|
Post by Andrew on Feb 23, 2012 1:46:56 GMT
It is fully supported. Only a scientific imbecile would argue otherwise Fully supported huh? Are you too big of moron to find the support? Or are you a moron who doesn't know what support is? Simple heat experiments prove it exists. Nobody has ever produced experiments to prove the simple experiments are invalid So put up or shut up
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 23, 2012 1:49:51 GMT
It is fully supported. Only a scientific imbecile would argue otherwise Fully supported huh? Are you too big of moron to find the support? Or are you a moron who doesn't know what support is? I have been on this board posting for a while. I have a pretty firm grasp of climate science, the reasons behind the science, and some of the shoddy aspects of the science. With that stated, both yourself and Iceskater have delved into no science, and instead developed the tactics of liberals. Personal inuendo, without facts. Icefisher, I have tried to understand what you are looking for. I am sure part of the fault is mine, in that I really don't understand. Part of the fault is also yours, as you have not clearly presented the question, and reasons behind the question you have asked. Iceskater, your rebuttals are not much better, as I have not been able to follow them either. Let's just get this over with. Both of you need to clarify what in the world you are talking about in a coherant way that sticks to the topic at hand. Neither of you are morons.......can we agree on that at least?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 23, 2012 2:07:56 GMT
iceskater: I don't do PM things well.
Any discussion should be out in the open so that all may comment.
Since it seems that you and Icefisher are circling each others arguements, you start a thread with the parameters of your arguement well established.
By getting into inuendo, both of your arguements have gotten lost.
I would be happy to respond, but on a scientific basis.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 23, 2012 2:52:20 GMT
sigurdur, is this board jacked up? I am not seeing Iceskater's comments and I don't know how they got off on a totally different topic than "heartlandgate".
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 23, 2012 2:55:25 GMT
Icefisher, I have tried to understand what you are looking for. I am sure part of the fault is mine, in that I really don't understand. Part of the fault is also yours, as you have not clearly presented the question, and reasons behind the question you have asked.
Its real simple Sigurdur.
Iceskater claims he has proven that greenhouse gases have the effect of cold balls warming warm balls.
Near as I can tell he injected CO2 in his scrotum and he is telling me about the sensation he felt.
I told him I have no opinion on the matter and think its irrelevant if CO2 has back radiation capable of warming his balls or not and I am not interested in replicating the experiment.
He doesn't like that.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 23, 2012 3:18:51 GMT
Icefisher, I have tried to understand what you are looking for. I am sure part of the fault is mine, in that I really don't understand. Part of the fault is also yours, as you have not clearly presented the question, and reasons behind the question you have asked.Its real simple Sigurdur. Iceskater claims he has proven that greenhouse gases have the effect of cold balls warming warm balls. Near as I can tell he injected CO2 in his scrotum and he is telling me about the sensation he felt. I told him I have no opinion on the matter and think its irrelevant if CO2 has back radiation capable of warming his balls or not and I am not interested in replicating the experiment. He doesn't like that. What i dont like is the way you misrepresent what i say and appear to do it for some purpose that is not obvious. Both of the balls have hot cores and cooling surfaces. The surfaces are therefore internally heated and both cooling. The cold ball does not warm the hotter ball in the sense you want to misrepresent what i have said The cold ball simply cools less slowly where it is nearer the hotter ball and the same applies for the hotter ball. But no matter how many times i tell you this you want to create an abusive description of me from what i am describing
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 23, 2012 4:56:12 GMT
I bet the funders that are worried would not like anyone to know who the are! Maybe Gleick will in a fit of desperation will out them and say they made him do it. " Scientist who lied to obtain Heartland documents faces fight to save job" "The review, by the board of directors of the Pacific Institute, was the most serious potential repercussion to date of the admission by Peter Gleick that he had lied to obtain fundraising documents and a donor list from Heartland, the rightwing thinktank devoted to discrediting climate change. A statement on the website of the Pacific Institute, which Gleick founded and now heads, said the board was "deeply concerned" about the ruse carried out against Heartland. "Neither the board nor the staff of the Pacific Institute knew of, played any role in, or condones these events," the board said. Gleick was not the only potential career casualty of the Heartland affair. Earlier on Wednesday, a Democratic member of Congress called for an investigation into whether a Department of the Interior employee, Indur Goklany, had broken the rules by taking a salary from Heartland at the same time he was working for the federal government. The payments were revealed in Heartland documents released by Gleick. The statement from the Pacific Institute comes just 24 hours after the board reaffirmed its support for Gleick. "Dr Gleick has been and continues to be an integral part of our team," the earlier statement said. But since then a number of its funders have expressed displeasure at Gleick's deception, the Guardian has learned." www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/23/scientists-heartland-documents-under-fire?newsfeed=true
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 23, 2012 5:04:17 GMT
