Quote on Evolution by Muggeridge

[fourgs]

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future." - Malcolm Muggeridge, Journalist and philospher, Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Canada

[geerair]

Originally posted by fourgs
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future." - Malcolm Muggeridge, Journalist and philospher, Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Canada Too bad Muggerige wasn't a biologist, it would have kept him from making such a fool and laughingstock of himself.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by fourgs
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future." - Malcolm Muggeridge, Journalist and philospher, Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Canada Too bad Muggerige wasn't a biologist, it would have kept him from making such a fool and laughingstock of himself.

Specialty of science doesn't seem to bother you when it comes to climate modeling.
Biologist, chemist, bellboy are all good enough for you to quote in global warming debates.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

Specialty of science doesn't seem to bother you when it comes to climate modeling.
Biologist, chemist, bellboy are all good enough for you to quote in global warming debates.Don't know of any biologists, chemists or bellboys who do climate modeling.

See that is a specialized field.

Perhaps the reason your panties are in a wad about GW is because you get your data from bellboys.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt

Specialty of science doesn't seem to bother you when it comes to climate modeling.
Biologist, chemist, bellboy are all good enough for you to quote in global warming debates.Don't know of any biologists, chemists or bellboys who do climate modeling.

See that is a specialized field.

Perhaps the reason your panties are in a wad about GW is because you get your data from bellboys.

you always state that most "scientists" agree with the human cause for global warming argument when the "most scientists" statistic includes biologists, chemists and bellboys and not the majority of climatologists.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt
you always state that most "scientists" agree with the human cause for global warming argument when the "most scientists" statistic includes biologists, chemists and bellboys and not the majority of climatologists. Nope. The majority of climatologists agree that GW is real and mankind has contributed to it.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt
you always state that most "scientists" agree with the human cause for global warming argument when the "most scientists" statistic includes biologists, chemists and bellboys and not the majority of climatologists. Nope. The majority of climatologists agree that GW is real and mankind has contributed to it.


OH MY!
Wrong again

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

Credibility still lacking.

[chillbilly]

Has skrewt busted your credibility again?
You're slipping there fella'.

geer; could you kindly show the numbers for and against so we can see this "majority" you are referring to?


Please don't add any bellboys or theologians to the list to pad your numbers.
lol

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt
OH MY!
Wrong again

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

Credibility still lacking. [/B]Oh my! Another skrewt myth.

The consensus that exsists is the IPCC report.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf


This is a statistical study done on peer reviewed climate papers. The findings are that out of 928 scientific climate papers none disagreed with the consensus view.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686




Did you realize that Lindzen wrote that op-ed fourteen years ago?

Did you realize that Lindzen accepts Global Warming as a fact?


Did you realize that Lindzen has acted as a paid consultant to the coal and gas industries?

Did you realize that the article you linked is also given as a speech by Lindzen and was underwritten by OPEC?



Son, you find one guy who has links to the oil and gas industries and OPEC and your evidence is his fourteen year old article?

Son, I give you the IPCC report which is the consensus view of the climatology field.


Another skrewt myth busted.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly
Has skrewt busted your credibility again?
You're slipping there fella'.You were saying?




geer; could you kindly show the numbers for and against so we can see this "majority" you are referring to?See my response to skrewt.




Please don't add any bellboys or theologians to the list to pad your numbers.No need to resort to creationist tricks. See above.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt
OH MY!
Wrong again

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

Credibility still lacking. Oh my! Another skrewt myth.

The consensus that exsists is the IPCC report.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf


This is a statistical study done on peer reviewed climate papers. The findings are that out of 928 scientific climate papers none disagreed with the consensus view.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686




Did you realize that Lindzen wrote that op-ed fourteen years ago?

Did you realize that Lindzen accepts Global Warming as a fact?


Did you realize that Lindzen has acted as a paid consultant to the coal and gas industries?

Did you realize that the article you linked is also given as a speech by Lindzen and was underwritten by OPEC?



Son, you find one guy who has links to the oil and gas industries and OPEC and your evidence is his fourteen year old article?

Son, I give you the IPCC report which is the consensus view of the climatology field.


Another skrewt myth busted. [/B]


This is the most laughable rebuttal you have ever attempted.
The IPCC report only show the consensus of IPCC members not the entire scientific community.
Truly bogus.

The other link you post presumes scientific community wide consensus based on articles in print.
Another laughable premise.

You're losin' it skippy.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

This is the most laughable rebuttal you have ever attempted.
The IPCC report only show the consensus of IPCC members not the entire scientific community.
Truly bogus.It is the consensus of those people who work in the climatology field every day.

Bawhahahahahahahahah. First you whine falsely that the consensus includes biologists, chemists and bellboys.

Then I show you a report by Climatologists and now you whine that the consensus doesn't include biologists, chemists and bellboys.


Make up your mind.




The other link you post presumes scientific community wide consensus based on articles in print.
Another laughable premise.These are not articles in the comic books you read but rather peer reviewed research papers published in scientifc journals.

