The One and Only Climate Change thread...

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I thought I'd better lay off you for a few days, you are starting to sound unstable. Your rantings and constant repetition about AGW=fact, it sounds like you have really gotten unnerved about the holes in your arguments and have to keep repeating your mantra to convince yourself.

For all I know, I could be causing you to go to school and bully the kids that go to church on Sundays.

You fall back to the National Academy of Sciences as your safety net. Well, an organization like that is not even going to bother with a topic like reincarnation, which if stated as proven would (1) insult religions that don't accept it, and (2) possibly cause world societies to embrace spirituality and shun partisanship and conflict. So instead, this organization is investigating such things as use of lasers as weapons and implanting computer chips in humans. Their ties to the military-industrial complex appear close indeed. I would actually classify their stand on climate change to be tepid indeed, their statement makes no mention of impending doom or a need to take de-industrialization action. Their "warning" about significant risks almost sounds like it's meant for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

At any rate, it concerns me not at all that this organization does not investigate reincarnation. You can bluster all you want that it's pseudoscience, all this does is demonstrate your predisposed beliefs, which amount to nothing at all.

Oh, and it was YOU that brought up Penn Jillette, as if his show could possibly decide for all of us what is BS and what isn't. Then when I demonstrate how fallible he and his show are, you backpedal and accuse ME of thinking highly of his opinion. You're a mess!

it isn't just the NAS but also the Royal Society which is the British equivalent basically that support AGW as fact and reincarnation as pseudo-science.

Two of the largest scientific foundations in the world reject reincarnation as pseudoscience and accept AGW as fact, but they are all wrong right? The Royal Society has some of the greatest minds in the world involved with it, but Slyvia Browne and yourself are much more intelligent. Do you see how absurd your position is, even if you are fully convinced into Slyvia Browne's teaching is it too hard to imagine how the rest of the scientific world views your beliefs?

You don't make any sense, how would your beliefs cause me to bully the Christians at my school, I go to a Roman Catholic school. First of all Roman Catholics have one of the lowest % percentage of fundamentalism among their members. The Vatican accepts evolution(theistic variation),the old age of the Earth, are open to the problem of AGW, reject reincarnation, etc. I obviously have different problems with the Roman Catholic Church but that is based more on their hierarchy then the members themselves.

"Significant risks" and "caused largely by human activity" are the most important points in their statement about global warming. They have reviewed the evidence and found AGW to be correct, I'm pretty sure all major scientific organizations that deal with climate change accept it to be caused by human activity.

NAS did investigate the claim by the few researchers who support reincarnation and found it to be nothing more then pseudoscience.

All it does is demonstrate my pro-science views, and my anti-pseudoscience ones, if the evidence for reincarnation was as compelling as you believe it to be, it would be accepted despite the religious backlash against the NAS(the Christian right is already assaulting everything science so it can't get much worse)

The so-called facts of reincarnation are what amounts to nothing.

Actually if you go back to my original post I brought up Penn Jillette's show BULLSHIT, but the point was he had neuroscientists doing the talking about NDE(and it's irrelevance) and he had experts on the subject of cold reading come in to explain it and show how psychics do it.

Penn Jillette is not an expert on anything scientific, he is a magician. Normally the show is very good because he brings in experts to explain things, his opinions on global warming are just as useful/important as yours to a scientist.

Penn Jillette is fallible like any human, but his show is almost always based on what the experts say, sadly he took it upon himself in the global warming episode to ridicule Al Gore, instead of looking at the facts of the matter.

A show I'd recommend you to watch is Darren Brown's special "Messiah", where he shows how easy it is to fall for one of these scams and how easy it is too trick even the "experts"(on pseudoscience nothing more) into all this complete garbage.

you have proven nothing except your extreme devotion to Slyvia Browne...

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Then when I demonstrate how fallible he and his show are, you backpedal and accuse ME of thinking highly of his opinion. You're a mess!

Paul, of course, is utterly infallible. In his own mind, anyway...

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Actually AGW is a fact recognized by the National Academy of Sciences. It is not erroneous at all to claim AGW is a fact. Given that all other hypotheses to date have been exhaustively ruled out, it has been demonstrated that man causes global warming.

“It is a fact that humans cause global warming.” The real question is how much, 100%-1% we do not know the exact amount, that is where the word theory would be applied(or maybe hypotheses).

