04-26-2007
|
 |
old cranky salt
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 342
Rep Power: 6
|
|
As to the following. Cute little wad of non info you have provided. Utilizing misdirection etc. Since you don't want to have your hand held and haven't asked for it....Look it up! Start with core sample of ice taken from greenland. I'm sure a little googling will take you to the info you say you seek.
P.S. scientific info is not provided, proved or disproved utilising the cheep debating techniques of Anny get your gun Coulter. Man is not a rational being he is a rationalizing being ...First deciding a viewpoint (from an emotional basis) and only then thinking up reasons to back it up. Science is a methodology to minimise this human charicteristic.
Have fun kiddies!
Dewey
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RAGNAR
Rags is fine, SailorMa.
Funny, I didn't ask for such treatment -- cute straw man.
In any case, I'd settle for a thorough presentation at an official conference, with verifiable data, repeatable experiments, and a context that takes the entire history of the planet's climate into account.
In addition:
Dog and pony, indeed.
You can add:
-- Smoke-n-mirrors
-- Say-what-is-necessary-to-assure-gov-funding
-- Say-what-is-necessary-to-assure-industrialists-fear-you, and supprot your next campaign/cause/crusade/nonprofit account.
-- The indirect threat in Congress to actually retaliate against Exxon and others for challenging this Platonic hypothesis.
--100 years of looking for models and correlations, not causal explanations
-- The total collapse of epistemology in Western universities.
--That the sciences, like all fields of human endevor, are prone to fashions and fads.
--The censorship and exile of so many scientists who refute or challenge this unfounded hypothesis.
I contend that before you can claim that the evidence is there for anything, you have to set the proper context for what it is you are collecting evidence for. This has yet to be done with either Environmentalism or the Greenhouse hypothesis.
At some point, this becomes telling.
It takes a spine snapping amount of effort for me to accept the unsubstantiated.
I disagree with this statement. ther most certainly is a ton of valid objections to this hypothesis.
I suspect that there is warming. I disagree with the idea that this flux, we're talking .75F, right?, is outside normal fluctuation.
I also disagree with the incredible assertion that the problem is man-made, and that curtailing so called Greenhouse emissions can do anything about it. You'd think that we have no evidence of incredible climactic shifts pre-Industrialization, or that we don't know that the avergae volcanicexplosion of note releases more so-called GH gasses than man has from the days of heating up caves with fire, to the present day.
(CO2 is measured in parts per million -- ~350ppms is the current quote. No fluid mixture's thermodynamics has ever been shown to take note of such a small quantity, no matter the tiny quantity's thermal properties.)
No one in their right mind would care what anyone anywhere is noticing. What matters is what one can prove, and the context in which one's proven points live.
Your claim -- that you're noticing it up there -- is, well, typical of the fallacy at hand. This is the sort of subjectivism that's been infecting the West since Kant tried to kill off the Enlightenment with his slow but lethal potion.
Allow me to suggest that you study the history of philosophy, then see if this latest disaster-is-a-comin is anything new.
Then ask yourself why this hypothesis has been accepted without a causal explanation, and why it's being propagated by a very specific mentality.
Three of the books on my Global Warming list:
1)
To understand the horrors being waged against opponents of Global Warming in academia/intellectual circles:
Meltdown by Patrick Michaels
2)
For a more sane climate theory (fought tooth and nail, of course, but with not a single challenge to the theory itself):
The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder
3)
A fact-packed hypothesis that attempts to show that the planet has been repeating a 1500-year climate cycle for 40, 000 years:
Unstoppable Global Warming--Every 1500 Years (Too tired to get the authors' names.)
I have tons of articles whose thrust is simply side-stepped by those caught in the Global Warming orgy, the authors/originators having to pay a huge price for their perfectly reasonable objections and counter-hypothesis-- all in the name of a causeless assertion, raised to a religion by a mentality with a history of envy, hatred of the exceptional, mysiticsm, subjectivism, and a need to "lead."
Last:
He had an incredible mystical streak in him, but one of Newton's profound contributions was to assert that civilized men do not entertain the arbitrary. (This is an explicit phrasing of an implicit characterisitc of Ancient Greece.)
I suggest that we do just that.
Ragnar
|
|
Connect with Facebook
117Likes
