how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[Foxfyre]

Forgive me if I focus on global warming on a thread that was started to discuss global warming. I'm funny that way despite it irritating you so much.

I pointed out the hypocrisy of you only applying your "everything we know could be wrong!" logic solely to global warming, thus demonstrating how invalid the logic was. I directly addressed your point. And instead of you addressing your own point, you now go with a victim act. It's getting old. As is your innocent and independent act, given how obvious your cult affiliation is.

So the Forbes articles cited several scientific groups,

You misspelled "lied about several scientific groups."

If you've got a specific point to make about the science, then talk about the science. Don't keep pulling the "refute my whole cut and paste point by point!" song and dance. That gets the derision it justifiably deserves.

I already told you you need to study this, and to refute all 174 points, as all of your propaganda dumps are covered in it somewhere. You've ignored it so far.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

Until you refute all 174 points, please don't bother with your "you must refute my sources in detail, but I can totally ignore your sources" schtick. Either both or neither of us get to play the dump game.

Has anybody else noticed how similar Mamooth, Saigon, and PMZ are in their syntax, methodology, and tactics here?

Has anyone else noticed how, when you flummox a denialist cultist, they usually respond by fleeing from the issue in favor of some red herring, such as implying someone is a sock? Rather cowardly and dishonest of them. If they could address the issues, they would. They can't, hence the reason for such evasions.

Flee from the issue? Not at all. You're the one condemning me for focusing on the global warming issue instead of dragging everything else I have ever posted about into it, remember?

And I didn't ask for refutation of 174 points. I would be happy with authoritative refutation of a single point made in the Forbes article I posted. You refer to the author as a political hack though he boasts some pretty damn impressive credentials. But I was not nearly as interested in his point of view as I was interested in the opinion of the scientific groups he cited.

Please pick just one of those groups and give me any kind of authoritative reason to believe they are wrong as reported in that article. That's not too hard is it?

And I accused nobody of being anybody's sock. I just noted that you and Saigon and PMZ are remarkably similar in what you agree on--which is everything--in how you defend each other, in how you post, in the tactics you utilize, and in the syntax you use. Just an observation.

 

[IanC]

Why don't you apply your "well, we could be totally wrong!" logic to any and every other field of human endeavor? Your very convenient selective application of such awful logic to only the global warming issue would seem to indicate that even you don't take it seriously.

By the way, your Forbes piece was laughable, as no one seriously thinks the sun is getting colder, and temperatures were still increasing as the sun was waning in the last cycle. It was junk science from a political hack. Even if the sun did get colder, the cooling effects of it would be overwhelmed by the warming effects of a few years of CO2 emissions. There's no ice age imminent, as humans have probably already cancelled the next ice age with our actions. In any case, roasting the earth now to prevent an ice age in 23000 years is a dumb idea.

Forgive me if I focus on global warming on a thread that was started to discuss global warming. I'm funny that way despite it irritating you so much.

So the Forbes articles cited several scientific groups, including NASA, that are studying the issue of global cooling. Perhaps you can provide some authoritative source that would dispute what these scientific groups are reporting?

Has anybody else noticed how similar Mamooth, Saigon, and PMZ are in their syntax, methodology, and tactics here?

dont worry about those guys, they just believe that their unequivical explanation of very equivical data is the only possible explanation. polarbear, SSDD and wirebender are extremists at the other end of the scale. most of us have favourite specific opinions on certain aspects of global warming that are stated more emphatically than the evidence would suggest. eg westwall is certain that CO2 lags the temp by 600 years, old rocks thinks the clathrates are going to 'let go', and I think Michael Mann should be publically scorned and pilloried if not actually sent to jail.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why don't you apply your "well, we could be totally wrong!" logic to any and every other field of human endeavor? Your very convenient selective application of such awful logic to only the global warming issue would seem to indicate that even you don't take it seriously.

By the way, your Forbes piece was laughable, as no one seriously thinks the sun is getting colder, and temperatures were still increasing as the sun was waning in the last cycle. It was junk science from a political hack. Even if the sun did get colder, the cooling effects of it would be overwhelmed by the warming effects of a few years of CO2 emissions. There's no ice age imminent, as humans have probably already cancelled the next ice age with our actions. In any case, roasting the earth now to prevent an ice age in 23000 years is a dumb idea.

