Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: texasmom on January 21, 2009, 01:31:58 PM
-
:aok fantastic TedTalk.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/kary_mullis_on_what_scientists_do.html
-
Warning: Don't ever heat a mixture of potassium perchlorate and sugar........
"That's what you call a lead...."
Good talk. Always one of my favs. Unfortunately, he jumps through a lot of very small hoops at the end that kill his over-simplification of the climate matter.
-
...and yet you hold to global warming? :huh
-
Truth be told, I lost interest at the whole global warming bit & stopped playing it. Not that I'm an advocate of scientists who purport global warming, I just didn't feel like listening to him using the TedTalk as a platform to toss in his long-winded opinion about it. He could have just tossed in one line about it and then moved on.
I loved the whole frog bit. :) Kinda made scientists seem like real folks instead of machines.
-
Well dont let the facts influence your thinking or anything! :D
-
... Not that I'm an advocate of scientists who purport global warming.... :)
Regardless, he was very interesting to listen to. There's another guy that I absolutely love to watch & listen to.... Clifford Stoll. I'll find his later. :)
-
Well dont let the facts influence your thinking or anything! :D
Facts...lol.
Chalenge, you personally pick and choose the facts you agree with already, regardless of source. You have as a corrupt mind, scientifically, as there is. What would you know about facts? You spend your time looking for "facts" that agree with your preconceived notions, and throw away any that disagree, already. This is not how real science works.
Mr. Mullis is a true skeptic, but his interpretation of the data is flawed, at least as of the time of this taping, which was probably mid to late 90's I would guess. His point had been somewhat valid at select sampling stations, although there should be an inherent shift in the full day's temperature departure from the norm, not just night temperature, a difference that can't be figured.
Funny, you would go with is, as a new study came out today on Antarctica. There aren't any "heat islands" there to make the effect Mr. Mullis describes.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-new-evidence-of-western-warming/ (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-new-evidence-of-western-warming/)
-
Likewise you pick and choose your 'factoids' while ignoring the matters that do not fit your agenda. Accepting the bad science when it suits you doesnt support your case at all. There will always be supporting reports for global warming since politicians control the money and politicians will not support deniers of global warming. The theory itself is not science it is political religion and as such it requires more dire predictions on regular intervals or it will lose the attention span of the moonbats supporting the religion. When they get to the 'if we dont do this today in five minutes the globe will crumble' prediction (I dont expect the life of the religion to go that long) the man behind the curtain will be revealed to be a humbug.
Call me when the first prediction of the theory comes true or when the humbug is revealed.
-
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.
MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.
MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
( SOURCE (http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=196) )
-
Lute, you better come up with better than that. If you would so like, I will address the cases you chose to "CUT AND PASTE" (without source, of course...a "signature" of yours) in another forum. This isn't the place, and your particular "Cut and Paste" is so old as to be archaic. All of those points have been disproven repeatedly.
In any case, I'm not hijacking TxMoms good thread to make another thread on climate change.
-
Lets see:
Moray (I believe working on Masters)
Al Gore (graduate at law I believe and former VP with a Nobel Prize)
Kary Mulis (Nobel Prize winner and expert of scientific method)
... which to accept on matters of science. :rolleyes:
-
Lute, you better come up with better than that. If you would so like, I will address the cases you chose to "CUT AND PASTE" (without source, of course...a "signature" of yours) in another forum. This isn't the place, and your particular "Cut and Paste" is so old as to be archaic. All of those points have been disproven repeatedly.
In any case, I'm not hijacking TxMoms good thread to make another thread on climate change.
gosh...
And here I thought a link titled SOURCE at the bottom would be enough.
(and pray tell at this "other forum" do show where I copy/paste things w/o giving credit or a source to the extend that you can call it a "signature" of mine. that is just laughable)
Apparently some people need you to hold their hand and click the mouse for 'em. Next time I will remember to increase the font for the link, bold it, and type in caps MORAY CLICK HERE with arrows pointing towards the link.
It would look something like this.
SOURCE (http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=196) <= MORAY CLICK HERE
Tell me if this is sufficent or should I change the color.
