Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #684993 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-11 18:37 -0500 |
| Last post | 2018-05-13 15:44 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 91 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 18:37 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-11 17:21 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:47 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:53 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-11 19:17 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 09:32 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 09:39 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:30 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-11 18:45 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 22:03 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 12:03 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 14:47 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 07:24 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 19:44 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 19:08 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:28 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 12:45 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 12:23 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 04:28 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 14:34 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 05:13 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 15:31 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 05:47 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 16:25 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 07:58 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 17:10 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 08:23 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 17:31 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 17:48 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 08:32 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 18:37 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 08:44 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:32 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-13 20:36 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 11:50 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-14 13:59 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 18:13 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-14 17:18 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 04:26 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 14:30 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 04:35 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 14:56 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 05:10 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 15:27 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-13 12:48 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 06:01 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 12:07 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 17:49 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 05:50 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 16:39 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 08:29 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 18:26 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 16:46 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 20:04 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 07:18 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 10:47 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 14:37 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 13:58 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 10:04 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 19:58 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 11:01 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 20:09 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 07:57 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 20:18 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 12:19 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-17 12:20 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 21:33 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 17:54 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 08:00 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 12:03 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 12:00 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 09:11 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 11:37 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-15 09:28 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-14 22:27 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 10:45 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:31 -0700
Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-15 16:39 -0700
Re: Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can. Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 09:45 +1000
Re: Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 19:36 -0700
Re: Politians will take as much money from you as they possibly can. Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 19:50 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-16 07:45 +1000
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 11:21 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 11:10 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 11:53 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 10:39 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-12 14:14 -0700
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:09 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 15:38 -0500
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 13:48 -0400
Re: Global warming is a big fat lie and the science behind it is fake: John Coleman Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 15:44 -0700
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 04:35 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flresvFf2nmU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685252 |
On 14/05/2018 4:30 AM, Wally W. wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:26:22 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 14/05/2018 2:45 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:08:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> **Fuck me, you're an idiot. CO2 is _a_ driver of warming. There are >>>> others. >>> >>> But CO2 is the poster child for "the cause." >>> >>> Why is that? >>> >> >> **For two reasons: >> >> 1) We caused excess CO2 to be inserted into the atmosphere of this planet. >> 2) We can reduce CO2 emissions to reduce the severity of the problem. > > Bigger reason: It is possible to tax what can be measured. Fuel > consumption can be measured. **Why do you think that is important? > > BTW: What "problem?" **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this planet. That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is causing and will cause severe problems for our civilisation. Do you live under a rock, or are you just plain ignorant of basic science? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 14:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <b92hfdldra8v6ajvf4ddbakief312v4kbe@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685254 |
