R
rdean
Guest
What does the right know about "science". The don't believe that "evolution" is science and scoff at education. Let's all give a big Sarah Palin "eye-roll".
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then YOU say, "the science is settled".Funny, at least the blog knew enough that this abstract was close to worthless. Here, Rocks. I've highlighted the value of your 'proof' (bold).Here we have the other self proclaimed 'scientist' yapping about 'logic', yet not presenting a single peice of evidence to show the why the the warming we are experiancing is a chimera.
I think that you are Walleye are quite a pair to draw to. Self proclaimed scientists that eschew any presentation of real science.
APS -APS March Meeting 2010 - Event - Global Response to Global Warming: Geoengineering with Stratospheric Aerosols
Session B8: Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Redux: The Physics of Global Catastrophes and Global Countermeasures
11:15 AM2:15 PM, Monday, March 15, 2010
Room: Portland Ballroom 255
Sponsoring Unit: FIP
Chair: John W. Clark, Washington University in St. Louis
Abstract ID: BAPS.2010.MAR.B8.4
Abstract: B8.00004 : Global Response to Global Warming: Geoengineering with Stratospheric Aerosols
1:03 PM1:39 PM
Preview Abstract
Author:
Jonathan Katz
(Washington University)
Despite efforts to stabilize the atmospheric CO$_2$ concentration, it is possible that the climate system could respond abruptly with unanticipated catastrophic consequences. Intentional intervention (``geoengineering'') has been proposed to avoid or ameliorate such consequences has been proposed. One contemplated intervention would be the injection of artificial aerosols into the stratosphere to reduce the amount of shortwave (visible and near-IR) Solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth. Natural volcanic injections of sulfate aerosols are known to produce short-lived (about a year) cooling, providing a ``proof of principle''. Artificial production and injection of aerosols involves a number of poorly understood physical and chemical processes, as well as a choice of aerosol material and injection method. I will outline some of these technical issues and unanswered questions.
Yet, what you posted does nothing to refute what I said about your blog. They invoke 'consensus' (a logical fallacy, by the way) in the first line of the second paragraph and invoke rhetoric to argue AGAINST the Logic of Scientific Discovery. (I love the fact that I repeat myself, especially when it's in writing.)
Maybe you could attempt to refute what I actually posted, if you comprehend it at all, that is. Or, just keep making shit up for me. At least that's amusing.
And, I have to wonder who the hell reviewed this abstract, if anyone, with the presence of what is underlined.
Have a great day, dude. Those outside of reality usually do.
Have a great day yourself, posier. A scientist you are not. Adaquete proof of which you have just posted. Holy Roller Preachers speak in absolutes, scientists do not. In fact, the words you bolded will be present in almost all scientific articles.
Climate is far from completely understood. Yet the predictions that have been made so far have almost all been far too conservative. Two big freighters taking the Northeast Passage before 2010 was something no one predicted. The beginning of the outgassing of the Artic Ocean clatrates before mid-century was definately in no ones predictions. It has already began.
I'm on the right. The 'absolutes' of the left are amazing.What does the right know about "science". The don't believe that "evolution" is science and scoff at education. Let's all give a big Sarah Palin "eye-roll".
I'm on the right. The 'absolutes' of the left are amazing.What does the right know about "science". The don't believe that "evolution" is science and scoff at education. Let's all give a big Sarah Palin "eye-roll".
BTW, you forgot to tell me that 6% of scientists are Republican.
Concerning lies and liars.
Distorting science while invoking science Climate Progress
Distorting science while invoking science
Debating science shouldnt enable antiscience disinformation
August 10, 2010
Guest authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway share some research from their recent must-read book Merchants of Doubt, which is reviewed here. The book documents how the cast of characters peddling pseudo-science had been stunningly consistent over the years, from secondhand smoke skeptics to Star Wars missile defense proponents to modern climate science deniers. Naomi Oreskes is a professor of history of science and provost of Sixth College at UC San Diego, and Erik Conway is a historian of science and technology, living in Pasadena, California. This is cross-posted at Science Progress.
Despite a two decades old consensus among climate scientists that the globe is warming, many people believe that there is still an active debate. This is due in large part to a direct and strategic public relations campaign being waged behind the scenes by free market-fundamentalists and funded by big polluters. Big industries such as tobacco, oil, and coal, aided by conservative foundations and the free-market ideologues who inhabit them, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to undermine science and scientists. In doing so, they make it difficult, if not close to impossible, for ordinary people to get the information upon which reasoned public policy should be based.
This coalition, promoting disinformation while claiming to be dedicated to science, is nothing new. In fact, todays climate deniers are using the same playbook used by supporters of Ronald Reagans failed Star Wars program in the 1980s, and by the tobacco industry to avoid regulation of secondhand smoke in the 1990s. Indeed, science denial, free-market fundamentalists, and big industries have a long and sorry past together.
Concerning lies and liars.
Distorting science while invoking science Climate Progress
Distorting science while invoking science
Debating science shouldnt enable antiscience disinformation
August 10, 2010
Guest authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway share some research from their recent must-read book Merchants of Doubt, which is reviewed here. The book documents how the cast of characters peddling pseudo-science had been stunningly consistent over the years, from secondhand smoke skeptics to Star Wars missile defense proponents to modern climate science deniers. Naomi Oreskes is a professor of history of science and provost of Sixth College at UC San Diego, and Erik Conway is a historian of science and technology, living in Pasadena, California. This is cross-posted at Science Progress.
Despite a two decades old consensus among climate scientists that the globe is warming, many people believe that there is still an active debate. This is due in large part to a direct and strategic public relations campaign being waged behind the scenes by free market-fundamentalists and funded by big polluters. Big industries such as tobacco, oil, and coal, aided by conservative foundations and the free-market ideologues who inhabit them, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to undermine science and scientists. In doing so, they make it difficult, if not close to impossible, for ordinary people to get the information upon which reasoned public policy should be based.
This coalition, promoting disinformation while claiming to be dedicated to science, is nothing new. In fact, todays climate deniers are using the same playbook used by supporters of Ronald Reagans failed Star Wars program in the 1980s, and by the tobacco industry to avoid regulation of secondhand smoke in the 1990s. Indeed, science denial, free-market fundamentalists, and big industries have a long and sorry past together.