Polar vortex
11-10-14, 04:30 PM
#126
Senior Member
I'm pretty sure some smart people "knew" the earth was round a lot sooner then generally believed, but they wanted to keep their heads, so they didn't butt their heads against the religious wall... 
As for this vortex thing, really?
As for this vortex thing, really?
11-10-14, 04:35 PM
#127
aka Tom Reingold
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,506
Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem
Mentioned: 511 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7352 Post(s)
Liked 2,479 Times
in
1,439 Posts
@JohnJ80, forgive me for not knowing you've been involved in science and engineering. I had no way of knowing, and your use of some terms indicated otherwise.
86.2% of statistics are made up.
86.2% of statistics are made up.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
11-10-14, 04:41 PM
#128
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 8,101
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 17 Times
in
13 Posts
If that were your argument you wouldn't have mentioned Nasif Nahle.
Why is noting that CO2 concentrations have been as high as 7000 ppm compared to today's slightly less than 400 ppm, and that CO2 concentrations have never been significantly lower than 400 ppm while also pointing out that global average temperature doesn't follow CO2 at all, as well as the planet is currently about 13C under it's "normal" average temperature "misleading"?
Because it gores the ox of apocalyptic "the sky is falling" WE-MUST-DO-SOMETHING-NOW climate alarmists?
Sorry, not buying it.
Why is noting that CO2 concentrations have been as high as 7000 ppm compared to today's slightly less than 400 ppm, and that CO2 concentrations have never been significantly lower than 400 ppm while also pointing out that global average temperature doesn't follow CO2 at all, as well as the planet is currently about 13C under it's "normal" average temperature "misleading"?
Because it gores the ox of apocalyptic "the sky is falling" WE-MUST-DO-SOMETHING-NOW climate alarmists?
Sorry, not buying it.
Look, LOTS of things were different millions of years ago when CO2 levels were that high (if they ever were, the data has a very high margin of error when you go back that far). The major land masses weren't even in the same place. Continents and currents have a huge impact on climate. Nobody has said that CO2 is the only thing that affects climate.
Modern humans have only been around for about 200,000 years for a little perspective.
Yes, when someone posts something that contradicts what 97% of climate scientists agree on, one of the first things I do is check the source.
And yes, when CO2 levels have been between 150 and 280 ppm for the last 800,000 years and now they are up to 400 ppm, I consider that significant.
Last edited by tjspiel; 11-10-14 at 04:49 PM.
11-10-14, 04:52 PM
#129
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
4 Posts
You're right, actually! I read it on NASA's website and I believed it, because I trust the scientists at NASA and the JPL, and the many scientific organizations they polled for their research. Here, you can read it yourself. Being a non-scientist who understands some science, I choose to trust the vast majority of scientists and not believe conspiracy theories. I do not conduct my own independent climate research, because I lack the skills to do so properly. Call me crazy.
I assume you do not "blindly trust" anything you read, and instead go out and do your own climate research? I wonder how many times you have been to the Arctic and Antarctic to research your theories? I would really love to see your original, peer-reviewed white paper! Please forward it!
(edit: Also, what is your point about the 97% figure? If it is incorrect and has been revised up or down since the paper you mention was published, can you show the actual number? Is it 96%? 98%? It is still the vast majority of scientists, either way. If your point is that scientists can be incorrect, well, of course! That's part of science.)
(edit 2: NASA does not cite the paper your contrary source takes issue with, FYI.)
I assume you do not "blindly trust" anything you read, and instead go out and do your own climate research? I wonder how many times you have been to the Arctic and Antarctic to research your theories? I would really love to see your original, peer-reviewed white paper! Please forward it!
(edit: Also, what is your point about the 97% figure? If it is incorrect and has been revised up or down since the paper you mention was published, can you show the actual number? Is it 96%? 98%? It is still the vast majority of scientists, either way. If your point is that scientists can be incorrect, well, of course! That's part of science.)
(edit 2: NASA does not cite the paper your contrary source takes issue with, FYI.)
And what would they have to do with the fallacy of the "97% of climate scientists agree"? Agree with WHAT, exactly?
And so WHAT if they do all agree anyway? How many physicists before Einstein "agreed" with Newtonian mechanics? Even Einstein himself had problems "agreeing" with quantum mechanics - without which your computer wouldn't work.
"Consensus" in science is IRRELEVANT. Science is NEVER "settled".
Physicists are STILL doing experiments trying to falsify relativity and quantum mechanics - to PROVE THEM WRONG.