If GW was not the consensus view then you would expect to see more papers refuting global warming. If GW was not the consensus view then the journals would be bulging with papers refuting GW. As it stands, not one of the 928 papers reviewed refuted GW.

this constitutes clear evidence that GW is the consensus view among climatologists.



You're losin' it skippy. PRICELESS!!!!!

[skrewt]

It is the consensus of those people who work in the climatology field every day.

Bawhahahahahahahahah. First you whine falsely that the consensus includes biologists, chemists and bellboys.

Then I show you a report by Climatologists and now you whine that the consensus doesn't include biologists, chemists and bellboys.


Make up your mind.

I would expect nothing more from you.
The IPCC does not even come close to representing a majority of the climatologists in the world.
You're such a statistics whore.
How many climatologists are in the IPCC versus the total number in the world.
Show me the majority consensus.




If GW was not the consensus view then you would expect to see more papers refuting global warming. If GW was not the consensus view then the journals would be bulging with papers refuting GW. As it stands, not one of the 928 papers reviewed refuted GW.

this constitutes clear evidence that GW is the consensus view among climatologists.
[/B]

The only thing this shows is that the vocal group of scientists agree with global warming. The articles mentioned aren't necessarily published by climatologists.
This argument is full of holes and wishful thinking it doesn't rate a kindergarten level debate club.
My comments may be priceless, but yours are clearly worth $0.00

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt
I would expect nothing more from you.
The IPCC does not even come close to representing a majority of the climatologists in the world.
You're such a statistics whore.
How many climatologists are in the IPCC versus the total number in the world.
Show me the majority consensus.Well, the IPCC report had 2,000+ climatologists contributing to it. More tellingly, it is the recognized standard in the field of climatology and represents the view of the majority of the world's climatologists.

You seem to miss the point that the IPCC report itself is the consensus. This is the gold standard of climatology.


Let's see you have one op-ed from an oil and gas industry consultant whose speech was underwritten by OPEC.





The only thing this shows is that the vocal group of scientists agree with global warming.Vocal? No, my friend, these are peer-reviewed scientific papers. No vocal about it.

You have an op-ed.



The articles mentioned aren't necessarily published by climatologists.Could you point ou the ones that aren't?



This argument is full of holes and wishful thinking it doesn't rate a kindergarten level debate club.Point out the holes please.

Kindergarten level debate club? Priceless. You present an op-ed as your evidence.





My comments may be priceless, but yours are clearly worth $0.00 The irony is priceless, your comments are worth bupkis.

[skrewt]

http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm

Unfortunately, the debate has become highly political. Stephen Schneider, who once warned of a new ice age, has complained that "it is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides." Despite being a scientist, he admitted: "I don't set very much store by looking at the direct evidence." Why not? "To avert the risk we need to get some broad-based support, to capture public imagination. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make some simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have' " So much for genuine scientific discourse. Explained Mr. Schneider: "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest' "

He's not interested in direct evidence, presumably because, as even the Sierra Club's Bruce Hamilton acknowledges, "If you look at the science, it's all over the map." Past polls have found that most climatologists do not believe human-induced warming has occurred.
----------------------------------------------------
Activists cite the latest report of the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but lead author Benjamin Sanger complains that "it's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the chapter." He cites the report's many caveats: "We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue was a done deal."
------------------------------------------------------

Disputes begin over data collection and temperature trends. The best evidence suggests far less warming so far this century than predicted by the models. Moreover, 90 percent of the warming occurred before 1940, when emissions of supposed greenhouse gases began to climb dramatically. In fact, as John Shanahan of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute points out, "the government's own satellite data and balloon measurements over the last 18 years show a very slight cooling," the opposite of "what the climate models predict should have occurred."


Here's the whole article if you want to read it.
http://www.junkscience.com/news/bandow.html

Some more disagreement
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml

A really good one.
http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

More of the lefties gestapo tactics
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060623-122412-1082r.htm

Leftie evinronmental naziism exposed.
Priceless.

[oloenneker]

More garbage from the cut and paste crew....


Probably just another myth...

[chillbilly]

More tellingly, it is the recognized standard in the field of climatology and represents the view of the majority of the world's climatologists.
__________________________________________________ _______
Says who? Your peer reviewers? This idiotic statement rates right up there with the dumbassed Rolling Stone critics you consider to be the "standard" for who is or isn't the best musician.
Do you understand the concept of objectivity?
Or is all your subjective reasoning just supposed to be accepted as the standard?
Pitiful reasoning by someone who claims to adhere to objective "evidence".

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by oloenneker

More garbage from the cut and paste crew....