Forgive me if I focus on global warming on a thread that was started to discuss global warming. I'm funny that way despite it irritating you so much.

So the Forbes articles cited several scientific groups, including NASA, that are studying the issue of global cooling. Perhaps you can provide some authoritative source that would dispute what these scientific groups are reporting?

Has anybody else noticed how similar Mamooth, Saigon, and PMZ are in their syntax, methodology, and tactics here?

dont worry about those guys, they just believe that their unequivical explanation of very equivical data is the only possible explanation. polarbear, SSDD and wirebender are extremists at the other end of the scale. most of us have favourite specific opinions on certain aspects of global warming that are stated more emphatically than the evidence would suggest. eg westwall is certain that CO2 lags the temp by 600 years, old rocks thinks the clathrates are going to 'let go', and I think Michael Mann should be publically scorned and pilloried if not actually sent to jail.

I don't generally worry about the opinions of anybody on a message board unless I think they are dangerous to themselves or others in real life. Deliberately dangerous I mean. Not stupid dangerous.

But yes, those of us who seriously discuss this subject all have somewhat different points of view. That is what makes a discussion of the topic so interesting and, when people are willing to discuss the actual issues involved, makes it also informative and a learning experience. If we all thought and believed and perceived exactly alike, there would be nothing to discuss and no point actually. It would be like us discussing the path of the Earth around the sun. There wouldn't really be much to say would there?

It is the unknowns and uncertainties and unpredictability of climate change, plus the possible ramifications for we inhabitants of the Earth, that makes it so interesting.

And my primary concern at this time is that we do not allow an over-reaching, self serving, ambitious, and/or misguided government to take away our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to accommodate what very well may be flawed or bogus science no matter who perpetuates it.

 

[gslack]

in my experience polarbear is a blowhard who goes off chasing red herrings rather than directly address the issue at hand. I have no problem with that except that he dishonourably supports weak thinking by sycophants like gslack by ignoring their fundemental mistakes while attacking those 'with a different position' by making strawman claims against them or criticizing their 'ambiguous' grammar.

BTW, I am a fullblown skeptic who sees the whole CAGW CO2 theory as insignificant. I just believe that denying the physics mechanism behind it is detrimental to the skeptical cause. as do the majority of big time influential skeptics (yah,yah, appeal to authority, blah,blah).

CO2 is a barrier to free escape of 15 IR radiation from the surface (or in from the Sun, as I pointed out long before polarbear did). some of that dispersed energy returns to the surface where it 'cancels out' some of the surface outgoing radiation but the net movement of energy is always away from the surface to the atmosphere under normal conditions. CO2 does not heat the surface, the sun heats the surface. CO2 changes the equilibrium by reducing the output from the surface. just not by any significant amount.

edit- CO2 does significantly affect the surface temperature, mankind's addition to the CO2 content of the atmosphere does not significantly alter the temperature

Really Ian? By fundamental mistakes you mean questioning your logic right?

Please point out these fundamental mistakes to me.. Oh and make sure you point out the post from a couple years ago,you the ones.. Fermat's last theorem rings a bell...I remember a certain internet fake mathematician who didn't recognize it. And then tried to pretend it was an obscure formula that most didn't know about.

LOL, one of the most famous simple equations around, one that took hundreds of years to be proven by a computer,one not everyone would know about, but every serious mathematics student most certainly would.

You can insult me all you like, but it will hide the fact you got caught several times by me, being full of it.

Polarbear does the math. he shows it here quite often, if not at least explains it. You on the other hand, all you do is post a comment here or there about someone else's work, giving hints of good logic and mathematical base, but always lacking in some fundamental way.

