Is global warming just another ‘End-of-the-World’ delusion?

[Lucy Stulz]

Lucy continues to dodge these questions because she cannot answer them,

LOL! I did some real work. It threatens you. Was the statistics too hard? Or were you intimidated by the STATS PROGRAM?

1. What is the 1001 result for any Google Scholar search?

I wish I knew (or cared) what this particular point was about...but since it really doesn't affect the Anderegg conclusions I'll assume it is your attempt to avoid the real details.

4. Is the data used by Anderegg et al. reliable and reproducible?

I have addressed this point explicitly. Unfortunately you seem to lack the skill in statistics and math to grasp this point.

5. Are 17% (120) of the results used for Phil Jones erroneous?

Would it matter? Again, this is the key.

But again it is kind of becoming clear you have no real idea what Figure 1 in Anderegg et al. actuall shows.

But keep asking! That way we can drive that point homem.

Everyone can see your dodge ball game very clearly.

Go ahead and do some math. Or are you scared of it, Computer Scientist?

LOL!

 

[Lucy Stulz]

HEre's the meat! I grabbed Prall's lists HERE

I took the two first lists HERE and HERE

Just taking these data sets and NOT FILTERING by any "minimum" publication counts I plotted the data in R:

Now, first off the "skeptics" (UE) class has a significantly lower number of publications on average. THIS is what Anderegg Fig 1 is assessing.

So let's quickly do a Wilcoxon test:

data: count by class
W = 29084.5, p-value < 2.2e-16
alternative hypothesis: true location shift is not equal to 0

So it's clearly different.

So let's say that EVERY SINGLE AUTHOR on the CE class (the people who are convinced by AGW) is 30% TOO HIGH. Let's re-run the data with a 30% reduction across the board for the number of "publications" for every single member of the class with >0 publications.

The Wilcoxon test results:
data: count2 by class
W = 29021.5, p-value < 2.2e-16
alternative hypothesis: true location shift is not equal to 0

STILL SIGNIFICANT. I LOWERED ONLY THE PUBLICATION COUNTS FOR THE CE GROUP and DIDN"T TOUCH THE UE GROUP by 30%!

What if I lowered EVERY SINGLE CE MEMBER HIT COUNT BY 50%?

data: count3 by class
W = 28868.5, p-value < 2.2e-16
alternative hypothesis: true location shift is not equal to 0

STILL significant.

Now, mind you, this was from Prall's list but ONLY ONE Of them, and DIDN'T FILTER for 20 publication or more.

Interesting.

 

[Poptech]

LOL! I did some real work. It threatens you. Was the statistics too hard? Or were you intimidated by the STATS PROGRAM?

No you are arguing a strawman argument that has nothing to do with any of my actual arguments that the data obtained is unreliable because they used Google Scholar.

I wish I knew (or cared) what this particular point was about...but since it really doesn't affect the Anderegg conclusions I'll assume it is your attempt to avoid the real details.

You never answered this question earlier relating to the denominator thread,

1. What is the 1001 result for any Google Scholar search?

You continue to dodge these questions,

2. Did Anderegg et al. apply the use of a first and middle initial arbitrarily to the scientists names when searching Google Scholar?

3. Did Anderegg et al. fail to validate at least 80% of the Google Scholar data they used?

I have addressed this point explicitly.

No you have not, you are addressing your strawman argument. I will rephrase the question,

4. Is the Google Scholar data used by Anderegg et al. reliable and reproducible?

Would it matter? Again, this is the key.

Again you dodge the questions,

5. Are 17% (120) of the Google Scholar results used for Phil Jones erroneous?

6. Are 51% (290) of the Google Scholar results used for Andrew J Weaver erroneous?

7. Are 85% (352) of the Google Scholar results used for Gary L. Russell erroneous?


More dodged questions,

8. Is a scientist who has published 19 peer-reviewed papers on climate change an expert?

9. Is "Intelligent design: The bridge between science & theology" scientifically valid because it is cited 353 times?


It is hilarious that you think your strawman arguments are valid. I am well aware of the "statistical" results Anderegg obtained and what they are attempting to imply with them which has nothing to do with my arguments.

The questions will be asked until you answer them.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

No you are arguing a strawman argument that has nothing to do with any of my actual arguments that the data obtained is unreliable because they used Google Scholar.

One thing I've learned from debating Creationists is that they almost never seem capable of following the DETAILED statistical/scientific analysis.

