My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Eclipse Now]

FB once again proves his character by quoting various out-of-date sceptical "resources" as flame-bait but refuses to engage the ensuing conversation.

 

FB: quotes nasty stinking pile of manure

List: replies with verifiable, repeatable, REAL science, showing how irrelevant said pile of manure really is

FB: insults replies without disproving them, and implies all climatologists everywhere need "auditing" while his own sources (funded by Exxon Mobile) don't! :shrug:;):););););):(;);););););););););););)

 

FB you have repeatedly quoted non-scientific sources in an attempt to get a rise out of this list, and then just SNEER at the good science posted in reply. This is not a conversation. Ignoring the 4 questions is not a conversation. Posting rubbish and then just sidestepping the critiques of that rubbish not a conversation. You need to start engaging the list or else risk labelling yourself.

 

(disambiguation).

 

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]

 

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.

 

Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling — where the rate of deception is high — many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation." (Donath, 1999, p. 45)[10]

[Flying Binghi]

FB once again proves his character by quoting various out-of-date sceptical "resources" as flame-bait but refuses to engage the ensuing conversation.

 

FB: quotes nasty stinking pile of manure

List: replies with verifiable, repeatable, REAL science, showing how irrelevant said pile of manure really is

FB: insults replies without disproving them, and implies all climatologists everywhere need "auditing" while his own sources (funded by Exxon Mobile) don't!

 

FB you have repeatedly quoted non-scientific sources in an attempt to get a rise out of this list, and then just SNEER at the good science posted in reply. This is not a conversation. Ignoring the 4 questions is not a conversation. Posting rubbish and then just sidestepping the critiques of that rubbish not a conversation. You need to start engaging the list or else risk labelling yourself.

 

 

Quote:

(disambiguation).

 

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]

 

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

Quote:

Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.

 

Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling — where the rate of deception is high — many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation." (Donath, 1999, p. 45)[10]

 

I dont want to loose that one :) Seems almost like your first post here Eclipse Now

 

 

Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation

 

I've had worse, on another forum i was involved in a little discusion about terrorism threats, amongst other things, and got possible legal and death threats. One good thing about it all, is an intelligence service or two is probably monitoring my computer (and those hacking it... :confused:)

[freeztar]

Let's keep the discussion on topic please.

[Essay]

for instance:

Flying Binghi,

 

Answering the question about what happens to that heat after it is absorbed within "the first 30 feet" would demonstrate a better understanding of the heat balance.

[... in reference your Bryson citation]

 

Any thoughts along those lines?

 

~ :)

[Eclipse Now]

Yes, on topic would be nice, as in FB answering Essay's question, and maybe the 4 questions I posted earlier.

 

FB, if you are happy to accept that climatologists recognise water as one of the greenhouse gases, why won't you also acknowledge Co2? You're being inconsistent. One cannot just sit back and accept one part of a discipline without explaining why you reject other fundamental parts of the very same discipline (spectroscopy etc). You want to blame it all on the water? Good luck with that. Climate is far more complex than that.

[Flying Binghi]

FB, if you are happy to accept that climatologists recognise water as one of the greenhouse gases, why won't you also acknowledge Co2? You're being inconsistent

 

Eclipse Now, please show me where i have failed to acknowledge, or have made, that claim :) ...even Reid Bryson agrees CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

[Cedars]

Whoops!

 

NASA's global warming satellite falls to Earth

 

NASA's global warming satellite falls to Earth - Space.com- msnbc.com

 

Wonder if it hit any penguins or whales?

[Essay]

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

The reason this was such a meaningless metaphor(?) should be addressed:

 

Binghi,

Regardless of it's size (percentage), CO2 is a link in the cascade of heat making its way up to the boundary with space.

 

Try and think of it as a "valve" in that chain of energy flow.

It's not that the CO2 "gets hot," but that the flow of energy (heat) gets "backed up" a slight amount into previous parts of (earlier events in) the cascade.

Over time, especially if it doesn't fluctuate, that push toward "backing up" starts pushing the averages--as well as the limits of stable atmospheric modes.

 

~ :)

 

p.s.

 

hehehe Cedars.... Yes, I often worry about the ice breakers too.

All that heat and disruption--like a chain of little satellites hitting....

[Eclipse Now]

And FB knows the IPCC report's % guide to the various greenhouse gas contributions... from memory I'm pretty sure it's been posted here.

[Flying Binghi]

Lets not dismiss that 'inconvieniant' pot-stirrer, Reid Bryson just yet.

 

Some more of Bryson's back ground and comments -

 

Bryson is a believer in climate change, in that he’s as quick as anyone to acknowledge that Earth’s climate has done nothing but change throughout the planet’s existence. In fact, he took that knowledge a big step further, earlier than probably anyone else. Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate.

 

“I was laughed off the platform for saying that,” he told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.

 

In the 1960s, Bryson’s idea was widely considered a radical proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing, human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom.

 

“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?”

 

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

 

...traceable to Bryson’s high-school interest in archaeology, followed by college degrees in geology, then meteorology, and studies in oceanography, limnology, and other disciplines. “He’s looked at the interconnections of all these things and their impact on human societies,”

 

...“I think that’s one of the reasons for his longevity,” Moran says. “He’s so interested and inquisitive. I regard him as a pot-stirrer. Sometimes people don’t react well when you challenge their long-held ideas, but that’s how real science takes place.”—Dave Hoopman.

