Login to AccuWeather.com Premium Login to AccuWeather.com Professional Login to AccuWeather.com RadarPlus AccuWeather.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Jim Hansen's speech to the National Press Club, Re-Opened after 24 Hours
wxdude1964
post Jul 4 2008, 10:18 PM
Post #21




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 33,808
Joined: 16-March 08
From: Covington, VA
Member No.: 14,395





QUOTE(Steve Bloom @ Jul 4 2008, 03:49 PM) *
Briefly, wxdude1964, it bothers me when people fail to distinguish between fact and fantasy regarding climate science. I think it's unhelpful to the planet and to the human race to let such folks have this forum to themselves.

Re some of your other comments, I think you lead a very insular existence.


Yeah..insular....that must be it....... laugh.gif

Like I said in an earlier post- that is your opinion

This post has been edited by wxdude1964: Jul 4 2008, 10:21 PM


--------------------
Snowfall 2007-2008 season-11.4 inches
Snowfall 2008-2009 season-13.1 inches
Snowfall 2009-2010 season-68.6 inches
Snowfall 2010-2011 season-19.5 inches
Snowfall 2011-2012 season-16.5 inches.
Snowfall 2012-2013 season-25.9 inches.
Snowfall 2013-2014 season-41.1 inches.
Snowfall 2014-2015 season-33.7 inches.
Snowfall 2015-2016 season-33.4 inches.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BrooklineTom
post Jul 5 2008, 07:46 AM
Post #22




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 110
Joined: 4-July 08
Member No.: 15,189





QUOTE
That is why 95 percent of
the world ignores it, and if you refer back to something in it you usually need to put a * beside
it.


To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "Nobody goes to THAT restaurant anymore, it's too crowded."

The accuracy of Wikipedia, as compared to World Book (a conventional encyclopedia) was addressed in a Nature Magazine piece in 2005. The evidence suggests that Wikipedia is more, rather than less, reliable.

No encyclopedia is or should ever be viewed as definitive or as source material. In the case of Wikipedia, a given piece nearly always provides links to supporting citations.

I strongly suspect that deniers dislike Wikipedia because its contents reflect the scientific assessment of the overwhelming majority of credentialed climatologists, rather than the ideology of the rabid right-wing cranks, religious zealots, and industry lackeys that that so dominate the denier cult.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jul 5 2008, 07:18 PM
Post #23







Guests








Wikipedia gets cited to on-line so frequently because it's free access. I'm quite sure that articles in other encyclopedias (ones requiring subscriptions for access) are fine on the basics of climate science and would be just as trashed by denialists if they were used instead. Denialists reject all scientific sources that disagree with their opinions. I suppose scientists should just be grateful that it's no longer legal for gangs of ignorant yahoos to burn them at the stake as happened to this guy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chris F
post Jul 5 2008, 09:47 PM
Post #24




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 38
Joined: 15-June 08
From: Pembroke, Ont
Member No.: 15,107





Bias at Wikipedia:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
http://wikipediabias.com/
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6954
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewb...a_certain_bias/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jul 6 2008, 12:50 AM
Post #25







Guests








QUOTE(Chris F @ Jul 5 2008, 07:47 PM) *


All Wingnuttia rails against Wikipedia, it seems. With enemies like that how can Wikipedia be wrong?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chris F
post Jul 6 2008, 09:25 AM
Post #26




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 38
Joined: 15-June 08
From: Pembroke, Ont
Member No.: 15,107





I can see how you love Wiki so much because they do the censoring you'd like to do here and elsewhere (see previous link from the NP). That's why you hate Fox and any other conservative news outlet, they show the other side of the coin which is a threat to your way of thinking and the liberal/democrat response to that is always to censor or smear the source.
The AGW belief can't stand the test of science so you must try everything you can to stop the scientific community from debunking the myth you hold so dear. Even if it means throwing people in jail like Hansen and Suzuki would like to do, or cutting off funding to natural cause proponents, or taking away accreditation a la Heidi Cullen. The left's position is clear on this issue, crush dissent by any means possible so the gullible public hears only the side of the story that you want them to hear. That's not the scientific method, it's not democracy and it's not what my father and uncles fought for in the second world war. You need to seriously examine your unquestioning belief in AGW and more importantly what lengths you would go to to suppress those who are trying to advance the science of climate change and whether it's really the problem we're being led to believe it is.

quote-"If it takes force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with your ideas. If you are willing to use force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with you."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
monsoonevans
post Jul 6 2008, 11:28 AM
Post #27




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Moderator
Posts: 778
Joined: 11-January 08
From: Wayne, PA
Member No.: 12,210





QUOTE(Steve Bloom @ Jul 5 2008, 08:18 PM) *
Wikipedia gets cited to on-line so frequently because it's free access. I'm quite sure that articles in other encyclopedias (ones requiring subscriptions for access) are fine on the basics of climate science and would be just as trashed by denialists if they were used instead. Denialists reject all scientific sources that disagree with their opinions. I suppose scientists should just be grateful that it's no longer legal for gangs of ignorant yahoos to burn them at the stake as happened to this guy.

