Ye cannae’ change the laws o’ physics, Captain!
And I’m thinking in particular about the laws of thermodynamics. In the macroscopic world, Boltzmann trumps Heisenberg.

No, we should bomb them for being a bunch of asstards…and it’ll make me feel better for 3.294 seconds.

But by all means Mikey, quote me some real scientific data from a real journal could you? Or maybe a quote from a science blog like maybe pharyngula. Or maybe a thread from PhysOrg or any other science forum.

I can’t quote any source because I’m not talking about a specific tenet of global warming, I’m talking about how science works in general.

The sad reality is that NOBODY can make any reliable predictions

You don’t know that.

I do know that. It’s called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that the act of measuring something changes the thing that is being measured. Although originally meant for the microscopic world of electron orbitals, it has applications in the macroscopic world as well.

no scientist can say with any level of certainty that the current warming trend would not be happening anyway even if humans were not pumping greenhouse gases into the environment.

Ummm, actually, they can and they have. Resoundingly so. They even have models to back it up with. despite what you read in the Exxon Times.

To any scientist who makes that claim, I would have one question…what was used as a control set of data? If you don’t understand what is meant by control set then you don’t really understand how science works. And do you know what a scientific model is? It is a set of matrices and algorithms based on observed data. Since global warming caused by human fossil fuel emissions has never been observed before, then the math upon which these models are based is speculative at best.

And finally, please, please, please…quit citing wikipedia!!! I

I haven’t. I quoted a scientific article from a respected journal. Other references I have seen here come from well known and reputable web sites.

I didn’t mention you by name, so I don’t understand why you took such offense to that statement. I was speaking of the posters in this stream who have cited Wikipedia.

But that is no reason not to search for and use more environmentally friendly sources of energy.

Funny how you didn’t have a snide remark about this statement. My main point is that there is propaganda coming from both sides of the global warming argument (granted, much more from the nay-sayers). We do need to limit our use of carbon fuels, because it is having an adverse effect on the environment and the planet. But the doomsday scenarios are nothing more than educated guesses and speculation. You should learn to tell what is good science and what is dubious science put forth to perpetuate a political agenda. And please, don’t launch into a name-calling tirade…I’m no troll and I don’t work for Exxon or any other oil company. I’m just a regular guy who reads a lot but doesn’t believe everything he reads.

That would be so awesome! I thought the Randians had that IN THE BAG!

AG knew the guy was off when we learned he’s at MIT. Come on, a place that hires that self-hating Jew, Chomsky and Mr. Bobby-Sands-wanna-be, James Sherley.

MIT needs to rethink the tenure and hiring process.

By the way, does anybody remember the good old days when DOS meant “disk operating system?”

It’s being largely perceived as the global warming deniers versus the global warming fighters.

But does anyone really think that there’s only one big team on the global warming fighters’ side?

Do we really believe that the rich and powerful people who think ‘we’ should fight global warming (whether they feel that way now, or a year from now, or 10 years from now) are going to volunteer to share their fair share of the debt?

Sure, it’s in all of our interests to fight our additions to global warming. But I wasn’t born yesterday. If I know my elites like I think I do, they’re going to want me and you to be the main schmucks paying for doing something about global warming.

Who usually ends up paying for the environmental cleanups from disasters caused by industrial activity? Those industries? Their investors? Their owners? Their executives?

And when we start engaging on remedies that could result in entire new economic sectors — green transport, green power, etc. — who do you think is going to elbow in for the lion’s share of the benefit? You & me, the schmucks? Or the same type of people who profited from global warming in the first place?

Sure, right now the oil cartel is funding the deniers. They’re also putting a lot of money into green technologies because when those big dollars start flowing into that, they want it to go straight to their accounts.

You & me might be able to think about ways of using these new technologies & investments to produce a renewal in a just and fair U.S. economy, but so far, it looks like we are just going to let the technocrats sing us a lullaby and promise us that they’re working for ‘all’ our interests.

What I posted went to the claim temperature variations on Earth are in “strikingly good agreement” with the length of the cycle of sunspots. (Someone upthread had mentioned a question about the sun being responsible for global warming.) This was first proposed by Dr. Friis-Christensen who then tried a different tack and made a more general claim that the sun was responsible for global warming, not people. He was paid 1.3 million by Exxon for that BTW. The article is pretty specific to his theory that cosmic radiation influenced by the sun and global cloud cover were responsible for observed temp increases.

It was the best I could do, I don’t have access to the full article. Modern science is very narrowly focused and often answers only specific, precise questions. It is easy then, for dishonest people to take advantage of that and game the system.

By the way, still slow. Run hamsters! Run!

Pretty sure Mr. Mike isn’t the same as mikey — and that’s as close to this “argument” as I’m getting.

Is there a new post yet?

Bubbles: “…No.”

Lahey: “Measures the shit pressure in the air. You can feel it!

Listen Bubs, hear that?

Bubbles: “…I don’t hear anything.”

Lahey: “Oh but you will, my sorry little friend. When the old shit barometer rises your ears will implode from the shit pressure.

LOLTRex is all out.

I was laughing so hard when I saw that picture of Google “If only there were some way to look things up on the Internet.”

Keep up the good work!

Miguel.

I read that as “of the two possible components of solar radiation-induced climate change, the UV flux makes a greater contribution than the CR flux and is more likely to be a cause of tropospheric temperature change.” It’s hard to conclude from the abstract anything definitive about the validity of either hypothsis, and nothing at all about their status viv-a-vis the theory of CO2 global warming.

I bring this up because you can’t get past the abstract with the link you provided; instead of “full free text” you get the $30/copy dunning (which, alas, happens to me all the time when I search the literature for my own work). Do you have a link to the full article, or a copy of the pdf you can send? If you post a link in a forum debate to “a thorough debunking” of your opponent’s point of view, you should make sure that we peanut gallery denizens can read it.

BEING ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE “DEBATE” AS YOU!!

I’m not sure how you decided I’m a wingnut troll, but you might try reading something I’ve fucking WRITTEN, youngster.

That linky thing associated with the screen name? Here’s some tech news, pal. You can “click on it” (I’m sure somebody can help you if you don’t know how) and read my position on, oh, just about everything.

Jeez, I no wonder the wingnuts have most of the power. They at least know who their opponents are…

mikey

You don’t know that.

no scientist can say with any level of certainty that the current warming trend would not be happening anyway even if humans were not pumping greenhouse gases into the environment.

Ummm, actually, they can and they have. Resoundingly so. They even have models to back it up with. despite what you read in the Exxon Times.

And finally, please, please, please…quit citing wikipedia!!! I

I haven’t. I quoted a scientific article from a respected journal. Other references I have seen here come from well known and reputable web sites.

But by all means Mikey, quote me some real scientific data from a real journal could you? Or maybe a quote from a science blog like maybe pharyngula. Or maybe a thread from PhysOrg or any other science forum.

Could ya do that huh? No?
Didn’t think so.