DeanCollins Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Pat knows as much about climate science as I know about the mating rituals of the New Guinea banana slug.He is a honest man, however. He is not bought and sold like some commentators. The fact that his twelve inch thick skull is entirely impervious to considering any information that does not agree with his pre-set opinions is not his fault, really. you're a nice guy Predicto, I'll just call him a moron. and like most morons, he thinks he's a genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 you're a nice guy Predicto, I'll just call him a moron. and like most morons, he thinks he's a genius He's not a moron. He is the living breathing definition of a binary thinker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 you're a nice guy Predicto, I'll just call him a moron. and like most morons, he thinks he's a genius He's not a moron. He is the living breathing definition of a binary thinker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Looks like Pat's endorsing Ron Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Looks like Pat's endorsing Ron Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 He's not a moron.He is the living breathing definition of a binary thinker. I remember watching him on tv back in the Nixon days and I swear he had the same stupid look that Nixon did. Here's a little nugget from that period. Buchanan, who opposed virtually every civil rights law and court decision of the last 30 years, published FBI smears of Martin Luther King Jr. as his own editorials in the St. Louis Globe Democrat in the mid-1960s. "We were among Hoover's conduits to the American people," he boasted (Right from the Beginning, p. 283). White House advisor Buchanan urged President Nixon in an April 1969 memo not to visit "the Widow King" on the first anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination, warning that a visit would "outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps worse.... Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history." (New York Daily News, 10/1/90) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 He's not a moron.He is the living breathing definition of a binary thinker. I remember watching him on tv back in the Nixon days and I swear he had the same stupid look that Nixon did. Here's a little nugget from that period. Buchanan, who opposed virtually every civil rights law and court decision of the last 30 years, published FBI smears of Martin Luther King Jr. as his own editorials in the St. Louis Globe Democrat in the mid-1960s. "We were among Hoover's conduits to the American people," he boasted (Right from the Beginning, p. 283). White House advisor Buchanan urged President Nixon in an April 1969 memo not to visit "the Widow King" on the first anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination, warning that a visit would "outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps worse.... Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history." (New York Daily News, 10/1/90) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I cannot believe the lack of reading comprehension of some people. The article is not a piece for logical persuasion. It does not "expose" anyone. It is a rallying piece for people who already subscribe to the beliefs it espouses. Here is a summary: * There have been alarmist claims in the past. * Some of these claims have been false/exaggerated/averted. * I (Pat) believe that this is one of these claims. * We haven't been harmed by global warming, so Kyoto is useless. * Here's one scientist who agrees with me. * There is "no conclusive evidence" of many of the claims of alarmists. (Note use of the evolution v. ID tactic: I've found people who disagree, so therefore it's debatable!) * A number of vague, unsupported statements ("We were told..." [by whom?], "estimates are that..." [whose estimates? what research?]) * Bureaucracy benefits from the statements, and therefore government creates them. * Coolidge quotation There's no logical argument there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I cannot believe the lack of reading comprehension of some people. The article is not a piece for logical persuasion. It does not "expose" anyone. It is a rallying piece for people who already subscribe to the beliefs it espouses. Here is a summary: * There have been alarmist claims in the past. * Some of these claims have been false/exaggerated/averted. * I (Pat) believe that this is one of these claims. * We haven't been harmed by global warming, so Kyoto is useless. * Here's one scientist who agrees with me. * There is "no conclusive evidence" of many of the claims of alarmists. (Note use of the evolution v. ID tactic: I've found people who disagree, so therefore it's debatable!) * A number of vague, unsupported statements ("We were told..." [by whom?], "estimates are that..." [whose estimates? what research?]) * Bureaucracy benefits from the statements, and therefore government creates them. * Coolidge quotation There's no logical argument there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 It is 70 degrees outside in the middle of Oct in a year that is part of the min for solar output (based on sun spot activity). Are we really going to debate if global warming is real? :laugh: Oh yeah, that settles everything.... So, by your logic, if we have a colder then normal winter and a solar max that proves global warming doesn't exist. nice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 It is 70 degrees outside in the middle of Oct in a year that is part of the min for solar output (based on sun spot activity). Are we really going to debate if global warming is real? :laugh: Oh yeah, that settles everything.... So, by your logic, if we have a colder then normal winter and a solar max that proves global warming doesn't exist. nice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 :laugh: Oh yeah, that settles everything.... So, by your logic, if we have a colder then normal winter and a solar max that proves global warming doesn't