I don't know why we have to label people as 'denialists' or 'alarmists'? Hansen is just like Bill Gray. They both feel passionatley about there causes and will stop at nothing to say they are right. I think we can get so caught up in the peddy name calling and shoveling out of facts that support our side and loose sight of the facts that people, not involved in the science, are shaping policies and profiteering at the debaters expense. Let's be honest, there is no reasonable benefit in being on grays side other than to defend his strongly held belief. Hansen also has a strongly held belief but he also has a real tangible incentive. People like Hansen are being used right now by some pretty devious folks for very selfish reasons. The people who are trying to debate this issue are only being used as a smoke screen by those people trying to make a fortune, or on a larger scale, trying to gain power.
Hansens speech 20 years ago was, IMO, a reflection of his strongly held beliefs. His anniversary speech last week, however, was not. It was really just a man trying to defend something he had once said that has turned out to be wrong. Kinda like a boxer whose getting knocked out and just starts wildly throwing haymakers hoping to land a desperate shot before he goes down.
Bottom line is many good intentioned people can end up getting so wrapped up in their own theories that it becomes impossible for them to admit any flaws in that theory for fear that it ALL becomes disregarded.



--------------------
Monsoon

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jul 8 2008, 05:19 AM
Post #28







Guests








You insult Hansen, monsoon, but the facts and the science are all on his side. Deal with it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Goombah
post Jul 8 2008, 08:19 AM
Post #29




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,165
Joined: 15-February 08
Member No.: 13,725





QUOTE(Steve Bloom @ Jul 4 2008, 02:38 PM) *
bdivito58, I would have recognized that statement alone as sarcasm. But remember that you also said this:

"These engines give off significantly more water vapor than CO2, which we know is not as strong of a GHG compared to the water vapor."

That sounded to me more like a fundamental misunderstanding than sarcasm, and made it plausible that you might actually believe your other remark (or that you made it in the hope that someone else would believe it).



What was wrong about my statement? I am curious as I do want to learn and I try and keep more of an open mind than some people here.


--------------------
Accuweather Fantasy Football commish!

Owner of THE GOOMBAH!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jul 8 2008, 10:50 AM
Post #30







Guests








QUOTE(bdivito58 @ Jul 8 2008, 06:19 AM) *
What was wrong about my statement? I am curious as I do want to learn and I try and keep more of an open mind than some people here.


Anthropogenic emissions of water vapor have no effect on the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Any excess precipitates out, and evaporation makes up any deficit. We can increase the amount of water vapor only by warming the atmosphere through other means, the primary one being CO2 emissions. Water behaves differently from CO2 since it passes freely between vapor and liquid/solid states within the temperature range that exists on this planet, whereas CO2 remains a gas at all times.

This post has been edited by Steve Bloom: Jul 8 2008, 10:54 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Goombah
post Jul 8 2008, 11:11 AM
Post #31




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,165
Joined: 15-February 08
Member No.: 13,725





QUOTE(Steve Bloom @ Jul 8 2008, 10:50 AM) *
Anthropogenic emissions of water vapor have no effect on the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Any excess precipitates out, and evaporation makes up any deficit. We can increase the amount of water vapor only by warming the atmosphere through other means, the primary one being CO2 emissions. Water behaves differently from CO2 since it passes freely between vapor and liquid/solid states within the temperature range that exists on this planet, whereas CO2 remains a gas at all times.


Ok I said the ICEs give off more water vapor than CO2. You kind of did not address that. Would my statement be more accurate if I just said water? You picked on a statement that did not mention anything about the emissions having an effect on total levels. My statement, was cut and dry about byproducts of combustion. Does the ICE give off more H2O or CO2?


--------------------
Accuweather Fantasy Football commish!

Owner of THE GOOMBAH!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jul 8 2008, 01:08 PM
Post #32







Guests








QUOTE(bdivito58 @ Jul 8 2008, 09:11 AM) *
Ok I said the ICEs give off more water vapor than CO2. You kind of did not address that. Would my statement be more accurate if I just said water? You picked on a statement that did not mention anything about the emissions having an effect on total levels. My statement, was cut and dry about byproducts of combustion. Does the ICE give off more H2O or CO2?


To say that it's a stronger GHG is to imply that the warming effect of the emitted H2O is greater. Re which is emitted more, I think you can look that up easily.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Goombah
post Jul 8 2008, 01:41 PM
Post #33




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,165
Joined: 15-February 08
Member No.: 13,725





QUOTE(Steve Bloom @ Jul 8 2008, 01:08 PM) *
To say that it's a stronger GHG is to imply that the warming effect of the emitted H2O is greater. Re which is emitted more, I think you can look that up easily.



Why dont you answer the question though, you are the one who attacked my statement, why wont you answer it so that everyone on these boards can see the answer in your words.



You are correct, I can see how my wording indicated an implication. However, H20 is created, which does have an effect on things.



