posted February 23, 2011 09:45 PM            

quote:

---

Junkscience.com will pay $500,000 to anyone who can prove in a scientific manner that global warming is caused by human activity. It should be easy to do. Maybe you could try, AG.

---

Manmade global warming is the scientific position. I think the reverse challenge is in order. Can you deny that the extra dumping of CO2 has had no correlation with the increase in temperature?

I accept my recently posted work by our skeptical friend from Alabama, which I posted recently that said that 2010 was the hottest year on record according to sattelite data. Here's an additional link to the data from another reputable source: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

quote:

---

EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling

---

Oh, this isn't what you said. This is the article you linked to. EDITORIAL, it says. You bring me an editorial as evidence of cooling? You believe this editorial has been vetted by actual scientists? Not to mention this is from the Washinton Times, which, if you don't know, is a Right-leaning publication.

This is what I'm talking about. Lack of science as a replacement for science. Where are your scientists that prove your position?

If you would like to incorporate into your anti-manmade global warming stance a conspiracy about the scientists, you also have to have evidence of that. Police, FBI, University, the scientific community, etc. Bring something that actually makes a case. Jwhop hasn't. Like you, he relies on suggestion over substance.

posted February 23, 2011 09:54 PM            

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted February 23, 2011 11:31 PM            

Isn't synchronicity grand? Anywho, I will try to stay on topic now.

posted February 24, 2011 01:17 AM            

Last week, five independent investigations cleared the scientists involved in the Climategate scandal from allegations that they had tampered with their research in order to prove global warming.
Media Not Excited Anymore About Debunked Climategate Scandal - CNN

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.
Union of Concerned Scientists

Your second link doesn't refute manmade causation, and I could tell you that without even have read it. Your second link from 2007. It quotes the National Climactic Data Center, which is part of the NOAA. The NOAA has backed the manmade causation of global warming for years. Here's a graph by them: check the url (Also, go to that global warming page it links to. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Climatic Data Center . Big header. Can't miss it.). The author of your article, much like Jwhop's go-to man, is a paid advocate for Phillip Morris and Exxon. However, unlike Jwhop's guy this author has never worked as a scientist in the field of climate study. Fred Singer at the very least might have years and years ago. We can go through this article if you like, and I'd be happy to provide word from real scientific institutions regarding the arguments he poses (some of which you might have already found answers to at the NOAA site).

posted February 24, 2011 01:28 AM            

quote:

---

No worries AG, when you get around, what do you think about Reids claim & proposal?

---

I don't generally concern myself with Harry Reid or prostitution.

He isn't saying that the prostitutes will be hitting the streets. He's proposing making it illegal altogether, which implies they'll try to keep it off the streets. Whether they're successful or not would determine whether the kids see anything.

He's got a point about it driving business away...at least in theory. Your potential blockbuster company may skip over Nevada when considering locations. They may not believe they can attract the best talent there, or conversely they may believe that any talent they do attract there may come under suspicious motives. Is there more workplace trouble in the employee base when gambling or prostitution is available? They've probably studied it in Nevada, but I don't know myself.

posted February 24, 2011 02:17 AM            

From my link in my last post:

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q1

posted February 24, 2011 03:01 AM            

quote:

---

If that were the case, global temperatures would be way higher than they are to correspond with the increase in CO2.

---

This statement isn't supported by any evidence.

quote:

---

One of the first rules of science is that correlational data does not imply causality. But I don't think you would know that.

---

Thanks for confirming that you do indeed believe yourself to have superior knowledge, if not intellect.

I do actually know that. That's why I worded it that way. You should, at a minimum, believe in the correlary relationship. I'll also point out that you haven't produced a cause, nor a correlary yet. You have stated that it's cyclical, in fairness, but you haven't ever posted any evidence that supports this claim.

quote:

---

You really think that rhetoric you posted proves anything?

---

Who determined what I think? Are you making assumptions about me again Randall?

Look at your argument versus mine.

posted February 24, 2011 03:58 PM            

quote:

---

If your livelihood depended upon grant money, you would do anything to keep your job, despite the fallacy in your thinking. Your holy source just isn't credible. No one is questioning your intellect. But you have no idea about how the science of climatology works.

---

Unsupported by any evidence.

quote:

---

Global warming (if there is any) has more to do with sun activity than anything us puny primates can do. Imagine that...the sun affects the earth's temperature.

---

We'll get to this.

quote:

---

Your sources contradict the science, so your sources are not valid--and you can quote them all day, but it doesn't mean a thing.

---

Wrong. (Appropriate use) My sources are the preeminent sources in the world on the subject. Anyone looking for real answers would look to my sources first, because it's the logical place to start.

quote:

---

That article pretty much sums up the science about CO2, which is why I posted it.

---

That article wasn't written by a climate scientist. Sorry. Like I said in the other thread. You have to vet your sources.

I said "Done," to illustrate the ease in getting the information. It takes only moments to disprove most of your beliefs on global warming. Unfortunately, contrary to your belief about yourself you take the word of non-scientists over the word of real scientists. You think I was duped. The science says you continue to be duped.

quote:

---

But quoting those sources (who are practicing the religion of pseudoscience), proves nothing to me. It's like me debating a Christian about evolution, and the Christian keeps quoting the Bible.

---

Yes it is, but it's the reverse of how you currently believe. The rational people in the debate are the ones I cite, the ones that study this stuff nonstop. They don't speak of belief, and honestly they're more open-minded than I present them, but they worship the data. If someone challenges it, they look for the logical flaw in either argument. That's the great thing about a site like RealClimate. You can read their consideration and answers to criticism.

posted February 24, 2011 06:50 PM            

Only 25% of voters hold a favorable opinion of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, while 55% view him unfavorably. Those numbers include five percent (5%) with a Very Favorable view and 37% with a Very Unfavorably one. One-in-five (20%) have no opinion of the Nevada Democrat. These results are nearly identical to those found a month ago.

Not sure of his Legislative support.

I did read he wanted to make online poker legal;imagine that

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted February 24, 2011 09:27 PM            

Online poker players may be about to draw an inside straight.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is circulating a draft bill that would finally make online poker legal again in the United States.
http://www.businessinsider.com/harry-reid-pushing-bill-to-legalize-online-poker-2010-12

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to use the tax cut package President Barack Obama brokered with Republicans to legalize online poker, POLITICO has learned — a move that could further complicate the deal Obama announced Monday.

Already, the online poker proposal has exposed the Nevada Democrat to charges of flip-flopping on a controversial issue, as well as using his Senate leadership position to repay big casino interests that helped him win reelection in a hard-fought campaign against Republican Sharron Angle last month.

(your fav site )

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46095.html#ixzz1EvwadeaH

If the bill passed since December, then I reword it to Reid Got Online Gambling Legalized?

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted February 24, 2011 10:12 PM            

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted February 25, 2011 09:51 AM            

The bill is just one in a series of steps needed to legalize online gambling in the US and will now likely be tacked onto a bigger bill and brought before the House later on in the year.

Regulate something that isn`t legal?

Not that it matters in the scheme of life, but I found it strange indeed.
http://www.onlinepoker.net/poker-news/poker-law-industry-news/online-poker-bill-passed-federal-lawmakers/6854

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted February 28, 2011 09:29 PM            

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~