exist. nice... It hasn't happened before so that would be good evidence that something new is happening. **EDIT** Last year was historically a warm year (it wasn't record breaking, but it was still well above avg. for the last 50 years or so). For that to happen coniciding w/ year that is also paritially a solar min is a very worrying event. The samething is undoubtedly on track to happen this year and our Oct. is part of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 :laugh: Oh yeah, that settles everything.... So, by your logic, if we have a colder then normal winter and a solar max that proves global warming doesn't exist. nice... It hasn't happened before so that would be good evidence that something new is happening. **EDIT** Last year was historically a warm year (it wasn't record breaking, but it was still well above avg. for the last 50 years or so). For that to happen coniciding w/ year that is also paritially a solar min is a very worrying event. The samething is undoubtedly on track to happen this year and our Oct. is part of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I'll ask again, do you really want to debate the exsistance of global warming in a year when it is over 70 degrees at the end of Oct. and we are in a year that was part of a solar min? There have been many warmer periods in recent recorded history. Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than a warmer than average fall to prove man is significantly contributing to Global warming in a period when the sun is experiencing higher solar output. Is the Global Temperature rising? Seems so. Is man having any type of impact? We have no clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I'll ask again, do you really want to debate the exsistance of global warming in a year when it is over 70 degrees at the end of Oct. and we are in a year that was part of a solar min? There have been many warmer periods in recent recorded history. Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than a warmer than average fall to prove man is significantly contributing to Global warming in a period when the sun is experiencing higher solar output. Is the Global Temperature rising? Seems so. Is man having any type of impact? We have no clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 There have been many warmer periods in recent recorded history. Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than a warmer than average fall to prove man is significantly contributing to Global warming in a period when the sun is experiencing higher solar output. Is the Global Temperature rising? Seems so. Is man having any type of impact? We have no clue. NOT coupled w/ a solar min. It is the combination of the two that is scary. A warm year or fall at a solar peak or even avg. solar output. No big deal. You have a year like last year and what this year is going to be that coincides w/ a solar min, then you have problems. There is a mountain of data that suggest you are wrong. I believe I've already posted the Arrenius pdf in this thread (if not, it is in the other one). I've yet to see somebody that is against global warming explain why a study that was done over 100 years ago is wrong. He said very plainly increased CO2 will increase the temperature. That was over a 100 years ago. Nodoby doubts that we've increased the CO2 level in the air by a combination of deforestation and burning fossil fuels so unless you can point to the flaw in his study then that means temperatures will increase, and of course, that's what we see. I'll say it again. He did this over 100 years ago. Before the modern political parties, before funding agencies, before grants, w/o any record of global temps, and before we saw the warming trend. Why was he wrong? He wasn't. It is very basic. More CO2 means more energy stays in. You can argue that the result of that doesn't necessarily mean higher temps. The energy could go to other things, but either way you are going to see a change that we probably don't want to see (at best you are looking at a coin flip situation), and the fact that we do see higher temps seems a little to much to be coincidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 There have been many warmer periods in recent recorded history. Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than a warmer than average fall to prove man is significantly contributing to Global warming in a period when the sun is experiencing higher solar output. Is the Global Temperature rising? Seems so. Is man having any type of impact? We have no clue. NOT coupled w/ a solar min. It is the combination of the two that is scary. A warm year or fall at a solar peak or even avg. solar output. No big deal. You have a year like last year and what this year is going to be that coincides w/ a solar min, then you have problems. There is a mountain of data that suggest you are wrong. I believe I've already posted the Arrenius pdf in this thread (if not, it is in the other one). I've yet to see somebody that is against global warming explain why a study that was done over 100 years ago is wrong. He said very plainly increased CO2 will increase the temperature. That was over a 100 years ago. Nodoby doubts that we've increased the CO2 level in the air by a combination of deforestation and burning fossil fuels so unless you can point to the flaw in his study then that means temperatures will increase, and of course, that's what we see. I'll say it again. He did this over 100 years ago. Before the modern political parties, before funding agencies, before grants, w/o any record of global temps, and before we saw the warming trend. Why was he wrong? He wasn't. It is very basic. More CO2 means more energy stays in. You can argue that the result of that doesn't necessarily mean higher temps. The energy could go to other things, but either way you are going to see a change that we probably don't want to see (at best you are looking at a coin flip situation), and the fact that we do see higher temps seems a little to much to be coincidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.