Probably just another myth...
__________________________________________________ _______

It'd probably be a good idea to actually read the posted sites before you judge the content. Or is it the norm for you to just suppose you know the content without actually investigating it?
And you claim Christians are judgemental...LOL
Try again.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

Unfortunately, the debate has become highly political. Stephen Schneider, who once warned of a new ice age, has complained that "it is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides." Despite being a scientist, he admitted: "I don't set very much store by looking at the direct evidence." Why not? "To avert the risk we need to get some broad-based support, to capture public imagination. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make some simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have' " So much for genuine scientific discourse. Explained Mr. Schneider: "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest' "

He's not interested in direct evidence, presumably because, as even the Sierra Club's Bruce Hamilton acknowledges, "If you look at the science, it's all over the map." Past polls have found that most climatologists do not believe human-induced warming has occurred.
----------------------------------------------------
Activists cite the latest report of the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but lead author Benjamin Sanger complains that "it's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the chapter." He cites the report's many caveats: "We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue was a done deal."
------------------------------------------------------

Disputes begin over data collection and temperature trends. The best evidence suggests far less warming so far this century than predicted by the models. Moreover, 90 percent of the warming occurred before 1940, when emissions of supposed greenhouse gases began to climb dramatically. In fact, as John Shanahan of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute points out, "the government's own satellite data and balloon measurements over the last 18 years show a very slight cooling," the opposite of "what the climate models predict should have occurred."


Here's the whole article if you want to read it.
http://www.junkscience.com/news/bandow.htmlThe author of the article is a consultant to the energy industry and corporate funded groups.

The author is not a climatologist.







Some more disagreement
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220Op-ed by the same guy you cited in an earlier post.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xmlPeiser's study has been discredited and he has retracted some of his claims.



A really good one.
http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807 Op-ED by a columnist who admits he has no "virtually no expertise in science".




More of the lefties gestapo tactics
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060623-122412-1082r.htmAnother Op-ed by a columnist from the ever credibility challenged wingnut rag the Moonie times.



Let's review:

3 Op-Eds- Two from columnists, one from a consultant to the energy industry and OPEC

1 article concerning a guy whining about his paper not being accepted. His paper was turned down because it was scientifically inaccurate and not because his imagined conspiracies.

1 article from a guy who is not a climatologist but is a consultant to the energy industry and corporate funded groups.



Pathetic.



Try again.




Next time try to get some science and climatologists instead of columnists and consultants writing opinion pieces.



[Edited by geerair on 08-07-2006 at 12:02 AM]

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly
Says who?Climatologists.



This idiotic statement rates right up there with the dumbassed Rolling Stone critics you consider to be the "standard" for who is or isn't the best musician.Sour grapes. They didn't agree with you so you work yourself into a crybaby snit.






Do you understand the concept of objectivity?
Or is all your subjective reasoning just supposed to be accepted as the standard?
Pitiful reasoning by someone who claims to adhere to objective "evidence".Laughable. Your ox gets gored by the experts and all you can do is whine and moan about objectivity. Look in the mirror.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt

Unfortunately, the debate has become highly political. Stephen Schneider, who once warned of a new ice age, has complained that "it is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides." Despite being a scientist, he admitted: "I don't set very much store by looking at the direct evidence." Why not? "To avert the risk we need to get some broad-based support, to capture public imagination. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make some simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have' " So much for genuine scientific discourse. Explained Mr. Schneider: "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest' "

He's not interested in direct evidence, presumably because, as even the Sierra Club's Bruce Hamilton acknowledges, "If you look at the science, it's all over the map." Past polls have found that most climatologists do not believe human-induced warming has occurred.
----------------------------------------------------
Activists cite the latest report of the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but lead author Benjamin Sanger complains that "it's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the chapter." He cites the report's many caveats: "We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue was a done deal."
------------------------------------------------------

Disputes begin over data collection and temperature trends. The best evidence suggests far less warming so far this century than predicted by the models. Moreover, 90 percent of the warming occurred before 1940, when emissions of supposed greenhouse gases began to climb dramatically. In fact, as John Shanahan of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute points out, "the government's own satellite data and balloon measurements over the last 18 years show a very slight cooling," the opposite of "what the climate models predict should have occurred."


Here's the whole article if you want to read it.
http://www.junkscience.com/news/bandow.htmlThe author of the article is a consultant to the energy industry and corporate funded groups.

The author is not a climatologist.







Some more disagreement
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220Op-ed by the same guy you cited in an earlier post.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xmlPeiser's study has been discredited and he has retracted some of his claims.



A really good one.
http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807 Op-ED by a columnist who admits he has no "virtually no expertise in science".




More of the lefties gestapo tactics
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060623-122412-1082r.htmAnother Op-ed by a columnist from the ever credibility challenged wingnut rag the Moonie times.



Let's review:

3 Op-Eds- Two from columnists, one from a consultant to the energy industry and OPEC

1 article concerning a guy whining about his paper not being accepted. His paper was turned down because it was scientifically inaccurate and not because his imagined conspiracies.

1 article from a guy who is not a climatologist but is a consultant to the energy industry and corporate funded groups.



Pathetic.