 

WECN May 2007

[Eclipse Now]

Sorry mate, didn't read your post when I saw that it was just more defence of your flame bait. I'm not intending on feeding the troll, and actually bothering to debunk your new hero would ignore the fact that you haven't answered the very on topic and pertinent point at this stage: how do we measure what CO2 does V how do we measure what water does? You've asserted some weird things, but have not explained why, especially when one really considers Essay's questions.

 

It's your turn to answer our questions... my 4 and Essay's last question.

 

If not, then Quack Quack.

 

(Please don't respond by talking about your new heros again, it will just make you sound like a fanboy and make me ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.)

[Flying Binghi]

Sorry mate, didn't read your post when I saw that it was just more defence of your flame bait. I'm not intending on feeding the troll, and actually bothering to debunk your new hero would ignore the fact that you haven't answered the very on topic and pertinent point at this stage: how do we measure what CO2 does V how do we measure what water does? You've asserted some weird things, but have not explained why, especially when one really considers Essay's questions.

 

It's your turn to answer our questions... my 4 and Essay's last question.

 

If not, then Quack Quack.

 

(Please don't respond by talking about your new heros again, it will just make you sound like a fanboy and make me ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.)

 

Eclipse Now, your sounding like this authoritarian individual -

 

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong called on Mr Turnbull to deal with Dr Jensen.

 

"Mr Turnbull knows it's the right thing to do to act on climate change," she told reporters in Canberra. Climate change denier MP's Hitler comparison - National News - National - General - The Canberra Times

 

"new hero" ? :) Hmmm, ...several hundred posts ago i had a little debate in this very thread about the admissibility of the late Reid Bryson...

 

Reid Bryson looks to be a real 'inconvienience' to some, eh ;)

[Eclipse Now]

Your signature is an inflammatory mockery of everything the real scientists in the real climate community living with the science of this century hold dear.

 

97% of the real experts disagree with your quackery. Are they all "on the take"? Do they all "need an audit"? Or is the science just that clear?

Wunder Blog : Weather Underground

[Flying Binghi]

And in keeping with the thread title...

 

Dont foreget to book your seat ;)

 

More than 70 of the world’s elite scientists specializing in climate issues will confront the subject of global warming at the second annual International Conference on Climate Change in New York City March 8-10, 2009

 

The Heartland Institute - Welcome to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change

[Eclipse Now]

STOP TROLLING!!!!!

 

I've shown you how that group is funded by Exxon Mobile... It's TIME FOR YOU TO PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH AND AUDIT YOUR OWN EXPERTS!!!!!

 

Anyone could just wiki the Heartland institute to find out what a bunch of has-been malcontent idiots they are. Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer either, if there's enough money in it....

 

Funding

 

The Heartland Institute receives donations from approximately 1,600 individuals, foundations, and corporations. No single corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget according to brochures from the company. [20] MediaTransparency reported that the Heartland Institute received funding from politically conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.[21]

In a statement made by Dr. James McCarthy on March 28, 2007 to the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight (House Science Committee), it was disclosed that ExxonMobil contributed a total of $560,000 to the Heartland Institute between 1998 and 2005.[22]

 

Audit the money...

[Flying Binghi]

Your signature is an inflammatory mockery of everything the real scientists in the real climate community living with the science of this century hold dear.

 

97% of the real experts disagree with your quackery. Are they all "on the take"? Do they all "need an audit"? Or is the science just that clear?

 

STOP TROLLING!!!!!

 

I've shown you how that group is funded by Exxon Mobile... It's TIME FOR YOU TO PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH AND AUDIT YOUR OWN EXPERTS!!!!!

 

Anyone could just wiki the Heartland institute to find out what a bunch of has-been malcontent idiots they are. Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer either, if there's enough money in it....

 

Eclipse Now, your getting a bit repetitive there.

[Eclipse Now]

That movie was just Durkin Jerking his Gherkin.

 

Practice what you preach, follow the influence of the money and you'll see what you've been sucked into, the "cult of coal", the "church of chaff", the "Carbon is Life" world of Big Brother EXXON MOBILE and the fossil fuel industry, donating worldwide to any so called "institute" that happens to sing the song they like. It's the most powerfully funded high tech industry outside of the military, and you're worried about a few little government funded climatologists having undue influence? :eek_big::eek_big::eek_big:

 

Practice what you preach, there's some freedom in that. ;) You'll eventually learn the truth, and the truth will set you free from your unhelpful obsession with trolling.

 

Please prove us wrong and answer the questions put to you. How do mainstream (as in, real, not purchased by Exxon Mobile! ;)) scientists measure what Co2, methane, water vapour, indeed ANY greenhouse gas does and by what magnitude? And what else has that discipline taught us about the world, the universe, and given us in terms of industry and technology and information? That's the real nub of all this. If you can get back on topic and actually discuss this stuff without posting the likes of Durkin! (pppfffft!) then I might consider withdrawing the charge of "troll". But I doubt it, I've met your type too many times. :)