On Jan 25, 10:11*pm, Ed wrote:
On Jan 24, 11:13*pm, wrote:

§tarkiller© wrote:
Lie #1: AGW is a scientific fact
Care to cite it them?

Go back to school and get an education. Then you'll be in with a
chance.

Some Republican faithful say that If it's not on Limbaugh's website,
it just isn't true so it can't be happening. * They're still looking
for cites proving evidence that the earth isn't flat

The Watermelons strike me as the flat earthers in this 'debate'.
The Church of Al Gore AGW and the Latter Day Watermelons
is indeed a belief system. It has no basis in fact. Just the
opposite.
In the last decade the world has seen China and India get serious
about
industrialisation, pumping Gtonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and yet
in the same period the Earth has cooled. This clearly contradicts the
hypothesis that increases of CO2 in the atmospheric mix increases
the temperature on the surface of this planet. And when observable
facts contradict the hypothesis, the hypothesis has to be discarded.
It is about time the world threw this 'Global Warming' rubbish into
the
dustbin of science curiosities along with Vampires causing TB
and Canals on Mars.



and the Theory of
Evolution. *

It is still a theory. Darwin et al seemed to be on the right track,
although not
all of the evolution story has been told yet. Not by a long shot.
The slow and steady 'survival of the fittest' evolutionary model
appears
to have some rather large and inconveniant holes in it.
It certainly does not consider rapid mutations due to environmental
conditions (have a look at the Hatch-Slack pathway) nor does it
consider
the symbiotic nature of current species. Nor it seems that
endosymbiosis
was not a one off event with the seperate evolution of mitochondria
in eukaryotes and chloroplasts in plants. Indeed, the more we look at
nature at a cellular and greater level, the more evidence we see
of endosymbiosis playing a significant role in evolutionary patterns.
None of this is touched upon in Darwinian evolution. Not
suprising, as the tools were not available for the analysis, and
if the church wanted to hang him for suggesting we where once
apes, then he would have had a tough time selling exosymbiosis
as an evolutionary model. That is what make me laugh about
you watermelons, forever quoting 'science' as your staff, when
in reality your knowledge base stopped a century ago. For
what is a historical curiosity for most practicioners of science,
is Gospel to you folks. I suspect that is why the Green movement
is popular with the great undereducated unwashed. It allows
you to be a part of 'the scientific community' without actually
doing any of the hard work that is THINKING. You can just
jabber mantras and feel comfy in a herd hug.
Have a look at something a little more modern.

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1102644

Free from the library. Well worth a read.



Gravity is also a theory, thus many right wingers don't
believe it to be true.

Gravity is an observation. How it happens is merely a theory.
Unless you have the definitive answer? THAT should get
you a Nobel gong or two. Care to publish? Does your
Lagrangian description of coincident M2-branes use as a base
approximation Lie Algebra, Nambu 3-algebra or Filippov 3-algebra?
Did the Bagger-Lambert-Gustavsson action prove to be
correct in the description of M-theory?

Again, invoking
SCIENCE as your authority, I have a sneaking suspicion that
you consider the Principia as a nadir and that 'the science is done,
discussion is over'. You watermelons remind me of Stavros at times.

If the "science is done" and we really need a socialist cap and trade
method introduced to starve the sick, aged and poor people to death,
then why did Scientific American publish this on my Birthday?

"BOULDER—Scientists have taken the first crack at solving a
fundamental climate mystery, criss-crossing the globe in a souped-up
corporate jet to determine where and when greenhouse gases enter and
leave the atmosphere.

An understanding of how these climate-warming gases move about the
globe is a critical prerequisite for any policy aimed at curbing
global warming, scientists said Thursday, and information gained over
the next three years will play a crucial role in sharpening future
predictions and improving their accuracy."

Gee. Sounds like the science isn't done after all. Not even bloody
well started.

"First, the project will fill key gaps in our understanding of how
carbon cycles through the atmosphere and among the earth, air and
oceans. Roughly half the carbon emitted by humans stays in the
atmosphere, with the remainder being absorbed by ocean and earth
ecosystems. But scientists don't understand how the system works or
how quickly various gases mix.

The result, Stephens said, is that models of this so-called carbon
cycle grown wildly divergent as they are projected into the future,
with nearly 100 percent uncertainty by 2050."

Hmmmmm. Scientists don't understand how the system works. I can dig
that. I'm a scientist and I'm still trying to figure out water.
Models of the carbon-cycles are at "nearly 100 percent uncertainty" by
the year 2050? Isn't these the models we are re-structuring our
economy and lifestyles around?

"They have seen some "stunning" things: ground-level ozone, or smog,
through the entire depth of the Northern Hemisphere at nearly triple
the concentration observed in the Southern Hemisphere; a cloud of
industrial pollutants sitting above the Arctic; a large mass of oxygen
above the Southern Ocean."

But wait. Don't the watermelons tell us that dear old Giai is
homogenous? We have a GLOBAL
temperature and a GLOBAL CO2 level? How can this observed complexity
exist?

"The research will help answer such questions as why atmospheric
levels of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, have tripled since the
Industrial Age and are on the rise again after leveling off in the
1990s. They will also answer how gases and particles in the atmosphere
affect temperatures by influencing clouds or the amount of solar heat
reaching the Earth's surface.

And by ramming their data, along with long-standing surface
measurements, through computer models, they hope to expose the
weaknesses of current projections.

"Some modeling approaches will simply fail," Wofsy said. "They won't
be able to do this. That's what we're after he We're confronting
these global models with data.""

This is good science. It's a shame they had to slip in Global Warming
to get funding, but hell, everyone else is doing it.

It might be prudent to hold off for a little while before destroying
what is left of the economy with a tax on fresh air and sweet ****
all.

Mark Addinall.


















So far it is still only a theory.

...just like the "Theory of Gravity". Do you deny that one as well?

Hell you dolts can't even produce a simple formula backing up your
silly assed claims.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Here's a simple formula for you:
Where Dk represents the sum total of Denialist knowledge:

Dk=0

Simple enough for you?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -