|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 06/22/2007 : 07:36:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I presented it in my link. |
How is that editorial from the Financial Post "science?" The author is self-contradictory, offers no proper citations and relies upon a hypothesis that hasn't been properly tested.| The news is the sun is warming the planet. Not co2. |
If you want to make such a claim, you'll have to provide evidence (not opinion pieces) to support it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 07:52:23 [Permalink]
|
In answer to claims like one that appeared in an article from Canada's National Post series on global warming called Look to Mars for the truth on global warming published on February 02, 2007 I offer Phil Plait on Solar Warming.
The National Post has published a whole series of articles in an attempt to debunk Co2 as a culprit in global warming. Clearly, they are not fans of the IPCC report.
What I find interesting is, if you look through the articles, they are all over the map. The article Jerome linked to posits one of many “debunking's” they have offered up. It seems to me that if the editorial position on the subject of Global Warming is clear. Nothing wrong with that I guess. But given that they seem to use any and all “debunking's” when one good one would suffice, if true, demonstrates an agenda.
Oddly, or maybe not, the science article that Jermone linked to appears on the financial page and ends with this:
| Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change." |
Every article that I have looked at ends with a plea to stop spending money and damaging the economy by reducing Co2 emissions.
I found this article on the National Post interesting.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 06/22/2007 : 08:47:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by furshur
Jerome, today, June 21, 2007 there is consensus among climatologists that man is contributing to global warming. This is a fact, it is not an opinion, it is fact.
If your opinion is with the minority of climatologist that do not agree with the consensus that is fine. But trying to argue that there is not consensus is wrong.
It is that simple.
|
Apparently you believe worldwide only encompasses a few scientists.
Worldwide : extended throughout or involving the entire world.
(Websters)
Words do have meanings.
There is a consensus of a few leading authors that came to the consensus with the help of many times more government officials. This information was gathered from the IPCC. I have linked it many times.
Worldwide (involving the entire world) is not what is described by the IPCC.
DEBUNKED
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 09:03:29 [Permalink]
|
Kil, it is not news that newspapers have a political bent. I read the Washington Post and the Washington Times; opposing view points.
The Blog you linked to has this statement "First off, I want to make a very big point here: the changes in the Earth due to global warming, while real, are somewhat subtle. Yet the Earth gets most of its heat from the Sun, so if the Sun were the cause, we'd expect the effects of warming to be much stronger on Earth than any outer planets. So any really strong signal of global warming on outer planets like Jupiter or especially Pluto, if real, are very unlikely to be due to the Sun.
Why would we expect the effects of the sun to be stronger on earth than other planets?
Where would the heat come from to warm Pluto and Jupiter if not the sun?
This one is great: "Plus, let's think about this: Pluto is more than 30 times farther away from the Sun than the Earth is. If the Sun were warming up enough to affect Pluto at that vast distance, it would blowtorch the Earth."
This blogger is making things up, silly things at that.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 11:59:22 [Permalink]
|
IT'S Inconceivable!!!
Really though, Pluto could very easily be affected by the sun at its distance. Hell we could be fried by a star thousands of light-years away under the right circumstances.*
*Im not advocating/disagreeing with anything in the blog I didnt read. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 14:08:19 [Permalink]
|
Jerome said:
Apparently you believe worldwide only encompasses a few scientists. |
Here are some of the "few scientist" demonstrating
climate change consesus. I'm sure you can cherry pick a few lines out of this article to again demonstrat that you are a lying troll.
Worldwide : extended throughout or involving the entire world.
(Websters)
Words do have meanings. |
Thanks for clearing that up.
| There is a consensus of a few leading authors that came to the consensus with the help of many times more government officials. This information was gathered from the IPCC. I have linked it many times. |
Gee, you are so subtle and clever - you call them authors and not scientist to bolster your hopeless position. You have linked it many times and still are so pathetic that you think it somehow supports your stupid position.
Worldwide (involving the entire world) is not what is described by the IPCC.
DEBUNKED |
My god you're right there was NO representation from Antartica!
You are DEMORON
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 14:58:49 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
This one is great: "Plus, let's think about this: Pluto is more than 30 times farther away from the Sun than the Earth is. If the Sun were warming up enough to affect Pluto at that vast distance, it would blowtorch the Earth."
This blogger is making things up, silly things at that. |
That blogger holds a PhD in astronomy.
More to the point, there has been detectable warming on a few planets, including Mars, at the same time Earth has been heating up. Pluto was named, though not in the article from The National Post. Perhaps they knew better than to bring up Pluto. Phil Plait isn't making up anything. He wasn't responding specifically to that article, as I noted.
Jerome:
Why would we expect the effects of the sun to be stronger on earth than other planets? |
Because of its distance from the sun (closer) its atmosphere and its orbit, silly…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 16:54:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Because of its distance from the sun (closer) its atmosphere and its orbit, silly…
|
Perhaps we are dealing with a heliocentrist?  |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 18:52:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
DEBUNKED |
You don't know what that word means, do you?
|
"That word you keep saying. I don't think it means what you think it means."
|
Debunk: to expose the sham or falseness of (Websters)
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 18:57:11 [Permalink]
|
Furshur, your link provides many non climate scientist. As the argumnet has been used against those scientist that do not belive any non climate scientis or science organization that does not deal specificly with climate does not count.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 18:59:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by Kil
Because of its distance from the sun (closer) its atmosphere and its orbit, silly…
|
Perhaps we are dealing with a heliocentrist?
|
It's not?
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 19:03:19 [Permalink]
|
Why would we expect the effects of the sun to be stronger on earth than other planets?
Because of its distance from the sun (closer) its atmosphere and its orbit, silly… |
Could not atmospheres also act as a mitigating factor?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 19:04:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
|This one is great: "Plus, let's think about this: Pluto is more than 30 times farther away from the Sun than the Earth is. If the Sun were warming up enough to affect Pluto at that vast distance, it would blowtorch the Earth."
This blogger is making things up, silly things at that. |
Let's see... the distance-squared law says that whatever radiation Pluto receives from the Sun, the Earth receives more than 900 times that much (302=900). Simple physics.
Actually, to complicate it, Pluto's average distance from the Sun is 39.5 AU, so Earth, on average, receives 1,560.25 times the radiation from the Sun that Pluto does.
But it gets worse, the more we look at reality. Pluto's radius is only 1,195 km, compared to Earth's 6,372 km radius, so Pluto only has about 3.5% of the cross-sectional area of the Earth, meaning the Earth actually receives 44,362 times as much radiation as Pluto (1,560.25/0.035 is about 44,362). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Debunked-"world wide scientific consensus"
Topic Locked
