On Apr 26, 4:31*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/25/12 12:31 PM, oriel36 wrote:

Global warming is science fiction on an industrial scale,it proposes a
sky blue notion that if the world comes together it can control the
planet's temperature within a certain range and anyone who opposes
this proposal is a science fiction denier.

So,what is the more likely -

* A - That Western science has collapsed

B - That Western civilization is collapsing

C - That people are coming to their senses to prevent B from happening
through restoring common sense to A

* *There might not be any people left to answer the question.


I will tell you something,there are no people left to answer a simple
question - what causes the temperatures to go up and down daily within
a 24 hour period day after day !.There's your true apocalypse Sam,the
same modelers who have used science fiction to create a ridiculous
atmosphere of mass hysteria are working off a 1465 rotation/1461 day
imbalance for the planet Earth,something that exists only in their
imagination.

The Earth turns once in 24 hours and within that 24 hour period you
will experience the temperature go up and down,when you and the
modelers come to understand this primary fact then we can,as a
society,pick up the pieces of astronomy and terrestrial sciences that
lie into ruins .

Some people give their life to science,others use science to get a
great lifestyle so when people saw science fiction created on an
industrial scale through climategate,it calls into question many other
topics where layabouts have been having a great lifestyle at the
expense of the wider community.

On 4/26/12 2:02 AM, oriel36 wrote:
I will tell you something,there are no people left to answer a simple
question - what causes the temperatures to go up and down daily within
a 24 hour period day after day?

That's not the subject of this conversation, Gerald.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:22:41 -0500, Unum
wrote:



I am thinking that bonzo lost his funding. Someone in Australia
decided he wasn't worth the money.


Or he may have become unable to post after the TPG news server went
down.
http://www.techiehq.net/computing/tp...ver-85737.html

On Apr 26, 1:52*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/26/12 2:02 AM, oriel36 wrote:

I will tell you something,there are no people left to answer a simple
question - what causes the temperatures to go up and down daily within
a 24 hour period day after day?

* *That's not the subject of this conversation, Gerald.

The answer is that the Earth turns once in 24 hours and stays that way
day after day so that is how much you know about climate when you go
and propose 1465 rotations in 1461 days to suit your 'theory of
gravity' which historically is at the core of the wayward speculative/
predictive agendas.What people here should read in not Sagan's sky
blue 'Cosmos' but Humboldt's 'Kosmos' which was created with the
specific purpose of putting a stop to a vicious strain of empiricism
that is creating this social/politicial mess -

"This empiricism, the melancholy heritage transmitted to us from
former times, invariably contends for the truth of its axioms with the
arrogance of a narrowminded spirit. Physical philosophy, on the other
hand, when based upon science, doubts because it seeks to investigate,
distinguishes between that which is certain and that which is merely
probable, and strives incessantly to perfect theory by extending the
circle of observation.
"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another—
this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,—is
not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy
engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it
hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of
seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate,
in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external
world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and
seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the
marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive
development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is
disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the
past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard,
either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for
the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object
of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source
from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions."
Homboldt ,Cosmos

When they discovered that the planet wasn't warming they committed the
worse scientific crime of all and shifted the hypothesis from global
warming to 'climate change' even though every schoolboy knows that the
planet's temperature oscillated throughout history.Rather than go back
to the drawing board they became aggressive and created terms like
science fiction denier for guess what Sam,it was science fiction they
were creating that existed only in their heads and computers.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:49:58 -0500, Robert Grumbine
wrote:

In article , sanebow wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...

Which is more likely...

[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds

is more likely, as Water Vapor, the dominant component of all
the greenhouse gasses, was left out

No climatologist has "left out" water vapor.

Readers interested in the science may start with:

1965:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281965%29093%3C0495:EAAMAS%3E2.3.CO%3B2
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281965%29093%3C0769:SCOAGC%3E2.3.CO%3B2

1969:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281969%29097%3C0739:CATOC%3E2.3.CO%3B2

1974:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281974%29031%3C0118%3AAPFTAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://mirabeli.meteo.furg.br/aulas/MC/SchneiderSH_DickinsonRE_%20Climate_modeling.pdf

1975:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm7502.pdf

-- from a simple google scholar search on "climate model" "water vapor", and
limiting to those with material online.

There have been more recent papers on the topic. I'll let the reader investigate
as the notion strikes. The assertion of water vapor being 'left out' of all climate
models has not been true, and is readily verified to not be true, for well
over 40 years.

Thank you; a few weeks ago I listed a few similar links. These
clowns keep insisting climatologists have the wrong value for
water vapor forcing, and at the same time they insist
climatologists ignore water vapor.


