Cal's points on global warming

[gftChris]

Just trying to keep these separate so they don't get swallowed up.

 

1. Google "un official global warming redistribution of wealth" and see what you get.

Maybe if you do your own searches, you'll read the links.

2. This is a complicated issue. CO2 is not a poison, but it absorbs solar flare activity,

the trouble is, CO2 has increased, and the temp has not. If you want to say that one day,

a certain level of CO2 would all of a sudden send our global temp into a warming period,

I'm "cool" with that. Except we don't know that, and our global temps have been cooling for years,

and scientists are baffled, along with more ice in the polar regions, when those polar regions

were supposed to have already melted away completely, sending oceans to flood major parts of

the continents.

3. http://www.napsnet.c...ve/34/50144.pdf

4. http://sciencespeak....SimpleProof.pdf

5. http://www.thenewame...ming-is-a-farce

6. http://www.climatech...ot_man_made.htm

7. http://www.sott.net/...climate-paradox

8. http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1828.htm

9. http://www.epw.senat...ED-ECD53CD3D320

10. http://wattsupwithth...ann-et-al-2011/

11. http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/ccr2biologicalimpacts.html

Eleven arguments. So be it, you shall be the fellowship of the right wing.

[MLD Woody]

Why over here? And I think the links are just scientists that disagree with "mmgw"

 

Actually, this is a good idea. We can archive his arguments here and then have them destroyed in one place

[calfoxwc]

Yes, you and Chris can thwart reality with your gay liberal magic twangers.

 

In other words,

 

what you want, is for me to start a separate thread instead of a lot of posts in one thread.

 

got it.

[gftChris]

Yes, you and Chris can thwart reality with your gay liberal magic twangers.

 

In other words,

 

what you want, is for me to start a separate thread instead of a lot of posts in one thread.

 

got it.

No, we're just tired of going over the same arguments time and time again, and would like to actually have some discourse where we can either show you why the things you're posting are scientifically wrong or statistically irrelevant, or, in the case that you have posted something that stands up, that we can do our own research in to it and learn from it.

[calfoxwc]

So, you admit you are a science denier for the sake of political membership

in the phoney mmgw cult.

 

Got it.

 

I have just debunked all your posts because you're a fraud.

 

But, at least you aren't woodpecker, the butt of the board. You're higher on the

scum factor than he is, by a mile.

[gftChris]

Erm...wah?! Science denier?! No. Science lover. Right now, I have the latest episode of a popular science magazine on my desk. Reading about quantum computing and the AI controlled subway in Hong Kong. It's fascinating stuff.

 

But no, you're right, I'm a fraud, I just want to take your money so I can give it to Mbonko and Balakalaka for their new A/C unit in downtown Nairobi.

[calfoxwc]

A cherry picking, nitwilly, British, poop-tea drinking science lover, the love

for only partisan, progressive bs science.

 

Have a nice day.

[gftChris]

A cherry picking, nitwilly, British, poop-tea drinking science lover, the love

for only partisan, progressive bs science.

 

Have a nice day.

It's like a dagger to the heart...how will I live with myself now? :'(

[calfoxwc]

Just get some sugar, I suppose, and sprinkle it on your crumpets, don't worry, and be happy.

[calfoxwc]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society ^[16]

• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences^[17][18][19]

• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)^[20]

• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellowAustralian National University^[21]

Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm^[22]

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London^[23]

Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute ^[24]

Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry^[25]

[Osiris]

Just get some sugar, I suppose, and sprinkle it on your crumpets, don't worry, and be happy.

Maybe Cal can give you some of that home-grown weed he's been smoking. We all know what he really means when he says he is 'gardening'.

[calfoxwc]

same site:

 

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanicemissions.^[26]

Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences^[27]
• Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics^[28][29]
• Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg^[30]
• Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University^[31]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa^[32]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science,University of Auckland^[33]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester^[34]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University^[35]
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University^[36]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University^[37]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo^[38]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.^[39]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology^[40]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware^[41]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri^[42]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa^[43]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.^[44][45]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.^[46]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego^[47]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University^[48]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University^[49][50]
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo^[51]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia^[52][53][54]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics^[55]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville^[56]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center^[57]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University^[58]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa^[59]

[calfoxwc]

hah. I don't smoke nothin. I drink root beer, green tea/sun tea, and homemade lemonade

with stevia powder.

 

Keeps my political perceptions keen and profoundly intuitive.

 

same site as above:

 

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.^[60]
• Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).^[61]
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.^[62]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.^[63][64]
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.^[65]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.^[66]
• Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.^[67]
• Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes^[68]
• Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change^[69]
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.^[70]

[MLD Woody]

Uuuggghhhhh. He's posting geography professors now....

 

 

I agree though, let's make this thread the one stop shop at figuring out why cal is wrong

[Browns149]

Keeps my political perceptions keen and profoundly intuitive

 

If that's what you call, copy/paste other peoples ideas, then you are the keenest person here

[gftChris]

Uuuggghhhhh. He's posting geography professors now....

 

 

I agree though, let's make this thread the one stop shop at figuring out why cal is wrong

Keep an open mind, he may have some points in there somewhere. I'm not holding my breath, but if there's something that requires some further investigation then so be it.

[calfoxwc]

What else is there?

 

I'm not a scientist...so.......I can't post articles by and about scientists.....

 

because........

 

why?

[calfoxwc]

http://sciencespeak.com/SimpleProof.pdf

[Browns149]

What else is there?

 

I'm not a scientist...so.......I can't post articles by and about scientists.....

 

because........

 

why?

Then why do you pick sides? If you don't know what you are talking about then why do you choose to believe 1 side and not the other?

[Osiris]

Then why do you pick sides? If you don't know what you are talking about then why do you choose to believe 1 side and not the other?

Because Fox News. That's why.

[calfoxwc]

Then why do you pick sides? If you don't know what you are talking about then why do you choose to believe 1 side and not the other? B149

******************************

Seriously? Well, because I read a ton of stuff on issues, and I decide what I believe. And when I read up on, and listen

to experts say that mmgw is either a farce, or insignificant, or can't be proven....

 

your "the debate is over" is a crap sandwich with a side of lies.

 

You know, the nazis had a "consensus", too. doesn't mean they weren't sick in the head dishonest with power.

 

Maybe I should start posting some scientists who have been blacklisted/harrassed because they refused to

get on board the "the world has a fever, let us dem progressives and the UN make big money off of you" train,......

 

for damn good reasons.

[MLD Woody]

The beliefs that are a part of Nazism were not the result of the scientific method. A consensus means nothing there

[Stewy]

Erm...wah?! Science denier?! No. Science lover.

 

That's good because science says conservatives are smarter than libs.

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/87474-yale-professors-surprising-discovery-tea-party-supporters-scientifically-literate/

[calfoxwc]

"woodpecker is a science denier, woodpecker is a science denier !"

[The Cysko Kid]

Then why do you pick sides? If you don't know what you are talking about then why do you choose to believe 1 side and not the other? B149

******************************

Seriously? Well, because I read a ton of stuff on issues, and I decide what I believe. And when I read up on, and listen

to experts say that mmgw is either a farce, or insignificant, or can't be proven....

 

your "the debate is over" is a crap sandwich with a side of lies.

 

You know, the nazis had a "consensus", too. doesn't mean they weren't sick in the head dishonest with power.

 

Maybe I should start posting some scientists who have been blacklisted/harrassed because they refused to

get on board the "the world has a fever, let us dem progressives and the UN make big money off of you" train,......

 

for damn good reasons.

 

The thing is though, the thing you choose to believe reflects the party line of Republicans 100% of the time. That tells me you're not choosing to believe something based on taking in all the facts and weighing them against each other. You're choosing to believe something based on what the Republican pundit talking heads tell you you'd better believe.

[Browns149]

The thing is though, the thing you choose to believe reflects the party line of Republicans 100% of the time. That tells me you're not choosing to believe something based on taking in all the facts and weighing them against each other. You're choosing to believe something based on what the Republican pundit talking heads tell you you'd better believe.

BINGO!!!!!!!

[calfoxwc]

The thing is though, the thing you choose to believe reflects the party line of Republicans 100% of the time. That tells me you're not choosing to believe something based on taking in all the facts and weighing them against each other. You're choosing to believe something based on what the Republican pundit talking heads tell you you'd better believe. Cysko

****************************************************

That's foolishness. The reps are annoying me greatly on immigration. I want killer lasers installed on the border,

with enough AI to differentiate between the non-threatening illegals, and the threatening ones.

 

The latter gets the killer laser zap, and the rest just get the stun gun version.

 

That sound like republican party? hah. More likely, the reps tend to represent their base.

 

On the flip side, you libs are against guns. leftist dems told you to be. You libs are for obamaocare,

the dems told you to be. You favor mmgw, so the dems told you to be. That's your "logic", emotional style.

 

Nah. I'm hardly a follower in what I decide to believe. If it makes you feel less vulnerable to being wrong,

go for it.

[MLD Woody]

Right Cal. If anyone here is the "free thinker" its YOU. Hahaha

[MLD Woody]

 

That's good because science says conservatives are smarter than libs.

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/87474-yale-professors-surprising-discovery-tea-party-supporters-scientifically-literate/

So I take it you read nothing more about this study than that one sound bite.... Alright...

 

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/10/15/some-data-on-education-religiosity-ideology-and-science-comp.html

 

 

In this dataset, I found that there is a small correlation (r = -0.05, p = 0.03) between the science comprehension measure and a left-right political outlook measure, Conservrepub, which aggregates liberal-conservative ideology and party self-identification. The sign of the correlation indicates that science comprehension decreases as political outlooks move in the rightward direction--i.e., the more "liberal" and "Democrat," the more science comprehending.

 

 

 

Except he doesn't draw any strong conclusions from this result or the Tea Party one. There isn't enough significance either way in his data set

[Browns149]

The thing is though, the thing you choose to believe reflects the party line of Republicans 100% of the time. That tells me you're not choosing to believe something based on taking in all the facts and weighing them against each other. You're choosing to believe something based on what the Republican pundit talking heads tell you you'd better believe. Cysko

****************************************************

That's foolishness. The reps are annoying me greatly on immigration. I want killer lasers installed on the border,

with enough AI to differentiate between the non-threatening illegals, and the threatening ones.

 

The latter gets the killer laser zap, and the rest just get the stun gun version.

 

That sound like republican party? hah. More likely, the reps tend to represent their base.

 

On the flip side, you libs are against guns. leftist dems told you to be. You libs are for obamaocare,

the dems told you to be. You favor mmgw, so the dems told you to be. That's your "logic", emotional style.

 

Nah. I'm hardly a follower in what I decide to believe. If it makes you feel less vulnerable to being wrong,

go for it.

I love my guns, I don't like Obamacare, and I'm not completely buying the entire mmgw doomsday either.

 

Oh my God, I'm a conservative.

 

Oh wait, I'm not sure there is a God..................Now I'm confused....................