Your primary beef with Google Scholar is that the results of the counts is unreliable. But you "prove" that point by selecting a COUPLE of authors and finding differences.

I've actually done an analysis using one of Prall's list sets (not all of them) and I even took that data and ELIMINATED 30% to 50% of the publication counts for the Pro-AGW side and didn't touch the data for the skeptic side. And guess what? The CONCLUSION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEANS COMES OUT THE SAME!

That's the part you seem to not be following.

That is why you actually DO need to do your own analysis.

Look what I did in about 35 minutes this afternoon!

You want to make a point to someone with scientific training? That's what you'll need to do.

You never answered this question earlier relating to the denominator thread,

I don't know what the denominator thread is. If you can't stick to this topic then perhaps you should work on that harder.

1. What is the 1001 result for any Google Scholar search?

What in god's name do you mean by this question? I honestly don't know what you are talking about?

4. Is the Google Scholar data used by Anderegg et al. reliable and reproducible?

I hate to have to keep pointing this out to you but I showed you an example earlier in POST 852. The fact that you can't follow this really makes me wonder about your training in statistics.

Remember what I was saying about SAMPLES from a POPULATION?

Yeah, it's that!

Anderegg et al's study is a SAMPLE. Honestly how many times do I have to tell you that?

As you saw in Post 852 I drew several samples from the same POPULATIONS and came out with DIFFERENT MEANS.

Does that mean that my sampling was "unreproducible"?

Remember what I noted in post 852 that EVEN WHEN I FOUND THE SAMPLES SHOWED DIFFERENT MEANS FROM THE POPULATION THE ABILITY TO FIND DIFFERENCES IN THE SAMPLES (just like in the population) WAS STILL APPARENT 3 time out of 5.

I wish at times like this that you actually DID have some statistics training. It could be helpful.

Were Anderegg et al's measurements accurate and reproducible? Well, in so much as ANY sample of an UNKNOWN POPULATION is "accurate" and "reproducible", yeah.

Is it perfect? NO! NEver was thought to be!

It is amazingly clear that you don't really understand Anderegg et al. What you latched onto was the sampling protocol. And you try to undercut the study on that ground while FAILING repeatedly to look at how errors that occur in any given study will necessarily impact the output.

Anderegg et al could be off on every single CE member's publication count and it may not result in a huge change in the result of Fig 1 which was to determine if there is a difference in climate science publications between CE and UE groups.

There is almost no way their data could be THAT FAR OFF.

It's conceivable, but highly unlikely!

5. Are 17% (120) of the Google Scholar results used for Phil Jones erroneous?

And you don't "get it". Your utter lack of understanding the basics behind the Anderegg study show time and again!

What if Phil Jones publication counts are off by 17%? HOW WILL THAT MATHEMATICALLY CHANGE ANYTHING?

I took a large chunk of their data set and reduced every single agw-believer's publication counts by 50% and STILL found a statistically significant difference between the two populations!

It's clear that my posts that involves actual MATH AND STATS are beyond your ability to comprehend. So you ignore them.

6. Are 51% (290) of the Google Scholar results used for Andrew J Weaver erroneous?

Can I claim I answered this if I ran a study using many of the data from Anderegg and reduced ONLY THE AGW BELIEVERS by 50% in publication count and STILL FOUND A DIFFERENCE that was statistically significant?

8. Is a scientist who has published 19 peer-reviewed papers on climate change an expert?

Look, I get it, like a good creationist, REAL science, stats and math scare you. You can't deal with it. So you keep coming back to these.

You clearly don't know how a scientific study is done. Anderegg defined this as arbitrary. They "tested" it but is an arbitrary filter.

I wish you understood the basics of scientific research and what Anderegg et al explicitly stated. But even then you'll have to learn a lot more about stats and math.

It is hilarious that you think your strawman arguments are valid.

So when I use some of the Anderegg et al. DATA and the STATISTICAL METHODS to analyze the results it is a "strawman" argument?

You're too funny.

I am well aware of the "statistical" results Anderegg obtained and what they are attempting to imply with them which has nothing to do with my arguments.

Everything you've said for the past several pages indicates this is NOT the case.

The questions will be asked until you answer them.

Don't worry. I get it. You can't even follow the stats. My apologies. This is a statistics paper and you can't even understand this topic.

That's sad.

But you keep up the good fight. If you ever DO become a creationist you will have all the skills necessary!

 

[Poptech]

One thing I've learned from debating Creationists is that they almost never seem capable of following the DETAILED statistical/scientific analysis.

