'll find that it isn't linear. The earth's temperature is rising not only because of natural causes, but man made. No measurable data support your claim. really? http://www.environ.com/Globalwarming...rmingozone.htm You see, there is measurable data. We know for a fact that the ozone is being depleted an ever greater rate. We also know that global warming does in fact parallel that depletion. There are even graphs showing the rise in cataracts among elderly that coincide with ozone depletion graphs because ozone depletion allows harmful UV-B rays into the atmosphere. http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol5/v5n08ozone_body.html http://www.nearctica.com/geology/global/ozone.htm http://www.afeas.org/glossary.html http://www.ratical.org/ratville/ozoneDepletion.html http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/atmos/ozone.htm Now, remember, I never said that human activity is wholly responsible for global warming. Hmm, so you're claiming that global warming trends on Mars and Earth are parallel? |
One for the not so swift among us-
On 26 May 2006 10:47:52 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote: Now, remember, I never said that human activity is wholly responsible for global warming. That the earth is currently experiencing a small upswing in temps is pretty much an undeniable fact. What bothers me abouty this whole thing is that we have "experts" trying to tell us what it's going to be like in the year 2100. Hell, the weatherman can't tell us what the weather will be like 5 days from now with any kind of decent accuracy! Weather is simple compared to *climate*, and we're supposed to put faith in these predictions? Jack |
One for the not so swift among us-
|
One for the not so swift among us-
On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:33:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "SamJenson" wrote in message news:8Kwdg.8611$Ar6.5092@trnddc02... "jps" wrote in message ... In article qDvdg.8579$Ar6.6872@trnddc02, says... http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/ne...olingworld.pdf Yes, and scientific know-how and technology has been drifting backwards since 1975, right? Wrong. But you go ahead and believe what you want. Those of us with a better sense of responsibility towards those who will come after us will do what we can to make sure they remain safe. You sit on your ass and contemplate your navel if that suits you. jps You're a ****ing idiot with a prediction rate as low as you're iq. "you're iq" ??? LOL! -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
One for the not so swift among us-
On Fri, 26 May 2006 16:33:34 GMT, Sean Corbett
wrote: You wrote: Sean Corbett wrote: You wrote: In article qDvdg.8579$Ar6.6872@trnddc02, says... http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/ne...olingworld.pdf Yes, and scientific know-how and technology has been drifting backwards since 1975, right? Wrong. But you go ahead and believe what you want. Those of us with a better sense of responsibility towards those who will come after us will do what we can to make sure they remain safe. You sit on your ass and contemplate your navel if that suits you. Were you aware that Mars' temperature is also rising? Explain this. Moot point Not at all. Mars and our planet share a primary source of heat, a source that has been more active over the past few years. , but since you bring up the issue, there are more than one factor making up global or planetary warming. Yet you'd ignore the primary one? Look at what a miniscule difference in distance from the sun does to weather in say, Toronto and Miami. The thing is, take a look at the trend, ie: how much warming over a given period, and you'll find that it isn't linear. The earth's temperature is rising not only because of natural causes, but man made. No measurable data support your claim. I'm sure you meant to say, "Look at what a difference in weather in say Toronto and Miami is caused by the tilt of the earth's axis." -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
One for the not so swift among us-
Jack Goff wrote:
On 26 May 2006 10:47:52 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: Now, remember, I never said that human activity is wholly responsible for global warming. That the earth is currently experiencing a small upswing in temps is pretty much an undeniable fact. What bothers me abouty this whole thing is that we have "experts" trying to tell us what it's going to be like in the year 2100. Hell, the weatherman can't tell us what the weather will be like 5 days from now with any kind of decent accuracy! Weather is simple compared to *climate*, and we're supposed to put faith in these predictions? Jack It bothers me that people who are refered to as "scientists" (I don't know if they call themselves that) treat the results of modelling experiments like they were real data. I bothers me that people with political agendas can ignore the simple fact that the sun is responsible for pretty much all of climate everywhere in the solar system (there are ecosystems in deep sea vents that do not rely on the sun but they don't really have anything you would call climate). So an overactive sun at a time when you'd expect sunspots to at a minimum might be interesting to look at - but anyone who tries is mocked and accused of being in bed with Exxon or Mobile. It bothers me that some Australian "Environmentalist", with a book to sell, comes to my country and tells us that the polar bears are drowning and will be extinct in 25 years and he makes the front page of every paper and "no polar bears in 25 years" becomes an accepted fact and a greenie mantra. When a polar bear biologist from Iqualuit says the Aussie is full of beans, his words only make the Op Ed page. I attended my first lecture on global warming in my second year university in 1985 (back then we called it "the greenhouse effect"). The learned professor displayed the results of the models in graphs and maps. The predictions he made then haven't changed much in 26 years, but the dates that these events are to happen sure has. Back then, there would be no Maldives by 1997 (the Maldives did almost vanish in 2004 but the tsunami was NOT caused by climate change). Much of the Eastern Seaboard was gone by now. The millions of people displaced by rising sea levels have started numerous conflicts by now. Forgive me if I'm a little cynical, but in 26 years NOTHING he predicted has happened. I'm not saying we should go around polluting as much as possible. I'm just saying that that there's a lot of bull**** passing itself off a science these days. My theory is that it is caused by too many people being university educated (and thus call themselves "scientists") without being really smart. On a happier on topic note, I think we are FINALLY going to launch the boat tomorrow. Whew! Stella |
