Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/29/09 7:43 AM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Sam wrote:

On 12/29/09 7:20 AM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Sam wrote:

On 12/28/09 9:27 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:


1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics.
2) It isn't just socialism that drives this AGW fraud, it is
also research funding.

Marvin--You have never made a scientific argument against
global warming and the fact that it's being driven by an
increase in CO2 concentration and contributed to by human
activity. Instead you just yell fraud and six months ago
you were yelling something else.

CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level
increase, are all consistent with each other. Real
impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather
patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting.

The global data CLEARLY shows:

Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png

AGW speech
A graph without source, stolen from where?
/

Google is your friend, Peter!
http://images.google.com/images?q=80...N&hl=en&tab=wi


Google is no reference to original data, Schmock!

Google is not a reference... Google is a search engine that can
help one find references. Why are you being so childish?

Sam, are you kidding?

YOU made up the claim and YOU showed us a graph.
So it's up to YOU to show us the data used for this graph!

If you can't, what a pitty, this graph is invalid.

As usual, the denialist just makes some **** up.

Hey petey, go back and do that for all the stolen unattributed graphs you
have posted here over the past year. lol

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:20:39 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/28/09 9:27 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:


1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics. 2) It
isn't just socialism that drives this AGW fraud, it is also research
funding.

Marvin--You have never made a scientific argument against global
warming and the fact that it's being driven by an increase in CO2
concentration and contributed to by human activity. Instead you just
yell fraud and six months ago you were yelling something else.

CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level increase, are all
consistent with each other. Real impact is showing up in agriculture,
ecosystems, weather patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting.

The global data CLEARLY shows:

Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png

AGW speech
A graph without source, stolen from where? /

It is on Wormly's own website. You saw it on the web, so it MUST be true.

Really, though. The two highest data points are IPCC lies. Speculation at
best.

The rest of the data was taken from ice core data at one location. Mind
you, data from a glacier, which comprises most of the 800,000 years of
data is being compared to a single year measurement from the top of a
live volcano in a tropical paradise, near the middle of the Pacific Ocean
which has a HUGE amount of CO2 that makes our atmospheric CO2 look puny
by comparison: 40,000 GtC in the ocean compared to 750 GtC in the
atmosphere. It is as much an "apples to oranges" comparison as it gets.

1) Ice core data wouldn't preserve a rapid change in CO2 concentration,
due to diffusion.
2) There is very little CO2 on top of glaciers, while there is LOTS being
emitted by the oceans in the tropics.
3) It is a comparison of a high latitude to an equatorial latitude.
Again, apples to oranges.

And even so, his whole arguments are a tangle of invalid arguments and
false premises. Post hoc fallacies, correlation proves causation
fallacies, appeal to consequence fallacies... the man is a living example
of irrational thought.

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:03:42 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:


Sam, are you kidding?

YOU made up the claim and YOU showed us a graph. So it's up to YOU to
show us the data used for this graph!

If you can't, what a pitty, this graph is invalid.

It's Hanson's graph. You know, that hateful little madman at NASA who
testified to Congress that all "deniers" should be charged with "crimes
against humanity" like Nazis.

Why Hanson isn't in a padded cell in a straight jacket and instead is on
the government dole spewing out his hate spittle in NASA's name is beyond
me.

The whole graph is a comparison of Antarctic Ice core CO2, which can't
show rapid changes in CO2, with ONE data point taken from the top of a
live volcano in a tropical paradise in the middle of the Pacific ocean.
The other two data points that go way out of line are fabricated from
Hanson's sick, twisted mind.

I've been down this rabbit hole with Wormley before. He just keeps
repeating himself.

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:13:54 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:46:42 -0800, Eric Gisin wrote:

Interesting that a senior CBS correspondant wrote this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12...ing_liberties/
entry5964504.shtml
December 10, 2009 7:15 PM

snip

Happer, the Princeton University physicist who jointly circulated the
letter to APS, says: "APS has simply circled the wagons, while trying
to figure out how to quieten the growing unrest in the membership."

1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics.

A lot of science depends on funding which is approved and apportioned by
politicians.

That's like justifying prostitution by saying johns will pay for it.
Pretty soon, you end up with Clap or AIDS. Pretty much where we are at
now, the AGW fraud is the AIDS of science, and it might claim 6 billion
victims if we don't wise up and throw the whores out.

2) It isn't just socialism that drives this AGW fraud, it is also
research funding.

