you realize that this man works in the field of PHYSICS and not CLIMATE SCIENCE. This video is obvious propaganda and I like how since some guy who knows something about science happens to agree with your agenda, that you decide to take his word over the vast majority of elite scientists around the world who study the climate..
There is no evidence of me pushing anything, and I bet that you would highly doubt me pushing a political agenda on the public if I revealed my age. And I love how you want to accuse me of pushing his movie when your pushing a loaded piece of propaganda yourself (by putting this on your blog)on whatever audience you have. Maybe try to convince somebody that your right wing ideology is correct when you can provide arguments that cover all the facts, and not simply cherry pick a few points that sound convincing to the uneducated public.
I've really rubbed you the wrong way. And I like it.
When the Church of Global Warming people can answer some questions, I'll be willing to entertain their theses: 1) Why has there been no measurable warming for 18 years? 2) Why are all their models so far off of reality? 3) Why should I listen to any of them now, when several were warning of a lack of a polar ice cap by 2014, and of endangered polar bears? 4) Why do they not discuss the previous warm periods, specifically the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period? Why don't they mention that we're less than 150 years into the coming out of a "mini-ice age"? 5) Why, when they can't answer these, do they switch the subject to "we should stop pollution", which is a different argument entirely?
See, I don't need someone to think for me, thankyouverymuch. I'm bright enough that I can draw my own conclusions. I've seen this global warming "sky is falling" act too many times in my life; I didn't fall for it any other time, and I'm not going to fall for it now. Here's one of many posts on the subject, and note that I was writing on this topic *7 years ago*: http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2007/07/ancient-greenland-warmer-than.html
Darren, to add to that, we were both alive when many of the same bishops and cardinals of the Church of Global Warming, ALGORE Pastor were pushing CO2 would cause another ice age.
I'd be happy if the warmies made some effort to verify their hypothesis.
Alas, they never do. They relentlessly flog charts intimating, when they're not baldly asserting, that past trends are incontrovertible predictors of the future.
Nonsense of course but they want what they want because they want it. No other reason's necessary, or oughtn't to be but there are tedious blockheads who can't understand how vitally important it is that people like our anonymous correspondent gets what they want.
"this man works in the field of PHYSICS and not CLIMATE SCIENCE"
Just a thought but maybe if the so-called climate experts incorporated a little physics into their models they wouldn't be so far off the mark.
BTW, ever since I started posting on the internet I've always used my real name. My feeling was that if I didn't want people to know the opinions I posted were mine, maybe I should just keep my mouth shut (or at least keep my hands off the keyboard).
I realize that is definitely a minority view and I don't fault those that believe they need to use a handle. At least that allows people to identify posts as being from the same individual. But the use of "anonymous" has always struck me as the height of insecurity.
I liked this guy's point … that we should stop real pollution, to the extent that it's practicable … and his argument about food production made sense to me. But the fact is? Unless we get the rest of the world on board with us, (and we won't, as evidence as our totally toothless agreement with China exhibits) nothing we will do will matter. Reasonable protection, I'm down with … unreasonable, no. And I'm really not sure where that line falls.
Jerry Doctor said: "Just a thought but maybe if the so-called climate experts incorporated a little physics into their models they wouldn't be so far off the mark."
This is EXACTLY what motivated iconoclast physicist, Richard Muller to champion Climate Science Skepticism.
Until he did the legwork of research and found out, Lo and behold: the climate scientists were right to begin with.
Sorry Dean but an epiphany doth science not make. A chorus of angels could have sung the virtues of global warming and that wouldn't have made it one wit truer although it does make for an interesting picture.
With no hope that it'll make any impact, the way science is done is to make a falsifiable prediction based on your hypothesis and have it come out in favor of your hypothesis, i.e. verification. No prediction? It ain't science. No verification? It ain't true. Feel free to describe the experiment or observational predication that verifies the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.
you realize that this man works in the field of PHYSICS and not CLIMATE SCIENCE. This video is obvious propaganda and I like how since some guy who knows something about science happens to agree with your agenda, that you decide to take his word over the vast majority of elite scientists around the world who study the climate..