(and yes, sorry for the HiJack TxMom)
-
"While FOS does not do any original scientific research..."
Great source buddy. :rofl
-
"While FOS does not do any original scientific research..."
Great source buddy. :rofl
yeah...
now let's finish that sentence shall we?
"While FOS does not do any original scientific research, it does extensive literature research and draws on the worldwide body of work by scientists in all fields relating to global climate change.
And how nice for you to omitt the next sentence...
"To read our Position Statement, click (http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/FoS%20Position%20Statemen1.pdf) here. See our comprehensive essay on climate change science, click here (http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html)."
which includes a handy link to an essay that is quite a decent read.
Also 'interesting' you didn't bother to look at their "bibliography of peer-reviewed climate science papers" available in two formats Here (http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20SHORT%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf) and Here (http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20LONG%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf)
Nice hack job.
Try again.
(better yet, try again with some substance)
-
But they seem so unbiased! :rolleyes:
-
Here's the thing on Global Warming.
Whether or not its happening, whether or not its man made and whether or not CO2 is a contributing factor, we - the human race- are going to burn every last drop of fossil fuels we can get our grubby little hands.
The sooner we all accept that, the sooner we can all relax and get on with it.
-
Texasmom, I thought it was great. Reminded me of the things I did as a kid. Tried to make a cannon once. Thank god that didn't work.
-
Another scientist of sorts.
Intelligence like Elon’s—self-originating, self-sustaining, seemingly parentless—provokes a reflexive question from everyone who encounters it. Where does such a child come from? It’s also a rhetorical question. The better thing to ask is: Where does such a child go?
This is the more relevant question not only because it is answerable but because it can and must be asked and answered now. Now—when we are more uncertain about one another, and about ourselves, and about our direction, than we have been in decades—it is important for us to hear a story like Elon Musk’s. As a reminder. And as a bracing slap to the face.
Because when children like Elon Musk attain the kind of self-awareness that leads to questions about environment—Where in the world can I go for the license and the room to do what I must do? Where in the world are my peers?—they always, and still, come to the same conclusion.
Elon Musk knew when he was a child. A remarkable conviction for a child to have, and all the more so because there was no specific dream attached to it. There was no “to build rocket ships” or “to make millions” or “to design computer software.” Instead, Elon (pronounced ee-lon) had this thought, consciously, literally, and at the age of 10: America is where people like me need to go. That is where people like me have always gone. A place that was the photographic negative of apartheid South Africa, a place less encumbered than any in the world, ever, by fear.
“It is as true now as it has always been,” says Elon Musk, the man who is endeavoring—as preposterously as he is credibly—to give the human race its biggest upgrade since the advent of consciousness. “Funny how people seem to have forgotten that. But almost all innovation in the world takes place in the United States.”
The article (http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_8037).
-
Texasmom, I thought it was great. Reminded me of the things I did as a kid. Tried to make a cannon once. Thank god that didn't work.
It's never too late Getback! Get out there & make one! :D
A few years back all the 'menfolk' in the family got together & made potato guns ~ then spent an entire weekend blowing potatos out of the thing. Technically it was supposed to be the 'boys' who were doing the thing; I walked out & saw the boys all sitting in lawn chairs while the 'men' were hollering at one another about which potato went futher (yes, they were saying 'futher' instead of 'further'). Good thing they had a ton of field to shoot into, those things looked dangerous.
-
Erin McKean redefines the dictionary.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/erin_mckean_redefines_the_dictionary.html
Heck, I didn't understand half of what she was saying, but the other half sounded great. :aok
and OMG ~ found my favorite one for sure:
Jay Walkers library. Wow ~ check it out! Just amazing. It's library perfection!
http://www.mixx.com/stories/3284514/jay_walker_s_library_of_human_imagination
-
Here's the thing on Global Warming.
Whether or not its happening, whether or not its man made and whether or not CO2 is a contributing factor, we - the human race- are going to burn every last drop of fossil fuels we can get our grubby little hands.
HAHA! that's a good one :aok
The truth is always funny... OK, sometimes.