"MacArthur genius" saving humanity after leading charge on ethics. It has been a proud moment for all of our societies! (Maybe a defense fund from Hansen and Gore(civil disobedience and such(wire fraud))). "Ethicists blast chair of science ethics panel for taking global warming skeptic group’s papers" "Gleick, who won a MacArthur genius award and is co-founder of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, was chairman of the American Geophysical Union’s ethics committee. He also had a column at Forbes.com where he criticized climate skeptics and trumpeted the resignation of a scientific journal editor who published a disputed study. He admitted taking Heartland documents Monday night in a blog on The Huffington Post. Gleick resigned chairmanship of the ethics panel last week. “What a mess,” said Mark Frankel, head of scientific responsibility for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s leading scientific society, which also had Gleick as a panel member on some committees. “It’s compounded by the fact that he was chairman of the ethics committee of a professional society. ... It’s an ethical morass that he finds himself in.”" www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ethicists-blast-chair-of-science-ethics-panel-for-taking-global-warming-skeptic-groups-papers/2012/02/22/gIQAMZqjTR_story.html
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 23, 2012 5:07:00 GMT
I bet the funders that are worried would not like anyone to know who the are! Maybe Gleick will in a fit of desperation will out them and say they made him do it. " Scientist who lied to obtain Heartland documents faces fight to save job" "The review, by the board of directors of the Pacific Institute, was the most serious potential repercussion to date of the admission by Peter Gleick that he had lied to obtain fundraising documents and a donor list from Heartland, the rightwing thinktank devoted to discrediting climate change. A statement on the website of the Pacific Institute, which Gleick founded and now heads, said the board was "deeply concerned" about the ruse carried out against Heartland. "Neither the board nor the staff of the Pacific Institute knew of, played any role in, or condones these events," the board said. Gleick was not the only potential career casualty of the Heartland affair. Earlier on Wednesday, a Democratic member of Congress called for an investigation into whether a Department of the Interior employee, Indur Goklany, had broken the rules by taking a salary from Heartland at the same time he was working for the federal government. The payments were revealed in Heartland documents released by Gleick. The statement from the Pacific Institute comes just 24 hours after the board reaffirmed its support for Gleick. "Dr Gleick has been and continues to be an integral part of our team," the earlier statement said. But since then a number of its funders have expressed displeasure at Gleick's deception, the Guardian has learned." www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/23/scientists-heartland-documents-under-fire?newsfeed=trueRead the latest from DeSmearblog? If you can stomach it www.desmogblog.com/evaluation-shows-faked-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-authenticWithout knowing having any prior knowledge, Steve Mosher and one other poster (that I'm aware of) linked it to Gleick by the wording of the fake document; the analogy being an arsonist can't resist watching their work. Now, after Gleick admitting doing the dirty deed (why did he ) the forensic experts at DeSmog are claiming it isn't fake. What a bunch of low lifes. ;D
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 23, 2012 5:11:51 GMT
magellan My wife fixed me a nice dinner and I really do not want to spoil it with indigestion.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 23, 2012 5:25:02 GMT
magellan My wife fixed me a nice dinner and I really do not want to spoil it with indigestion. As is always the case, CA gets down to the nitty gritty; climateaudit.org/DeSmog are just getting desperate before the hammer drops. Tamino deleted reams of threads to cover his tracks. Nothing new from my experience watching the antics of these fraudsters over the years.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 23, 2012 6:00:24 GMT
Ratty wrote: "out there somewhere are many sceptics with scientific backgrounds that doubt...." FYI: One apparently dubious of IPCC AR4 and UNFCCC scenarios. On page 36, only #1 still passes muster; see page 7 for the IPCC/UNFCCC ideology. Worth a read. Curry, Judith A. “ Climate Change & Energy Policy: The Controversyâ€. Powerpoint (PDF) presented at the Classroom (Kim Cobb), Georgia Institute of Technology, February 21, 2012. curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/akim-cobb-class-12.pdfReferenced in: " Teaching (?) the controversy" Feb 22, 2012 judithcurry.com/2012/02/22/teaching-the-controversy-2/
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 23, 2012 11:24:29 GMT
sigurdur, is this board jacked up? I am not seeing Iceskater's comments and I don't know how they got off on a totally different topic than "heartlandgate". Nope, Iceskater has pursued me around this forum and now trying to cover up his tracks. The only thing he is trying to jack up is me.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 23, 2012 14:30:28 GMT
sigurdur, is this board jacked up? I am not seeing Iceskater's comments and I don't know how they got off on a totally different topic than "heartlandgate". Nope, Iceskater has pursued me around this forum and now trying to cover up his tracks. The only thing he is trying to jack up is me. Generally it is good practice to not hijack the OP (I think we've all done it), but if done, just apologize and move on especially if the author requests it. Deleting all your posts in other threads and entire threads as well is, uh, not a good sign.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 23, 2012 14:55:14 GMT
I read these boards daily not because I agree with everyone but because I don't agree with everyone and I wan't food for thought and contrary viewpoints. But when the conversation degrades to name calling and deleting posts it is probably best to turn off the computer grab your favorite beverage of choice take some deep breaths and count your blessings. The debate will be here when you get back.
|
|