On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:35:59 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >On 14/05/2018 4:30 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:26:22 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> On 14/05/2018 2:45 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:08:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>> **Fuck me, you're an idiot. CO2 is _a_ driver of warming. There are >>>>> others. >>>> >>>> But CO2 is the poster child for "the cause." >>>> >>>> Why is that? >>>> >>> >>> **For two reasons: >>> >>> 1) We caused excess CO2 to be inserted into the atmosphere of this planet. >>> 2) We can reduce CO2 emissions to reduce the severity of the problem. >> >> Bigger reason: It is possible to tax what can be measured. Fuel >> consumption can be measured. > >**Why do you think that is important? How you plan to control emissions that can't be monitored or penalized? How is that working for you with the oceans and water vapor? >> BTW: What "problem?" > >**Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have >contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this planet. >That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is causing and >will cause severe problems for our civilisation. So you say. >Do you live under a rock, or are you just plain ignorant of basic science? I am not an adherent of your religion. There is no "gospel" (good news) in your religion. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/merchants-of-despair Merchants of Despair Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 05:10 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flrgt9FfntsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685256 |
On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:35:59 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 14/05/2018 4:30 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 04:26:22 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> On 14/05/2018 2:45 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:08:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> **Fuck me, you're an idiot. CO2 is _a_ driver of warming. There are >>>>>> others. >>>>> >>>>> But CO2 is the poster child for "the cause." >>>>> >>>>> Why is that? >>>>> >>>> >>>> **For two reasons: >>>> >>>> 1) We caused excess CO2 to be inserted into the atmosphere of this planet. >>>> 2) We can reduce CO2 emissions to reduce the severity of the problem. >>> >>> Bigger reason: It is possible to tax what can be measured. Fuel >>> consumption can be measured. >> >> **Why do you think that is important? > > How you plan to control emissions that can't be monitored or > penalized? **_I_ don't plan to do anything. > > How is that working for you with the oceans and water vapor? **Nothing humans can presently do, will stop water vapour from continuing to contribute to global warming. We can, however, deal with CO2 emissions. And, since rising temperatures from CO2 emissions is causing more evaporation, it makes sense to deal with the problems we able to. > > >>> BTW: What "problem?" >> >> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have >> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this planet. >> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is causing and >> will cause severe problems for our civilisation. > > So you say. **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist and every scientific organisation on the planet has stated, unequivocally, that the problem lies with human induced CO2 emissions. > > >> Do you live under a rock, or are you just plain ignorant of basic science? > > I am not an adherent of your religion. **Unlike you, I place my faith in science, not the Fox network. > > There is no "gospel" (good news) in your religion. **Science is the antithesis of religion and the Fox network. You should study it sometime. <SNIP> Fake news. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 15:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r84hfd9thcol0jpapbep2vsncv0dodao3a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685258 |
On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> BTW: What "problem?" >>> >>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have >>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this planet. >>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is causing and >>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation. >> >> So you say. > >**Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist Many disagree: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> >and every >scientific organisation on the planet has stated, unequivocally, that >the problem lies with human induced CO2 emissions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 12:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <95bf136e-539b-4b93-8da4-2b9b8c64ab3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685262 |
On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 12:27:08 PM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >**Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist > > Many disagree: > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> Perhaps you should read the links you provide before posting them. From the link that YOU supplied... "This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. A minority are climatologists. Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97-98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[3][4] hence this list represents a minority viewpoint." Kinda makes the point you were trying to make essentially worthless, doesn't it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 06:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flrjsdFgbusU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685266 |
On 14/05/2018 5:48 AM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 12:27:08 PM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote: >> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >>> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist >> >> Many disagree: >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> > > Perhaps you should read the links you provide before posting them. From the link that YOU supplied... > > "This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. A minority are climatologists. Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97-98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[3][4] hence this list represents a minority viewpoint." > > Kinda makes the point you were trying to make essentially worthless, doesn't it? > **Wally thinks that Fox News is science. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 12:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <RuiKC.123220$go7.67576@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #685275 |
On 5/13/2018 4:01 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 14/05/2018 5:48 AM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: >> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 12:27:08 PM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>>> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist >>> >>> Many disagree: >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> >>> >> >> Perhaps you should read the links you provide before posting them. >> From the link that YOU supplied... >> >> "This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict >> with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the >> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other >> scientific bodies. A minority are climatologists. Nearly all >> publishing climate scientists (97-98%[1]) support the consensus on >> anthropogenic climate change,[3][4] hence this list represents a >> minority viewpoint." >> >> Kinda makes the point you were trying to make essentially worthless, >> doesn't it? >> > > **Wally thinks that Fox News is science. > Trevor thinks that lies and propaganda are science. (or at least can be substituted for science for public consumption) Trevor gets all his "science" from "the science guy". He loves all the drama and drool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 17:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4mchfdtti4rlcflqc2qnlhaf2m976b09k7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685266 |
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:48:51 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: >On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 12:27:08 PM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote: >> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> >**Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist >> >> Many disagree: >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> > >Perhaps you should read the links you provide before posting them. From the link that YOU supplied... > >"This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. A minority are climatologists. Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97-98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[3][4] hence this list represents a minority viewpoint." > >Kinda makes the point you were trying to make essentially worthless, doesn't it? ... perhaps to those who are into mob rule.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 05:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flrj9kFg8ngU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685262 |