One for the not so swift among us-
"Black Dog" wrote in message
.. . I bothers me that people with political agendas can ignore the simple fact that the sun is responsible for pretty much all of climate everywhere in the solar system...... That's an interesting comment. Are you referring to non-politicians and non-scientists who have simply chosen to believe one theory or another? |
One for the not so swift among us-
Jack Goff wrote: What bothers me abouty this whole thing is that we have "experts" trying to tell us what it's going to be like in the year 2100. Hell, the weatherman can't tell us what the weather will be like 5 days from now with any kind of decent accuracy! Weather is simple compared to *climate*, and we're supposed to put faith in these predictions? Jack 5 days? Try 5 hrs. |
One for the not so swift among us-
Black Dog wrote: On a happier on topic note, I think we are FINALLY going to launch the boat tomorrow. Whew! Stella That's my plan too! |
One for the not so swift among us-
Black Dog wrote:
It bothers me that people who are refered to as "scientists" (I don't know if they call themselves that) treat the results of modelling experiments like they were real data. That's not at all accurate in my experience. Having spent most of a career designing circuits by simulation I can assure you it is obvious that simulations are only as good as the associated models. Models are developed and qualified by comparing their behavior to actual measurements. There is even an old saying that serves as a warning "simulation is a lot like masturbation, if you do it enough it starts to feel like the real thing." -rick- |
One for the not so swift among us-
"Jack Goff" wrote in message ... On 26 May 2006 10:47:52 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: Now, remember, I never said that human activity is wholly responsible for global warming. That the earth is currently experiencing a small upswing in temps is pretty much an undeniable fact. What bothers me abouty this whole thing is that we have "experts" trying to tell us what it's going to be like in the year 2100. Hell, the weatherman can't tell us what the weather will be like 5 days from now with any kind of decent accuracy! Weather is simple compared to *climate*, and we're supposed to put faith in these predictions? Jack Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics. (and in reality, just another brand) You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic. Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their beliefs. There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day" Those that express their disbelief are shouted down etc. etc. Global warming, and their alarmists, are a fraud. http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=081204D |
One for the not so swift among us-
"P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Jack Goff" wrote in message ... On 26 May 2006 10:47:52 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: Now, remember, I never said that human activity is wholly responsible for global warming. That the earth is currently experiencing a small upswing in temps is pretty much an undeniable fact. What bothers me abouty this whole thing is that we have "experts" trying to tell us what it's going to be like in the year 2100. Hell, the weatherman can't tell us what the weather will be like 5 days from now with any kind of decent accuracy! Weather is simple compared to *climate*, and we're supposed to put faith in these predictions? Jack Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics. (and in reality, just another brand) You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic. Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their beliefs. There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day" Those that express their disbelief are shouted down etc. etc. If it were found to be true (the connection between warming and human activity), how would you then decide which scientist hadn't been a fanatic? |
One for the not so swift among us-
On Sat, 27 May 2006 12:15:08 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Jack Goff" wrote in message ... On 26 May 2006 10:47:52 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: Now, remember, I never said that human activity is wholly responsible for global warming. That the earth is currently experiencing a small upswing in temps is pretty much an undeniable fact. What bothers me abouty this whole thing is that we have "experts" trying to tell us what it's going to be like in the year 2100. Hell, the weatherman can't tell us what the weather will be like 5 days from now with any kind of decent accuracy! Weather is simple compared to *climate*, and we're supposed to put faith in these predictions? Jack Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics. (and in reality, just another brand) You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic. Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their beliefs. There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day" Those that express their disbelief are shouted down etc. etc. If it were found to be true (the connection between warming and human activity), how would you then decide which scientist hadn't been a fanatic? You may be missing the point. It's not that most people don't acknowledge some type of connection between warming and human activity. Rather, it's whether or not human activity plays a *significant* role in the equation, and if anything we might do could make any measurable difference whatsoever. Jack |