Try again.




Next time try to get some science and climatologists instead of columnists and consultants writing opinion pieces.



[Edited by geerair on 08-07-2006 at 12:02 AM]

So far I see several nopes and a myth.
Since you didn't bother to provide any evidence of your opinion. I will assume it's just as bogus as all your other crap.

Especially since the IPCC specifically states:
"We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue was a done deal."

Hardly a consensus, and another proof you have no crediblitity.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

So far I see several nopes and a myth.What is the myth?



Since you didn't bother to provide any evidence of your opinion. I will assume it's just as bogus as all your other crap.You provided op-eds by industry supported flacks. Get real.




Especially since the IPCC specifically states:
"We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue was a done deal."Ummmmm......the quote which GW deniers love to post is speaking of the IPCC 1995 report.

The methodologies of climate change had undergone significant improvement and new evidence was produced in the 2001 report which more strongly confirmed GW and man's role in it. The consensus was strengthened as a result of these improved methods and evidence.




Hardly a consensus, and another proof you have no crediblitity.Using a scientifically ancient quote which in no way refers to the present state of climatology consensus view confirms that your laughable views are shallow and show no sign of an understanding of the issue.

Credibility? That horse passed you by years ago.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt

So far I see several nopes and a myth.What is the myth?



Since you didn't bother to provide any evidence of your opinion. I will assume it's just as bogus as all your other crap.You provided op-eds by industry supported flacks. Get real.




Especially since the IPCC specifically states:
"We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue was a done deal."Ummmmm......the quote which GW deniers love to post is speaking of the IPCC 1995 report.

The methodologies of climate change had undergone significant improvement and new evidence was produced in the 2001 report which more strongly confirmed GW and man's role in it. The consensus was strengthened as a result of these improved methods and evidence.




Hardly a consensus, and another proof you have no crediblitity.Using a scientifically ancient quote which in no way refers to the present state of climatology consensus view confirms that your laughable views are shallow and show no sign of an understanding of the issue.

Credibility? That horse passed you by years ago.


So basically, we take your word for it.
RIIIIIIIGGGHHHHHTTT!

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

So basically, we take your word for it.
RIIIIIIIGGGHHHHHTTT!Nyet, take the consensus word of the experts who work in the climatology field every day.

They are by far a much better source than op-eds from industry supported flacks and science challenged columnists.

Your credibility will thank you for this.

[Edited by geerair on 08-07-2006 at 07:27 PM]

[chillbilly]

quote:

This idiotic statement rates right up there with the dumbassed Rolling Stone critics you consider to be the "standard" for who is or isn't the best musician.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Sour grapes. They didn't agree with you so you work yourself into a crybaby snit.

----------------------------------------------------------



Not true. You arm yourself with a critics' analysis of musical talent without a majority consensus on the one hand, and then you play the majority of climatologists' card without showing the majority numbers you claim.
Convenient way of trying to win an argument without verifiable proof or credibility.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by chillbilly
quote:

This idiotic statement rates right up there with the dumbassed Rolling Stone critics you consider to be the "standard" for who is or isn't the best musician.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Sour grapes. They didn't agree with you so you work yourself into a crybaby snit.

----------------------------------------------------------



Not true. You arm yourself with a critics' analysis of musical talent without a majority consensus on the one hand, and then you play the majority of climatologists' card without showing the majority numbers you claim.
Convenient way of trying to win an argument without verifiable proof or credibility.

But geer said so, so it MUST be true.

[Special Ed]

Originally posted by geerair
Too bad Muggerige wasn't a biologist, it would have kept him from making such a fool and laughingstock of himself.

By this logic none of us should be debating this subject then. Because, as far as I know, none of us are biologists or climatologists.

[geerair]

Originally posted by Special Ed

Originally posted by geerair
Too bad Muggerige wasn't a biologist, it would have kept him from making such a fool and laughingstock of himself.

By this logic none of us should be debating this subject then. Because, as far as I know, none of us are biologists or climatologists. We don't need to be biologists or climatologists to debate. We only need sources of information. Some sources are much better and have more credibility than others.

In this case you have a journalist making an observation that is out of his area of expertise and as such merits little credibility as a source on the viability of evolution.

Now, wouldn't you think a biologist who works everyday in the biology field would have a better understanding of the viability of the theory of evolution than a journalist? More authority in making a statement on the viability of evolution?


Ed, we can debate away with every opinion under the sun thrown in. That does not mean certain opinions are worth listening to. That also does not mean every source supporting your opinion has authority or credibility.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by Special Ed

Originally posted by geerair
Too bad Muggerige wasn't a biologist, it would have kept him from making such a fool and laughingstock of himself.

By this logic none of us should be debating this subject then. Because, as far as I know, none of us are biologists or climatologists. We don't need to be biologists or climatologists to debate. We only need sources of information. Some sources are much better and have more credibility than others.

In this case you have a journalist making an observation that is out of his area of expertise and as such merits little credibility as a source on the viability of evolution.

