Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #710193 > unrolled thread

Why India needs to worry about climate change

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why India needs to worry about climate change kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-29 10:24 -0400
    Why India needs to worry about climate change sam.wormley@gmail.com - 2018-10-29 13:40 -0700
      Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-29 14:03 -0700
        Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-29 16:23 -0500
          Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 08:11 -0700
    Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 15:27 -0700
      Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-29 15:54 -0700
        Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-30 00:46 -0500
          Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 13:11 -0400
    Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-10-30 00:03 -0400
      Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-30 00:47 -0500
        Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 13:13 -0400
          Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-30 13:01 -0500
            Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-30 13:55 -0500
              Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 18:19 -0400
              Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-10-31 03:29 +0000
                Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-31 11:26 -0500
            Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-11-01 01:02 -0400
      Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 08:41 -0700
        Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-10-30 23:13 -0400
          Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 09:17 -0700
            Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 12:38 -0400
              Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 10:00 -0700
                Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-31 14:08 -0500
                  Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 12:38 -0700
                    Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-01 16:40 -0500
                Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 17:57 -0400
            Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-31 11:43 -0500
              Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 10:08 -0700
                Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-31 12:23 -0500
                  Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 12:26 -0700
                    Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-01 23:35 -0500
                Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 18:06 -0400
                  Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 12:45 -0700
            Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-01 00:41 -0400
              Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 12:58 -0700
                Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-01 23:02 -0400

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#710538

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 11:13:16 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 08:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
> 
> >On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 12:03:50 AM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:24:03 -0400, kensi wrote:
> >> 
> >> >A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has 
> >> >warned of disastrous consequences if current trends of global warming 
> >> >are not reversed:
> >> >
> >> >https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45949323
> >> 
> >> Cue Ed to find the science content in the FUD above.
> >
> >The science is pretty clear. Care to state a case for FUD?
> 
> Okay:
> Fear: worry is born of fear.
> Uncertainty: "disastrous consequences ***if*** current trends"
> Doubt: "warned" is not "predicted with scientific certainty" so there
> is doubt whether one must devote resources to prepare for the
> advertised brand of "disastrous consequences."

Failed.  Your claim was the report was FUD. All you did was define it.

> 
> >It certainly seems FUD is the policy of climate change deniers.
> 
> How so?
> 
> And who here are "climate change deniers?"

You can't tell?
benj, sergio, ...

> 
> <https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/>
> To ferociously insist – as politicians and activists do – that
> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy
> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever.
> 
> And let's quote a physicist from the same link:
> "Man-made climate change certainly is real. There’s no doubt it’s
> real. The question is: how much and whether it’s good or bad? Those
> are quite separate questions. I would say it’s, on the whole, good.
> Also, it’s not as large an effect as most people imagine."
> 
> Note he used the word, "imagine."
Why the mysterious "a physicist"? use his name, Freeman Dyson.

The point is well taken that there may be positive aspects.
But even if in the end the global climate is better, that
does not account for the disruptions and costs to many nations.

> 
> http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
> "In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
> exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
> ridiculous."

A fine example of the U in FUD. In one reference you cite the
change is real and in the other citation labels it an illusion.
You cannot claim both.

And an example of F with the "suicidally ridiculous".

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710542

On 10/31/2018 12:17 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 11:13:16 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 08:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 12:03:50 AM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:24:03 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has
>>>>> warned of disastrous consequences if current trends of global warming
>>>>> are not reversed:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45949323
>>>>
>>>> Cue Ed to find the science content in the FUD above.
>>>
>>> The science is pretty clear. Care to state a case for FUD?
>>
>> Okay:
>> Fear: worry is born of fear.
>> Uncertainty: "disastrous consequences ***if*** current trends"
>> Doubt: "warned" is not "predicted with scientific certainty" so there
>> is doubt whether one must devote resources to prepare for the
>> advertised brand of "disastrous consequences."
> 
> Failed.  Your claim was the report was FUD. All you did was define it.

Climate change is real. Climate is ALWAYS changing. That much is 
"established science". Anthorpogenic global warming on the other hand is 
a political tax scheme designed to extract a trillion dollars a year 
from the (First) World. FUD is the methodology used to implement that 
criminal fraud.

>>> It certainly seems FUD is the policy of climate change deniers.
>>
>> How so?
>>
>> And who here are "climate change deniers?"
> 
> You can't tell?
> benj, sergio, ...

Ridicule anyone who brings up actual science facts by calling them 
"deniers". Sticks and stones, dipshit.

>>
>> <https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/>
>> To ferociously insist – as politicians and activists do – that
>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy
>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever.
>>
>> And let's quote a physicist from the same link:
>> "Man-made climate change certainly is real. There’s no doubt it’s
>> real. The question is: how much and whether it’s good or bad? Those
>> are quite separate questions. I would say it’s, on the whole, good.
>> Also, it’s not as large an effect as most people imagine."
>>
>> Note he used the word, "imagine."
> Why the mysterious "a physicist"? use his name, Freeman Dyson.
> 
> The point is well taken that there may be positive aspects.
> But even if in the end the global climate is better, that
> does not account for the disruptions and costs to many nations.

He should have said "as most (stupid) people have been led to believe".
Of course "Imagine" fits given that most of the "journalist science" is 
totally imaginary.

>> http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
>> "In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
>> exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
>> ridiculous."
> 
> A fine example of the U in FUD. In one reference you cite the
> change is real and in the other citation labels it an illusion.
> You cannot claim both.

Proof that libtards do not do quantity. It was clearly stated that the 
problem is how much an effect man has on climate. Fantasy and illusion 
are part of your libtard world, not science. A microscopic change in 
climate due to human activities is real, but pretending that such a 
minuscule change is somehow frightening and going to cause huge death 
and disasters all over the planet is obviously fantasy, fear, and 
delusion at the same time. That latter is obviously your game.

> And an example of F with the "suicidally ridiculous".
> 
> Ed

Hey Ed, you fast enough to outrun that 2mm per year sea level rise?
No "suicide" for you!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710547

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 12:38:56 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 10/31/2018 12:17 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 11:13:16 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 08:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
> >>
[]
> >>>> Cue Ed to find the science content in the FUD above.
> >>>
> >>> The science is pretty clear. Care to state a case for FUD?
> >>
> >> Okay:
> >> Fear: worry is born of fear.
> >> Uncertainty: "disastrous consequences ***if*** current trends"
> >> Doubt: "warned" is not "predicted with scientific certainty" so there
> >> is doubt whether one must devote resources to prepare for the
> >> advertised brand of "disastrous consequences."
> > 
> > Failed.  Your claim was the report was FUD. All you did was define it.
> 
> Climate change is real. Climate is ALWAYS changing. That much is 
> "established science". Anthorpogenic global warming on the other hand is 
> a political tax scheme designed to extract a trillion dollars a year 
> from the (First) World. FUD is the methodology used to implement that 
> criminal fraud.

i was wondering when you would chime in.
> 
> >>> It certainly seems FUD is the policy of climate change deniers.
> >>
> >> How so?
> >>
> >> And who here are "climate change deniers?"
> > 
> > You can't tell?
> > benj, sergio, ...
> 
> Ridicule anyone who brings up actual science facts by calling them 
> "deniers". Sticks and stones, dipshit.

Ah, did I hurt your feeling,benj?

> 
> >>
> >> <https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/>
> >> To ferociously insist – as politicians and activists do – that
> >> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy
> >> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever.
> >>
> >> And let's quote a physicist from the same link:
> >> "Man-made climate change certainly is real. There’s no doubt it’s
> >> real. The question is: how much and whether it’s good or bad? Those
> >> are quite separate questions. I would say it’s, on the whole, good.
> >> Also, it’s not as large an effect as most people imagine."
> >>
> >> Note he used the word, "imagine."
> > Why the mysterious "a physicist"? use his name, Freeman Dyson.
> > 
> > The point is well taken that there may be positive aspects.
> > But even if in the end the global climate is better, that
> > does not account for the disruptions and costs to many nations.
> 
> He should have said "as most (stupid) people have been led to believe".
> Of course "Imagine" fits given that most of the "journalist science" is 
> totally imaginary.

And benj completes the FUD trifecta with the D, doubt the sources.

> 
> >> http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
> >> "In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
> >> exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
> >> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
> >> ridiculous."
> > 
> > A fine example of the U in FUD. In one reference you cite the
> > change is real and in the other citation labels it an illusion.
> > You cannot claim both.
> 
> Proof that libtards do not do quantity. It was clearly stated that the 
> problem is how much an effect man has on climate. Fantasy and illusion 
> are part of your libtard world, not science. A microscopic change in 
> climate due to human activities is real, but pretending that such a 
> minuscule change is somehow frightening and going to cause huge death 
> and disasters all over the planet is obviously fantasy, fear, and 
> delusion at the same time. That latter is obviously your game.

Wally, he just called you a libtard!

>
> 
> > And an example of F with the "suicidally ridiculous".
> > 
> > Ed
> 
> Hey Ed, you fast enough to outrun that 2mm per year sea level rise?
> No "suicide" for you!

And benj tries to sneak in some physics with a speed problem!
Good for you Benj.

Being in Ohio, I should have no problem.
Enjoy,
  ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710562

