Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[bj229r]

Lol, we all bask in Moray's genius...ohh...shiny thing..gotta go now

[MORAY37]

Lol, we all bask in Moray's genius...ohh...shiny thing..gotta go now

What? That I can actually read Dr. Knorr's work and understand it?  That I presented it factually, without bias, unlike Widewing?    

That's genius?  

The bar is getting lower and lower I guess, when determined by you.

In actuality, I believe I reversed the fractions presented.  57% should be the absorption factor, with 43% [CO₂] released back into the atmosphere.  That is what Knorr is detailing has not changed, not total [CO₂].  The fraction absorbed would have to always be over 50% or the mere presence of respiring animals would have caused recurrent runaway effects.

[bj229r]

What I was alluding to is your annoying habit of talking down to people, ala college prof

[CAP1]

What? That I can actually read Dr. Knorr's work and understand it?  That I presented it factually, without bias, unlike Widewing?    

That's genius?  

The bar is getting lower and lower I guess, when determined by you.

i think the point is that most are looking at these things somewhat openly. you at one point seemed as if you were. penguin(no offense intended) is young, and spewing what he's being taught. he's not thinking for himself. again, i apologize for sounding offensive penguin, it's not intended that way.....but reading your last few posts reeks of the "indoctrinated" student.

 one really needs to remember, that these "doom and gloom" predictions have been going on at least since the 70's, and quite probably even the 60's.
 
 none of them has been proven beyond a doubt to have any basis, and if you just look around yourself, you can see that.

 all that is coming out of all of this is money.

[MORAY37]

What I was alluding to is your annoying habit of talking down to people, ala college prof

If it appears that way, so be it.

Widewing determined that talking down to the previous poster was a correct course of action, by calling him "Junior".  

I responded to him, as he is blatantly misguided in what he's presenting as fact, scientifically.  He never read the paper, yet wants to use it as support for his argument, when in fact it had nothing to do with what he was saying.

[MORAY37]

i think the point is that most are looking at these things somewhat openly. you at one point seemed as if you were.

I am completely open to things.  I am also part of this "League of Scientists" that somehow can control all this data and want a new world order.... but can't agree on whether Tyrannosaurus Rex was a scavenger or a predator.   .

 If you understood how much money one scientist would get if he stood up and had good data supporting your denialist agenda......He or She could have anything they wanted. Money, Labs, fame.  The cover of Time magazine... THE DATA JUST ISN'T THERE!  There isn't one person I work with that wouldn't want to be the first to prove the whole thing WRONG.  My work would be guaranteed for life, as would a full professorship and a cushy salary and new laboratory.   

When there is consensus in a given field, you can pretty much write it off.  

As far as indoctrinated....look at yourself.  Most of what Penguin has posted is soundly based in science.  He has the brash demeanor of the young, and is probably an overachiever, but his thought process is sound.  When did teaching facts become indoctrination, btw ?  Curious attitude and outlook you have there.  

[bj229r]

Was going to mention...have seen more than once many scientists reach different conclusions over same data...which ones are correct? (the ones with the government grants )

[MORAY37]

Was going to mention...have seen more than once many scientists reach different conclusions over same data...which ones are correct? (the ones with the government grants )

 Government has nothing to do with science.... scientists are, by and large, the least political grouping there is.  There just isn't time for the pettiness that is the politics of the general populace of any country.  Data, methodology and results are pretty much all we care about.  Sorry.   


We'll get grants no matter what the current political climate is.  Unfortunately, you don't understand that process yet either, as I've repeatedly explained it to you in previous threads.

[Angus]

Was going to mention...have seen more than once many scientists reach different conclusions over same data...which ones are correct? (the ones with the government grants )

Your remarks are at best...cheap.
And govt grants are less by the $ and vastly more (politically) unstable than the $ which a participant which really has interest will offer. Not to mention the job being much simpler. Cherry-picking agenda is much simpler than research with the "A good scientist remains a skeptic to a certain point" line in mind.