But heaven forbid someone even expresses mild doubts about global warming, errrr, climate change. They get labelled "heretics", errr, "deniers".
Calling someone a "denier" because they don't buy into global warming alarmism is about as ANTI-science as you can get.
11-10-14, 04:55 PM
#130
one life on two wheels
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 2,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 18 Times
in
15 Posts
Global warming alarmism? Ah, those pesky scientists and their conspiracies to warn us about stuff.
Do some of you guys wear tin foil helmets, or what?
Do some of you guys wear tin foil helmets, or what?
11-10-14, 05:03 PM
#131
incazzare.
What "conspiracy theories" are you talking about?
And what would they have to do with the fallacy of the "97% of climate scientists agree"? Agree with WHAT, exactly?
And so WHAT if they do all agree anyway? How many physicists before Einstein "agreed" with Newtonian mechanics? Even Einstein himself had problems "agreeing" with quantum mechanics - without which your computer wouldn't work.
"Consensus" in science is IRRELEVANT. Science is NEVER "settled".
Physicists are STILL doing experiments trying to falsify relativity and quantum mechanics - to PROVE THEM WRONG.
But heaven forbid someone even expresses mild doubts about global warming, errrr, climate change. They get labelled "heretics", errr, "deniers".
Calling someone a "denier" because they don't buy into global warming alarmism is about as ANTI-science as you can get.
And what would they have to do with the fallacy of the "97% of climate scientists agree"? Agree with WHAT, exactly?
And so WHAT if they do all agree anyway? How many physicists before Einstein "agreed" with Newtonian mechanics? Even Einstein himself had problems "agreeing" with quantum mechanics - without which your computer wouldn't work.
"Consensus" in science is IRRELEVANT. Science is NEVER "settled".
Physicists are STILL doing experiments trying to falsify relativity and quantum mechanics - to PROVE THEM WRONG.
But heaven forbid someone even expresses mild doubts about global warming, errrr, climate change. They get labelled "heretics", errr, "deniers".
Calling someone a "denier" because they don't buy into global warming alarmism is about as ANTI-science as you can get.
OK, I don't see any point in this discussion. You are putting words in my mouth now, and making simple and irrelevant statements about science. Just go back to watching Fox News.
You can forward me that white paper whenever you have the time. You are doing that independent research, right?
__________________
1964 JRJ (Bob Jackson), 1973 Wes Mason, 1974 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1986 Schwinn High Sierra, 2000ish Colian (Colin Laing), 2011 Dick Chafe, 2013 Velo Orange Pass Hunter
1964 JRJ (Bob Jackson), 1973 Wes Mason, 1974 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1986 Schwinn High Sierra, 2000ish Colian (Colin Laing), 2011 Dick Chafe, 2013 Velo Orange Pass Hunter
11-10-14, 05:04 PM
#132
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
4 Posts
You asked if there was any problem with the graphs you showed and I responded.
Look, LOTS of things were different millions of years ago when CO2 levels were that high (if they ever were, the data has a very high margin of error when you go back that far). The major land masses weren't even in the same place. Continents and currents have a huge impact on climate. Nobody has said that CO2 is the only thing that affects climate.
Modern humans have only been around for about 200,000 years for a little perspective.
Yes, when someone posts something that contradicts what 97% of climate scientists agree on, one of the first things I do is check the source.
And yes, when CO2 levels have been between 150 and 280 ppm for the last 800,000 years and now they are up to 400 ppm, I consider that significant.
Look, LOTS of things were different millions of years ago when CO2 levels were that high (if they ever were, the data has a very high margin of error when you go back that far). The major land masses weren't even in the same place. Continents and currents have a huge impact on climate. Nobody has said that CO2 is the only thing that affects climate.
Modern humans have only been around for about 200,000 years for a little perspective.
Yes, when someone posts something that contradicts what 97% of climate scientists agree on, one of the first things I do is check the source.
And yes, when CO2 levels have been between 150 and 280 ppm for the last 800,000 years and now they are up to 400 ppm, I consider that significant.
I've already posted quite a criticism from a past IPCC member about that figure.
It's an empty soundbite.
Going back a billion years or so - showing CO2 up to 7,000 ppm, global average temperatures normally being 10C warmer than now, all go right to the heart of climate alarmism arguments.
Simply posting a graph of temperature and CO2 over the past billion years or so punctures the religious dogma.
11-10-14, 05:07 PM
#133
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
4 Posts
I simply find that a lot of these claims that experts are making are absurd. Not that I know better, but I know a few things. My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.