On 10/31/2018 12:00 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 12:38:56 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
>> On 10/31/2018 12:17 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 11:13:16 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 08:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>
> []
>>>>>> Cue Ed to find the science content in the FUD above.
>>>>>
>>>>> The science is pretty clear. Care to state a case for FUD?
>>>>
>>>> Okay:
>>>> Fear: worry is born of fear.
>>>> Uncertainty: "disastrous consequences ***if*** current trends"
>>>> Doubt: "warned" is not "predicted with scientific certainty" so there
>>>> is doubt whether one must devote resources to prepare for the
>>>> advertised brand of "disastrous consequences."
>>>
>>> Failed.  Your claim was the report was FUD. All you did was define it.
>>
>> Climate change is real. Climate is ALWAYS changing. That much is 
>> "established science". Anthorpogenic global warming on the other hand is 
>> a political tax scheme designed to extract a trillion dollars a year 
>> from the (First) World. FUD is the methodology used to implement that 
>> criminal fraud.
> 
> i was wondering when you would chime in.
>>
>>>>> It certainly seems FUD is the policy of climate change deniers.
>>>>
>>>> How so?
>>>>
>>>> And who here are "climate change deniers?"
>>>
>>> You can't tell?
>>> benj, sergio, ...
>>
>> Ridicule anyone who brings up actual science facts by calling them 
>> "deniers". Sticks and stones, dipshit.
> 
> Ah, did I hurt your feeling,benj?
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/>
>>>> To ferociously insist – as politicians and activists do – that
>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy
>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> And let's quote a physicist from the same link:
>>>> "Man-made climate change certainly is real. There’s no doubt it’s
>>>> real. The question is: how much and whether it’s good or bad? Those
>>>> are quite separate questions. I would say it’s, on the whole, good.
>>>> Also, it’s not as large an effect as most people imagine."
>>>>
>>>> Note he used the word, "imagine."
>>> Why the mysterious "a physicist"? use his name, Freeman Dyson.
>>>
>>> The point is well taken that there may be positive aspects.
>>> But even if in the end the global climate is better, that
>>> does not account for the disruptions and costs to many nations.
>>
>> He should have said "as most (stupid) people have been led to believe".
>> Of course "Imagine" fits given that most of the "journalist science" is 
>> totally imaginary.
> 
> And benj completes the FUD trifecta with the D, doubt the sources.
> 
>>
>>>> http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
>>>> "In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
>>>> exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
>>>> ridiculous."
>>>
>>> A fine example of the U in FUD. In one reference you cite the
>>> change is real and in the other citation labels it an illusion.
>>> You cannot claim both.
>>
>> Proof that libtards do not do quantity. It was clearly stated that the 
>> problem is how much an effect man has on climate. Fantasy and illusion 
>> are part of your libtard world, not science. A microscopic change in 
>> climate due to human activities is real, but pretending that such a 
>> minuscule change is somehow frightening and going to cause huge death 
>> and disasters all over the planet is obviously fantasy, fear, and 
>> delusion at the same time. That latter is obviously your game.
> 
> Wally, he just called you a libtard!
> 
>>
>>
>>> And an example of F with the "suicidally ridiculous".
>>>
>>> Ed
>>
>> Hey Ed, you fast enough to outrun that 2mm per year sea level rise?
>> No "suicide" for you!
> 
> And benj tries to sneak in some physics with a speed problem!
> Good for you Benj.
> 
> Being in Ohio, I should have no problem.
> Enjoy,
>   ed
> 

hope you have your swim fins on;

"Ohio's highest elevation point, Campbell Hill, is 1,549 feet (472
meters) above sea level. Ohio's lowest elevation point, the Ohio River
at the Indiana state border, is 455 feet (139 meters) above sea level "

yep, your gonna get it, sea water in Ohio just a short 69,500 years to
236,000 years from now!!  HA HA !!

(well governments are only stable for 200 years ? unless we bring the
Romans back, but they could not do 69k years.  Also we will probably be
depleted of oil, coal, rare earths for cellphones, and everyone would be
working for Google (or Amazon, but Facebook dies off in 5 years from now))

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710816

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 3:08:58 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
> On 10/31/2018 12:00 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 12:38:56 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
[]
> >>
> >> Hey Ed, you fast enough to outrun that 2mm per year sea level rise?
> >> No "suicide" for you!
> > 
> > And benj tries to sneak in some physics with a speed problem!
> > Good for you Benj.
> > 
> > Being in Ohio, I should have no problem.
> > Enjoy,
> >   ed
> > 
> 
> hope you have your swim fins on;

Well not in my lifetime. (Unless we cross the singularity
and are able to upload our brains to the internet.)
> 
> "Ohio's highest elevation point, Campbell Hill, is 1,549 feet (472
> meters) above sea level. Ohio's lowest elevation point, the Ohio River
> at the Indiana state border, is 455 feet (139 meters) above sea level "
> 
> yep, your gonna get it, sea water in Ohio just a short 69,500 years to
> 236,000 years from now!!  HA HA !!
> 

The entire middle of north america was once ocean.
And you make a point that even my thousand year view
is short sighted.

> (well governments are only stable for 200 years ? unless we bring the
> Romans back, but they could not do 69k years.  Also we will probably be
> depleted of oil, coal, rare earths for cellphones, and everyone would be
> working for Google (or Amazon, but Facebook dies off in 5 years from now))

That is what many do not understand or just refuse to accept:
fossil fuels are a finite resource in a fairly short term,
whether short term is a few hundred years, or 70,000 years.

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710887

On 11/1/2018 2:38 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 3:08:58 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
>> On 10/31/2018 12:00 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 12:38:56 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> []
>>>>
>>>> Hey Ed, you fast enough to outrun that 2mm per year sea level rise?
>>>> No "suicide" for you!
>>>
>>> And benj tries to sneak in some physics with a speed problem!
>>> Good for you Benj.
>>>
>>> Being in Ohio, I should have no problem.
>>> Enjoy,
>>>   ed
>>>
>>
>> hope you have your swim fins on;
> 
> Well not in my lifetime. (Unless we cross the singularity
> and are able to upload our brains to the internet.)
>>
>> "Ohio's highest elevation point, Campbell Hill, is 1,549 feet (472
>> meters) above sea level. Ohio's lowest elevation point, the Ohio River
>> at the Indiana state border, is 455 feet (139 meters) above sea level "
>>
>> yep, your gonna get it, sea water in Ohio just a short 69,500 years to
>> 236,000 years from now!!  HA HA !!
>>
> 
> The entire middle of north america was once ocean.
> And you make a point that even my thousand year view
> is short sighted.
> 
>> (well governments are only stable for 200 years ? unless we bring the
>> Romans back, but they could not do 69k years.  Also we will probably be
>> depleted of oil, coal, rare earths for cellphones, and everyone would be
>> working for Google (or Amazon, but Facebook dies off in 5 years from now))
> 
> That is what many do not understand or just refuse to accept:
> fossil fuels are a finite resource in a fairly short term,
> whether short term is a few hundred years, or 70,000 years.
> 
> Ed
> 

I got some fossilized shark teeth out of the creek in back of the house.