Oh and let's not forget your "numan" qualities..."Red Herring, Red Herring!".. LOL

ahhhhh.....you are going back to when you were wirebender's toady. I answered your question by stating it was an old time mathematician with an unanswered question. I believe I suggested Decartes. I then asked you about the pH of water as the temperature increased and you refused to even make a guess. back then you were stating that studies on physical waves in oil were making startling advances in the understanding of photons. I wish I could think of more of your whoppers but typically they make so little sense that they are difficult to remember. I dont really care if you latch yourself onto wirebender or SSDD or polarbear and just uncritically agree with whatever they say. but it doesnt mean that you are intellectual ballpark as they are. even when they are wrong they are still a helluva lot smarter than you.

And there we see why I call you dishonest...

Going to downplay the fact a self-proclaimed mathematician of some sort ( that'd be you) would not recognize Fermat's last theorem? And pretend that the double-slit experiment is somehow an improper experiment???

LOL, it's your persona you're outing here fake, so be it....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

The double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment (after Young's interference experiment), is a demonstration that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and demonstrates the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena.

A nice graphic...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Young_experiment.gif

Your fake mathematics "expert" nonsense is tiresome. You're a fraud just like all the other internet fakes we have on here lately. I don't think the fact you claim tobe something you're not, and lately we have a rash of people claiming to be things they are not is a coincidence at all..

Fact is you are a liar, and an obvious fake, and I for one am not fooled by your act.

 

[IanC]

Really Ian? By fundamental mistakes you mean questioning your logic right?

Please point out these fundamental mistakes to me.. Oh and make sure you point out the post from a couple years ago,you the ones.. Fermat's last theorem rings a bell...I remember a certain internet fake mathematician who didn't recognize it. And then tried to pretend it was an obscure formula that most didn't know about.

LOL, one of the most famous simple equations around, one that took hundreds of years to be proven by a computer,one not everyone would know about, but every serious mathematics student most certainly would.

You can insult me all you like, but it will hide the fact you got caught several times by me, being full of it.

Polarbear does the math. he shows it here quite often, if not at least explains it. You on the other hand, all you do is post a comment here or there about someone else's work, giving hints of good logic and mathematical base, but always lacking in some fundamental way.

Oh and let's not forget your "numan" qualities..."Red Herring, Red Herring!".. LOL

ahhhhh.....you are going back to when you were wirebender's toady. I answered your question by stating it was an old time mathematician with an unanswered question. I believe I suggested Decartes. I then asked you about the pH of water as the temperature increased and you refused to even make a guess. back then you were stating that studies on physical waves in oil were making startling advances in the understanding of photons. I wish I could think of more of your whoppers but typically they make so little sense that they are difficult to remember. I dont really care if you latch yourself onto wirebender or SSDD or polarbear and just uncritically agree with whatever they say. but it doesnt mean that you are intellectual ballpark as they are. even when they are wrong they are still a helluva lot smarter than you.

And there we see why I call you dishonest...

Going to downplay the fact a self-proclaimed mathematician of some sort ( that'd be you) would not recognize Fermat's last theorem? And pretend that the double-slit experiment is somehow an improper experiment???

LOL, it's your persona you're outing here fake, so be it....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

The double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment (after Young's interference experiment), is a demonstration that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and demonstrates the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena.

A nice graphic...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Young_experiment.gif

Your fake mathematics "expert" nonsense is tiresome. You're a fraud just like all the other internet fakes we have on here lately. I don't think the fact you claim tobe something you're not, and lately we have a rash of people claiming to be things they are not is a coincidence at all..

Fact is you are a liar, and an obvious fake, and I for one am not fooled by your act.

Hahaha care to quote where I said I was a mathematician? I am literate in math and science but so what?

Why are you bringing up the double slit experiment? You had nothing to say about superposition or the polarization paradox, instead you linked to a mechanical wave study in oil. Not many people confuse light waves with waves propagated in a media.

I am sorry that you are somewhat slow witted but that is not my responsibility. Go back to your uninformed ad homs.

 

[westwall]

Why don't you apply your "well, we could be totally wrong!" logic to any and every other field of human endeavor? Your very convenient selective application of such awful logic to only the global warming issue would seem to indicate that even you don't take it seriously.

By the way, your Forbes piece was laughable, as no one seriously thinks the sun is getting colder, and temperatures were still increasing as the sun was waning in the last cycle. It was junk science from a political hack. Even if the sun did get colder, the cooling effects of it would be overwhelmed by the warming effects of a few years of CO2 emissions. There's no ice age imminent, as humans have probably already cancelled the next ice age with our actions. In any case, roasting the earth now to prevent an ice age in 23000 years is a dumb idea.

Forgive me if I focus on global warming on a thread that was started to discuss global warming. I'm funny that way despite it irritating you so much.

So the Forbes articles cited several scientific groups, including NASA, that are studying the issue of global cooling. Perhaps you can provide some authoritative source that would dispute what these scientific groups are reporting?

Has anybody else noticed how similar Mamooth, Saigon, and PMZ are in their syntax, methodology, and tactics here?

dont worry about those guys, they just believe that their unequivical explanation of very equivical data is the only possible explanation. polarbear, SSDD and wirebender are extremists at the other end of the scale. most of us have favourite specific opinions on certain aspects of global warming that are stated more emphatically than the evidence would suggest. eg westwall is certain that CO2 lags the temp by 600 years, old rocks thinks the clathrates are going to 'let go', and I think Michael Mann should be publically scorned and pilloried if not actually sent to jail.

Actually the peer reviewed studies estimate a 400-800 lag. Just to be accurate.

 

[gslack]

ahhhhh.....you are going back to when you were wirebender's toady. I answered your question by stating it was an old time mathematician with an unanswered question. I believe I suggested Decartes. I then asked you about the pH of water as the temperature increased and you refused to even make a guess. back then you were stating that studies on physical waves in oil were making startling advances in the understanding of photons. I wish I could think of more of your whoppers but typically they make so little sense that they are difficult to remember. I dont really care if you latch yourself onto wirebender or SSDD or polarbear and just uncritically agree with whatever they say. but it doesnt mean that you are intellectual ballpark as they are. even when they are wrong they are still a helluva lot smarter than you.

And there we see why I call you dishonest...

Going to downplay the fact a self-proclaimed mathematician of some sort ( that'd be you) would not recognize Fermat's last theorem? And pretend that the double-slit experiment is somehow an improper experiment???

LOL, it's your persona you're outing here fake, so be it....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

The double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment (after Young's interference experiment), is a demonstration that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and demonstrates the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena.

A nice graphic...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Young_experiment.gif

Your fake mathematics "expert" nonsense is tiresome. You're a fraud just like all the other internet fakes we have on here lately. I don't think the fact you claim tobe something you're not, and lately we have a rash of people claiming to be things they are not is a coincidence at all..

Fact is you are a liar, and an obvious fake, and I for one am not fooled by your act.

Hahaha care to quote where I said I was a mathematician? I am literate in math and science but so what?

Why are you bringing up the double slit experiment? You had nothing to say about superposition or the polarization paradox, instead you linked to a mechanical wave study in oil. Not many people confuse light waves with waves propagated in a media.

I am sorry that you are somewhat slow witted but that is not my responsibility. Go back to your uninformed ad homs.

LOL, very funny yet somehow your inability or just preference of NOT READING what people post has just shown again how utterly full of it you are..

You're claims that wire's math was wrong previously and your continued claims against me and everyone else and our "slow-witted-ness" gives at least the impression you somehow think yourself mentally or at least educationally above the rest of poor souls. So any mistake as to your credentials are due to your pretense clown.. Don't act like an expert if you don't want to be called on it...

Now as to your misconception of the double-slit experiment. It works in more ways then the hypothetical superposition, it also shows the concept of wave-particle duality..

My quote again..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

The double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment (after Young's interference experiment), is a demonstration that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and demonstrates the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena.

Now you can play pretend dumbass now if you like but anybody with half the level of knowledge you pretend to have would know this and I wouldn't have to explain it over and over...The same type of experiment is accomplished in many different ways. Again someone with your claimed mathematical chops would know this.. Here read something...