11-10-14, 05:10 PM
#134
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
4 Posts
OK, I don't see any point in this discussion. You are putting words in my mouth now, and making simple and irrelevant statements about science. Just go back to watching Fox News.
You can forward me that white paper whenever you have the time. You are doing that independent research, right?
You can forward me that white paper whenever you have the time. You are doing that independent research, right?
It ain't the climate scientists who are the alarmists.
It's the folks mindlessly repeating empty phrases such as "97%!!!!!" Or attributing things like simple skepticism to Fox News.
11-10-14, 05:21 PM
#135
one life on two wheels
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 2,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 18 Times
in
15 Posts
I'm not intolerant to criticism to the claim that human activity can affect the global climate. Provide me with a convincing argument and I'm happy to change my view. I've yet to see one, but I'm open minded enough to review a well thought out argument. What would motivate the scientific community to 'alarm' the public?
11-10-14, 05:22 PM
#136
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 8,101
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 17 Times
in
13 Posts
97% of climate scientists agree with WHAT, exactly?
I've already posted quite a criticism from a past IPCC member about that figure.
It's an empty soundbite.
Going back a billion years or so - showing CO2 up to 7,000 ppm, global average temperatures normally being 10C warmer than now, all go right to the heart of climate alarmism arguments.
Simply posting a graph of temperature and CO2 over the past billion years or so punctures the religious dogma.
I've already posted quite a criticism from a past IPCC member about that figure.
It's an empty soundbite.
Going back a billion years or so - showing CO2 up to 7,000 ppm, global average temperatures normally being 10C warmer than now, all go right to the heart of climate alarmism arguments.
Simply posting a graph of temperature and CO2 over the past billion years or so punctures the religious dogma.
If you care about climate in the next 20, 30, 50, 100, or 200 years, those graphs are worthless.
The graphs only look at CO2 and temperature over broad swaths of time and do not take into consideration the other major changes and events that impact our climate. You can not tell how much a 200 ppm change in CO2 within a 100 year span of time affected climate a billion years ago. There is simply not enough detail available in the graphs.
Think about it, if a huge asteroid hits the earth 20 years from now, that's going have a bigger impact on our climate than CO2 levels. That doesn't mean that increased CO2 levels don't matter or don't lead to warming.
Last edited by tjspiel; 11-10-14 at 05:37 PM.
11-10-14, 05:23 PM
#137
incazzare.
Why are you so hung up on 97%? Is it wrong? If so, show it. Check out the NASA link and tell us why it's wrong. Note that they don't cite the paper you mentioned above. If it is wrong and has been shown to be wrong, I'm happy to accept it. I am not at all hung up on that number as you seem to be.
The point is the vast majority of scientists agree that the current climate change are linked to human activity. That is what they agree on now. If evidence to the contrary is presented and confirmed, I am sure you will see that majority drop. The point is not that the science is ever "settled," or that this consensus is the end-all-be-all. I don't know why you keep saying stuff like that.
Further, consensus is not meaningless. I am surprised to see a scientist say such a thing. Consensus is how ideas move forward. Sometimes consensus is eventually shown to be wrong--does that mean we should freeze in our tracks and never move forward? I don't really understand your overall point here.
__________________
1964 JRJ (Bob Jackson), 1973 Wes Mason, 1974 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1986 Schwinn High Sierra, 2000ish Colian (Colin Laing), 2011 Dick Chafe, 2013 Velo Orange Pass Hunter
1964 JRJ (Bob Jackson), 1973 Wes Mason, 1974 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1986 Schwinn High Sierra, 2000ish Colian (Colin Laing), 2011 Dick Chafe, 2013 Velo Orange Pass Hunter
11-10-14, 05:26 PM
#138
aka Tom Reingold
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,506
Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem
Mentioned: 511 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7352 Post(s)
Liked 2,479 Times
in
1,439 Posts
Some people, in order to feel right, feel a need to call others wrong.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
11-10-14, 05:32 PM
#139
incazzare.
Just seems odd to me. Oh well.
__________________
1964 JRJ (Bob Jackson), 1973 Wes Mason, 1974 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1986 Schwinn High Sierra, 2000ish Colian (Colin Laing), 2011 Dick Chafe, 2013 Velo Orange Pass Hunter
1964 JRJ (Bob Jackson), 1973 Wes Mason, 1974 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1986 Schwinn High Sierra, 2000ish Colian (Colin Laing), 2011 Dick Chafe, 2013 Velo Orange Pass Hunter
11-10-14, 05:44 PM
#140
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
4 Posts
Why are you so hung up on 97%? Is it wrong? If so, show it. Check out the NASA link and tell us why it's wrong. Note that they don't cite the paper you mentioned above. If it is wrong and has been shown to be wrong, I'm happy to accept it. I am not at all hung up on that number as you seem to be.