Why don't you just leave? You are becoming just as annoying as your arch-nemesis Jean Hebert. You haven't really done any research on AGW at all, you are completely ignorant about the entirety of the subject, go read another Slyvia Browne book and continue to reject reality because of some psychic lunatic.

Paul Beckwith has given massive amounts of evidence in the past that you and other deniers continue to ignore and the more links we put up the more you ask to see the evidence, it is logically fallacious. Trying reading some of the links and maybe you'll realize why we are posting them in the first place.

97% of climatologists have gone through the evidence and come to the conclusion that global warming is real, man-made and a problem and Paul Beckwith has given some of their peer-reviewed articles in the past.

Penn Jillette is not convinced that is your winning argument, except when I say stuff about critics disagreeing with reincarnation as a fact you get all offended, wow, you are a complete hypocrite.

Now you are just being stupid, lets compare reincarnation to AGW

AGW
-recognized by the majority of the scientific community
-stated as a fact by the National Academy of Sciences
-exact % of man-made influence is a theory/hypotheses

Reincarnation
-NOT recognized by the scientific community
-stated as pseudoscience
-not even a hypotheses let alone a theory exists for reincarnation in the scientific community

They are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum, AGW doesn't take faith, it's not a religion, it is a fact!

While the critics of AGW are diminishing as more and more evidence piles up against them, the critics of reincarnation are not going away,if the scientific community rejects reincarnation then it is really a pointless subject until you obtain more of your 'irrefutable' evidence.

The conclusion of the National Academy of Sciences on the topic of climate change couldn't be more clear,

"Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems".

Again you are completely ignorant about climate change and I suggest you try to educate yourself instead of looking like a complete idiot.

AGW=Fact
Reincarnation=bullshit/pseudoscience

I thought I'd better lay off you for a few days, you are starting to sound unstable. Your rantings and constant repetition about AGW=fact, it sounds like you have really gotten unnerved about the holes in your arguments and have to keep repeating your mantra to convince yourself.

For all I know, I could be causing you to go to school and bully the kids that go to church on Sundays.

You fall back to the National Academy of Sciences as your safety net. Well, an organization like that is not even going to bother with a topic like reincarnation, which if stated as proven would (1) insult religions that don't accept it, and (2) possibly cause world societies to embrace spirituality and shun partisanship and conflict. So instead, this organization is investigating such things as use of lasers as weapons and implanting computer chips in humans. Their ties to the military-industrial complex appear close indeed. I would actually classify their stand on climate change to be tepid indeed, their statement makes no mention of impending doom or a need to take de-industrialization action. Their "warning" about significant risks almost sounds like it's meant for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

At any rate, it concerns me not at all that this organization does not investigate reincarnation. You can bluster all you want that it's pseudoscience, all this does is demonstrate your predisposed beliefs, which amount to nothing at all.

Oh, and it was YOU that brought up Penn Jillette, as if his show could possibly decide for all of us what is BS and what isn't. Then when I demonstrate how fallible he and his show are, you backpedal and accuse ME of thinking highly of his opinion. You're a mess!

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Now that he's complained twice about it I shall have to do it more often.

I guess you're entitled to a second childhood.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

sorry, I thought you did since you wrote "here in Toronto"...

I'm in the GTA which is pretty close. The here part was more this area as opposed to that part of B.C.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

You sure can't remember how to spell my simple 4 letter name. I can understand someone not being able to recall how to spell "Seedmouse" but "Gary" is pretty simple.

Gary misunderstands, as usual.

Now that he's complained twice about it I shall have to do it more often.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I don't live in Toronto.

sorry, I thought you did since you wrote "here in Toronto"...

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Hey, Gary since you live in Toronto did you get to witness the G20 riots firsthand? OR did you stay away from the action?

I don't live in Toronto.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

No parade. Too bad. Here in Toronto they always had the labour day parade which ended at the CNE grounds. I went a couple of times as I recall. Got into the CNE free. I don't know what happened to the union. The utility was publically traded and not government owned. It was bought out by another company and split into pieces which were then sold off. Lots of people lost their jobs and much was contracted out. I'd retired by that time. I get a pensioners newsletter most month except July and August. A pleasant phone call every couple of years so they can write me up. You know what it's like when you get older. A lot of my friends are gone.