Can fluid dynamics offer insights into quantum mechanics? - MIT News Office

Recently, Yves Couder, a physicist at Université Paris Diderot, has conducted a series of experiments in which millimeter-scale fluid droplets, bouncing up and down on a vibrated fluid bath, are guided by the waves that they themselves produce. In many respects, the droplets behave like quantum particles, and in a recent commentary in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, John Bush, an applied mathematician at MIT who specializes in fluid dynamics, suggests that experiments like Couder’s may ultimately shed light on some of the peculiarities of quantum mechanics.

Now please play stupid and pretend you don't understand it again. We love seeing you dance..

 

[IanC]

Forgive me if I focus on global warming on a thread that was started to discuss global warming. I'm funny that way despite it irritating you so much.

So the Forbes articles cited several scientific groups, including NASA, that are studying the issue of global cooling. Perhaps you can provide some authoritative source that would dispute what these scientific groups are reporting?

Has anybody else noticed how similar Mamooth, Saigon, and PMZ are in their syntax, methodology, and tactics here?

dont worry about those guys, they just believe that their unequivical explanation of very equivical data is the only possible explanation. polarbear, SSDD and wirebender are extremists at the other end of the scale. most of us have favourite specific opinions on certain aspects of global warming that are stated more emphatically than the evidence would suggest. eg westwall is certain that CO2 lags the temp by 600 years, old rocks thinks the clathrates are going to 'let go', and I think Michael Mann should be publically scorned and pilloried if not actually sent to jail.

Actually the peer reviewed studies estimate a 400-800 lag. Just to be accurate.

Lol, I stand corrected

 

[PMZ]

Every year scientists around the world move back the borders of ignorance that have limited mankind since the beginning. With every proof they then begin the process of education to spread the knowledge from the handful of experts on the frontier back through the ranks and eventually it becomes what we call common knowledge. Much of Einstein's work is still in that process.

It's strange that almost always, that process, while slow, is uncontested. The vast majority of scientific advancements are merely accepted as something that the narrowest, deepest intellects have proven and the rest of us may struggle to understand, but have no ability or reason to question.

There have been a couple of notable exceptions. One is evolution and natural selection. Why has that been contested for so long? Not because it is based on weaker science, but because it conflicted with, at least in many minds, the completely unproven, unsupportable creation myths that seemed fundamental to organized religion. In other words, there was a huge stake put at risk by the discovery of the truth.

Another, similar situation is climate change. It is, in truth, a very certain discovery by science but it's truth disturbs established forces. In this case, big oil and all of its appendages who have a huge financial stake in our obsolete assumption that their waste products can be disposed of in our atmosphere benignly.

In truth our permission for them to continue to do that has monumental costs associated with it. If we acted on our knowledge of the truth of climate change, and insisted that those who profit from fossil fuels bear the cost of disposing of their waste, the financial impact on them and us would be catastrophic.

Rather than take on that extremely difficult political challange, big oil, with some help from their friends, have funded their only possible defense. Reasonable doubt.

Will that avoid any of the costs that science has proven will need to be spent in order to avoid even higher costs? No, they'll be made worse. Does it allow big oil a few more years of high profits before the inevitable reckoning? Certainly. That's why funding the reasonable doubt defense is such a great investment for them.

Make more money regardless ofthe cost to others on steroids.

 

[gslack]

Every year scientists around the world move back the borders of ignorance that have limited mankind since the beginning. With every proof they then begin the process of education to spread the knowledge from the handful of experts on the frontier back through the ranks and eventually it becomes what we call common knowledge. Much of Einstein's work is still in that process.

It's strange that almost always, that process, while slow, is uncontested. The vast majority of scientific advancements are merely accepted as something that the narrowest, deepest intellects have proven and the rest of us may struggle to understand, but have no ability or reason to question.

There have been a couple of notable exceptions. One is evolution and natural selection. Why has that been contested for so long? Not because it is based on weaker science, but because it conflicted with, at least in many minds, the completely unproven, unsupportable creation myths that seemed fundamental to organized religion. In other words, there was a huge stake put at risk by the discovery of the truth.

Another, similar situation is climate change. It is, in truth, a very certain discovery by science but it's truth disturbs established forces. In this case, big oil and all of its appendages who have a huge financial stake in our obsolete assumption that their waste products can be disposed of in our atmosphere benignly.