One for the not so swift among us-
"Jack Goff" wrote in message
... Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics. (and in reality, just another brand) You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic. Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their beliefs. There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day" Those that express their disbelief are shouted down etc. etc. If it were found to be true (the connection between warming and human activity), how would you then decide which scientist hadn't been a fanatic? You may be missing the point. It's not that most people don't acknowledge some type of connection between warming and human activity. Rather, it's whether or not human activity plays a *significant* role in the equation, and if anything we might do could make any measurable difference whatsoever. Jack I'm not missing the point. If you acknowledge the connection, then logically, you must stop calling any scientist a political fanatic. |
One for the not so swift among us-
On Fri, 26 May 2006 21:38:28 -0700, -rick- wrote:
Black Dog wrote: It bothers me that people who are refered to as "scientists" (I don't know if they call themselves that) treat the results of modelling experiments like they were real data. That's not at all accurate in my experience. Having spent most of a career designing circuits by simulation I can assure you it is obvious that simulations are only as good as the associated models. Models are developed and qualified by comparing their behavior to actual measurements. There is even an old saying that serves as a warning "simulation is a lot like masturbation, if you do it enough it starts to feel like the real thing." -rick- If by "circuits" you mean electronic circuits, that's a whole different kettle of fish. Electronic circuit simulators are a well-developed, fairly mature technology. Even RF circuits can be modeled fairly accurately. These simulators have the advantage that you point out... "Models are developed and qualified by comparing their behavior to actual measurements." Simulating and modeling climate change 94 years in the future does not have that advantage. Scientist have no test climate that they can introduce variables into, and no time machine to travel 94 years into the future to measure the results. Therefore, unlike your circuit simulator, there is no way to check the output of their climate simulator against real-world results to verify its accuracy. As previously discussed, weather models can't tell us with any decent accuracy what it will be like in 5 days. Are you really telling me that you believe a climate model for 94 years into the future? Jack |
One for the not so swift among us-
On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:00:02 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Jack Goff" wrote in message .. . Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics. (and in reality, just another brand) You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic. Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their beliefs. There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day" Those that express their disbelief are shouted down etc. etc. If it were found to be true (the connection between warming and human activity), how would you then decide which scientist hadn't been a fanatic? You may be missing the point. It's not that most people don't acknowledge some type of connection between warming and human activity. Rather, it's whether or not human activity plays a *significant* role in the equation, and if anything we might do could make any measurable difference whatsoever. Jack I'm not missing the point. If you acknowledge the connection, then logically, you must stop calling any scientist a political fanatic. I didn't call anyone a fanatic. That was someone else. However, whether or not there's a connection has little to do with a scientist being a political fanatic. Being correct on a single theory does not preclude one from being a fanatic. |
One for the not so swift among us-
"Jack Goff" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:00:02 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Jack Goff" wrote in message . .. Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics. (and in reality, just another brand) You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic. Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their beliefs. There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day" Those that express their disbelief are shouted down etc. etc. If it were found to be true (the connection between warming and human activity), how would you then decide which scientist hadn't been a fanatic? You may be missing the point. It's not that most people don't acknowledge some type of connection between warming and human activity. Rather, it's whether or not human activity plays a *significant* role in the equation, and if anything we might do could make any measurable difference whatsoever. Jack I'm not missing the point. If you acknowledge the connection, then logically, you must stop calling any scientist a political fanatic. I didn't call anyone a fanatic. That was someone else. However, whether or not there's a connection has little to do with a scientist being a political fanatic. Being correct on a single theory does not preclude one from being a fanatic. It is comical how the Global Warming Alarmists react. Anyone that doesn't believe in the creed is "in denial" or has been bought by the "evil corporate conspiracy" Have you noticed at almost every alarmist has socialist leanings, some even wish to eliminate humans from the earth, they also have short memories........forgetting the "coming ice age" doomsday predictions of the 70's. |
One for the not so swift among us-