Now, wouldn't you think a biologist who works everyday in the biology field would have a better understanding of the viability of the theory of evolution than a journalist? More authority in making a statement on the viability of evolution?


Ed, we can debate away with every opinion under the sun thrown in. That does not mean certain opinions are worth listening to. That also does not mean every source supporting your opinion has authority or credibility.

Remember everyone, No debate necessary, If geer says it's so, then it's so. His opinion is end all, be all. The alpha and the omega.
Quote his precious organizations and scientists and with omnipotent power he sweeps them away with a single "myth".
If only I had such power. The rest of us lowly mortals must rely on fact and truth.
If only we could all create our own truth from base desire, we could all be like geer.

[glennwith2ns]

Global warming---a little searching found this


"A Paleo Perspective on Global Warming"


by staff members of the NOAA Paleoclimatology Program.

found here-

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/work.html

One of the principal authors--Jonathan T. Overpeck


A very pro GW report, however delving a little deeper into the report you will find these statements( admittedly snipped)





"Satellite measurements have been used to reconstruct global atmospheric temperatures for the past 21 years.?Current calculations show the lower atmosphere to be warming at a rate of 0.12?F (0.06?C) per decade - an amount that is less rapid as indicated by ground-based thermometer and paleoclimatic data. It is uncertain why this disagreement exists."



"Much of the recent Arctic warming took place between 1850 and 1920, most likely due to natural processes,"




"the initiation of the warming in the mid-19th century suggests that increased solar irradiance, decreased volcanic activity, and feedbacks internal to the climate system played roles."




"The latest peer-reviewed paleoclimatic studies appear to confirm that the global warmth of the 20th century may not necessarily be the warmest time in Earth's history,"



"There is considerable debate centered on the cause of 20th century climate change. Few people contest the idea that some of the recent climate changes are likely due to natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar luminosity, and variations generated by natural interactions between parts of the climate system (for example, oceans and the atmosphere). There were significant climate changes before humans were around and there will be non-human causes of climate change in the future."



Hmmmmmm


P.S.

Just for some amusement read the comments at this site discussing a speech the author of this report gave somewhere--


http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=453

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

Remember everyone, No debate necessary, If geer says it's so, then it's so. His opinion is end all, be all. The alpha and the omega.
Quote his precious organizations and scientists and with omnipotent power he sweeps them away with a single "myth".
If only I had such power. The rest of us lowly mortals must rely on fact and truth.
If only we could all create our own truth from base desire, we could all be like geer. Another in a long series of skrewt anal orifice extractions.

[geerair]

Originally posted by glennwith2ns
Global warming---a little searching found this


"A Paleo Perspective on Global Warming"


by staff members of the NOAA Paleoclimatology Program.

found here-

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/work.html

One of the principal authors--Jonathan T. Overpeck


A very pro GW report, however delving a little deeper into the report you will find these statements( admittedly snipped)





"Satellite measurements have been used to reconstruct global atmospheric temperatures for the past 21 years.?Current calculations show the lower atmosphere to be warming at a rate of 0.12?F (0.06?C) per decade - an amount that is less rapid as indicated by ground-based thermometer and paleoclimatic data. It is uncertain why this disagreement exists."[quote]This report was done in 2000. I recall reading that the ground based and satellite data were reconciled. I will try to find a link for this.



[QUOTE]"Much of the recent Arctic warming took place between 1850 and 1920, most likely due to natural processes," The rest of the sentence: "whereas the warming after 1920 is increasingly difficult to ascribe to natural forcing."





"the initiation of the warming in the mid-19th century suggests that increased solar irradiance, decreased volcanic activity, and feedbacks internal to the climate system played roles."Couldn't find this one. Could you possibly direct me to its location?





"The latest peer-reviewed paleoclimatic studies appear to confirm that the global warmth of the 20th century may not necessarily be the warmest time in Earth's history,"The rest of the sentence: "what is unique is that the warmth is global and cannot be explained by natural processes."




"There is considerable debate centered on the cause of 20th century climate change. Few people contest the idea that some of the recent climate changes are likely due to natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar luminosity, and variations generated by natural interactions between parts of the climate system (for example, oceans and the atmosphere). There were significant climate changes before humans were around and there will be non-human causes of climate change in the future."The following paragraph: "Just the same, with each year, more and more climate scientists are coming to the conclusion that human activity is also causing the climate of the earth to change."



Well, you get credit for admitting you snipped out portions but the snipped out portions are crucial to the correct understanding of what is being related and in effect, changed what the authors intended to say. In other words quotemining.

[skrewt]

Well, you get credit for admitting you snipped out portions but the snipped out portions are crucial to the correct understanding of what is being related and in effect, changed what the authors intended to say. In other words quotemining.


