Jump to content

Where's The Data?


Fairweather

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 324
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

evolution is bullshit too b/c of those dumbass piltdown folks, right? :)

 

ya never answered the question in the other thread on this chestnut, fw - which is it?

a) the earth is not getting warmer

b) the earth is getting warmer, it just isn't the fault of man

 

you obviously don't go w/ c) the earth is warmer, and mankind has been a significant agent in that process

 

your answer is a pretty essential starting point for the conversation, no?

 

Actually, I did. You quit after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

evolution is bullshit too b/c of those dumbass piltdown folks, right? :)

 

ya never answered the question in the other thread on this chestnut, fw - which is it?

a) the earth is not getting warmer

b) the earth is getting warmer, it just isn't the fault of man

 

you obviously don't go w/ c) the earth is warmer, and mankind has been a significant agent in that process

 

your answer is a pretty essential starting point for the conversation, no?

 

Actually, I did. You quit after that.

i'm a poor sprayer then :( or maybe it was just drowned in an ocean of bullshit?

 

so what was it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CO2 may, in fact, be the cause--but to claim the science is settled to the same degree as, say, evolution or plate tectonics is ridiculous. Easterbrook thinks that solar output and natural decadal oscillations are largely to blame. I wouldn't be surprised if diminished albedo due to (anthropogenic)soot is a factor in glacial recession as well. There is a NASA study underway right now investigating this--which, of course, begs the question: Is this really settled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's settled. Everything you mentioned is a secondary or tertiary factor, orders of magnitude less important than man made CO2...which, BTW, has a distinct isotopic signature as compared to volcanism and other natural sources (duh).

 

Your albedo argument is a joke, right?

 

In addition, solar output, while VERY SLOWLY increasing, doesn't (and hasn't) changed fast enough to play a significant role.

 

Yours is a dilletante's argument...wafer thin knowledge of the processes, cherry picked out of context, without regard to relative magnitude, to fit what you want to be true.

Edited by tvashtarkatena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CO2 may, in fact, be the cause--but to claim the science is settled to the same degree as, say, evolution or plate tectonics is ridiculous. Easterbrook thinks that solar output and natural decadal oscillations are largely to blame. I wouldn't be surprised if diminished albedo due to (anthropogenic)soot is a factor in glacial recession as well. There is a NASA study underway right now investigating this--which, of course, begs the question: Is this really settled?

 

Ivan. You gonna ask me this again in a couple months? Where's the quid pro quo from cc.com's only libnontard? :wazup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fairweather, who is a really upstanding person, is nonetheless demonstrably ill-equipped to evaluate current events. He's easily duped and therefore engenders an odd ombination of pity and hostility. Perhaps this is actually what he seeks. But who knows?

 

Utterly unrelated to no-nothing views like those of Fairweather, is Freeman Dyson, who is regarded as mostly a genius with decades of amazing credentials in science, and also, slightly, a crank in his extreme old age:

 

"In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right. It may—or may not—be that the present is such a time."

 

The essay by Dyson, despite its skepticism of conventional wisdom, actually answers Fairweather's question about data.

 

By definition, however, know-nothings like Fairweather are utterly impervious to knowledge and information.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More awesomeness from the Guardian: :sick:

 

Your friends

 

This Copenhagen treaty is a very bad deal & I'm glad our government has good sense in this regard.

 

He mentions Kyoto & how Canada exceeded it's targets..uhh...so did every freaking country who signed on. But when you call bullshit on it and say it's not worth the tons of paper it's printed on people call you a climate destroyer...it's called realistic.

 

I would be very wary of anything the Europeans are pushing in this regard. They're the last people I would trust as doing this for the good of mankind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US government will fight doing anything to curtail global warming as long as it's got a corporate cock both up its ass and in its mouth, which will probably be for the foreseeable future.

 

Unfortunately, at this point, it's going to take massive government intervention to stave off disaster.

 

So, expect disaster. The shit will go down, regardless of our shitty little squabbles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I know is that Greenland and Antarctica are black with soot. The glaciers look like an Xray of Ivan's lungs. Check out the satellite photos: their libidos are through the roof. That may or may not also resemble Ivan, I wouldn't know, so STFU about it.

 

Stop barbequing, people. Or barbequing people, for that matter.

Edited by tvashtarkatena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...