--------------------
Accuweather Fantasy Football commish!

Owner of THE GOOMBAH!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jul 8 2008, 09:00 PM
Post #34







Guests








QUOTE(bdivito58 @ Jul 8 2008, 11:41 AM) *
Why dont you answer the question though, you are the one who attacked my statement, why wont you answer it so that everyone on these boards can see the answer in your words.

You are correct, I can see how my wording indicated an implication. However, H20 is created, which does have an effect on things.


I wanted to see if you knew how to look up something like that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jul 9 2008, 02:49 PM
Post #35







Guests








QUOTE(bdivito58 @ Jul 9 2008, 05:59 AM) *
Got it, right back to the condescending Steve Bloom we all know. How bout you answer the question instead of stalling, and I will confirm it via Google.


Sorry, bdivito58, but I'm going to ignore you until such time as you show some willingness and ability to do a minimim of internet research to back up your many unsupported assertions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig-OmahaWX
post Jul 9 2008, 02:55 PM
Post #36




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Founding Member
Posts: 997
Joined: 30-December 04
From: Omaha, NE
Member No.: 592





QUOTE(Steve Bloom @ Jul 9 2008, 07:49 PM) *
Sorry, bdivito58, but I'm going to ignore you until such time as you show some willingness and ability to do a minimim of internet research to back up your many unsupported assertions.

Off Topic;

Did you use to have an account called MDsnowbunny on here?


--------------------


Snowday.us Testimonials

"Craig.... I love your web site." John Belski | Chief Meteorologist WAVE 3 Louisville Kentucky
"Craig, Love the site! I am a huge winter weather junkie" Brian Goode Radio/Broadband Meteorologist The Weather Channel Inc

Winter 2009-2010 Current Snowfall Totals:
61.00"
Snow-Day.org Winter Forecast will be issued September 16th!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Bl1zzard_*
post Jul 9 2008, 02:58 PM
Post #37







Guests








QUOTE(Craig-OmahaWX @ Jul 9 2008, 03:55 PM) *
Off Topic;

Did you use to have an account called MDsnowbunny on here?


No, that was someone different. Mr. Bloom has been a frequent poster on the global warming blog, for quite a while. MDsnowbunny came and left rather briefly. She was quite noticeably different, though of similar opinions.

Just as a note though, craig, you really shouldn't make accusations like that. It's not particulary classy.

This post has been edited by Bl1zzard: Jul 9 2008, 02:59 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Goombah
post Jul 9 2008, 03:22 PM
Post #38




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,165
Joined: 15-February 08
Member No.: 13,725





QUOTE(Bl1zzard @ Jul 9 2008, 02:58 PM) *
No, that was someone different. Mr. Bloom has been a frequent poster on the global warming blog, for quite a while. MDsnowbunny came and left rather briefly. She was quite noticeably different, though of similar opinions.

Just as a note though, craig, you really shouldn't make accusations like that. It's not particulary classy.



No MDSnowBunny was much more personable and could hold civilized discussion smile.gif

Mr. Bloom, you wanted me to look up something that you accused me of being wrong about. You made that claim not me. Go ahead and post whether the ICE produces more H2O or if it produces more CO2.



Why wont you prove me wrong and you right? I would do it, but while at work I am behind a firewall that will not allow it.



I had told you that before, but you must have ignored that.



Speaking of unsupported assertions, you have not supported your discussion about Lucia much. You know the one you are having with Monsoon. You just say he is wrong and making things up. He has provided some citation, you have not. Are you being hypocritical, having trouble defending yourself? So instead you resort to pot-shots.



--------------------
Accuweather Fantasy Football commish!

Owner of THE GOOMBAH!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jul 10 2008, 02:25 AM
Post #39







Guests








OK, just once more: I gave you a link on the Lucia business. Read it after work. While you're at it you can look up the combustion products answer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
raughammer
post Jul 10 2008, 03:55 AM
Post #40




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 4,093
Joined: 30-March 08
From: S.E. Texas
Member No.: 14,542





QUOTE(Steve Bloom @ Jul 3 2008, 11:42 AM) *
Yep, Chris F, it's a veritable phone book of names. People have checked them, and even taking the names at face value most of them are of folks who know nothing about climate science. See here for details.

You know, according to polls ~28% of Americans think Bush is doing a good job and ~18% think the sun travels around the earth. I think we've discovered "American Thinker's" audience.



You know, according to polls only 9% of Americans think the Democratic controlled Congress is doing a good job. (Yea thats right: 9%)

Only 9% of Americans think our Congress is on the right track. Only 9% of us think the Democrats, that are so anti-business and happy to jump on the AGW bandwagon are doing a good job running Congress. Heck, President Bush's numbers are three times better than Congress' approval numbers.

Hey if you are going to start throwing poll numbers around...

This post has been edited by raughammer: Jul 10 2008, 04:15 AM


--------------------
In his farewell address (September 19, 1796), President George Washington told the nation: "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. . . . Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th November 2017 - 11:27 AM