The one thing I have learned is that when alarmists lose an argument they resort to trying to smear their opponent with the creationist ad hominem.

Your primary beef with Google Scholar is that the results of the counts is unreliable. But you "prove" that point by selecting a COUPLE of authors and finding differences.

Wrong, it is clear you are not educated enough to follow my argument,

My primary complaint is that Google Scholar cannot be used to perform this type of statistical study due to it's flawed design as the results it generates are worthless but this would require a computer science education to understand.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

The one thing I have learned is that when alarmists lose an argument they resort to trying to smear their opponent with the creationist ad hominem.

Well, at least I am getting a very clear set of data. You are doing everything BUT discussing the stats and math.

Wrong, it is clear you are not educated enough to follow my argument,

My primary complaint is that Google Scholar cannot be used to perform this type of statistical study due to it's flawed design as the results it generates are worthless

See, this is the whole "Creationist style doubt mongering". You are looking for something to cast doubt on it!

I've shown you how robust an analysis can be using this data. I've even explored for you MATHEMATICALLY how far off the results could be and still show the same final conclusion.

But of course, that's detail, math and stats so you won't even TOUCH it! It's too hot.

Google Scholar is a sampling tool. No database is perfect. This is why you are arguing like a creationist! You can't seem to understand that no analysis based on samples is "perfect" and unless you get "perfection" you are going to live in complete and utter darkness as to whether there's a concensus among the most active researchers in an area.

but this would require a computer science education to understand.

I've run the numbers for you. I assumed (at one time) that computer scientists had to have some familiarity with numbers and you claim you have had stats training....but funny how when someone RUNS THE NUMBERS and DOES SOME STATS....THAT'S THE LAST THING YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT.

I did stats on actual Anderegg et al. data. It's germane and it supports my contention that your analysis is anecdotal and, until shown otherwise, merely casting for doubt without establishing a strong case for a significant change in the analysis' final results.

That's about it.

If you get some one who can help you with the numbers and stats then maybe you can do an analysis instead of just anecdotal picking.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

....

 

[Lucy Stulz]

I went back through and grabbed ALL of the lists from Prall's pages and attempted (in a relatively crude manner) to strip out all the "duplicates" but there's a huge number of names so I may have missed some. I didn't remove anyone who was on BOTH CE and UE lists. And I didn't limit it to 20 publications or more. Anyone with even 1 pub is on the list

Again, this isn't perfect (because I don't have limitless time to clean up the data), but here's the distribution that I got:

The values I got for the two means were not too far off of the results Anderegg et al got.

CE: 84 publications
UE: 43 publications

(Compare to Anderegg et al.
CE: 84
UE: 34

So you can see just limiting it to 20 publications really doesn't change the mix that much). And the difference is still STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

But PopTech also has concerns about "miscounts" for folks like Phil Jones and others.

What if I remove the "top 50" CE scientists ONLY. The top 50 "hit getters" on the CE list will take out ALL of Phil Jones publications as well as 49 of the top CE scientists.

Here's the results:
CE: 75
UE: 43

Wilcoxon Test Results
W = 409243, p-value < 2.2e-16
STILL SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.

What if I remove the top 300 CE "hit getters" from the list?

Results:

CE: 56
UE: 43

Wilcoxon Test Results
W = 344775.5, p-value < 2.2e-16

STILL SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.

Now, I know I'm boring PopTech at this point because statistics is not his area. To be honest it really isn't my area either. I use stats a lot in my work but I'm not a poweruser. So there could be some errors in here but basically I have now answered a couple of PopTech's questions:

1. Improper counts: Google scholar has SOME relationship to reality. It is not a random number generator. I have shown that even if the top 300 "hit getters" on the CE side (and NOT on the UE side) are taken out of the analysis the results still show that scientists who are in agreement with the AGW hypothesis are far more active in climate publications, even when no "publication limit" is put on there other than at least one publication.

2. Improper "filterting" (20 publications vs 19 publications etc.) I took this down to 1 publication as the lower limit. The key is that the distribution is SKEWED. Which is why the Wilcoxon Test (Mann-Whitney U) is used in the analysis rather than a t-test. (PopTech may not understand what these terms are, but he can easily "Google" them should he be interested).

If one pulls the tail out dramatically it pulls out in both populations and the number of publications for CE climate scientists is so far above that of the UE scientists that the means still show significant differences.