--
"Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie

that's beautiful; you have surpassed teh day-to-day tug-o-war
between teh Denierists, and teh God-am "97-per-centers,"
the Confirmerists, who must predominantly be programmers.

What people here should read in not Sagan's sky
blue 'Cosmos' but Humboldt's 'Kosmos' which was created with the
specific purpose of putting a stop to a vicious strain of empiricism
that is creating this social/politicial mess -

"This empiricism, the melancholy heritage transmitted to us from
former times, invariably contends for the truth of its axioms with the
arrogance of a narrowminded spirit. Physical philosophy, on the other
hand, when based upon science, doubts because it seeks to investigate,
distinguishes between that which is certain and that which is merely
probable, and strives incessantly to perfect theory by extending the
circle of observation.
"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another—
this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,—is
not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy
engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it
hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of
seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate,
in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external
world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and
seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the
marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive
development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is
disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the
past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard,
either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for
the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object
of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source
from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions."
Homboldt ,Cosmos

On Apr 27, 5:14*am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
that's beautiful; you have surpassed teh day-to-day tug-o-war
between teh Denierists, and teh God-am "97-per-centers,"
the Confirmerists, who must predominantly be programmers.


Yes I have surpassed it and expect others who are equally confident to
look at the bigger picture which produced science fiction on a
militaristic scale.

Behind the superficial arguments,the curtain rises on where the real
lines are drawn in this particular battle and you may find people who
have so far contended with the utterly ridiculous idea of human
control over global temperature shy away from this particular battle
as modelers don't see it as an issue of climate,that is merely
incidental to them,they see it as an attack on the modeling agenda
itself and this is lethal to the 'scientific method' or the vicious
strain of empiricism as Humboldt recognized it to be.

What the climate issue has done is crack open modeling as it has been
done in other areas of science for the reaction to the fact that the
planet has not warmed to any great extent and at variance with the
models was to become more aggressive and take the unbelievable/
unconscionable step of morphing 'global warming' to 'climate change'
thereby undermining every terrestrial science which relies on known
climate change throughout planetary and human history and that is an
intellectual crime whatever way you put it.

The theory of global warming was explaining so many opposite weather
phenomena from drought to floods,from heatwaves to severe cold spells
that it should have alerted people,at least those who value their
intelligence,to the fact that when an ideology lie that explains
everything it also explains nothing as it becomes a vehicle for all
sorts of misdirection and exploitation.This is not the first time it
happened that a group elevated an ideology or a person to a superior
status because it seem to answer everything they wished to
hear,everything from Piltdown man to Nazi doctrine relied on a herd
mentality where the leaders are merely the surface expression of the
movement of a herd in a particular direction and this is why many
people who take a reasonable view on climate would withdraw as it
involves the elevation of Newton and his 'theory of gravity' which
like global warming seemed to answer every possible question.I am not
the first to notice it as an admirer of Humboldt once did -

"To explain: — The Newtonian Gravity — a law of Nature — a law whose
existence as such no one out of Bedlam questions — a law whose
admission as such enables us to account for nine-tenths of the
Universal phænomena — a law which, merely because it does so enable us
to account for these phænomena, we are perfectly willing, without
reference to any other considerations, to admit, and cannot help
admitting, as a law — a law, nevertheless, of which neither the
principle nor the modus operandi of the principle, has ever yet been
traced by the human analysis — a law, in short, which, neither in its
detail nor in its generality, has been found susceptible of
explanation at all — is at length seen to be at every point thoroughly
explicable, provided we only yield our assent to —— what? To an
hypothesis? Why if an hypothesis — if the merest hypothesis — if an
hypothesis for whose assumption — as in the case of that pure
hypothesis the Newtonian law itself — no shadow of à priori reason
could be assigned — if an hypothesis, even so absolute as all this
implies, would enable us to perceive a principle for the Newtonian law
— would enable us to understand as satisfied, conditions so
miraculously — so ineffably complex and seemingly irreconcileable as
those involved in the relations of which Gravity tells us, — what
rational being could so expose his fatuity as to call even this
absolute hypothesis an hypothesis any longer — unless, indeed, he were
to persist in so calling it, with the understanding that he did
so,simply for the sake of consistency in words?"

