|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 18, 2012 12:15:54 GMT
ratty: What we have are zeolots on the AGW side being taken to the woodshed.
The zeolots actually ignore scientific rigor in their analysis. They read papers, find areas that support their ideas, but ignore the error bars even in those sections. When a paper is published that doesn't support their ideas, they lamblast it without actually dissecting it.
I know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I also know that the radiation bands that it emits and absorbs are in the same bands that H20 vapor does. Without taking life into account, I also know that H2O is going to be in the atmosphere even if CO2 isn't there.
I was trying to find some papers that gave vaules for TOA readings. I am having a hard time finding the ones that actually give the readings. I have found that 20km seems to be the sweet spot where the readings are taken. By finding this, I also understand that Top of the Atmosphere does not mean top of the atmosphere as our atmosphere goes wayyyy beyond 20km.
There is a lot to be learned, and the current level of certainty does not provide an actual scienfitic basis that we are going to "cook" if CO2 levels are high.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 18, 2012 15:14:59 GMT
icefisher, if you come out and say that your not taking money for your views on AGW and it turns out your getting 5,000 dollars a month from the Heritage Foundation it makes you a liar. What else is he lying about?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 18, 2012 16:32:51 GMT
icefisher, if you come out and say that your not taking money for your views on AGW and it turns out your getting 5,000 dollars a month from the Heritage Foundation it makes you a liar. What else is he lying about? Really? A liar? How about just doing honest science regardless of your views?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 18, 2012 17:20:46 GMT
glenn: Singer lost credibility not because he is getting 5K from Heartland, but because his talks etc are divorced from reality at times.
It is almost getting impossible to find an "honest" climate scientist of merit. Dr. Christy and Spencer seem to still fit the bill. Dr. Hansen, naw......Mann.....naw.......Jones, naw....
The list of Naw is getting too long. Unfortuantely.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Feb 18, 2012 19:25:19 GMT
I don't follow Singer. Never have. The ones I read and listen to for well thought out positions are Pielke, Sr. , Spencer, Curry, Christy, Neils-Gammon, and some others.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 18, 2012 19:46:11 GMT
magellan, I am all about honest science regardless of your views. But when you come out and say your not taking money when you really are that pretty much makes you a liar. I don't care which side of the AGW issue you weigh in on. sigurdur/hunterson I value the opinion of Pielke, Sr., Curry, Christy, Neils-Gammon and to a lesser extent Spencer as well. I tend to ignore Hansen, Mann, Jones among others.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 18, 2012 20:58:08 GMT
icefisher, if you come out and say that your not taking money for your views on AGW and it turns out your getting 5,000 dollars a month from the Heritage Foundation it makes you a liar. What else is he lying about? Very good evidence the document was forged Glennkoks. But if it turns out what you say is true I would agree with you. Just right now while its clear somebody went to great lengths to try to make the document look genuine they failed in too many respects. anti-climate! How could anybody view their own position as anti-climate? The worst polluters in the world never see themselves as destroying the environment, they always see their actions as inconsequential. Notions such as anti-climate, denier are all fabrications of the type that would forge such a document. The document is so full of such depreciating self-evaluations its undoubtedly a forgery in my mind. In the art world and fictional drama such self evaluations are left to comedy and satire and kept far away from any quality dramatic film or story so as to not destroy its credibility. The forger's motivations just couldn't resist inserting a few jabs and as a result the document reads as a forgery which goes hand in hand with its exceptional and unique provenance as revealed in the document's metadata. So I find your instant condemnation of singer about what I would expect actually from the guy that forged the document, maybe a shade higher on the weasel scale but not a lot. . . .somewhere in the neighborhood of taking the money then denying it. . . .or I did not have sexual relations with that woman. . . .or a wide stance Idaho senator!
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 18, 2012 21:20:22 GMT
icefisher, there is very good evidence that some of the documents were forged.
The Heartland Institute aknowledges the info was stolen. They have issued an apology to their doners.
You don't normally issue apologies to anonymous donors and vow to go after the culpret for forged documents do you? Why would someone go through the trouble of "stealing" the documents only to issue forgeries?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 18, 2012 21:35:35 GMT
Glenn: It is pretty obvioius that one article was a forged. The rest, budget etc, is clearly not forged.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 18, 2012 21:39:25 GMT
Icefisher, Singer lying about taking money from the Heartland Institute is just the tip of the iceburg. He earned my condemnation for his denial of of the health risks of second hand smoking. I'm not going to get into a link war on the published information out there concerning these health risks but its pretty clear now that he was getting paid for that "scientific opinion" as well.
And I find your defense of a denialist that is clearly selling his former prominence to the highest bidder a shade higher on the weasel scale than say another famous denialist... what's his name in Iran... the guy who always denys the Holocaust....
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 18, 2012 21:40:41 GMT
Glenn: It is pretty obvioius that one article was a forged. The rest, budget etc, is clearly not forged. I don't think he's getting that, but some of the rest may have been modified ("adjusted" in AGW terminology).
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 18, 2012 21:41:15 GMT
sigurdur, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 18, 2012 21:46:16 GMT
Icefisher, Singer lying about taking money from the Heartland Institute is just the tip of the iceburg. He earned my condemnation for his denial of of the health risks of second hand smoking. I'm not going to get into a link war on the published information out there concerning these health risks but its pretty clear now that he was getting paid for that "scientific opinion" as well. And I find your defense of a denialist that is clearly selling his former prominence to the highest bidder a shade higher on the weasel scale than say another famous denialist... what's his name in Iran... the guy who always denys the Holocaust.... And I find your defense of a denialist that is clearly selling his former prominence to the highest bidder a shade higher on the weasel scale than say another famous denialist... what's his name in Iran... the guy who always denys the Holocaust... A bit over the top wouldn't ya say? What a moronic statement. We now have have government agents inspecting kid's lunch bags because of "health risks". Maybe they are looking for second hand smoke.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 18, 2012 22:00:10 GMT
magellan, This is not really the proper place for the topic but I would be glad to debate the studies done on the effects of second hand smoke. More importantly the studies done on the effects of second hand smoke on infants and children.
Moronic, is by very defintion calling the work done on the effects of second hand smoke "junk science" as Singer did.
I did not start the "weasel scale" reference your boy icefisher did.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 18, 2012 22:19:48 GMT
I will say that it's usually not very productive when the level of conversation declines to using terms like "weasel scale" and "moronic" so I for one will do my part to refrain.
|
|