3. Google Scholar Data Robustness Google scholar is like any other database. It is imperfect. It can be no other. BUT, it is NOT merely generating random numbers. If there is some error in the counts then one can reasonably assume it is an equal error on BOTH sides (CE vs UE). But even if one treats it as if it is HORRIBLY biased to CE and one removes the TOP NUMBER OF HITS, the top 300 hits on the CE side ONLY the final results are essentially unchanged in terms of Anderegg Fig 1.

If only PopTech were able to follow this sort of stuff. He may be intimidated by the math and the stats are beyond what most people get in an intro high school stats class. But hopefully the fact that someone CAN do such analyses will inspire PopTech to learn statistics and actually undertake his own data analysis.

However that is most unlikely. (I hold no illusions.)

It's only us "computer illiterates" who can take the time to run the numbers and use these computer programs like R.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Yes. Clearly global changes in climate affect the Southern Hemisphere differently than the Northern. The "extensive" collection of papers you provide (all 9 of them!) do indeed show that. Now, as for the rest of the literature that show how the northern hemisphere will be affected? Where is your extensive collection there?

Being ignorant of how Google Scholar works and doing searches for a long time using it are two different things. Anyone who understood how it works would never of made such an elementary mistake. You however failed in epic fashion.


This is a strawman argument as I never claimed it was never used.


Demonstrating your computer illiteracy here is a very powerful argument for anyone reading this, especially when you jokers are trying to argue with me about how Google Scholar works.

You have not presented a couple of thousand citations. Please provide the 1001 search result from Google Scholar.

I take it being computer literate was not a requirement for graduation?

 

[Greatcloud]

Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com


Following are the scientists and engineers who signed the WSJ editorial.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris
J. Scott Armstrong, co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting
Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University
Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society
Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences
William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton University
Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge
William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meterology
Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT
James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Tech University
Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences
Burt Rutan, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne
Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former US Senator
Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem
Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service
Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com

This article is great! Thanks for posting this gem-filled bon-bon.

From the article it states:

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.

What's great about this is that it is a weirdly NON_SCIENTIFIC view of statistical trends. Ironic for so many scientists to sign onto something that really isn't necessarily a "thing".

In fact if you read HERE Kevin Trenberth himself points to several other "pauses" in the warming of up to 10 years each at different times. Of course SCIENTISTS know this as 'natural variability' and possibly "noise" in the data. I can only imagine that the signees to this WSJ article don't do a whole lot of statistical analysis on their own data.

The article then goes on to say:

This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Which is a HOWLER of a quote mine! Shameful actually. In this case the climategate e-mail was actually Trenberth talking about an article he had recently published in which he was noting that, indeed, the amount of heat going into the system IS INCREASING and he would like to better understand the individual mechanisms that account for some of the variability.

Of course THESE distinquished scientists who signed this article didn't have to go to "climategate e-mails" to learn about this...they could have read it for all to see in the OPEN LITERATURE.. They could have read Trenberth's 2009 article.

But I'm sure that these scientists enjoy reading stolen e-mails MORE than actual scientific articles! LOL!

suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.

Actually this is a topic called "Climate Sensitivity" and there's almost nothing that has shifted the climate sensitivity of CO2 down. We have oodles of data both modern and paleo that shows that the climate sensitivity estimates for CO2 are pretty robust.

But then that requires reading the actual LITERATURE.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Plants and animals evolved with higher CO2 concentrations? So why have we as a species done so well over the past 14,000 years of civilization with LOWER CO2 levels than now?

But let's talk about this wondrous boost to plants with higher CO2! Well, interestingly enough, C4 plants won't necessarily see a benefit from higher CO2 (part of that evolution thing)--you can read about it HERE. Estimates show that in experiments run on non-C4 plants that increasing CO2 could boost their yields by an amazing 13%! Better bring on the greenhouse gases then!

The scientists who crafted this article in the WSJ must also live in a world with unlimited soil nutrients. Because studies indicate that this "boost" effect from added CO2 only lasts a couple years until OTHER factors limit growth.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years.

And, um, that says NOTHING about our ability to shift it today. Not to nitpick but the industrial revolution has spawned a SIGNIFICANT boost of HUMAN-GENERATED CO2 to the atmosphere. We know this from the ISOTOPIC DATA of the carbon in the atmosphere. Right about 1850 it started to show more and more 12-C than 13-C....just EXACTLY like what one expects from massive burning of fossil fuels which are depleted in 13-C. Whodda thunk it? Certainly not the scientists who signed this editorial apparently.

Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

Oh my gosh! So this "example" of how horrible it is to be a skeptic in the climate sciences resulted in....him getting to keep his job? No change?