ANyhow, nuclear power can do it, but you have to rebuild the plant every
50 years or so.
	corrosion
	steel imbrittlement caused by high radiation - radiation causes voids
in the steel long term, steel loses strength

same with the  other power sources, including renuables, they only last
30 years or so.  Our environment of water vapor is corrosive long term.
US Gov has a webpage on lifetime of different power sources.


http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/

I had a solar panel, but what brought it down was water vapor intrusion
through  a seal,  the seals dont last 30 years or more...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710593

On 10/31/2018 1:00 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 12:38:56 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
>> On 10/31/2018 12:17 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 11:13:16 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 08:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>
> []
>>>>>> Cue Ed to find the science content in the FUD above.
>>>>>
>>>>> The science is pretty clear. Care to state a case for FUD?
>>>>
>>>> Okay:
>>>> Fear: worry is born of fear.
>>>> Uncertainty: "disastrous consequences ***if*** current trends"
>>>> Doubt: "warned" is not "predicted with scientific certainty" so there
>>>> is doubt whether one must devote resources to prepare for the
>>>> advertised brand of "disastrous consequences."
>>>
>>> Failed.  Your claim was the report was FUD. All you did was define it.
>>
>> Climate change is real. Climate is ALWAYS changing. That much is
>> "established science". Anthorpogenic global warming on the other hand is
>> a political tax scheme designed to extract a trillion dollars a year
>> from the (First) World. FUD is the methodology used to implement that
>> criminal fraud.
> 
> i was wondering when you would chime in.

No, actual contribution to discussion only allowing us to worship Ed for 
his superior intelligence in figuring out that if he uses my name and 
then tells lies I will respond. You are such a GOD, Ed. We all admire 
you and want to be just like you!

>>>>> It certainly seems FUD is the policy of climate change deniers.
>>>>
>>>> How so?
>>>>
>>>> And who here are "climate change deniers?"
>>>
>>> You can't tell?
>>> benj, sergio, ...
>>
>> Ridicule anyone who brings up actual science facts by calling them
>> "deniers". Sticks and stones, dipshit.
> 
> Ah, did I hurt your feeling,benj?

Ridicule. No science, not even any facts. Propaganda 101.

>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/>
>>>> To ferociously insist – as politicians and activists do – that
>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy
>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> And let's quote a physicist from the same link:
>>>> "Man-made climate change certainly is real. There’s no doubt it’s
>>>> real. The question is: how much and whether it’s good or bad? Those
>>>> are quite separate questions. I would say it’s, on the whole, good.
>>>> Also, it’s not as large an effect as most people imagine."
>>>>
>>>> Note he used the word, "imagine."
>>> Why the mysterious "a physicist"? use his name, Freeman Dyson.
>>>
>>> The point is well taken that there may be positive aspects.
>>> But even if in the end the global climate is better, that
>>> does not account for the disruptions and costs to many nations.
>>
>> He should have said "as most (stupid) people have been led to believe".
>> Of course "Imagine" fits given that most of the "journalist science" is
>> totally imaginary.
> 
> And benj completes the FUD trifecta with the D, doubt the sources.

Name-calling used to replace the actual science facts that Ed pretended 
to call for. Libtards only know 3 things: Spelling, Grammar and lying.

>>
>>>> http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
>>>> "In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
>>>> exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
>>>> ridiculous."
>>>
>>> A fine example of the U in FUD. In one reference you cite the
>>> change is real and in the other citation labels it an illusion.
>>> You cannot claim both.
>>
>> Proof that libtards do not do quantity. It was clearly stated that the
>> problem is how much an effect man has on climate. Fantasy and illusion
>> are part of your libtard world, not science. A microscopic change in
>> climate due to human activities is real, but pretending that such a
>> minuscule change is somehow frightening and going to cause huge death
>> and disasters all over the planet is obviously fantasy, fear, and
>> delusion at the same time. That latter is obviously your game.
> 
> Wally, he just called you a libtard!

Change of subject and deflection of criticism to enemy. Propaganda 101.

Just who do you think you are fooling, comrade?

>>
>>> And an example of F with the "suicidally ridiculous".
>>>
>>> Ed
>>
>> Hey Ed, you fast enough to outrun that 2mm per year sea level rise?
>> No "suicide" for you!
> 
> And benj tries to sneak in some physics with a speed problem!
> Good for you Benj.

Ridicule. (ignoring the validity of data) propaganda 101.

> Being in Ohio, I should have no problem.

Are you kidding? wait until the Ohio river backs up an covers your 
house! I mean do you know how many feet the ocean can rise from "climate 
change"? Or maybe you are thinking it could "change" the other way from 
you libs "sequestering" too much CO2? Remember how great the snappy cold 
air was back when the oceans quit rising and in fact were 400 feet 
lower. Bet you want that mile of ice over your house again. Me? I like 
it better warmer.

Are you really as dumb as you act? <snicker>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710544

On 10/31/2018 11:17 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 11:13:16 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 08:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 12:03:50 AM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:24:03 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has 
>>>>> warned of disastrous consequences if current trends of global warming 
>>>>> are not reversed:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45949323
>>>>
>>>> Cue Ed to find the science content in the FUD above.
>>>
>>> The science is pretty clear. Care to state a case for FUD?
>>
>> Okay:
>> Fear: worry is born of fear.
>> Uncertainty: "disastrous consequences ***if*** current trends"
>> Doubt: "warned" is not "predicted with scientific certainty" so there
>> is doubt whether one must devote resources to prepare for the
>> advertised brand of "disastrous consequences."
> 
> Failed.  Your claim was the report was FUD. All you did was define it.
> 
>>
>>> It certainly seems FUD is the policy of climate change deniers.
>>
>> How so?
>>
>> And who here are "climate change deniers?"
> 
> You can't tell?
> benj, sergio, ...


