Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

The new report noted that continuing warming will threaten coastal cities, infrastructure, water supply, health and agriculture.

Monterey, I guess it is about over, if you and your friends are to be believed.
What a crock of crap, MJ.

0 Replies

Boy, okie, you're really persuasive when you marshal your arguments so well--'What a crock of crap"--so fact-filled, so logical, so full of evidence and deep thought--(sarcasm alert, for the challenged: that was sarcasm).

Face it, okie, the research, the science, and the actual physical evidence, do not support you. Given a choice between accepting NOAA's research and conclusions or accepting your diatribes, I'll go with NOAA every time.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Your arguments are not persuasive either. If you wish to get all worked up over a supposed drift of about one half of a degree Centigrade worldwide, go ahead, be my guest, but frankly I think it is nothing more than a fad that will probably fade from view in a few years or a decade or two. At some point, the powers that be will decide it is some other crisis that they will need to rally around as part of their political agenda. You see, I think this whole thing is not about science, it is about politics, world politics.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

You see, I think this whole thing is not about science, it is about politics, world politics.

Well, I believe that's what it's all about to you, because you care far more for about the political and economic costs of taking care of our environment than you do the consequences of not doing it. And that causes you to question the science.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

If there is one thing that I learned well during my professional career in a scientific field was to approach science with a healthy skepticism. It is also unhealthy and less productive to follow the pack or herd as part of a group think mentality.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

If there is one thing that I learned well during my professional career in a scientific field was to approach science with a healthy skepticism. It is also unhealthy and less productive to follow the pack or herd as part of a group think mentality.

IS that why you are following the herd over at Wattsup without bothering to check any of what they say?

I see you haven't responded to the actual numbers I posted. Trying to ignore facts okie?

1 Reply

@parados,

I am ignoring nonsensical arguing, parados. You ignore every cogent point I make, or you argue about it with another irrelevant argument of yours, so I have concluded that arguing with you is fruitless. I actually concluded that a long time ago, but sometimes yield to the temptation to think reason would actually influence you.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I am ignoring nonsensical arguing, parados. You ignore every cogent point I make, or you argue about it with another irrelevant argument of

You made a cogent point? When? Claiming "common sense" is enough and we don't have to look at any numbers is NOT cogent okie. It only shows you don't know a thing about science.

So.. if you want to insist that a thermometer over the stove won't give me a similar trend as one not over the stove. Let's look at actual numbers. I already told you, you could conduct the experiment but you refused to do it.

So let's look at it theoretically. How long will the stove be on in each of the scenarios you claim would make a difference?
Give me the numbers you think are relevant and would affect the readings.
We have to look at several things okie. The time the stove is on. The temperature it is set to. The amount of heat the stove will lose to the kitchen and the heat the kitchen will lose to the rest of the house.

I think you can agree that once the stove is turned off, the kitchen will have lost all the temperature gain from the stove within one hour.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So.. if you want to insist that a thermometer over the stove won't give me a similar trend as one not over the stove. Let's look at actual numbers. I already told you, you could conduct the experiment but you refused to do it.

That statement is a prime example of your illogical thinking, parados. As already stated, I suggest you stick to legal work and stay away from science. Science is just not anything close to anything you should be doing, as it does require at least a little common sense, whereas the legal profession may not require any.

I will recount a story I may have told here once, a man wished to hire somebody and he had the choice of a geologist, an engineer, and a lawyer. The man called them into his office one by one and asked each just one question, how much is 2 plus 2. The geologist said somewhere between 3 and 5 but he did not want to be pinned down too close to an exact number. The engineer replied 4, absolutely 4, no other answer. The lawyer said what do you want it to be?

That is my impression of you, parados, you can get an answer that you want by equivocating and concocting all kinds of weird reasonings and justifications, to heck with reality.

2 Replies

@okie,

Why are you telling me lawyer stories okie?

But back to the science. Give me numbers so we can do the math.
Although, I guess your story is to illustrate how fuzzy you are with math. I on the other hand have no problem with math.

1 Reply

@parados,

Because I have somehow gotten the impression you are a lawyer. I don't know for sure about that, or whether you have ever said for sure what you are? If you would like to clear that up, here is your chance. After all, I would never want to be guilty of accusing someone of being a lawyer if they were not! Laughing

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

That is my impression of you, parados, you can get an answer that you want by equivocating and concocting all kinds of weird reasonings and justifications, to heck with reality.

This is simple stuff okie.

Let's do the math and see who is correct. Lay out your scenario of what you think the range usage will be over time. Then we can calculate based on actual formulas used in the energy industry.

0 Replies

@okie,

I have never said I was a lawyer.

This is just another example of you jumping to conclusions okie without bothering to check any facts.

1 Reply

@parados,

So let us quit evading the issue. Aside from what you have said or not said in the past, as Larry King would say, answer the question, are you a lawyer or not, or what are you trained in?
Actually, I am calling it a day, but will be back probably tomorrow to see if you provided an answer.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

answer the question, are you a lawyer or not, or what are you trained in?

I am not a lawyer.

Common sense should have told you that okie. But then you don't have normal common sense.

1 Reply

@parados,

Thanks for that clarification. I don't mean to be nosy, as I do not relish giving much personal information myself, so if you do not wish to answer, I can respect that, but I am curious as to what training you do have, level of schooling, and what profession or occupation you are involved in. Hey, maybe you are a full time political party operative for all I know?

I think I have already been very open about myself, I have a degree in Geology, a minor in Math, and had a career with a major Energy company for over 15 years. Since then, I have owned and operated my own business for over 20 years, quite successfully. I won't say what it is because I do not wish to entangle my business with politics here, although it is accurate to say it is totally non-political, and is somewhat connected to my previous career.

0 Replies

This is the truth:
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010, the average and mean annual global temperature increased less than 1°C (1.8°F);
During the last decade that temperature decreased slightly.

Now, what say you is the cause, or what say you are the causes, of both that 100 year temperature increase and the past decade's slight temperature decrease?

What is your evidence that supports what you say?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

During the last decade that temperature decreased slightly.

I don't understand how you think this is possible, when 14 out of the last 15 years have been the hottest ever recorded.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Of course, you ignore stories like this, right cyclops? Now that we have seen documentation of bogus climate monitoring station conditions all across the United States, it seems that the problem is even more widespread, with the following article about the Climate people fudging data in New Zealand, and they do not seem to be open to others reviewing the data or questioning their adjustments or fudging.

Personally, I am to the point of simply laughing at this entire global warming fiasco and call it for what it is, a bunch of incompetents that cannot be trusted with legitimate science. It is so politically corrupted that we have little hope of ever straightening the mess out with any credible science with honest and competent scientists giving us the data.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/more-on-the-niwa-new-zealand-data-adjustment-story/

2 Replies

@okie,

Except you are only throwing up more garbage okie.

If the station has been in the same place since 1928, can you show that the temperature at that station has decreased in that time period?

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know