Oh that sounds really awful for Dr. De Freitas. I wish him the best of luck!

Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union.

Is there a new version of Godwin's Law for when people bring up stupid extremes as a comparison to the current scientific debate?

"Follow the money."

Oh good grief! This again? -sigh-

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research

Apparently these scientists believe that academic scientists make oodles more money than the poor souls working for Exxon and other major energy companies!



Yeah, academics. They live the high life. I guess if they align themselves with the right groups though! RIchard LIndzen is associated with an org that got Exxon funding. Hmmmm....do these scientists take a close look THERE?

Are they following THAT money?

Prior to 2007 when Exxon cut ties with its climate skeptic buds they were giving money to TASSC which was a front group to generate doubt about things science-y from tobacco to global warming. Follow the money, indeed.

But I bet these signatories are only interested in following the money they didn't get, maybe?

And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

Wow. Just wow. The only thing that could even marginally be considered a benefit in their editorial was a boost to plant growth but even that is not clear and may not be as great a thing as they would like.

On the other hand, there is almost NO WAY to assume that massive unknown changes in weather patterns that have been established globally over the past 14,000 years will be a "benefit". Same for SEA LEVEL RISE. I can think of NO benefit from that and it WILL happen. That's basic physics. Hot water expands. Land-ice melts in increased temps.

Guess these 16 scientists don't know any of the millions of humans who live within a few feet of sea level. Maybe they should travel? Give 'em time to read up on the SCIENCE for a change (instead of Climategate e-mail).

we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data.

LOL! They are counting on someone finding SOMETHING that will allow them some "doubt room". Just keep looking! Sure the mass of data collected these past 60 years shows such a ridiculously strong case that the vast majority of climate professionals believe in AGW, but maybe if we looked SOME MORE someone would find a question in there"....And that's all the merchants of doubt need.

The instrumentation and studies have been ongoing for some time. I wonder if these people are going to complain about the future researchers like they did about the CURRENT group in their "follow the money" scheme up above there!

Following are the scientists and engineers who signed the WSJ editorial.

Provided so that skeptics can make an appeal to authority and dodge having to understand the details of the science.

Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT

Hey wait, here's a FAMOUS SKEPTIC who seems to have NO PROBLEM keeping a cushy job at a major world-famous science institute. Guess he wasn't consulted on that paragraph about the threats to scientists jobs if they don't toe the AGW line, eh?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Global warming my a... We don't even understand the sun and how it works let alone have enough data to claim anything. Past fossil records show rain forest everywhere on every part of the globe, so apparently at one time the Earth was much warmer. It will cool again and warm again, over and over.

Trace satelite running difference images at the wavelength of Fe (iron)
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_000828.avi

Notice this non-moving surface beneath the intervening plasma layers.

Supporting evidence for the recent MRI done of the sun that collapsed modern cosmological theory about the sun.
[1206.3173] Anomalously Weak Solar Convection

With a solid surface their theories of a thermoneclear core need re-thought.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7756026/

Of course they will refuse to give up their *belief* that the sun is nothing more than a ball of gas, and hold out for as long as possible, until the public realizes the farce that has been perpetuated upon them. Wake up people, all is not right in the wonderland modern astronomy has become.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Global warming my a... We don't even understand the sun and how it works let alone have enough data to claim anything.

This is something that scientists understand that many who have no training on science don't necessarily know.

I can do a LOT of chemistry without fully understanding the dual nature of electrons as waves and particles. In fact I can do almost all of my chemical research without this.

It is quite possible to understand how the sun impacts us and measure that impact without fully understanding every single detail down to the quark level or "string" level of how the sun operates.

Past fossil records show rain forest everywhere on every part of the globe

What we know about the HISTORY of the earth actually makes the AGW hypothesis STRONGER. We know how the earth responds to different climates and we know what the drivers are in many cases.

, so apparently at one time the Earth was much warmer. It will cool again and warm again, over and over.

It has been warmer. For a number of different reasons. Sometimes it was due to the conformation of the continents and the associated ocean currents and weather patterns. Sometimes it was due to massive spikes in CO2.

That doesn't change ONE WHIT the idea that mankind can be a major source of CO2.

We are experiencing some of the highest temperatures in millenia on a global scale at the same time that we are pumping masses of CO2 (a known greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere.

Of course they will refuse to give up their *belief* that the sun is nothing more than a ball of gas, and hold out for as long as possible, until the public realizes the farce that has been perpetuated upon them. Wake up people, all is not right in the wonderland modern astronomy has become.

