AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

@parados,

Quote:

vital computer systems in place in the 1970s

Where did you get the idea that the 2000 bug was not in computer systems well pass the 1970s?

Quote:

I wonder how India and the sub Saharan areas of Africa have managed to survive while their populations have been

Yes indeed humans are able to breed faster in most cases then they can be kill but that does not mean that many lives was ended far sooner then otherwise when DDT used stop.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You equate any book written by any morron with more than 80% of climate scientists' conclusion in their area of competence. That's for the headless chicken turning around in you. That's not what the Bill I know would usually say.

You're in denial. I mean it.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

You equate any book written by any morron with

So the Club of Rome global think tank set up by by Aurelio Peccei, an Italian industrialist,and Alexander King, a Scottish scientist are morons even if they could not had been more wrong?

That Rachel Carson the author of Silent Spring was a moron.

That the members of the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and keepers of the doomsday clock are morons?

It would seems that every one that had predicted a possible doomsday are morons except for climate scientists.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You have the gall to say that when I gave you facts? Where are your facts on CO2 and the portion that is man made? You only have evasive nonsense. Why are you pretending to debate when you have the attitude that you are superior and dont need to?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Scientists don't want to frighten people if they are not 100% sure, which they will never be.

No wonder you dont like debating GW, you dont know what you are talking about.

Quote:

100 percent of the global warming over the past 60 years is human-caused, according to the IPCC's latest report.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans

0 Replies

@parados,

Keep going...how did we prevent an Ice Age? Do we still use pesticides? So you think we increased crop yields because of the threat of overpopulation? Rly?

0 Replies

@Ionus,

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

Quote:

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

I refer you to this post and the ref within: http://able2know.org/topic/305125-30#post-6092564 What is wrong with the science as displayed? I have not read any serious AGW scientists who do not acknowledge that man is NOT contributing the majority of greenhouse gases.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

The point is, none of these groups equal 80% of scientists in a discipline in terms of credibility.

If 80% of all astronomers agreed that asteroid X will smash into earth in 2050, would you say: "oh well, i read a book once saying there will be an economic crash which never happened, so i won't believe those doom sayers"???

If yes, you are crazier than i thought...

2 Replies

@Ionus,

I don't try and force donkeys to drink. You will never understand anyway. What do I care?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Your argument is that we are stupid and you are smart. Now proof would go a lot further if you had facts to support your side. Are you incapable of reading the ref I gave? I know there is a huge difference between conversational English and scientific English.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

80% of all astronomers agreed that asteroid X will smash into earth in 2050, would you say: "oh well, i read a book once saying there will be an economic crash which never happened, so i won't believe those doom sayers"???

This is typical of your posts. You have no idea. An asteroid collision with Earth...you can see the asteroid, the calculations are monotonous but not hard, so any astronomer could see the facts. AGW involves dont check it, just trust me.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

I'm not smarter than you. I am just better informed and less easily scared.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Then stop this avoidance and contribute to the scientific debate. There is nothing wrong with the ref I gave. Have a look at it and comment. None of this we wont change our mind...I already have...from a devotee to a skeptic.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

You can "see", or measure, CO2 just as well. You can calculate how much of it we dump, how much gets stired where, and how much more heat gets added to the atmosphere, etc. There's no essential difference with an asteroid.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

I refer you to this post and the ref within: http://able2know.org/topic/305125-30#post-6092564 What is wrong with the science as displayed?

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yearsbig.gif

This figure shows the temperature record from the Vostock ice core (dark blue), together with CO2 (red) from the Vostock ice core, the Law Dome ice core, and from the Mauna Loa monitoring station in Hawaii. The dramatic increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution is evident.

Vostock data are available from http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html, Law Dome ice data are available from http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law.html, and Mauna Loa data are available from http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

I don't care what a bunch of headless chicken think. It won't change anything.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Give an asteroid follow Newton's laws and by brushing up on my knowledge of Celestial mechanics and the elements of it orbit I could do the calculations myself so it is not one and the same thing as predictions base on unproven computer models of earth climate.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Where did you get the idea that there weren't any issues with computers that didn't have the bug fixed?

As many people die in the US from heart disease as die worldwide from malaria so no, malaria is hardly a major killer. I notice you failed to address the issue of acquired resistance which we are seeing even with DDT use greatly restricted.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

No, you could do the computation yourself if the problem involves other planets gravitation force. It's too complex then. In fact newtonian mechanics become very hard to calculate as soon as more than 2 bodies are considered. Google "3 bodies problem".

1 Reply

AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know