And you, in turn, completely ignore the testimony and evidence of a culture of intimidation among climatologists that has effectively silenced most disagreement.
At this point among scientists, you either agree with human caused GW or STFU.
But you enjoy assisting the personal destruction attacks that have so effectively dampened the opposition.

You will one day see that there has been no honest debate on this subject. Anyone who disagrees is attacked, ignored or made fun of.
The foundations of the movement were based on flawed analysis and ever since politically motivated "scientists" have sought to make use of it for their own agenda.

I wonder sometimes geer, Have you ever personally known any scientists or researchers?
I have known quite a few and I must say out of the nearly 100 that I have done work for only 3 were honest scientists.
The rest were all "follow the money" whores.
Among the "follow the money" crowd, approximately %30 would follow the "buzz word" research but actually do some research.
The great bulk of them skated through their research, publishing BS papers about BS research all of it geared toward getting the next grant.

I realize this is anecdotal evidence based on my own experiences but I feel confident that they are pretty across the board accurate.
As a controls tech I have set up fume hoods and lab exhaust systems for researchers in NY, PA, MD, TX, KY, NJ, OH, NC, DE and MI. The story has been pretty typical in all of these places.

You may read science publications, but I have spoken to a wide range of scientists in many fields and can tell you with absolute truth, that they are indeed human and a great many take the easy road to easy money.

Don't trust everything you read.

I know you worship these demigods of science, but your religion has failed you.

[chillbilly]

ouch

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt
And you, in turn, completely ignore the testimony and evidence of a culture of intimidation among climatologists that has effectively silenced most disagreement.
At this point among scientists, you either agree with human caused GW or STFU.Effectively silenced? Laughable.
Having access to write op-eds in the Wall Street Journal is effectively silenced?

Having access to peer-reviewed journals is effectively silenced?

Having accesss to the pages and support of think-tank journals is effectively silenced?

No my friend, your GW deniers don't like it that their work is scrutinized by experts and found wanting.

Your industry consultants don't like it that their ties to the energy industries are reported.

No my friend, evidence is what counts. Come up with evidence to support your claims and the world of scientific journals is open to you. Your GW deniers are miffed because their work has been found to be not supported by the evidence presented.

Because of this they cry that they are being suppressed.




But you enjoy assisting the personal destruction attacks that have so effectively dampened the opposition.Get real. What you call personal destruction is in fact calling a spade a spade. Your sources would nave more credibility if they weren't supported by industry and right wing think tanks whose agenda is less science and more politics.



You will one day see that there has been no honest debate on this subject. Anyone who disagrees is attacked, ignored or made fun of.Bad science and undisclosed ties to industry and think tanks are attacked.






The foundations of the movement were based on flawed analysis and ever since politically motivated "scientists" have sought to make use of it for their own agenda.Priceless. The GW deniers are supported by industry and rightwing think tanks. Priceless indeed.




I wonder sometimes geer, Have you ever personally known any scientists or researchers?
I have known quite a few and I must say out of the nearly 100 that I have done work for only 3 were honest scientists.
The rest were all "follow the money" whores.
Among the "follow the money" crowd, approximately %30 would follow the "buzz word" research but actually do some research.
The great bulk of them skated through their research, publishing BS papers about BS research all of it geared toward getting the next grant.

I realize this is anecdotal evidence based on my own experiences but I feel confident that they are pretty across the board accurate.
As a controls tech I have set up fume hoods and lab exhaust systems for researchers in NY, PA, MD, TX, KY, NJ, OH, NC, DE and MI. The story has been pretty typical in all of these places.

You may read science publications, but I have spoken to a wide range of scientists in many fields and can tell you with absolute truth, that they are indeed human and a great many take the easy road to easy money.As you say all of this anecdotal. Try again when you have some hard evidence.


Don't trust everything you read.I trust the evidence.


I know you worship these demigods of science, but your religion has failed you.How so? I'm not the one trying to pass off op-eds, bad science and anecdotes as evidence.



To sum up, you have presented nothing but laughable whines that those you choose to believe (gee, the ones who support your rightwingnut views) are being suppressed and offer nothing in the way of evidence but op-eds, columnists and ancedotes.


I'm sorry that your political agenda is taking it on the chin from legitimate science but that is life and science. The evidence will ultimately win out in the end and that is just what is happening in climatology.

That this contradicts your political views is tough titty for you.







[Edited by geerair on 08-08-2006 at 11:07 AM]

[skrewt]

How so? I'm not the one trying to pass off op-eds, bad science and anecdotes as evidence.



To sum up, you have presented nothing but laughable whines that those you choose to believe (gee, the ones who support your rightwingnut views) are being suppressed and offer nothing in the way of evidence but op-eds, columnists and ancedotes.


I'm sorry that your political agenda is taking it on the chin from legitimate science but that is life and science. The evidence will ultimately win out in the end and that is just what is happening in climatology.