"P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Jack Goff" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:00:02 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Jack Goff" wrote in message . .. Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics. (and in reality, just another brand) You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic. Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their beliefs. There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day" Those that express their disbelief are shouted down etc. etc. If it were found to be true (the connection between warming and human activity), how would you then decide which scientist hadn't been a fanatic? You may be missing the point. It's not that most people don't acknowledge some type of connection between warming and human activity. Rather, it's whether or not human activity plays a *significant* role in the equation, and if anything we might do could make any measurable difference whatsoever. Jack I'm not missing the point. If you acknowledge the connection, then logically, you must stop calling any scientist a political fanatic. I didn't call anyone a fanatic. That was someone else. However, whether or not there's a connection has little to do with a scientist being a political fanatic. Being correct on a single theory does not preclude one from being a fanatic. It is comical how the Global Warming Alarmists react. Anyone that doesn't believe in the creed is "in denial" or has been bought by the "evil corporate conspiracy" Have you noticed at almost every alarmist has socialist leanings, some even wish to eliminate humans from the earth, they also have short memories........forgetting the "coming ice age" doomsday predictions of the 70's. You sound really smart. I want to learn from you. What is a socialist? |
One for the not so swift among us-
"Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Jack Goff" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:00:02 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Jack Goff" wrote in message . .. Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics. (and in reality, just another brand) You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic. Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their beliefs. There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day" Those that express their disbelief are shouted down etc. etc. If it were found to be true (the connection between warming and human activity), how would you then decide which scientist hadn't been a fanatic? You may be missing the point. It's not that most people don't acknowledge some type of connection between warming and human activity. Rather, it's whether or not human activity plays a *significant* role in the equation, and if anything we might do could make any measurable difference whatsoever. Jack I'm not missing the point. If you acknowledge the connection, then logically, you must stop calling any scientist a political fanatic. I didn't call anyone a fanatic. That was someone else. However, whether or not there's a connection has little to do with a scientist being a political fanatic. Being correct on a single theory does not preclude one from being a fanatic. It is comical how the Global Warming Alarmists react. Anyone that doesn't believe in the creed is "in denial" or has been bought by the "evil corporate conspiracy" Have you noticed at almost every alarmist has socialist leanings, some even wish to eliminate humans from the earth, they also have short memories........forgetting the "coming ice age" doomsday predictions of the 70's. You sound really smart. I want to learn from you. What is a socialist? According to Fritz, any legitimate scientist who doesn't support President Retardo. I wonder which president was part of the definition when Marx was alive and writing. |
One for the not so swift among us-
On Sat, 27 May 2006 12:51:33 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:
It is comical how the Global Warming Alarmists react. Anyone that doesn't believe in the creed is "in denial" or has been bought by the "evil corporate conspiracy" Have you noticed at almost every alarmist has socialist leanings, some even wish to eliminate humans from the earth, they also have short memories........forgetting the "coming ice age" doomsday predictions of the 70's. And the difference between a "Global Warming Alarmist" and you, would be? "socialist leanings", "eliminate humans", yup, I can see you are open to the possibility that this planet could be warming. Scientists, who have spent their entire careers studying this issue, have come down on both sides, but the general body of science believes the planet is warming. The only real debate is it natural, or man made. |
One for the not so swift among us-
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 May 2006 12:51:33 -0400, P. Fritz wrote: It is comical how the Global Warming Alarmists react. Anyone that doesn't believe in the creed is "in denial" or has been bought by the "evil corporate conspiracy" Have you noticed at almost every alarmist has socialist leanings, some even wish to eliminate humans from the earth, they also have short memories........forgetting the "coming ice age" doomsday predictions of the 70's. And the difference between a "Global Warming Alarmist" and you, would be? "socialist leanings", "eliminate humans", yup, I can see you are open to the possibility that this planet could be warming. Scientists, who have spent their entire careers studying this issue, have come down on both sides, but the general body of science believes the planet is warming. The only real debate is it natural, or man made. I'll bet you $11.39 that I can make this Fritz unit go off on a tangent that 100% predictable. Say when. |
One for the not so swift among us-
On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:21:13 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote: On Fri, 26 May 2006 16:34:36 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Explain the increase in Mars' temperature. Explain the direct relationship between Martian weather and the Earth's weather. Ummm, they share a primary source of heat? That's right, there is none. Noone who would start their argument from such a position of ignorance is worth my time. Sadly though, as a testament to the poor science/logic/math education that we have given to many of our students, this is an all too often repeated talking point. It's even more sad that so few kids take advantage of the math and science opportunities that *do* exist in our high schools. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