And this will change the concept behind AGW how?

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course they will refuse to give up their *belief* that the sun is nothing more than a ball of gas, and hold out for as long as possible, until the public realizes the farce that has been perpetuated upon them. Wake up people, all is not right in the wonderland modern astronomy has become.

I believe global warming is what is called "crisis management."

Create a "crisis" behind closed doors.

Doctor it up and whip it into a melodramatic frenzy.

Present it to the public as a step away from annihilation.

Then come swooshing in on flying clipboards with a "Here we are to save the day!"

 

[Lucy Stulz]

I believe global warming is what is called "crisis management."

Create a "crisis" behind closed doors.

Doctor it up and whip it into a melodramatic frenzy.

Present it to the public as a step away from annihilation.

Then come swooshing in on flying clipboards with a "Here we are to save the day!"

Is there any value in your world to knowing anything about topics before making up myths about them?

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe global warming is what is called "crisis management."

Create a "crisis" behind closed doors.

Doctor it up and whip it into a melodramatic frenzy.

Present it to the public as a step away from annihilation.

Then come swooshing in on flying clipboards with a "Here we are to save the day!"

Your unfounded paranoia is noted.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is there any value in your world to knowing anything about topics before making up myths about them?

Ya ... peace and quiet about overpopulation, depletion of natural resources, global warming, global war, radon in the curtains, lead paint on the wall, asbestos in the ceiling, Y2K, earth getting billiard-balled by a comet or asteroid, Swine flu, Hong Kong flu, Legionnaires' disease, the Satan Bug, the Hellstrom Chronicle, sun spots, mad sci...(skip that one), and cryptosporidia in the swimming pool.

Is that enough?

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Ya ... peace and quiet about overpopulation, depletion of natural resources, global warming, global war, radon in the curtains, lead paint on the wall, asbestos in the ceiling, Y2K, earth getting billiard-balled by a comet or asteroid, Swine flu, Hong Kong flu, Legionnaires' disease, the Satan Bug, the Hellstrom Chronicle, sun spots, mad sci...(skip that one), and cryptosporidia in the swimming pool.

Is that enough?

You DO realize that RADON is an actual problem right? You also do realize that lead paint is a real problem, right? You DO realize that depletion of natural resources IS going on, right? Do you WANT to breathe in asbestos? You do realize it IS a carcinogen, right?

I am just curious why you lump all these together as if they are things SOMEONE at least should be cognizant of.

So is making up an unfounded myth about global warming going to solve the problem?

If YOU want to avoid thinking about it, don't think about it! But just so you know the rest of us will be trying to do something about it. It may impact your cushy lifestyle.

Just a friendly FYI.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is something that scientists understand that many who have no training on science don't necessarily know.

I can do a LOT of chemistry without fully understanding the dual nature of electrons as waves and particles. In fact I can do almost all of my chemical research without this.

It is quite possible to understand how the sun impacts us and measure that impact without fully understanding every single detail down to the quark level or "string" level of how the sun operates.



What we know about the HISTORY of the earth actually makes the AGW hypothesis STRONGER. We know how the earth responds to different climates and we know what the drivers are in many cases.



It has been warmer. For a number of different reasons. Sometimes it was due to the conformation of the continents and the associated ocean currents and weather patterns. Sometimes it was due to massive spikes in CO2.

That doesn't change ONE WHIT the idea that mankind can be a major source of CO2.

We are experiencing some of the highest temperatures in millenia on a global scale at the same time that we are pumping masses of CO2 (a known greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere.



And this will change the concept behind AGW how?

Yah, yah, they understand it so well, that's why every theory of the sun has been crushed in the last few years right?

Like they predicted the 1% convection required by mainstream theory right?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_000828.avi
[1206.3173] Anomalously Weak Solar Convection

Like they predicted the stoppage of the solar wind right?
Electric Sun - Voyager 1 exits solar system, Solar Wind stops, defies Standard Model predictions - YouTube

You can call them experts if you want, but personally idiots fits better. Too stubborn to let go of a dying theory because they don't wan't to admit they were wrong and know absolutely nothing. But you just go right ahead and trust those whose theory of the sun and solar system has collapsed. Best of luck to you on that blindfolded ride!

 

[Loudmouth]

Yah, yah, they understand it so well, that's why every theory of the sun has been crushed in the last few years right?

No it hasn't. The ravings of internet crackpots does not invalidate science.