On 14/05/2018 5:27 AM, Wally W. wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> BTW: What "problem?" >>>> >>>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have >>>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this planet. >>>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is causing and >>>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation. >>> >>> So you say. >> >> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist > > Many disagree: > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> > **You appear to think that what geographers, geologists, botanists and other scientists, who work in unrelated fields to CLIMATOLOGY matter in this debate. I have news for you: When I stated CLIMATOLOGISTS, that is precisely what I meant. ALL the climatologists agree that humans have caused the observed warming. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 16:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdabb1$1mfq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685267 |
On 5/13/2018 2:50 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 14/05/2018 5:27 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> BTW: What "problem?" >>>>> >>>>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have >>>>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this planet. >>>>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is >>>>> causing and >>>>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation. >>>> >>>> So you say. >>> >>> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist >> >> Many disagree: >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> >> >> > > **You appear to think that what geographers, geologists, botanists and > other scientists, who work in unrelated fields to CLIMATOLOGY matter in > this debate. I have news for you: When I stated CLIMATOLOGISTS, that is > precisely what I meant. ALL the agree that humans have > caused the observed warming. > no, not "all" climatologists, you are making stuff up. "observed" by satellite ? Show me an error analysis, what bands of IR are used? how wide are the filters? is the actual surface temp measured ? what emissivity is assumed? is the air temp within 1000' of the ground measured ? how much does water vapor affect the accuracy? what is the accuracy of the sensor platform ? sunlit vs dark ? how are clouds screened out of measurements ? how many types of sensor systems are used ? and so on....... => averaging is not accuracy. <=
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 08:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flrsjfFi8rkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685310 |
On 14/05/2018 7:39 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/13/2018 2:50 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 14/05/2018 5:27 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> BTW: What "problem?" >>>>>> >>>>>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have >>>>>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this planet. >>>>>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is >>>>>> causing and >>>>>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation. >>>>> >>>>> So you say. >>>> >>>> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist >>> >>> Many disagree: >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> >>> >>> >> >> **You appear to think that what geographers, geologists, botanists and >> other scientists, who work in unrelated fields to CLIMATOLOGY matter in >> this debate. I have news for you: When I stated CLIMATOLOGISTS, that is >> precisely what I meant. ALL the agree that humans have >> caused the observed warming. >> > > no, not "all" climatologists, you are making stuff up. **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the present warming? > > > > "observed" by satellite ? > > Show me an error analysis, > what bands of IR are used? > how wide are the filters? > is the actual surface temp measured ? > what emissivity is assumed? > is the air temp within 1000' of the ground measured ? > how much does water vapor affect the accuracy? > what is the accuracy of the sensor platform ? > sunlit vs dark ? > how are clouds screened out of measurements ? > how many types of sensor systems are used ? > > and so on....... **OK, time for you to do some learning, Mr 0.3%. Here is my reference: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ If you REALLY want answers to your questions (and I do not, for one millisecond believe that you interested in knowledge in the slightest), then read the IPCC reports. > > > > > => averaging is not accuracy. <= **Indeed, Mr 0.3%. Nor is managing an order of magnitude of error in your calculations. No wonder you don't understand the science. You can't even figure out which decimal place to use. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 18:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdahir$pa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685321 |
On 5/13/2018 5:29 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 14/05/2018 7:39 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 5/13/2018 2:50 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 14/05/2018 5:27 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>>>>> BTW: What "problem?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have
>>>>>>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this
>>>>>>> planet.
>>>>>>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is
>>>>>>> causing and
>>>>>>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you say.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist
>>>>
>>>> Many disagree:
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> **You appear to think that what geographers, geologists, botanists and
>>> other scientists, who work in unrelated fields to CLIMATOLOGY matter in
>>> this debate. I have news for you: When I stated CLIMATOLOGISTS, that is
>>> precisely what I meant. ALL the agree that humans have
>>> caused the observed warming.
>>>
>>
>> no, not "all" climatologists, you are making stuff up.
>
> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is
> causing the present warming?
>
>>
>>
>>
>> "observed" by satellite ?
>>
>> Show me an error analysis,
>> what bands of IR are used?
>> how wide are the filters?
>> is the actual surface temp measured ?
>> what emissivity is assumed?
>> is the air temp within 1000' of the ground measured ?
>> how much does water vapor affect the accuracy?
>> what is the accuracy of the sensor platform ?
>> sunlit vs dark ?
>> how are clouds screened out of measurements ?
>> how many types of sensor systems are used ?
>>
>> and so on.......
>
> **OK, time for you to do some learning, Mr 0.3%. Here is my reference:
>
> http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
>
> If you REALLY want answers to your questions (and I do not, for one
> millisecond believe that you interested in knowledge in the slightest),
> then read the IPCC reports.
sure, lets go look at the data
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt
(monthly averages of varances from what? and from what stations?)
Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only)
using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity adjustment*
Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing
=> so the data has been manulipulated
*elimination of outliers*
*homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one)
look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/
"World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available
temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were in the
form of logbooks or other non-digital records."