[Penguin]

Thanks Moray, but I'm not in highschool yet.  I that I can get the papers though .

I do not know this methodology, could you please tell me, if you already have not?  I don't want to sound like an idiot by not doing it right.  

Is this debate still about AGM?  Or are we arguing about the way that we are arguing?  

-Penguin  

[MORAY37]

 Or are we arguing about the way that we are arguing?  

-Penguin  

LMAO.... welcome to science. That might be the most astute thing posted on this board.  That's scientific endeavors in a nutshell.... arguing about the way we're arguing.

No worries Penguin.  You've got the tools.  I thought you were at least in AP High School science....you've got a better grasp of the basics than some of the college freshman and sophomores I've recently had as interns. Just keep studying.

You've also got plenty of time to find out how methods affect results, but that's down the road quite a bit. Don't get ahead of yourself.

[Widewing]

Interesting paper...I wonder if you actually read it, Wolfgang Knorr's actual paper?

Blah, blah, blah...

 
And, although Penguin didn't do this either and his response is too quick in discounting Dr. Knorr's work (which is very good, BTW) without obvious cause, his point is generally valid.  "Junior" is owning you.

My goodness, you sure are a self-aggrandizing windbag, aren't you?

I said nothing other than to post a link hoping that it might cause continued conversation. I made no comment whatsoever. Zero, nada, zippo, nothing. Yet you seem to think that I did. If you perceived anything more than that, you did so within your own mind.

You assume things that are not in evidence, an apparent requirement to be a climate scientist. You patronize with statements like, "You're a smart enough guy". Trust me, you have no idea. Anytime you want to compare professional accomplishments, let me know.

I'm a Professional Engineer. Unlike scientists, we Engineers actually make things, tangible things. In my case, I conceptualize, design, oversee manufacturing and testing of a variety of sophisticated products, most of which is for current and future military weapon systems.

Two years ago, I had a Navy Physics Doctorate analyze a design proposal of mine. He presented a 26 page analysis of why my design would not work. The Navy requires an unique electro-mechanical device that differentiates between a 0.45g absolute and a 0.50g absolute, and then initiate transmitting a data bit within .063 seconds after the onset of the acceleration. What I thumbed through was a long winded dissertation, which claimed that both static and dynamic friction relative to the coefficient of friction between materials would prevent function to the requirement. Our corporate Director of Engineering read this report and questioned whether I could actually do what I claimed. Yes, he was mistakenly impressed with academic credentials. I simply sent him our test lab data. You see, I had already built 3 prototypes and not only did the system function to the specification requirements, it did so within .023 seconds at .477g absolute (do you know what g absolute means? It means g measurement relative to zero g, or free fall in a perfect vacuum).

The test data and two of the prototypes were delivered to the Navy for testing and analysis. They confirmed out data and ordered a large number of systems. The Physicist was never heard from again.

What the Physicist didn't realize was that there are many factors outside his limited understanding of this mechanical system. Friction was completely neutralized using an application of my "vector dynamics" technology (for which, I own the patent) developed in the 90's. For all practical purpose, there exists no friction within the device when activated. How is that possible? You can read the patent here: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5134255.html  

My problem with climate science is that uses only what is really limited knowledge to make remarkable determinations. What is not known likely dwarfs the known by orders of magnitude. Adding to this is the obvious bias towards reinforcing their argument as their status and income depend on it. Thus, drawing conclusions they do are not only premature, but from an Engineering standpoint, completely foolhardy. If you can't prove it, it doesn't exist. Climate science hasn't proven anything and they face the problem of an obviously cooling planet while they scramble to come up with some reason that still supports their flawed theory. They commonly utilize a variation of stochastic process (probability), which is at the mercy of the input data used.

Back to your comments..

Penguin's response was to make a series of ridiculous comments; ridiculous in that he is utterly dismissive without a clue as to study or the person who generated it. Then, you enter in with a smug arrogance so typical of the climate mafia and their apologist minions. I referred to Penguin as "Junior" because his response was as if he was talking to some kid in his <edit> middle school earth science class.