The point is the vast majority of scientists agree that the current climate change are linked to human activity. That is what they agree on now. If evidence to the contrary is presented and confirmed, I am sure you will see that majority drop. The point is not that the science is ever "settled," or that this consensus is the end-all-be-all. I don't know why you keep saying stuff like that.
Further, consensus is not meaningless. I am surprised to see a scientist say such a thing. Consensus is how ideas move forward. Sometimes consensus is eventually shown to be wrong--does that mean we should freeze in our tracks and never move forward? I don't really understand your overall point here.
The point is the vast majority of scientists agree that the current climate change are linked to human activity. That is what they agree on now. If evidence to the contrary is presented and confirmed, I am sure you will see that majority drop. The point is not that the science is ever "settled," or that this consensus is the end-all-be-all. I don't know why you keep saying stuff like that.
Further, consensus is not meaningless. I am surprised to see a scientist say such a thing. Consensus is how ideas move forward. Sometimes consensus is eventually shown to be wrong--does that mean we should freeze in our tracks and never move forward? I don't really understand your overall point here.
I'll tell you. It comes from here:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
32.6% endorsed AGW
That's a far cry from "97% of climate scientists agree". Nowhere are "scientists" mentioned.
The original author's position on AGW is unknown in 2/3 of the abstracts examined. WHO the original authors are is unknown. You can't get to any percentage whatsoever of climate scientists from the data, and the majority of the data is unsampled/unknown anyway.
It's logically exactly as bad (but not quite as egregiously obvious) as taking a deck of cards, looking at 5 cards, seeing a diamond flush, and then assuming the factory that makes the cards only produces cards with a diamond suit.
"97% of climate scientists agree" is a bull**** incorrect sound bite.
It's really "1 out of 3 abstracts from climate papers that we examined agree with the idea that humans are causing at least some warming".
Yet whackadoodles have turned that into "97% of climate scientists agree".
And even then, the only thing Cook (author of the linked paper) is claiming is that they agree that humans are causing some warming. And it's only 1/3 of the papers, anyway.
Like I said - it ain't the scientists that are the alarmists.
It's the mindless parrots religiously (literally!) regurgitating "97% of climate scientists agree".
Why do you think I kept asking "agree with what"? I gave everyone the damn link. It's right in there.
Even then, a former IPCC member (and a lot of other people) have serious concerns about the accuracy of Cook's numbers.
No one wants their religious convictions questioned.
Last edited by achoo; 11-10-14 at 05:57 PM.
11-10-14, 06:02 PM
#141
incazzare.
As I said above, NASA does not cite that paper. You have not shown why they are wrong. Be my guest.
As for that specific paper. You seem to take issue with the fact that they read abstracts that take no stance. How would you suggest they include these in their data? It seems to me that (and this is based only on what you have given me above, I have not read the paper or the abstract) they properly classify the abstracts that took a position. How would you have done it?
Maybe you take issue with the wording of "97% of climate scientists agree?" I agree that it would be more accurate to say that "97% of papers taking a position on AGW agree." If that's your issue, why not just say so? Why all the "wackadoodles" and "mindless parrots"? Again, you are repeating what you have read as well. If you did original research, I again invite you to share it.
However, saying "So, we wind up with a mere 32% of the abstracts of papers appear to support the idea that "humans are causing some global warming"." as you say above is just as misleading, if not more, since you have no idea why the 66.4% of papers did not take a position. You seem to be assuming that not taking a position is relevant to your argument in some way. You don't even know what the thesis of those thousands of papers was. Unless you have gone through them all, using 32% as a figure is much more intellectually dishonest than using 97%.
Let's just be blunt, please answer this question:
Do you believe that the majority of scientists do NOT at this time believe that climate change is human caused? If so, please cite your evidence for this belief.
edit: This is pointless, I've been drawn into debating your analysis of a paper I haven't read (nor have you, I suspect). That was dumb of me. I'm over this conversation. I will continue to believe that the majority of scientists know more about this than you or I. You believe what you like, it's a free country.
As for that specific paper. You seem to take issue with the fact that they read abstracts that take no stance. How would you suggest they include these in their data? It seems to me that (and this is based only on what you have given me above, I have not read the paper or the abstract) they properly classify the abstracts that took a position. How would you have done it?