I do not deny nor approve, I want to see the raw evidence, the data,
there are huge holes in the data, averaging upon averaging, inadequate
computer models parameters adjusted for a result, ignoring much of the
effects of the largest greenouse gas-water vapor, and ignoring much of
the other greenhouse gasses, direct political interference, direct
political redirection, many hollywood movies to brainwash the public
without refering to the raw data, and a huge industry selling fear has
resulted for unemployed journalists.

the analysis of the raw data is deeply flawed, take one point for every
square mile on the earths surface, and take the daily average of that
point for the past 500,000 years. Do we have that data set ? NO !
so what do we have ?


I want to see an error analysis.


> 
>>
>> <https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/>
>> To ferociously insist – as politicians and activists do – that
>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy
>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever.
>>
>> And let's quote a physicist from the same link:
>> "Man-made climate change certainly is real. There’s no doubt it’s
>> real. The question is: how much and whether it’s good or bad? Those
>> are quite separate questions. I would say it’s, on the whole, good.
>> Also, it’s not as large an effect as most people imagine."
>>
>> Note he used the word, "imagine."
> Why the mysterious "a physicist"? use his name, Freeman Dyson.
> 
> The point is well taken that there may be positive aspects.
> But even if in the end the global climate is better, that
> does not account for the disruptions and costs to many nations.
> 
>>
>> http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926
>> "In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for
>> exactly what it is -- The Great Delusion.  Future generations will
>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally
>> ridiculous."
> 
> A fine example of the U in FUD. In one reference you cite the
> change is real and in the other citation labels it an illusion.
> You cannot claim both.
> 
> And an example of F with the "suicidally ridiculous".
> 
> Ed
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710548

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 12:43:30 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
> On 10/31/2018 11:17 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 11:13:16 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 08:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 12:03:50 AM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:24:03 -0400, kensi wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has 
> >>>>> warned of disastrous consequences if current trends of global warming 
> >>>>> are not reversed:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45949323
> >>>>
> >>>> Cue Ed to find the science content in the FUD above.
> >>>
> >>> The science is pretty clear. Care to state a case for FUD?
> >>
> >> Okay:
> >> Fear: worry is born of fear.
> >> Uncertainty: "disastrous consequences ***if*** current trends"
> >> Doubt: "warned" is not "predicted with scientific certainty" so there
> >> is doubt whether one must devote resources to prepare for the
> >> advertised brand of "disastrous consequences."
> > 
> > Failed.  Your claim was the report was FUD. All you did was define it.
> > 
> >>
> >>> It certainly seems FUD is the policy of climate change deniers.
> >>
> >> How so?
> >>
> >> And who here are "climate change deniers?"
> > 
> > You can't tell?
> > benj, sergio, ...
> 
> 
> I do not deny nor approve,


I apologise.

>        I want to see the raw evidence, the data,
> there are huge holes in the data, averaging upon averaging, inadequate
> computer models parameters adjusted for a result, ignoring much of the
> effects of the largest greenouse gas-water vapor, and ignoring much of
> the other greenhouse gasses, direct political interference, direct
> political redirection, many hollywood movies to brainwash the public
> without refering to the raw data, and a huge industry selling fear has
> resulted for unemployed journalists.
> 
> the analysis of the raw data is deeply flawed, take one point for every
> square mile on the earths surface, and take the daily average of that
> point for the past 500,000 years. Do we have that data set ? NO !
> so what do we have ?
> 
> 
> I want to see an error analysis.
> 

Maybe we can research this together.
here is one resource:
https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed

(though some here might call MIT too liberal.)

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710550

On 10/31/2018 12:08 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 12:43:30 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
>> On 10/31/2018 11:17 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 11:13:16 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 08:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 12:03:50 AM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:24:03 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has 
>>>>>>> warned of disastrous consequences if current trends of global warming 
>>>>>>> are not reversed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45949323
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cue Ed to find the science content in the FUD above.
>>>>>
>>>>> The science is pretty clear. Care to state a case for FUD?
>>>>
>>>> Okay:
>>>> Fear: worry is born of fear.
>>>> Uncertainty: "disastrous consequences ***if*** current trends"
>>>> Doubt: "warned" is not "predicted with scientific certainty" so there
>>>> is doubt whether one must devote resources to prepare for the
>>>> advertised brand of "disastrous consequences."
>>>
>>> Failed.  Your claim was the report was FUD. All you did was define it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It certainly seems FUD is the policy of climate change deniers.
>>>>
>>>> How so?
>>>>
>>>> And who here are "climate change deniers?"
>>>
>>> You can't tell?
>>> benj, sergio, ...
>>
>>
>> I do not deny nor approve,
> 
> 
> I apologise.
> 
>>        I want to see the raw evidence, the data,
>> there are huge holes in the data, averaging upon averaging, inadequate
>> computer models parameters adjusted for a result, ignoring much of the
>> effects of the largest greenouse gas-water vapor, and ignoring much of
>> the other greenhouse gasses, direct political interference, direct
>> political redirection, many hollywood movies to brainwash the public
>> without refering to the raw data, and a huge industry selling fear has
>> resulted for unemployed journalists.
>>
>> the analysis of the raw data is deeply flawed, take one point for every
>> square mile on the earths surface, and take the daily average of that
>> point for the past 500,000 years. Do we have that data set ? NO !
>> so what do we have ?
>>
>>
>> I want to see an error analysis.
>>
> 
> Maybe we can research this together.
> here is one resource:
> https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
> 
> (though some here might call MIT too liberal.)
> 
> Ed
> 

very active subjects, which means it is still being researched, most
have stepped ahead of what raw surface data can support and then paywall.

need an answer to this question;

where is Sattilite measurement of surface temperature error analysis,
from 1985 to present.

I believe they measure in 2 or 3 IR bands, which have been manualy
corrolated to temperature readings on the surface (someone measured
serface temperature to help calibrate the satellites) However, water
vapor can obscure the IR in these bands, so the surface was not being
directly measured.

  AN error analysis is analysis of all sources of possable error for the
measurments and estimates  the distribution of error.


I have an Error analysis for GPS done by the Canadian Government, it is
about 900 pages.

I question sattilite here, as that is more consistant and known than
surface(air) field measurments, which are loaded with more error sources.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710815

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 1:23:43 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
> On 10/31/2018 12:08 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 12:43:30 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
> >>        I want to see the raw evidence, the data,
> >> there are huge holes in the data, averaging upon averaging, inadequate
> >> computer models parameters adjusted for a result, ignoring much of the
> >> effects of the largest greenouse gas-water vapor, and ignoring much of
> >> the other greenhouse gasses, direct political interference, direct
> >> political redirection, many hollywood movies to brainwash the public
> >> without refering to the raw data, and a huge industry selling fear has
> >> resulted for unemployed journalists.
> >>
> >> the analysis of the raw data is deeply flawed, take one point for every
> >> square mile on the earths surface, and take the daily average of that
> >> point for the past 500,000 years. Do we have that data set ? NO !
> >> so what do we have ?
> >>
> >>
> >> I want to see an error analysis.
> >>
> > 
> > Maybe we can research this together.
> > here is one resource:
> > https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
> > 
> > (though some here might call MIT too liberal.)
> > 
> > Ed
> > 
> 
> very active subjects, which means it is still being researched, most
> have stepped ahead of what raw surface data can support and then paywall.

By that criteria ("active subject" and "still being researched")
would you consider quantum mechanics, relativity, or Big bang theories
to be unsupported?
Just trying to get the ground rules set.


> 
> need an answer to this question;
> 
> where is Sattilite measurement of surface temperature error analysis,
> from 1985 to present.
> 
> I believe they measure in 2 or 3 IR bands, which have been manualy
> corrolated to temperature readings on the surface (someone measured
> serface temperature to help calibrate the satellites) However, water
> vapor can obscure the IR in these bands, so the surface was not being
> directly measured.
> 
>   AN error analysis is analysis of all sources of possable error for the
> measurments and estimates  the distribution of error.
> 

On that MIT site I searched with: surface temperature error analysis
Got 207 results including this one:
https://globalchange.mit.edu/sites/default/files/MITJPSPGC_Reprint_15-27_0.pdf

which has some of the information you might find interesting (free PDF copy)

> 
> I have an Error analysis for GPS done by the Canadian Government, it is
> about 900 pages.
> 
> I question sattilite here, as that is more consistant and known than
> surface(air) field measurments, which are loaded with more error sources.

I did not see anything specifically analyzing satellite measurements.
I'll keep looking.
  Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710975

On 11/1/2018 2:26 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 1:23:43 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
>> On 10/31/2018 12:08 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 12:43:30 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
>>>>        I want to see the raw evidence, the data,
>>>> there are huge holes in the data, averaging upon averaging, inadequate
>>>> computer models parameters adjusted for a result, ignoring much of the
>>>> effects of the largest greenouse gas-water vapor, and ignoring much of
>>>> the other greenhouse gasses, direct political interference, direct
>>>> political redirection, many hollywood movies to brainwash the public
>>>> without refering to the raw data, and a huge industry selling fear has
>>>> resulted for unemployed journalists.
>>>>
>>>> the analysis of the raw data is deeply flawed, take one point for every
>>>> square mile on the earths surface, and take the daily average of that
>>>> point for the past 500,000 years. Do we have that data set ? NO !
>>>> so what do we have ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I want to see an error analysis.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe we can research this together.
>>> here is one resource:
>>> https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
>>>
>>> (though some here might call MIT too liberal.)
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>
>> very active subjects, which means it is still being researched, most
>> have stepped ahead of what raw surface data can support and then paywall.
> 
> By that criteria ("active subject" and "still being researched")
> would you consider quantum mechanics, relativity, or Big bang theories
> to be unsupported?
> Just trying to get the ground rules set.
> 
> 
>>
>> need an answer to this question;
>>
>> where is Sattilite measurement of surface temperature error analysis,
>> from 1985 to present.
>>
>> I believe they measure in 2 or 3 IR bands, which have been manualy
>> corrolated to temperature readings on the surface (someone measured
>> serface temperature to help calibrate the satellites) However, water
>> vapor can obscure the IR in these bands, so the surface was not being
>> directly measured.
>>
>>   AN error analysis is analysis of all sources of possable error for the
>> measurments and estimates  the distribution of error.
>>
> 
> On that MIT site I searched with: surface temperature error analysis
> Got 207 results including this one:
> https://globalchange.mit.edu/sites/default/files/MITJPSPGC_Reprint_15-27_0.pdf

good stuff, Note it is Volume 28, 28 volumes, a lot of stuff to wade
through.

but on that page page 8,328 or so figure 1 is a nice diagram that
illustrates the process people are trying to bound.  But to get to this,
they had to make a huge number of assumptions, which should be reflected
in the uncertianty of the number, notice -184 +-9  LW cooling for +_ 5%.
But 5% accuracy is nominal in measuring instruments, 3% in better
instruments. 1% is quite difficult to get to.
So how can an entire planet, with its natural processes, clouds, layers,
 be measured accuractly, and over time, to not very more than +_5% ?