I hope you can remember how to get to your picnic. You sure can't remember how to spell my simple 4 letter name. I can understand someone not being able to recall how to spell "Seedmouse" but "Gary" is pretty simple.

Hey, Gary since you live in Toronto did you get to witness the G20 riots firsthand? OR did you stay away from the action?

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

We don't have a labour day parade in my neck of the woods, we have a picnic and I'll probably go because there will be a lot of nice friendly people there.

I'm sure that Garioni will stay at home and stew in his bitterness, though.

No parade. Too bad. Here in Toronto they always had the labour day parade which ended at the CNE grounds. I went a couple of times as I recall. Got into the CNE free. I don't know what happened to the union. The utility was publically traded and not government owned. It was bought out by another company and split into pieces which were then sold off. Lots of people lost their jobs and much was contracted out. I'd retired by that time. I get a pensioners newsletter most month except July and August. A pleasant phone call every couple of years so they can write me up. You know what it's like when you get older. A lot of my friends are gone.

I hope you can remember how to get to your picnic. You sure can't remember how to spell my simple 4 letter name. I can understand someone not being able to recall how to spell "Seedmouse" but "Gary" is pretty simple.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Will you be taking part in the labour day parade? If so, will you walk it or ride in a polluting bus?

We don't have a labour day parade in my neck of the woods, we have a picnic and I'll probably go because there will be a lot of nice friendly people there.

I'm sure that Garioni will stay at home and stew in his bitterness, though.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Commonly, by the way, when a scientist says "unlikely" he (or she) usually means that the likelyhood of being wrong is less than 5%, and when he says "extremely unlikely" he usually means that the likelyhood of being wrong is less than 1%.

To bring in some chess content, a player who beats another player 95% of the time is performing at 470 ELO points better than the other, and a player who beats another player 99% of the time is performing at 677 points better.

Weasel words. 5% is once every 20 times. If someone is doing an operation on you a 95% chance is pretty good. Unless you happen to be one of the 5%.

Your chess rating analogy is meaningless.

Will you be taking part in the labour day parade? If so, will you walk it or ride in a polluting bus?

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

The word "unlikely" is a disclaimer word. Strictly for bumpkins who just fell off a turnip wagon.

But he didn't just say "unlikely" he said "extremely unlikely". But as usual Garriorory can only cherry pick and spin. Spin Glarry spin.

Commonly, by the way, when a scientist says "unlikely" he (or she) usually means that the likelyhood of being wrong is less than 5%, and when he says "extremely unlikely" he usually means that the likelyhood of being wrong is less than 1%.

To bring in some chess content, a player who beats another player 95% of the time is performing at 470 ELO points better than the other, and a player who beats another player 99% of the time is performing at 677 points better.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Overall, a natural disturbance causing the recent CO2 rise is extremely unlikely."

The word "unlikely" is a disclaimer word. Strictly for bumpkins who just fell off a turnip wagon.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

On the question of whether the atmospheric carbon rise is caused my humans or not, the rational among us may care to read "Why does atmospheric CO2 rise ?" by Jan Schloerer an actual, you know, scientist.

His explanation of the abundance of various isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere and the conclusions to be drawn from them is only part of his paper, but I quote it below:

"The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly 1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher, p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago. Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the`Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings, dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257] [Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2 source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils.

The stable isotope 13C amounts to a bit over 1 % of earth's carbon, almost 99 % is ordinary 12C [Butcher, p 240]. Fossil fuels contain less 13C than air, because plants, which once produced the precursors of the fossilized organic carbon compounds, prefer 12C over 13C in photosynthesis (rather, they prefer CO2 which contains a 12C atom) [Butcher, p 86]. Indeed, the 13C fractions in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters declined over the past decades [Butcher, p 257] [C.Keeling] [Quay] [Schimel 94, p 42]. This fits a fossil fuel CO2 source and argues against a dominant oceanic CO2 source. Oceanic carbon has a trifle more 13C than atmospheric carbon, but 13CO2 is heavier and less volatile than 12CO2, thus CO2 degassed from the ocean has a 13C fraction close to that of atmospheric CO2 [Butcher, p 86] [Heimann]. How then should an oceanic CO2 source cause a simultaneous drop of 13C in both the atmosphere and ocean ?

Overall, a natural disturbance causing the recent CO2 rise is extremely unlikely."

The citations quoted above may also be found on the web page pointed to above, should you care to read the actual papers cited.