That this contradicts your political views is tough titty for you.
[Edited by geerair on 08-08-2006 at 11:07 AM] [/B]

You have presented no evidence other than your opinion about someone else's opinion, op-ed's and rhetoric.
Yet you somehow think you have the high ground.
You don't even look at the evidence presented from a reality viewpoint. That's OK though because (as stated) the scientists aren't either. They have an environmental agenda and will lie, cheat and steal to make it happen.
Drink your Koolaid and sleep well.

BTW, sorry this hurricaine season is a bust for the GW crowd. Apparently they can't predict hurricaines any better than they can predict global climate change.

[glennwith2ns]

"the initiation of the warming in the mid-19th century suggests that increased solar irradiance, decreased volcanic activity, and feedbacks internal to the climate system played roles."Couldn't find this one. Could you possibly direct me to its location?


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/sciencepub/front.htm







[Edited by glennwith2ns on 08-08-2006 at 10:18 PM]

[chillbilly]

Effectively refutes the supposed consensus of the "majority of climatologists" whose collecive statements we are still waiting for, not to mention the numbers to prove they are indeed a "majority" and not a figment of geer's imagination.

[skrewt]

One key fact that proves global warming is a political campaign rather than true science is the testimony given 25 years ago that NYC would be underwater in 20 years.
GW is simply an environmental whacko "sky is falling" ploy to squeeze money out of americans.
They wised up and moved the date of destruction out to 2100 so that they wouldn't be alive to face the music when it doesn't happen.

This is what happens when environmental politics gets just about everything it campaigns for, when the money starts to dry up, they find some other crisis to stoke the money fires.

[glennwith2ns]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by glennwith2ns
Global warming---a little searching found this


"A Paleo Perspective on Global Warming"


by staff members of the NOAA Paleoclimatology Program.

found here-

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/work.html

One of the principal authors--Jonathan T. Overpeck


A very pro GW report, however delving a little deeper into the report you will find these statements( admittedly snipped)





"Satellite measurements have been used to reconstruct global atmospheric temperatures for the past 21 years.?Current calculations show the lower atmosphere to be warming at a rate of 0.12?F (0.06?C) per decade - an amount that is less rapid as indicated by ground-based thermometer and paleoclimatic data. It is uncertain why this disagreement exists."[quote]This report was done in 2000. I recall reading that the ground based and satellite data were reconciled. I will try to find a link for this.



[QUOTE]"Much of the recent Arctic warming took place between 1850 and 1920, most likely due to natural processes," The rest of the sentence: "whereas the warming after 1920 is increasingly difficult to ascribe to natural forcing."

The point being that most of the Artic warming is due to natural forces





"the initiation of the warming in the mid-19th century suggests that increased solar irradiance, decreased volcanic activity, and feedbacks internal to the climate system played roles."Couldn't find this one. Could you possibly direct me to its location?





"The latest peer-reviewed paleoclimatic studies appear to confirm that the global warmth of the 20th century may not necessarily be the warmest time in Earth's history,"The rest of the sentence: "what is unique is that the warmth is global and cannot be explained by natural processes."


whats unique? See the second sentence in the quote below. Seems like a contradiction with their own report




"There is considerable debate centered on the cause of 20th century climate change. Few people contest the idea that some of the recent climate changes are likely due to natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar luminosity, and variations generated by natural interactions between parts of the climate system (for example, oceans and the atmosphere). There were significant climate changes before humans were around and there will be non-human causes of climate change in the future."The following paragraph: "Just the same, with each year, more and more climate scientists are coming to the conclusion that human activity is also causing the climate of the earth to change."


How much is human activity and how much is natural forces?



Well, you get credit for admitting you snipped out portions but the snipped out portions are crucial to the correct understanding of what is being related and in effect, changed what the authors intended to say. In other words quotemining.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt
You have presented no evidence other than your opinion about someone else's opinion, op-ed's and rhetoric.
Yet you somehow think you have the high ground.
You don't even look at the evidence presented from a reality viewpoint. That's OK though because (as stated) the scientists aren't either. They have an environmental agenda and will lie, cheat and steal to make it happen.
Drink your Koolaid and sleep well.

BTW, sorry this hurricaine season is a bust for the GW crowd. Apparently they can't predict hurricaines any better than they can predict global climate change.Blah, blah, blah. Go try to dig up something better than industry shills and wingnut columnists.

[geerair]

Originally posted by glennwith2ns


"the initiation of the warming in the mid-19th century suggests that increased solar irradiance, decreased volcanic activity, and feedbacks internal to the climate system played roles."Couldn't find this one. Could you possibly direct me to its location?


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/sciencepub/front.htm







[Edited by glennwith2ns on 08-08-2006 at 10:18 PM] Thanks glenn.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly [/i]
Effectively refutes the supposed consensus of the "majority of climatologists" whose collecive statements we are still waiting for, not to mention the numbers to prove they are indeed a "majority" and not a figment of geer's imagination. Hilarious. A couple of industry shills and a couple of wingnut columnists. That is what you call evidence and refutation? Man your standards are lower than a talking snake's belly.