=>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the time
of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used,
and no ocean temps were used.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 16:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c02c3f19-63d1-4e46-ab1a-98ea826979c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685338 |
On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 7:26:25 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote: > On 5/13/2018 5:29 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > > On 14/05/2018 7:39 AM, Sergio wrote: > >> On 5/13/2018 2:50 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >>> On 14/05/2018 5:27 AM, Wally W. wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote: > >>>>>>>> BTW: What "problem?" > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have > >>>>>>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this > >>>>>>> planet. > >>>>>>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is > >>>>>>> causing and > >>>>>>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So you say. > >>>>> > >>>>> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist > >>>> > >>>> Many disagree: > >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> **You appear to think that what geographers, geologists, botanists and > >>> other scientists, who work in unrelated fields to CLIMATOLOGY matter in > >>> this debate. I have news for you: When I stated CLIMATOLOGISTS, that is > >>> precisely what I meant. ALL the agree that humans have > >>> caused the observed warming. > >>> > >> > >> no, not "all" climatologists, you are making stuff up. > > > > **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is > > causing the present warming? > > > >> > >> > >> > >> "observed" by satellite ? > >> > >> Show me an error analysis, > >> what bands of IR are used? > >> how wide are the filters? > >> is the actual surface temp measured ? > >> what emissivity is assumed? > >> is the air temp within 1000' of the ground measured ? > >> how much does water vapor affect the accuracy? > >> what is the accuracy of the sensor platform ? > >> sunlit vs dark ? > >> how are clouds screened out of measurements ? > >> how many types of sensor systems are used ? > >> > >> and so on....... > > > > **OK, time for you to do some learning, Mr 0.3%. Here is my reference: > > > > http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ > > > > If you REALLY want answers to your questions (and I do not, for one > > millisecond believe that you interested in knowledge in the slightest), > > then read the IPCC reports. > > sure, lets go look at the data > > > > https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt > (monthly averages of varances from what? and from what stations?) > > Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) > using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity adjustment* > Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing > > => so the data has been manulipulated > *elimination of outliers* > *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) > > > look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 > > https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ > > > "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available > temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were in the > form of logbooks or other non-digital records." > > =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the time > of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, > and no ocean temps were used. Whining about the accuracy of the data. Coastal measurements can provide a proxy for ocean temps. yes larger error bar there too. But physicists deal with such things often, for example: half life measurements are due to random individual events, but the large sample size allows more precise results. Are you arguing that we DO NOT get more data? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 20:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdana9$83g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685341 |
On 5/13/2018 6:46 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 7:26:25 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/13/2018 5:29 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 14/05/2018 7:39 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2018 2:50 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 14/05/2018 5:27 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> BTW: What "problem?" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have >>>>>>>>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this >>>>>>>>> planet. >>>>>>>>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is >>>>>>>>> causing and >>>>>>>>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So you say. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist >>>>>> >>>>>> Many disagree: >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **You appear to think that what geographers, geologists, botanists and >>>>> other scientists, who work in unrelated fields to CLIMATOLOGY matter in >>>>> this debate. I have news for you: When I stated CLIMATOLOGISTS, that is >>>>> precisely what I meant. ALL the agree that humans have >>>>> caused the observed warming. >>>>> >>>> >>>> no, not "all" climatologists, you are making stuff up. >>> >>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >>> causing the present warming? >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "observed" by satellite ? >>>> >>>> Show me an error analysis, >>>> what bands of IR are used? >>>> how wide are the filters? >>>> is the actual surface temp measured ? >>>> what emissivity is assumed? >>>> is the air temp within 1000' of the ground measured ? >>>> how much does water vapor affect the accuracy? >>>> what is the accuracy of the sensor platform ? >>>> sunlit vs dark ? >>>> how are clouds screened out of measurements ? >>>> how many types of sensor systems are used ? >>>> >>>> and so on....... >>> >>> **OK, time for you to do some learning, Mr 0.3%. Here is my reference: >>> >>> http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ >>> >>> If you REALLY want answers to your questions (and I do not, for one >>> millisecond believe that you interested in knowledge in the slightest), >>> then read the IPCC reports. >> >> sure, lets go look at the data >> >> >> >> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt >> (monthly averages of varances from what? and from what stations?) >> >> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity adjustment* >> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing >> >> => so the data has been manulipulated >> *elimination of outliers* >> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >> >> >> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >> >> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >> >> >> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were in the >> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >> >> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the time >> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, >> and no ocean temps were used. > > Whining about the accuracy of the data. > Coastal measurements can provide