-
Lute, you better come up with better than that. If you would so like, I will address the cases you chose to "CUT AND PASTE" (without source, of course...a "signature" of yours) in another forum. This isn't the place, and your particular "Cut and Paste" is so old as to be archaic. All of those points have been disproven repeatedly.
In any case, I'm not hijacking TxMoms good thread to make another thread on climate change.
if you choose to take this to another forum, could you please inform the rest of us where ya take it? i'm enjoying seeing you put your foot in your mouth. :aok
or did you mean to simply start another thread? oooo...and if you lookatr the post again, there is a linky to a source sir.
-
Here's the thing on Global Warming.
Whether or not its happening, whether or not its man made and whether or not CO2 is a contributing factor, we - the human race- are going to burn every last drop of fossil fuels we can get our grubby little hands.
The sooner we all accept that, the sooner we can all relax and get on with it.
define fossil fuels. and oil is not that answer. :D
-
It's never too late Getback! Get out there & make one! :D
A few years back all the 'menfolk' in the family got together & made potato guns ~ then spent an entire weekend blowing potatos out of the thing. Technically it was supposed to be the 'boys' who were doing the thing; I walked out & saw the boys all sitting in lawn chairs while the 'men' were hollering at one another about which potato went futher (yes, they were saying 'futher' instead of 'further'). Good thing they had a ton of field to shoot into, those things looked dangerous.
aaww, c'mon mom!!! you know we nevr grow up. on the outside we look like men.....but in reality, inside, we;re still kids.....just bigger now. :aok
-
Myth: WMLute has busted the myth of GW.
Fact: His busting is like a busted balloon.
Here's a good one:
"MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is."
I'd like to see you breath in 80% CO2 :devil
-
Myth: WMLute has busted the myth of GW.
I'd like to see you breath in 80% CO2 :devil
plants and trees breath co2...and what do they give us? :D
-
Here's the thing on Global Warming.
Whether or not its happening, whether or not its man made and whether or not CO2 is a contributing factor, we - the human race- are going to burn every last drop of fossil fuels we can get our grubby little hands.
The sooner we all accept that, the sooner we can all relax and get on with it.
Thats true to but when? And doesn't the increasing difficulty of getting that product increase costs which then increases demand for alternatives?
-
Here's the thing on Global Warming.
Whether or not its happening, whether or not its man made and whether or not CO2 is a contributing factor, we - the human race- are going to burn every last drop of fossil fuels we can get our grubby little hands.
The sooner we all accept that, the sooner we can all relax and get on with it.
here...check these links........
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bainerman/bainerman083105.html
-
gosh...
And here I thought a link titled SOURCE at the bottom would be enough.
(and pray tell at this "other forum" do show where I copy/paste things w/o giving credit or a source to the extend that you can call it a "signature" of mine. that is just laughable)
Apparently some people need you to hold their hand and click the mouse for 'em. Next time I will remember to increase the font for the link, bold it, and type in caps MORAY CLICK HERE with arrows pointing towards the link.
It would look something like this.
SOURCE (http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=196) <= MORAY CLICK HERE
Tell me if this is sufficent or should I change the color.
(and yes, sorry for the HiJack TxMom)
Yup. You posted a source. (I guess you failed to see the sarcasm in my point about your "source" or lack thereof, sarcasm doesn't translate well on a forum, i guess.) A source that does the exact same thing you do..... Start with an opinion (Hell, they even say this in their mission statement, that should be your first clue) and attempt to find a paper(s) which supports that opinion, regardless of the authorship.(Some of em are really laughable) AGAIN, THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS. They don't do any of the work, and probably don't understand the work they cite to begin with. It is so flawed in thought, that an undergraduate in any science could probably detect the problems.
Move that diatribe you posted to a fresh topic, and I will systematically show you where you are wrong. (in actuality, the person(people) who are wrong are the ones you are cutting and pasting from, as you are unable to formulate your own ideology from the facts present.)
Again TxMom, very good find. Apologies for the hijacks.
-
I think the Louise Leakey and Patricia Burchat and Robert Ballard and Stephen Hawkings talks are all very very interesting.