My experience after many years of being an engineering program manager and 30+ years of hands-on engineering is that the best education is of little practical value without actual experience. In short, I'd trade three engineering grads for one Engineer with five years experience. We currently have several interns, one of which is one semester short of his MSME. He is assigned very basic work, because even a Masters degree is of little value when compared to real world experience. We have to teach him what he didn't learn in college before I can turn him loose on anything beyond ECNs and simple tooling changes. God forbid should he display the misplaced attitude of you or Penguin....


My regards,

Widewing

[MORAY37]

Blah, blah, blah...

My goodness, you sure are a self-aggrandizing windbag, aren't you?

I said nothing other than to post a link hoping that it might cause continued conversation. I made no comment whatsoever. Zero, nada, zippo, nothing. Yet you seem to think that I did. If you perceived anything more than that, you did so within your own mind.

You assume things that are not in evidence, an apparent requirement to be a climate scientist. You patronize with statements like, "You're a smart enough guy". Trust me, you have no idea. Anytime you want to compare professional accomplishments, let me know.

I'm a Professional Engineer. Unlike scientists, we Engineers actually make things, tangible things. In my case, I conceptualize, design, oversee manufacturing and testing of a variety of sophisticated products, most of which is for current and future military weapon systems.

Two years ago, I had a Navy Physics Doctorate analyze a design proposal of mine. He presented a 26 page analysis of why my design would not work. The Navy requires an unique electro-mechanical device that differentiates between a 0.45g absolute and a 0.50g absolute, and then initiate transmitting a data bit within .063 seconds after the onset of the acceleration. What I thumbed through was a long winded dissertation, which claimed that both static and dynamic friction relative to the coefficient of friction between materials would prevent function to the requirement. Our corporate Director of Engineering read this report and questioned whether I could actually do what I claimed. Yes, he was mistakenly impressed with academic credentials. I simply sent him our test lab data. You see, I had already built 3 prototypes and not only did the system function to the specification requirements, it did so within .023 seconds at .477g absolute (do you know what g absolute means? It means g measurement relative to zero g, or free fall in a perfect vacuum).

The test data and two of the prototypes were delivered to the Navy for testing and analysis. They confirmed out data and ordered a large number of systems. The Physicist was never heard from again.

What the Physicist didn't realize was that there are many factors outside his limited understanding of this mechanical system. Friction was completely neutralized using an application of my "vector dynamics" technology (for which, I own the patent) developed in the 90's. For all practical purpose, there exists no friction within the device when activated. How is that possible? You can read the patent here: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5134255.html  

My problem with climate science is that uses only what is really limited to make remarkable determinations. What is not known likely dwarfs the known by orders of magnitude. Adding to this is the obvious bias towards reinforcing their argument as their status and income depend on it. Thus, drawing conclusions they do are not only premature, but from an Engineering standpoint, completely foolhardy. If you can't prove it, it doesn't exist. Climate science hasn't proven anything and they face the problem of an obviously cooling planet while they scramble to come up with some reason that still supports their flawed theory. They commonly utilize a variation of stochastic process (probability), which is at the mercy of the input data used.

Back to your comments..

Penguin's response was to make a series of ridiculous comments; ridiculous in that he is utterly dismissive without a clue as to study or the person who generated it. Then, you enter in with a smug arrogance so typical of the climate mafia and their apologist minions. I referred to Penguin as "Junior" because his response was as if he was talking to some kid in his high school earth science class.

My experience after many years of being an engineering program manager and 30+ years of hands-on engineering is that the best education is of little practical value without actual experience. In short, I'd trade three engineering grads for one Engineer with five years experience. We currently have several interns, one of which is one semester short of his MSME. He is assigned very basic work, because even a Masters degree is of little value when compared to real world experience. We have to teach him what he didn't learn in college before I can turn him loose on anything beyond ECNs and simple tooling changes. God forbid should he display the misplaced attitude of you or Penguin....