a proxy for ocean temps. > yes larger error bar there too. > > But physicists deal with such things often, for example: > half life measurements are due to random individual events, > but the large sample size allows more precise results. > > Are you arguing that we DO NOT get more data? > Ed > the raw data should be released for all to see, and also specifically how they analized and modified it, and include an error analysis. so where is the raw data ? what is listed by IPCC is not raw data at all, but highly processed. If it is verifiable by other parties, at anytime then it is OK, but where is the raw data? it is huge, and averaging makes it smaller, but... In math and physics there are processes that have high variance, or multiple variances, and averaging does not "improve" the variance, nor the predictability of the process in the future. (statistics) In math and physics there are processes which have multiple dimensions, hundreds, some related some not, and predictability is useless. (complexity theory) in a day the temp goes from 40 to 85 F, what is the average and var of that ? so daily averages, then monthly averages, then to yearly averages.... what is the variance on temperature ? did we make the variance very small by averaging ? https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/ A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 07:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58a55571-ab04-4529-8fda-a17d1edf92b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685341 |
On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 4:46:09 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote: > But physicists deal with such things often, for example: > half life measurements are due to random individual events, > but the large sample size allows more precise results. > > Are you arguing that we DO NOT get more data? Sea levels are not rising, you fucking moron. It's all about money.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 10:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <738c96aa-fdd0-4c29-b936-58d0c63a286d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685577 |
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote: > On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 4:46:09 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > But physicists deal with such things often, for example: > > half life measurements are due to random individual events, > > but the large sample size allows more precise results. > > > > Are you arguing that we DO NOT get more data? > > Sea levels are not rising, you fucking moron. It's all about money. Thank you for your totally emotional comment, JM. Now please go back to play with the other children and let the grown ups talk. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 14:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <LNFKC.180765$RM2.69877@fx05.iad> |
| In reply to | #685596 |
On 5/15/2018 1:47 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote: >> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 4:46:09 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote: >> >> >>> But physicists deal with such things often, for example: >>> half life measurements are due to random individual events, >>> but the large sample size allows more precise results. >>> >>> Are you arguing that we DO NOT get more data? >> >> Sea levels are not rising, you fucking moron. It's all about money. > > Thank you for your totally emotional comment, JM. > Now please go back to play with the other children > and let the grown ups talk. > Ed > Poor McFly. Even when he's right (it's all about money) He's still an idiot. Sea levels have been rising and glaciers melting ever since the ice age started to recede. In current era they are continuing to rise at about 2mm a year. (this era goes well before industrial revolution) I sure hope those old folks in Florida can shake a walker fast enough to keep from drowning!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 13:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdfalj$4o6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685604 |
On 5/15/2018 1:37 PM, benj wrote: > On 5/15/2018 1:47 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: >> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote: >>> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 4:46:09 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> >>> >>>> But physicists deal with such things often, for example: >>>> half life measurements are due to random individual events, >>>> but the large sample size allows more precise results. >>>> >>>> Are you arguing that we DO NOT get more data? >>> >>> Sea levels are not rising, you fucking moron. It's all about money. >> >> Thank you for your totally emotional comment, JM. >> Now please go back to play with the other children >> and let the grown ups talk. >> Ed >> > Poor McFly. Even when he's right (it's all about money) He's still an > idiot. Sea levels have been rising and glaciers melting ever since the > ice age started to recede. In current era they are continuing to rise at > about 2mm a year. (this era goes well before industrial revolution) I > sure hope those old folks in Florida can shake a walker fast enough to > keep from drowning! shouldn't make light of it, NYC is almost ocean level, and if it gets a few feet of water in there, all those rats (not the people) all those rats will relocate or swim to.... Stamford Conn, or New Jersey (where they will be welcome by the many unionized rats there. Or they will be relocated to Kalifornia the pet kind state, or Texas for target practice, or to Canada as food, those canooks eat anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 10:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fls25dFjb1kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685338 |
On 14/05/2018 9:26 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/13/2018 5:29 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 14/05/2018 7:39 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 5/13/2018 2:50 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 14/05/2018 5:27 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>> BTW: What "problem?" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have >>>>>>>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this >>>>>>>> planet. >>>>>>>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is >>>>>>>> causing and >>>>>>>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you say. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist >>>>> >>>>> Many disagree: >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> **You appear to think that what geographers, geologists, botanists and >>>> other scientists, who work in unrelated fields to CLIMATOLOGY matter in >>>> this debate. I have news for you: When I stated CLIMATOLOGISTS, that is >>>> precisely what I meant. ALL the agree that humans have >>>> caused the observed warming. >>>> >>> >>> no, not "all" climatologists, you are making stuff up. >> >> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >> causing the present warming? **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the present warming? >> >>> >>> >>> >>> "observed" by satellite ? >>> >>> Show me an error analysis, >>> what bands of IR are used? >>> how wide are the filters? >>> is the actual surface temp measured ? >>> what emissivity is assumed? >>> is the air temp within 1000' of the ground measured ? >>> how much does water vapor affect the accuracy? >>> what is the accuracy of the sensor platform ? >>> sunlit vs dark ? >>> how are clouds screened out of measurements ? >>> how many types of sensor systems are used ? >>> >>> and so on....... >> >> **OK, time for you to do some learning, Mr 0.3%. Here is my reference: >> >> http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ >> >> If you REALLY want answers to your questions (and I do not, for one >> millisecond believe that you interested in knowledge in the slightest), >> then read the IPCC reports. > > sure, lets go look at the data > > > > https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt > (monthly averages of varances from what? and from what stations?) > > Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) > using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity adjustment* > Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing > > => so the data has been manulipulated > *elimination of outliers* > *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) > > > look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 > > https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ > > > "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available > temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were in the > form of logbooks or other non-digital records." > > =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the time > of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, > and no ocean temps were used. > **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your insanity? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 19:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdan02$7n2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685344 |
On 5/13/2018 7:04 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 14/05/2018 9:26 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/13/2018 5:29 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 14/05/2018 7:39 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2018 2:50 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 14/05/2018 5:27 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 05:10:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14/05/2018 4:56 AM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> BTW: What "problem?" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Are you serious? Since the industrial revolution, humans have >>>>>>>>> contributed more than 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere of this >>>>>>>>> planet. >>>>>>>>> That extra CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The warming is >>>>>>>>> causing and >>>>>>>>> will cause severe problems for our civilisation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So you say. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Nope. _I_ don't say so at all. Every climatologist >>>>>> >>>>>> Many disagree: >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **You appear to think that what geographers, geologists, botanists and >>>>> other scientists, who work in unrelated fields to CLIMATOLOGY >>>>> matter in >>>>> this debate. I have news for you: When I stated CLIMATOLOGISTS, >>>>> that is >>>>> precisely what I meant. ALL the agree that humans have >>>>> caused the observed warming. >>>>> >>>> >>>> no, not "all" climatologists, you are making stuff up. >>> >>> **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is >>> causing the present warming? > > > **OK, then, how many climatologists dispute that anthropogenic CO2 is > causing the present warming? > >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "observed" by satellite ? >>>> >>>> Show me an error analysis, >>>> what bands of IR are used? >>>> how wide are the filters? >>>> is the actual surface temp measured ? >>>> what emissivity is assumed? >>>> is the air temp within 1000' of the ground measured ? >>>> how much does water vapor affect the accuracy? >>>> what is the accuracy of the sensor platform ? >>>> sunlit vs dark ? >>>> how are clouds screened out of measurements ? >>>> how many types of sensor systems are used ? >>>> >>>> and so on....... >>> >>> **OK, time for you to do some learning, Mr 0.3%. Here is my reference: >>> >>> http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ >>> >>> If you REALLY want answers to your questions (and I do not, for one >>> millisecond believe that you interested in knowledge in the slightest), >>> then read the IPCC reports. >> >> sure, lets go look at the data >> >> >> >> https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt >> (monthly averages of varances from what? and from what stations?) >> >> Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity adjustment* >> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing >> >> => so the data has been manulipulated >> *elimination of outliers* >> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >> >> >> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >> >> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >> >> >> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were in the >> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >> >> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the time >> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, >> and no ocean temps were used. >> > > > **OK, so what did you find in the IPCC documents that support your > insanity? > whish!!!!!!! right over your head here you go, read it for the first time Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity adjustment* >> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing >> >> => so the data has been manulipulated >> *elimination of outliers* >> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >> >> >> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >> >> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >> >> >> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were in the >> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >> >> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the time >> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, >> and no ocean temps were used. Sources: *GHCN-v3* 1880-03/2018 (meteorological stations only) >> using *elimination of outliers* and *homogeneity adjustment* >> Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing >> >> => so the data has been manulipulated >> *elimination of outliers* >> *homogeneity adjustment* (the more grievous one) >> >> >> look at GHCN-v1 vs. GHCN-v3 >> >> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/ >> >> >> "World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to collect all available >> temperature data from member countries. before 1980's these were in the >> form of logbooks or other non-digital records." >> >> =>which means they are NOT accurate to within 1 degree C, and the time >> of measurment is questionable, and all earth locations were not used, >> and no ocean temps were used.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web