I traced some of this back to how temerature were used to get high
accuracy, and what they used was daily average temperatures, so the
temperature extremes were washed out. the varance was not brought
forward. Then they average the daily average temperatures again and
spread out that number over a larger area, so more variance is wash out.
So you can arrive at a precision number 59.04 degrees F, which you think
represents a yearly average over the state of Maine, however that number
is swollowed up by the large varances, that were 'averaged out', so in
Maine it is difficult for one to measure 59.04 at any time, any place,
it is usally some other number.

for example,  say the input is 5 to 105  and has an even probability of
the range between the two, the average is 55.00 , but the measured will
almost never be 55.00.

The point is that many processes with large variances cannot be
accurately described using typical mathematics (remember the book "Black
Swan" by Taleb?), the variances of the underlying data need to be
included in the calculations, and brought forth.

in that paper you linked to, they have errors in their data, (in the
error bounds) one is in Table 3, incomeing solar F at 340.2 +_ 0.1  or
0.029 %   another paper states it is 1370 W/m^2 +- 3.4% due to
eccentricity of Earths orbit. (you can ignore units conversion)

How can the sun radiation only vary by 0.029% ?  How can we measure that
accuractly ?  What bands, what filters, what detectors were used, and
how were they calibrated ?    My point is the extreme presision they
arrive at is an artifact of averaging.

From that paper: page 8332, second paragraph
"This is achieved by invoking two common (and nec-
essary) assumptions concerning the uncertainties in the
component fluxes: that they are random and Gaussian.
While it is difficult to justify either of these assumptions,
they are required in the absence of definitive bias or error
distribution information."

    which means they punted, and just assumed Gaussian random
distrubutions, because the computers are already setup for that canned
function.  (it is not "necessary" as they state)

     they made the already averaged data fit their math tools, throwing
out variance and real distributions.


page 8332 has other statements on it that should raise concern;

"A larger value of  ki^2 is indicative of larger
than anticipated biases in one or more of the component
fluxes. Another simple (but valuable) metric of the
success of the optimization is a direct comparison of the
magnitudes of the adjustments made to each component
flux against their estimated uncertainties. Energy budget
residuals, computed as the sum of the adjustments to the
component fluxes, that exceed associated error bounds
are indicative of areas where balance could not be ad-
equately achieved."

"One of the principal advantages of this approach lies
in the fact that it can be scaled to arbitrarily complex
problems involving any number of fluxes and con-
straints. In particular, it can be used to establish an ex-
plicit link between the energy budget and water cycle
through the connection between latent heating, evapo-
ration, and precipitation. In this way, disparate obser-
vational datasets that are seldom considered together,
such as radiative fluxes and surface runoff, can be cou-
pled to their mutual benefit through their relationships
to precipitation and evaporation in energy and water
budget closure equations. "








following is a news article that highlights part of the problem, (it
misses the fact that daily temperature varance were washed out).

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/01/uncertainty-ranges-error-bars-and-cis/

one can draw many lines through and be within all the error bars, and
they are viable answers too.



.................





> 
> which has some of the information you might find interesting (free PDF copy)
> 
>>
>> I have an Error analysis for GPS done by the Canadian Government, it is
>> about 900 pages.
>>
>> I question sattilite here, as that is more consistant and known than
>> surface(air) field measurments, which are loaded with more error sources.
> 
> I did not see anything specifically analyzing satellite measurements.
> I'll keep looking.
>   Ed
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710597

On 10/31/2018 1:08 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 12:43:30 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
>> On 10/31/2018 11:17 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 11:13:16 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 08:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 12:03:50 AM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:24:03 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has
>>>>>>> warned of disastrous consequences if current trends of global warming
>>>>>>> are not reversed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45949323
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cue Ed to find the science content in the FUD above.
>>>>>
>>>>> The science is pretty clear. Care to state a case for FUD?
>>>>
>>>> Okay:
>>>> Fear: worry is born of fear.
>>>> Uncertainty: "disastrous consequences ***if*** current trends"
>>>> Doubt: "warned" is not "predicted with scientific certainty" so there
>>>> is doubt whether one must devote resources to prepare for the
>>>> advertised brand of "disastrous consequences."
>>>
>>> Failed.  Your claim was the report was FUD. All you did was define it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It certainly seems FUD is the policy of climate change deniers.
>>>>
>>>> How so?
>>>>
>>>> And who here are "climate change deniers?"
>>>
>>> You can't tell?
>>> benj, sergio, ...
>>
>>
>> I do not deny nor approve,
> 
> 
> I apologise.
> 
>>         I want to see the raw evidence, the data,
>> there are huge holes in the data, averaging upon averaging, inadequate
>> computer models parameters adjusted for a result, ignoring much of the
>> effects of the largest greenouse gas-water vapor, and ignoring much of
>> the other greenhouse gasses, direct political interference, direct
>> political redirection, many hollywood movies to brainwash the public
>> without refering to the raw data, and a huge industry selling fear has
>> resulted for unemployed journalists.
>>
>> the analysis of the raw data is deeply flawed, take one point for every
>> square mile on the earths surface, and take the daily average of that
>> point for the past 500,000 years. Do we have that data set ? NO !
>> so what do we have ?
>>
>>
>> I want to see an error analysis.
>>
> 
> Maybe we can research this together.
> here is one resource:
> https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
> 
> (though some here might call MIT too liberal.)