To get funding, science grant proposals, had to use the PC word salad of
the day. There were posts made 15 years ago about this; IIRC, the term
grantsmanship was used often.

You are still trying to kill the messenger instead of identifying the
real problem.

The problem is the whores who will take the money and give the
politicians whatever results they want. These aren't scientist, they're
whores.

Yes, you're right. The "professor" who brings funding to the school gets
to keep his job, the one who doesn't is replaced and someone else is
given a chance to bring in funding. Then the grad student has a choice of
what gets funded. If the grad student's work debunks his professor's
golden goose research project, then he doesn't get his Ph.D. and his work
never sees the light of day. The sniveling little sycophantic who parrots
his professor's fraudulent lies gets the research assistantship and a
Ph.D..

It' not just a fraud, it's a pyramid scheme. Pretty soon there are no
honest scientist LEFT.

Why do you think that the hot fusion researchers, after promising a
working hot fusion reactor is just 10 years away, have been able to
promise that for the last 40 years?! Hot fusion is one of the big funded
research projects for engineers and physicist. If you "discover" hot
fusion, the funding immediately drys up and everyone is unemployed. No
way are we going to get hot fusion because it would kill the golden
goose.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

It is why physics hasn't moved much since the 1950s.

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:03:42 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:


Sam, are you kidding?

YOU made up the claim and YOU showed us a graph. So it's up to YOU to
show us the data used for this graph!

If you can't, what a pitty, this graph is invalid.

It's Hanson's graph. You know, that hateful little madman at NASA who
testified to Congress that all "deniers" should be charged with
"crimes against humanity" like Nazis.

Why Hanson isn't in a padded cell in a straight jacket and instead is
on the government dole spewing out his hate spittle in NASA's name is
beyond me.

The whole graph is a comparison of Antarctic Ice core CO2, which can't
show rapid changes in CO2, with ONE data point taken from the top of a
live volcano in a tropical paradise in the middle of the Pacific
ocean.

Cite, please.

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:03:42 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:


Sam, are you kidding?

YOU made up the claim and YOU showed us a graph. So it's up to YOU
to show us the data used for this graph!

If you can't, what a pitty, this graph is invalid.

It's Hanson's graph. You know, that hateful little madman at NASA who
testified to Congress that all "deniers" should be charged with
"crimes against humanity" like Nazis.

Why Hanson isn't in a padded cell in a straight jacket and instead
is on the government dole spewing out his hate spittle in NASA's
name is beyond me.

The whole graph is a comparison of Antarctic Ice core CO2, which
can't show rapid changes in CO2, with ONE data point taken from the
top of a live volcano in a tropical paradise in the middle of the
Pacific ocean. The other two data points that go way out of line are
fabricated from Hanson's sick, twisted mind.

I've been down this rabbit hole with Wormley before. He just keeps
repeating himself.

Next time we should turn him to see whether there stucks a windup-key
at his lower rear.

I'm almost sure, there was no change in CO2 since ever.

(Have little time atm, so copy&paste)



CO2 was always at about an average of 330 +/-40 ppmv
over the last 400000 years.

Until now. lol

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:20:39 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/28/09 9:27 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:


1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics. 2) It
isn't just socialism that drives this AGW fraud, it is also
research funding.

Marvin--You have never made a scientific argument against global
warming and the fact that it's being driven by an increase in CO2
concentration and contributed to by human activity. Instead you just
yell fraud and six months ago you were yelling something else.

CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level increase, are
all consistent with each other. Real impact is showing up in
agriculture, ecosystems, weather patterns, shifting seasons and ice
melting.

The global data CLEARLY shows:

Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png

AGW speech
A graph without source, stolen from where? /

It is on Wormly's own website. You saw it on the web, so it MUST be
true.

Really, though. The two highest data points are IPCC lies.
Speculation at best.

The rest of the data was taken from ice core data at one location.
Mind you, data from a glacier, which comprises most of the 800,000
years of data is being compared to a single year measurement from the
top of a live volcano in a tropical paradise, near the middle of the
Pacific Ocean which has a HUGE amount of CO2 that makes our
atmospheric CO2 look puny by comparison: 40,000 GtC in the ocean
compared to 750 GtC in the atmosphere. It is as much an "apples to
oranges" comparison as it gets.

1) Ice core data wouldn't preserve a rapid change in CO2
concentration, due to diffusion.
2) There is very little CO2 on top of glaciers, while there is LOTS
being emitted by the oceans in the tropics.
3) It is a comparison of a high latitude to an equatorial latitude.
Again, apples to oranges.