ReplyDeleteAl Gore's not a scientist of any stripe, but his movie sure was pushed by you lefties :)
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence of me pushing anything, and I bet that you would highly doubt me pushing a political agenda on the public if I revealed my age. And I love how you want to accuse me of pushing his movie when your pushing a loaded piece of propaganda yourself (by putting this on your blog)on whatever audience you have. Maybe try to convince somebody that your right wing ideology is correct when you can provide arguments that cover all the facts, and not simply cherry pick a few points that sound convincing to the uneducated public.
ReplyDeleteI've really rubbed you the wrong way. And I like it.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Church of Global Warming people can answer some questions, I'll be willing to entertain their theses:
1) Why has there been no measurable warming for 18 years?
2) Why are all their models so far off of reality?
3) Why should I listen to any of them now, when several were warning of a lack of a polar ice cap by 2014, and of endangered polar bears?
4) Why do they not discuss the previous warm periods, specifically the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period? Why don't they mention that we're less than 150 years into the coming out of a "mini-ice age"?
5) Why, when they can't answer these, do they switch the subject to "we should stop pollution", which is a different argument entirely?
See, I don't need someone to think for me, thankyouverymuch. I'm bright enough that I can draw my own conclusions. I've seen this global warming "sky is falling" act too many times in my life; I didn't fall for it any other time, and I'm not going to fall for it now. Here's one of many posts on the subject, and note that I was writing on this topic *7 years ago*:
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2007/07/ancient-greenland-warmer-than.html
Darren, to add to that, we were both alive when many of the same bishops and cardinals of the Church of Global Warming, ALGORE Pastor were pushing CO2 would cause another ice age.
ReplyDeleteI guess they figured another way to make money.
I'd be happy if the warmies made some effort to verify their hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteAlas, they never do. They relentlessly flog charts intimating, when they're not baldly asserting, that past trends are incontrovertible predictors of the future.
Nonsense of course but they want what they want because they want it. No other reason's necessary, or oughtn't to be but there are tedious blockheads who can't understand how vitally important it is that people like our anonymous correspondent gets what they want.
"this man works in the field of PHYSICS and not CLIMATE SCIENCE"
ReplyDeleteJust a thought but maybe if the so-called climate experts incorporated a little physics into their models they wouldn't be so far off the mark.
BTW, ever since I started posting on the internet I've always used my real name. My feeling was that if I didn't want people to know the opinions I posted were mine, maybe I should just keep my mouth shut (or at least keep my hands off the keyboard).
I realize that is definitely a minority view and I don't fault those that believe they need to use a handle. At least that allows people to identify posts as being from the same individual. But the use of "anonymous" has always struck me as the height of insecurity.
I liked this guy's point … that we should stop real pollution, to the extent that it's practicable … and his argument about food production made sense to me. But the fact is? Unless we get the rest of the world on board with us, (and we won't, as evidence as our totally toothless agreement with China exhibits) nothing we will do will matter. Reasonable protection, I'm down with … unreasonable, no. And I'm really not sure where that line falls.
ReplyDeleteJerry Doctor said:
ReplyDelete"Just a thought but maybe if the so-called climate experts incorporated a little physics into their models they wouldn't be so far off the mark."
This is EXACTLY what motivated iconoclast physicist, Richard Muller to champion Climate Science Skepticism.
Until he did the legwork of research and found out, Lo and behold: the climate scientists were right to begin with.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who tell me it's a crisis act like it's a crisis.
ReplyDeleteSorry Dean but an epiphany doth science not make. A chorus of angels could have sung the virtues of global warming and that wouldn't have made it one wit truer although it does make for an interesting picture.
ReplyDeleteWith no hope that it'll make any impact, the way science is done is to make a falsifiable prediction based on your hypothesis and have it come out in favor of your hypothesis, i.e. verification. No prediction? It ain't science. No verification? It ain't true. Feel free to describe the experiment or observational predication that verifies the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.