ALL universities are too liberal, but that isn't the real issue. Of 
course, one might ask just how much support money MIT gets from those 
expecting a pro-global warming agenda for it. My guess is most of it for 
"climate" research.

But Ed, the real issue here is that your list of papers provides ZERO 
evidence for the theory that Fossil fuel combustion products are causing 
run-away radiative forcing. Mostly they are about other gases, guessed 
at economic impacts and discussing unrelated topics. Didn't you read all 
your abstracts before posting the link?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710818

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 6:07:01 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 10/31/2018 1:08 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 12:43:30 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
[]
> >> I want to see an error analysis.
> >>
> > 
> > Maybe we can research this together.
> > here is one resource:
> > https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
> > 
> > (though some here might call MIT too liberal.)
> 
> ALL universities are too liberal, but that isn't the real issue. Of 
> course, one might ask just how much support money MIT gets from those 
> expecting a pro-global warming agenda for it. My guess is most of it for 
> "climate" research.

Another Doubt the sources claim by benj.
> 
> But Ed, the real issue here is that your list of papers provides ZERO 
> evidence for the theory that Fossil fuel combustion products are causing 
> run-away radiative forcing. Mostly they are about other gases, guessed 
> at economic impacts and discussing unrelated topics. Didn't you read all 
> your abstracts before posting the link?

Have you read all those abstracts? I doubt it. I haven't, yet.
I did not claim anything except that that list might be a place to start.

Enjoy,
  Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710675

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 09:17:36 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 11:13:16 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 08:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
>> 
>> >On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 12:03:50 AM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:24:03 -0400, kensi wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has 
>> >> >warned of disastrous consequences if current trends of global warming 
>> >> >are not reversed:
>> >> >
>> >> >https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45949323
>> >> 
>> >> Cue Ed to find the science content in the FUD above.
>> >
>> >The science is pretty clear. 

So clear that you didn't give any examples.

>Care to state a case for FUD?
>> 
>> Okay:
>> Fear: worry is born of fear.
>> Uncertainty: "disastrous consequences ***if*** current trends"
>> Doubt: "warned" is not "predicted with scientific certainty" so there
>> is doubt whether one must devote resources to prepare for the
>> advertised brand of "disastrous consequences."
>
>Failed.  Your claim was the report was FUD. All you did was define it.

I didn't define it, I gave examples of each element from the OP.

>> 
>> >It certainly seems FUD is the policy of climate change deniers.
>> 
>> How so?
>> 
>> And who here are "climate change deniers?"
>
>You can't tell?
>benj, sergio, ...

Since you know how to label people, how would you label kensi?

Surely there are more categories than occur to
black-and-white-thinking greenies: deniers and non-deniers.

There is a range, including:

Deniers that climate change happens at all.
Skeptics who don't roll with the "consensus"
Agnostics who don't care at all about "climate change"
Unthinking hangers-on who go with the alarmist flow
FUD-stoking alarmists
Hysterical, salivating, schadenfreude-phile screechers

Where in the spectrum would you rank kensi, who daily starts yet
another thread about climate change?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710821

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 12:42:00 AM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 09:17:36 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
> 
> >On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 11:13:16 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 08:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
> >> 
[]
> >> >It certainly seems FUD is the policy of climate change deniers.
> >> 
> >> How so?
> >> 
> >> And who here are "climate change deniers?"
> >
> >You can't tell?
> >benj, sergio, ...
> 
> Since you know how to label people, how would you label kensi?

Activist.
kensi does have a tendency to get provoked by you boys.
> 
> Surely there are more categories than occur to
> black-and-white-thinking greenies: deniers and non-deniers.
> 
> There is a range, including:
> 
> Deniers that climate change happens at all.
> Skeptics who don't roll with the "consensus"

yeah sergio really belong here

> Agnostics who don't care at all about "climate change"

likely few of them here.

> Unthinking hangers-on who go with the alarmist flow
> FUD-stoking alarmists
> Hysterical, salivating, schadenfreude-phile screechers
> 
> Where in the spectrum would you rank kensi, who daily starts yet
> another thread about climate change?

Activist is different from alarmist.

BTW you left a  label out:
FUD stoking deniers

And your last one seems to fit both Alarmists and Deniers

Now you might fit both 
  Hysterical, salivating, schadenfreude-phile screechers
  Agnostics who don't care at all about "climate change"

You seem to have a fixation on kensi.
I suggest you just skip these threads. It will be healthier
for you.

Enjoy.
  Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710969

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 12:58:32 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:

>> Since you know how to label people, how would you label kensi?
>
>Activist.
>kensi does have a tendency to get provoked by you boys.

>Now you might fit both 
>  Hysterical, salivating, schadenfreude-phile screechers
>  Agnostics who don't care at all about "climate change"

So I overestimated your ability to label people.


>You seem to have a fixation on kensi.

Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whac-A-Mole
In a web context, it refers to the process of fending off recurring
spammers, vandals or miscreants.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web