My regards,

Widewing

Sir, you quoted an article that you said was from a scientist who "stood up against the AGW mafia" as you succinctly put it.  In fact, his paper had absolutely nothing to do with what you said, and had you read it, you would have realized this.   YOU are absolutely 100% wrong in your position, your wondrous engineering experience aside.   Congrats on your patent... Maybe you might work on your reading comprehension?  I would imagine your education would have been able to discern the difference between "airborne fraction of CO2" and "CO2 fraction in the air".  You see, the placement of "fraction" changes the meaning.  As in "airborne fraction of CO₂" (What Knorr was talking about) as opposed to "CO₂ fraction in the air"  (What AGW is about)

I could care less if AGW is completely true or not.  Misrepresenting someone's work is lower than dirt, and worse than stealing it.  

Knorr is an ardent supporter of AGW, and is an active member of IPCC Scientific Working Group 1, publishing many articles on the subject.  You misused and misrepresented his journal submission to seem like he was not.  Put your entire life in a post, I care not.  You were wrong.  End of story, your entire life history notwithstanding, nor your obvious distaste for scientists in general.  Pretending it's not what you meant is BS...the quote below is directly from YOU.  It was exactly what you meant.... be a man and admit it.  Engineers are always so good at "passing the buck" though, aren't they?  

Quote from Widewing

I merely provided a link to a report on a study done by an accredited scientist that disagrees with the prevailing hysteria. You certainly lack the credentials to dispute his findings, other that to parrot the AGW mafia's company line. The study merited enough respect to be published in the Geophysical Research Letters of the American Geophysical Union.

Attempting to cloud these facts with your life story in a post  is ludicrous, and doesn't change what you were attempting to post.  I have no doubt you're a fine engineer.  You just couldn't read Knorr's paper without some denialist site telling you what it said.  You got called out,  and are wrong.... live with it.

[CAP1]

I am completely open to things.  I am also part of this "League of Scientists" that somehow can control all this data and want a new world order.... but can't agree on whether Tyrannosaurus Rex was a scavenger or a predator.   .

 If you understood how much money one scientist would get if he stood up and had good data supporting your denialist agenda......He or She could have anything they wanted. Money, Labs, fame.  The cover of Time magazine... THE DATA JUST ISN'T THERE!  There isn't one person I work with that wouldn't want to be the first to prove the whole thing WRONG.  My work would be guaranteed for life, as would a full professorship and a cushy salary and new laboratory.   

When there is consensus in a given field, you can pretty much write it off.  

As far as indoctrinated....look at yourself.  Most of what Penguin has posted is soundly based in science.  He has the brash demeanor of the young, and is probably an overachiever, but his thought process is sound.  When did teaching facts become indoctrination, btw ?  Curious attitude and outlook you have there.  

you seem to misinterpret me.......

just because you're a member of that particular "league" of scientists, does not mean you are one that is "doctoring" the information, as others have.

i also never faulted penguins thought process. i actually admire it, if he's as young as it seems he is. it's very rare to see a young person think so clearly.

 what i meant when i said "indoctrinated" was that he is taking only what is taught to him, by schools, which more than likely have their own agenda, and using that to reason/justify his conclusions. there is absolutely nothing wrong with how he does this.

 now for what i use? i look out the window. i go outside. i know you do too. i talk to others in other parts of the world that do the same. it seems that things are the same now, as they were 30 years ago.
 now.......i know that might sound pretty simplistic to you......but it seems to me that it makes sense.

 i also do not believe that any scientist that stood up to prove global warming to be wrong would gain anything at all from the govt....but rather that person would be squelched.

[Motherland]

what i meant when i said "indoctrinated" was that he is taking only what is taught to him, by schools, which more than likely have their own agenda, and using that to reason/justify his conclusions.

Keep in mind that to others 'you' (and by you I don't mean literally you) may seem to be 'indoctrinated' with Faux News style talking points and the like, and in the same manner (just with opposite viewpoints)... that goes all sorts of ways.