One for the not so swift among us-
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 May 2006 12:51:33 -0400, P. Fritz wrote: It is comical how the Global Warming Alarmists react. Anyone that doesn't believe in the creed is "in denial" or has been bought by the "evil corporate conspiracy" Have you noticed at almost every alarmist has socialist leanings, some even wish to eliminate humans from the earth, they also have short memories........forgetting the "coming ice age" doomsday predictions of the 70's. And the difference between a "Global Warming Alarmist" and you, would be? "socialist leanings", "eliminate humans", yup, I can see you are open to the possibility that this planet could be warming. Scientists, who have spent their entire careers studying this issue, have come down on both sides, but the general body of science believes the planet is warming. The only real debate is it natural, or man made. I'll bet you $11.39 that I can make this Fritz unit go off on a tangent that 100% predictable. Say when. Oh, I wouldn't touch that bet, we all know Fritz!!! |
One for the not so swift among us-
Jack Goff wrote:
Therefore, unlike your circuit simulator, there is no way to check the output of their climate simulator against real-world results to verify its accuracy. So we've apparently misplaced all records of the past? |
One for the not so swift among us-
"-rick-" wrote in message
... Jack Goff wrote: Therefore, unlike your circuit simulator, there is no way to check the output of their climate simulator against real-world results to verify its accuracy. So we've apparently misplaced all records of the past? If that's convenient, then yes. If you push hard enough, you'll find that behind some peoples' interpretation of the science we have at the moment, there's something unscientific that you can't do anything about. You have to just wait for these people to drop dead, in the same way the South had to wait (and is still waiting) for racists to drop dead already. The "something" is fear of having to change their behavior. These people believe that the two statements below are exactly identical: 1) As your president, I'm telling you that we all need to think more carefully about how our choices affect the earth. 2) Effective immediately, there will be a $1500.00 federal surcharge on any vehicle which gets lets than 28 mpg. We will control you. |
One for the not so swift among us-
On Sun, 28 May 2006 23:41:45 -0700, -rick- wrote:
Jack Goff wrote: Therefore, unlike your circuit simulator, there is no way to check the output of their climate simulator against real-world results to verify its accuracy. So we've apparently misplaced all records of the past? Of course not. But those records are woefully incomplete to enable an accurate model to be constructed. How many weather satellites did we have 100 years ago? You seem to be thinking that climate is like an NPN transistor. It's not. Think of a black box with 200 inputs and 10 outputs. We know what the ouputs are, and can measure them. We know what most of the inputs are, and are pretty sure about the rest. It's reasonable to assume that there's a few that we don't know about, and may never know. Of the inputs we understand, we've just recently identified and have been able to measure many of them (in the climate timeline scheme of things). We've seen that there is a huge time lag inside of this box, sometimes years, sometimes decades. Finally, we have virtually no control of any of the inputs, so we can't change just one and observe the outputs. Most of the inputs are totally out of our control, and are constantly changing. So once again, unlike your simple circuit on the bench, the climate computer model can not be verified against the real world. So answer this, Rick. As previously discussed, weather models can't tell us with any decent accuracy what it will be like in 5 days. Are you really telling me that you believe a climate model's prediction for 94 years into the future? Jack |
One for the not so swift among us-
Jack Goff wrote: On Sun, 28 May 2006 23:41:45 -0700, -rick- wrote: Jack Goff wrote: Therefore, unlike your circuit simulator, there is no way to check the output of their climate simulator against real-world results to verify its accuracy. So we've apparently misplaced all records of the past? Of course not. But those records are woefully incomplete to enable an accurate model to be constructed. How many weather satellites did we have 100 years ago? Maybe they didn't have weather satellites then, but they had weather. They also had people quite competent in keeping data. You seem to be thinking that climate is like an NPN transistor. It's not. Think of a black box with 200 inputs and 10 outputs. We know what the ouputs are, and can measure them. We know what most of the inputs are, and are pretty sure about the rest. It's reasonable to assume that there's a few that we don't know about, and may never know. Of the inputs we understand, we've just recently identified and have been able to measure many of them (in the climate timeline scheme of things). We've seen that there is a huge time lag inside of this box, sometimes years, sometimes decades. Finally, we have virtually no control of any of the inputs, so we can't change just one and observe the outputs. Most of the inputs are totally out of our control, and are constantly changing. So once again, unlike your simple circuit on the bench, the climate computer model can not be verified against the real world. So answer this, Rick. As previously discussed, weather models can't tell us with any decent accuracy what it will be like in 5 days. Are you really telling me that you believe a climate model's prediction for 94 years into the future? Flawed analogy. Very flawed. the model for recent events (5 days in your case is much more detailed and refined than the 94 year model. The more detailed and the more refined a model is, the more instances of error. Ergo, while a 5 day model might not be accurate in your eyes, if it were the same detail as the 94 year model, it would be spot on. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:16 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com