The issue of modeling climate with computers is not that much
different than modeling planetary dynamics with watches and the
clockwork solar system which is the nearest people hear of the 'theory
of gravity', a mechanical form of reasoning that takes shortcuts and
uses distortions to maintain a conclusion and this is where modelers
receive their artificial confidence as a group.Nobody questions the
hypothesis nor the method by which the conclusions are drawn,they
simply accept an overreaching conclusion that the behavior of objects
at a human level and planetary dynamics are the same thing with no
regard as to the methods and inputs needed to bridge one with the
other,likewise carbon dioxide and global warming and the idea of the
premise exists as the conclusion.

Nobody wants to know about the bigger picture as the skirmish is kept
at the level of graphs and local observations hence there are no real
victories or defeats,just a dull round of assertions and counter-
assertions with no decisive conclusion.To really deal with the matter
requires going back in history and focus on where this vicious form of
empiricism emerged and few could do that,at least as far as I can
tell.

On Apr 24, 11:24*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Which is more likely...

* *[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
* * * *scientifically illiterate frauds

* *[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
* * * *research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
* * * *and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
* * * *science

"scientifically illiterate frauds"

Can you translate this into something that makes sense?

On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:

Special category of its own -- claims that are not only false
now, but which have always been false. Sometimes I make an error
in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. So I can
see making that error and have some sympathy for it. But to
claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
work.

Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time. "True" is simply what "experts"
say it is. So one day the "Theory of Uniformity" is "true" and he next
day it's "nonsense". Somehow I think you've missed something in how
science works. You've defined it as a religion with all the cardinals
deciding what is "true" and what is "not true". You are totally wrong in
this.

As for ignoring water vapor, I wish I'd saved Wormley's standard links
on greenhouse gasses, for one of those papers he uses to "prove" that
CO2 causes global warming says right in the very first paragraph that
water vapor is going to be ignored. And when this was pointed out to
warmists, suddenly they never said such a thing!

Fact is Alarmists have been claiming that CO2 is THE sole source of
global warming since the carbon push began and they CONTINUE to do so.
Even the AGW apologists admit that CO2 is a MINOR effect compared to
water vapor. They try to excuse that by claiming some imaginary
"positive feedback" link between CO2 and water vapor in spite of no
evidence of the instability such a system would necessarily have.

see
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Sc...ffect_2010.pdf

The major point here, Robert, is that for all the pretending this is a
SCIENTIFIC debate, it is not. It is a POLITICAL campaign. The very
wording of the discussion proves that beyond doubt. So to drag up some
1922 papers to "prove" something only proves that at one time climate
science was science. Now it's politics.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:11:43 -0400, bjacoby
wrote:

On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:

Special category of its own -- claims that are not only false
now, but which have always been false. Sometimes I make an error
in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. So I can
see making that error and have some sympathy for it. But to
claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
work.

Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.

That's what's called "science," ****-bot. Newtonian physics had
to give way to the Einsteinian variety. Deal with it. Or don't;
nobody really cares.

"True" is simply what "experts"
say it is. So one day the "Theory of Uniformity" is "true" and he next
day it's "nonsense". Somehow I think you've missed something in how
science works. You've defined it as a religion with all the cardinals
deciding what is "true" and what is "not true".

Of course the ****-bot knows it's the evidence that decides that;
he just has to lie about it.

You are totally wrong in this.

"I punched my straw man, and it fell right over, so you're totally
wrong!"

As for ignoring water vapor, I wish I'd saved Wormley's standard links
on greenhouse gasses, for one of those papers he uses to "prove" that
CO2 causes global warming says right in the very first paragraph that
water vapor is going to be ignored. And when this was pointed out to
warmists, suddenly they never said such a thing!

Damn, Marvie's dog can even eat URLs.

Fact is Alarmists have been claiming that CO2 is THE sole source of
global warming since the carbon push began and they CONTINUE to do so.

Fact is, ****-bot's lying again.

Even the AGW apologists admit that CO2 is a MINOR effect compared to
water vapor.

Heh. Put 100 lb weights on both sides of a balance scale, and it
sits level. Add a one-pound weight on one side, and it swings as
far away from level as you allow it to go, even though that's a
minor change (or a MINOR CHANGE as the ****-bot would phrase it).

They try to excuse that by claiming some imaginary
"positive feedback" link between CO2 and water vapor in spite of no
evidence of the instability such a system would necessarily have.

****-bot pretends that positive feedback can never be replaced by
negative.

see
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Sc...ffect_2010.pdf

The major point here, Robert, is that for all the pretending this is a
SCIENTIFIC debate, it is not. It is a POLITICAL campaign. The very
wording of the discussion proves that beyond doubt.

Dog ate every single bit of evidence, though.

So to drag up some
1922 papers to "prove" something only proves that at one time climate
science was science. Now it's politics.

"If I don't like it, it doesn't prove a thing." Classic.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]