This pales in comparison to the 2000+ climatologists who produced the IPPC report.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt
One key fact that proves global warming is a political campaign rather than true science is the testimony given 25 years ago that NYC would be underwater in 20 years.
GW is simply an environmental whacko "sky is falling" ploy to squeeze money out of americans.
They wised up and moved the date of destruction out to 2100 so that they wouldn't be alive to face the music when it doesn't happen.Who was it specifically that said this?


This is what happens when environmental politics gets just about everything it campaigns for, when the money starts to dry up, they find some other crisis to stoke the money fires. I'd say it is more about the media latching on to worst case scenarios in scientific studies to sell papers.

[geerair]

Originally posted by glennwith2ns


The point being that most of the Artic warming is due to natural forcesTrue enough, but what they are saying is that after 1920 natural causes cannot explain the warming that is happening now.







whats unique? See the second sentence in the quote below. Seems like a contradiction with their own reportThat the warming trend is global rather than local and that natural causes cannot be blamed for this global warming is unique. Before, the warming could be ascribed to natural causes but now the warming is above what can be ascribed to natural forces.




How much is human activity and how much is natural forceThat is still being worked out but the point is that the warming cannot be entirely blamed on natural causes anymore.

[chillbilly]

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YgTpMEUHtmsC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&sig=LmVfPHOOh4yWtag4E59PEGb2dfE&dq=IPCC+report+on+global+warming&prev=http://scholar.google.com/scholar%3Fq%3DIPCC%2Breport%2Bon%2Bglobal%2Bwarmin g%26num%3D20%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D

This book provides a thorough, updated briefing on Global Warming. The myths, the possibilities and the findings.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by chillbilly [/i]
Effectively refutes the supposed consensus of the "majority of climatologists" whose collecive statements we are still waiting for, not to mention the numbers to prove they are indeed a "majority" and not a figment of geer's imagination. Hilarious. A couple of industry shills and a couple of wingnut columnists. That is what you call evidence and refutation? Man your standards are lower than a talking snake's belly.

This pales in comparison to the 2000+ climatologists who produced the IPPC report.

You still have not provided any proof that 200+ is a majority, let alone a consensus.
Since consensus meands "generally agreed upon" a simple majority is not enough.
Pony up the proof skippy.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by chillbilly [/i]
Effectively refutes the supposed consensus of the "majority of climatologists" whose collecive statements we are still waiting for, not to mention the numbers to prove they are indeed a "majority" and not a figment of geer's imagination. Hilarious. A couple of industry shills and a couple of wingnut columnists. That is what you call evidence and refutation? Man your standards are lower than a talking snake's belly.

This pales in comparison to the 2000+ climatologists who produced the IPPC report.

You still have not provided any proof that 200+ is a majority, let alone a consensus.
Since consensus meands "generally agreed upon" a simple majority is not enough.
Pony up the proof skippy. Ummmmmm......that would be 2000+ Kemosabe.


IPPC Report is the consensus.


I know it is a difficult for you to fathom since you think op-eds by industry supported shills and columnists represent the climatologist view but it is really very simple.

The IPPC represents the consensus view in climatology. 2000+ contributed to it. Scientific papers support it. Dissent from the IPCC Report is scant.

Go dredge us up some more op-eds and rightwing science challenged columnists which constitute the bulk of your laughable support for your ideology driven view.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt
You have presented no evidence other than your opinion about someone else's opinion, op-ed's and rhetoric.
Yet you somehow think you have the high ground.
You don't even look at the evidence presented from a reality viewpoint. That's OK though because (as stated) the scientists aren't either. They have an environmental agenda and will lie, cheat and steal to make it happen.
Drink your Koolaid and sleep well.

BTW, sorry this hurricaine season is a bust for the GW crowd. Apparently they can't predict hurricaines any better than they can predict global climate change.Blah, blah, blah. Go try to dig up something better than industry shills and wingnut columnists.

How about liberal shills and leftwing columnists.
they seem good enough for your twilight zone reality.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

How about liberal shills and leftwing columnists.
they seem good enough for your twilight zone reality. Which ones specifically would those be?

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt

How about liberal shills and leftwing columnists.
they seem good enough for your twilight zone reality. Which ones specifically would those be?

To find one, just put the DNC list of members on the wall and throw a dart.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt
To find one, just put the DNC list of members on the wall and throw a dart. I'm a registered independant.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt
To find one, just put the DNC list of members on the wall and throw a dart. I'm a registered independant.

What does that have to do with anything?
You asked for a liberal shill and I told you how to find one.

[geerair]

Originally posted by skrewt

What does that have to do with anything?
You asked for a liberal shill and I told you how to find one.I'm still a registered independent.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt

What does that have to do with anything?
You asked for a liberal shill and I told you how to find one.I'm still a registered independent.

I shouldn't be surprised by this statement.
None of your other posts have any relevence to the topic at hand.

[geerair]

Priceless.