In truth our permission for them to continue to do that has monumental costs associated with it. If we acted on our knowledge of the truth of climate change, and insisted that those who profit from fossil fuels bear the cost of disposing of their waste, the financial impact on them and us would be catastrophic.

Rather than take on that extremely difficult political challange, big oil, with some help from their friends, have funded their only possible defense. Reasonable doubt.

Will that avoid any of the costs that science has proven will need to be spent in order to avoid even higher costs? No, they'll be made worse. Does it allow big oil a few more years of high profits before the inevitable reckoning? Certainly. That's why funding the reasonable doubt defense is such a great investment for them.

Make more money regardless ofthe cost to others on steroids.

Yes and in all your rambling at what part in any of it did you say anything regarding this topic, or any other points raised in the various posts here?

Thank you for the philosophical rhetoric but it wasn't needed, nor asked for..

 

[FactFinder]

how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

That is damned egotistical. We are a speck on this planet...inconsequential. Y'all must be stuck in some population center heehee 'city dwelling' Take a close look, Most of the planet is uninhabited by humans. I think, that is a good thing given the warped perceptions.

 

[PMZ]

It's funny that there is zero science behind benign disposal of fossil fuel wastes in our atmosphere, but those hired by big oil to defend their atrosity insist that science must prove to them that what they have no proof of is wrong.

 

[westwall]

It's funny that there is zero science behind benign disposal of fossil fuel wastes in our atmosphere, but those hired by big oil to defend their atrosity insist that science must prove to them that what they have no proof of is wrong.

Yep. And there's ZERO empirical data to support the idea that CO2 is the driver of global temps. There is however, empirical data that says it isn't. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

[westwall]

Every year scientists around the world move back the borders of ignorance that have limited mankind since the beginning. With every proof they then begin the process of education to spread the knowledge from the handful of experts on the frontier back through the ranks and eventually it becomes what we call common knowledge. Much of Einstein's work is still in that process.

It's strange that almost always, that process, while slow, is uncontested. The vast majority of scientific advancements are merely accepted as something that the narrowest, deepest intellects have proven and the rest of us may struggle to understand, but have no ability or reason to question.

There have been a couple of notable exceptions. One is evolution and natural selection. Why has that been contested for so long? Not because it is based on weaker science, but because it conflicted with, at least in many minds, the completely unproven, unsupportable creation myths that seemed fundamental to organized religion. In other words, there was a huge stake put at risk by the discovery of the truth.

Another, similar situation is climate change. It is, in truth, a very certain discovery by science but it's truth disturbs established forces. In this case, big oil and all of its appendages who have a huge financial stake in our obsolete assumption that their waste products can be disposed of in our atmosphere benignly.

In truth our permission for them to continue to do that has monumental costs associated with it. If we acted on our knowledge of the truth of climate change, and insisted that those who profit from fossil fuels bear the cost of disposing of their waste, the financial impact on them and us would be catastrophic.

Rather than take on that extremely difficult political challange, big oil, with some help from their friends, have funded their only possible defense. Reasonable doubt.

Will that avoid any of the costs that science has proven will need to be spent in order to avoid even higher costs? No, they'll be made worse. Does it allow big oil a few more years of high profits before the inevitable reckoning? Certainly. That's why funding the reasonable doubt defense is such a great investment for them.

Make more money regardless ofthe cost to others on steroids.

The money is being made by the warmist's idiot. Over 100 billion given to them so far and they want to create an entirely new monetary system with them at the controls. Do try and keep up.

 

[Old Rocks]

In recent decades, humankind has advanced scientific knowledge by huge leaps and bounds. And yet I personally believe we still only have a tiny fraction of all there is to know. A civilization from a distant planet able to visit us here would be maybe 100,000 years more advanced in technology and understanding of how things work than we are. Or 50 years more advanced than we are. Who knows?

I was just watching a news story of a 14-year-old boy who was diagnosed as autistic and severely disabled at Age 3. Turns out this kid has an IQ off the charts--far surpassing Einstein. He taught himself and mastered advanced calculus in two weeks and now teaches advanced college math courses.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been regarded to about as close to settled science as it gets for some time now. This kid believes he can show how Einstein was wrong and is currently working on that project.