Maybe you take issue with the wording of "97% of climate scientists agree?" I agree that it would be more accurate to say that "97% of papers taking a position on AGW agree." If that's your issue, why not just say so? Why all the "wackadoodles" and "mindless parrots"? Again, you are repeating what you have read as well. If you did original research, I again invite you to share it.
However, saying "So, we wind up with a mere 32% of the abstracts of papers appear to support the idea that "humans are causing some global warming"." as you say above is just as misleading, if not more, since you have no idea why the 66.4% of papers did not take a position. You seem to be assuming that not taking a position is relevant to your argument in some way. You don't even know what the thesis of those thousands of papers was. Unless you have gone through them all, using 32% as a figure is much more intellectually dishonest than using 97%.
Let's just be blunt, please answer this question:
Do you believe that the majority of scientists do NOT at this time believe that climate change is human caused? If so, please cite your evidence for this belief.
edit: This is pointless, I've been drawn into debating your analysis of a paper I haven't read (nor have you, I suspect). That was dumb of me. I'm over this conversation. I will continue to believe that the majority of scientists know more about this than you or I. You believe what you like, it's a free country.
__________________
1964 JRJ (Bob Jackson), 1973 Wes Mason, 1974 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1986 Schwinn High Sierra, 2000ish Colian (Colin Laing), 2011 Dick Chafe, 2013 Velo Orange Pass Hunter
1964 JRJ (Bob Jackson), 1973 Wes Mason, 1974 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1986 Schwinn High Sierra, 2000ish Colian (Colin Laing), 2011 Dick Chafe, 2013 Velo Orange Pass Hunter
Last edited by lostarchitect; 11-10-14 at 06:13 PM.
11-10-14, 06:23 PM
#142
one life on two wheels
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 2,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 18 Times
in
15 Posts
Why real skeptics detest global warming Deniers | Greenfyre's
Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers? | Greenfyre's
"What is particularly ironic is that they accuse those who offer evidence and facts of “having a religion” while their own evidence-free beliefs are ‘science’. They claim to be skeptical of the mountains of evidence while embracing the most absurd conspiracy theories without any evidence whatsoever . They reject the plethora of climate models out of hand as “just models”, yet wildly embrace any new model that claims to cast doubt on the specifics of climate science. The flagrant contradictions and hypocrisy is breath taking."
Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers? | Greenfyre's
"What is particularly ironic is that they accuse those who offer evidence and facts of “having a religion” while their own evidence-free beliefs are ‘science’. They claim to be skeptical of the mountains of evidence while embracing the most absurd conspiracy theories without any evidence whatsoever . They reject the plethora of climate models out of hand as “just models”, yet wildly embrace any new model that claims to cast doubt on the specifics of climate science. The flagrant contradictions and hypocrisy is breath taking."
11-10-14, 06:24 PM
#143
aka Tom Reingold
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,506
Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem
Mentioned: 511 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7352 Post(s)
Liked 2,479 Times
in
1,439 Posts
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
11-10-14, 07:03 PM
#144
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
For some its not about declaring others wrong, or denying we have an impact, its about questioning the leap of faith that our impact on the climate is as certain to be catastrophic as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
11-10-14, 07:16 PM
#146
aka Tom Reingold
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,506
Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem
Mentioned: 511 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7352 Post(s)
Liked 2,479 Times
in
1,439 Posts
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
11-10-14, 07:44 PM
#147
incazzare.
Nah, I don't read scientific papers, Tom. Not since college anyway! It's above my pay grade. I just meant that I'd read NASA's summary.
__________________
1964 JRJ (Bob Jackson), 1973 Wes Mason, 1974 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1986 Schwinn High Sierra, 2000ish Colian (Colin Laing), 2011 Dick Chafe, 2013 Velo Orange Pass Hunter
1964 JRJ (Bob Jackson), 1973 Wes Mason, 1974 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1986 Schwinn High Sierra, 2000ish Colian (Colin Laing), 2011 Dick Chafe, 2013 Velo Orange Pass Hunter
11-10-14, 07:44 PM
#148
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
Posts: 8,721
Bikes: I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4227 Post(s)
Liked 2,488 Times
in
1,286 Posts
I blame Al Gore for inventing all this global warming fiasco, and I feel sorry for people who make financial contributions to support his ideology.
11-10-14, 08:12 PM
#150
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 8,101
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 17 Times
in
13 Posts
It's like planning for retirement without knowing for sure that I'll live until 65. There are no guarantees, but your actions should be based on the best information that you have available.