And even so, his whole arguments are a tangle of invalid arguments and
false premises. Post hoc fallacies, correlation proves causation
fallacies, appeal to consequence fallacies... the man is a living
example of irrational thought.

As usual, the denialist just makes some **** up.

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:13:54 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:46:42 -0800, Eric Gisin wrote:

Interesting that a senior CBS correspondant wrote this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12...ing_liberties/
entry5964504.shtml
December 10, 2009 7:15 PM

snip

Happer, the Princeton University physicist who jointly circulated
the letter to APS, says: "APS has simply circled the wagons, while
trying to figure out how to quieten the growing unrest in the
membership."

1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics.

A lot of science depends on funding which is approved and
apportioned by politicians.

That's like justifying prostitution by saying johns will pay for it.
Pretty soon, you end up with Clap or AIDS. Pretty much where we are at
now, the AGW fraud is the AIDS of science, and it might claim 6
billion victims if we don't wise up and throw the whores out.

2) It isn't just socialism that drives this AGW fraud, it is also
research funding.

To get funding, science grant proposals, had to use the PC word
salad of the day. There were posts made 15 years ago about this;
IIRC, the term grantsmanship was used often.

You are still trying to kill the messenger instead of identifying the
real problem.

The problem is the whores who will take the money and give the
politicians whatever results they want. These aren't scientist,
they're whores.

Yes, you're right. The "professor" who brings funding to the school
gets to keep his job, the one who doesn't is replaced and someone
else is given a chance to bring in funding. Then the grad student has
a choice of what gets funded. If the grad student's work debunks his
professor's golden goose research project, then he doesn't get his
Ph.D. and his work never sees the light of day. The sniveling little
sycophantic who parrots his professor's fraudulent lies gets the
research assistantship and a Ph.D..

It' not just a fraud, it's a pyramid scheme. Pretty soon there are no
honest scientist LEFT.

Why do you think that the hot fusion researchers, after promising a
working hot fusion reactor is just 10 years away, have been able to
promise that for the last 40 years?! Hot fusion is one of the big
funded research projects for engineers and physicist. If you
"discover" hot fusion, the funding immediately drys up and everyone
is unemployed. No way are we going to get hot fusion because it would
kill the golden goose.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

It is why physics hasn't moved much since the 1950s.

As usual, the denialist just makes some **** up.

On 12/29/09 12:59 PM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:


CO2 was always at about an average of 330 +/-40 ppmv
over the last 400000 years.


Until a few dacades ago, Peter. The CO2 ain'y been this high
for 15,000,000 years!


PRESS RELEASE SUMMARY OF ARTICLE:
Public release date: 8-Oct-2009
University of California - Los Angeles
Contact: Stuart Wolpert
swolp...@support .ucla.edu
310-206-0511

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report

On 12/29/09 12:08 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:20:39 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

Sam wrote:

On 12/28/09 9:27 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:


1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics. 2) It
isn't just socialism that drives this AGW fraud, it is also research
funding.

Marvin--You have never made a scientific argument against global
warming and the fact that it's being driven by an increase in CO2
concentration and contributed to by human activity. Instead you just
yell fraud and six months ago you were yelling something else.

CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level increase, are all
consistent with each other. Real impact is showing up in agriculture,
ecosystems, weather patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting.

The global data CLEARLY shows:

Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png

AGW speech
A graph without source, stolen from where?/

It is on Wormly's own website. You saw it on the web, so it MUST be true.

Really, though. The two highest data points are IPCC lies. Speculation at
best.

The rest of the data was taken from ice core data at one location. Mind
you, data from a glacier, which comprises most of the 800,000 years of
data is being compared to a single year measurement from the top of a
live volcano in a tropical paradise, near the middle of the Pacific Ocean
which has a HUGE amount of CO2 that makes our atmospheric CO2 look puny
by comparison: 40,000 GtC in the ocean compared to 750 GtC in the
atmosphere. It is as much an "apples to oranges" comparison as it gets.

1) Ice core data wouldn't preserve a rapid change in CO2 concentration,
due to diffusion.
2) There is very little CO2 on top of glaciers, while there is LOTS being
emitted by the oceans in the tropics.
3) It is a comparison of a high latitude to an equatorial latitude.
Again, apples to oranges.

And even so, his whole arguments are a tangle of invalid arguments and
false premises. Post hoc fallacies, correlation proves causation
fallacies, appeal to consequence fallacies... the man is a living example
of irrational thought.


Marvin, you should start taking global climate change seriously.
Seriously!