If he succeeds, how much more wrong about environmental science might far less capable and knowledgable scientists be?

We are all wise to not swallow hook, line, and sinker and deem credible a lot of self-serving 'science' that has a high potential for significant error.

You folks excessively obsessed with CO2 and whether that is or is not warming the planet in a dangerous way are quite likely to miss out on the possibility that we have entered the process toward an inevitable little ice age.

Apparently you are not aware that even Einstein regard his General Theory of Relitivity as flawed, and was seeking a Grand Unified Theory to the day of his death. Newton was not wrong, Einstein was not wrong, they advanced the understanding of the universe in their day. And, as we learn more, all present theories will be supplanted by that knowledge.

We are wise, if we think that present science is flawed, to do basic research into that science, and learn the source of those flaws. To stand and state that the science is flawed, with no knowledge at all of science involved, is an indication of extreme ignorance and egotism.

We should be slowly entering another ice age, by the Milankovic Cycles. Instead, we are rapidly warming. And the only major change that could drive that warming is the increase in anthropogenic GHG's.

 

[Old Rocks]

Every year scientists around the world move back the borders of ignorance that have limited mankind since the beginning. With every proof they then begin the process of education to spread the knowledge from the handful of experts on the frontier back through the ranks and eventually it becomes what we call common knowledge. Much of Einstein's work is still in that process.

It's strange that almost always, that process, while slow, is uncontested. The vast majority of scientific advancements are merely accepted as something that the narrowest, deepest intellects have proven and the rest of us may struggle to understand, but have no ability or reason to question.

There have been a couple of notable exceptions. One is evolution and natural selection. Why has that been contested for so long? Not because it is based on weaker science, but because it conflicted with, at least in many minds, the completely unproven, unsupportable creation myths that seemed fundamental to organized religion. In other words, there was a huge stake put at risk by the discovery of the truth.

Another, similar situation is climate change. It is, in truth, a very certain discovery by science but it's truth disturbs established forces. In this case, big oil and all of its appendages who have a huge financial stake in our obsolete assumption that their waste products can be disposed of in our atmosphere benignly.

In truth our permission for them to continue to do that has monumental costs associated with it. If we acted on our knowledge of the truth of climate change, and insisted that those who profit from fossil fuels bear the cost of disposing of their waste, the financial impact on them and us would be catastrophic.

Rather than take on that extremely difficult political challange, big oil, with some help from their friends, have funded their only possible defense. Reasonable doubt.

Will that avoid any of the costs that science has proven will need to be spent in order to avoid even higher costs? No, they'll be made worse. Does it allow big oil a few more years of high profits before the inevitable reckoning? Certainly. That's why funding the reasonable doubt defense is such a great investment for them.

Make more money regardless ofthe cost to others on steroids.

The money is being made by the warmist's idiot. Over 100 billion given to them so far and they want to create an entirely new monetary system with them at the controls. Do try and keep up.

Really. Links and sources. Or is it all something you just pulled out of the nether regions?

 

[Old Rocks]

It's funny that there is zero science behind benign disposal of fossil fuel wastes in our atmosphere, but those hired by big oil to defend their atrosity insist that science must prove to them that what they have no proof of is wrong.

Yep. And there's ZERO empirical data to support the idea that CO2 is the driver of global temps. There is however, empirical data that says it isn't. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Zero data, yet all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science for all the nations that have such, and all the major Universities say otherwise.

You know that you are repeating lies, and you do so purposely in your support of the people that are creating a major crisis for our children and grandchildren. If you truly have a degree in science, you are a whore.

 

[westwall]

Every year scientists around the world move back the borders of ignorance that have limited mankind since the beginning. With every proof they then begin the process of education to spread the knowledge from the handful of experts on the frontier back through the ranks and eventually it becomes what we call common knowledge. Much of Einstein's work is still in that process.

It's strange that almost always, that process, while slow, is uncontested. The vast majority of scientific advancements are merely accepted as something that the narrowest, deepest intellects have proven and the rest of us may struggle to understand, but have no ability or reason to question.

There have been a couple of notable exceptions. One is evolution and natural selection. Why has that been contested for so long? Not because it is based on weaker science, but because it conflicted with, at least in many minds, the completely unproven, unsupportable creation myths that seemed fundamental to organized religion. In other words, there was a huge stake put at risk by the discovery of the truth.

Another, similar situation is climate change. It is, in truth, a very certain discovery by science but it's truth disturbs established forces. In this case, big oil and all of its appendages who have a huge financial stake in our obsolete assumption that their waste products can be disposed of in our atmosphere benignly.

In truth our permission for them to continue to do that has monumental costs associated with it. If we acted on our knowledge of the truth of climate change, and insisted that those who profit from fossil fuels bear the cost of disposing of their waste, the financial impact on them and us would be catastrophic.

Rather than take on that extremely difficult political challange, big oil, with some help from their friends, have funded their only possible defense. Reasonable doubt.

Will that avoid any of the costs that science has proven will need to be spent in order to avoid even higher costs? No, they'll be made worse. Does it allow big oil a few more years of high profits before the inevitable reckoning? Certainly. That's why funding the reasonable doubt defense is such a great investment for them.

Make more money regardless ofthe cost to others on steroids.

The money is being made by the warmist's idiot. Over 100 billion given to them so far and they want to create an entirely new monetary system with them at the controls. Do try and keep up.

Really. Links and sources. Or is it all something you just pulled out of the nether regions?

No problem....here is just what the US has spent........This does not count carbon trading schemes or the latest fiascos'.


"The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors."





Climate Money: The Climate Industry: billion so far ? trillions to come | Originals

 

[Old Rocks]

Forgive me if I focus on global warming on a thread that was started to discuss global warming. I'm funny that way despite it irritating you so much.

So the Forbes articles cited several scientific groups, including NASA, that are studying the issue of global cooling. Perhaps you can provide some authoritative source that would dispute what these scientific groups are reporting?

Has anybody else noticed how similar Mamooth, Saigon, and PMZ are in their syntax, methodology, and tactics here?

dont worry about those guys, they just believe that their unequivical explanation of very equivical data is the only possible explanation. polarbear, SSDD and wirebender are extremists at the other end of the scale. most of us have favourite specific opinions on certain aspects of global warming that are stated more emphatically than the evidence would suggest. eg westwall is certain that CO2 lags the temp by 600 years, old rocks thinks the clathrates are going to 'let go', and I think Michael Mann should be publically scorned and pilloried if not actually sent to jail.

Actually the peer reviewed studies estimate a 400-800 lag. Just to be accurate.

No mystery there for those that understand how the Milankovic Cycles work. And it has been explained innumberable times on this board exactly what the mechanism is. For those still ignorant;

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

But the paid denialists still put this stupidity up as proof that CO2 is not a GHG, even when the proof of that is in that very cycle.

 

[Old Rocks]

The money is being made by the warmist's idiot. Over 100 billion given to them so far and they want to create an entirely new monetary system with them at the controls. Do try and keep up.

Really. Links and sources. Or is it all something you just pulled out of the nether regions?

No problem....here is just what the US has spent........This does not count carbon trading schemes or the latest fiascos'.


"The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors."





Climate Money: The Climate Industry: billion so far ? trillions to come | Originals

Science and Public Policy Institute - SourceWatch


See also Science and Public Policy Institute (disambiguation) for George Carlo's organization.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics website and blog now run by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which employs SPPI President Robert Ferguson; the SPPI website has drawn heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.
SPPI is not a separate 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

In August 2011, Institute President Robert Ferguson spoke on "Benefit Analysis of CO2"[1] (previously known as "Warming Up to Climate Change: The Many Benefits of Increased Atmospheric CO2"[2]) at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force meeting at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Annual Meeting.[3] He was accompanied by Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and MEP Roger Helmer, a Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands of Great Britain who represents the Conservative Party and has used his position on the European Parliament to fight increased regulation of member states through the European Union.[3]



About ALEC




ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.

Monkton, a known liar and fraud. Westwall's peer group.