| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pointster
Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 376
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| isobars wrote: | | pointster wrote: | | This does not negate the role of CO2 and NO as greenhouse gasses in the lower atmosphere. |
And the beat goes on. Tit, tat, tit, tat, ad infinitum.
I can't believe any rational person or nation wants to commit trillions of dollars to this crap. |
Note that Mike did not respond to the substance of my post: the NASA report does not support the conclusions drawn by real-agenda.com.
Mike admonishes others to "click the link". I wonder if he bothered to click the link I posted? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pointster wrote: | Note that Mike did not respond to the substance of my post: the NASA report does not support the conclusions drawn by real-agenda.com.
Mike admonishes others to "click the link". I wonder if he bothered to click the link I posted? |
I don't know how I can make it any clearer:
• AGWA has been beaten to death to the tune of thousands of posts.
• Debating it here serves no purpose whatsoever.
• The left, particularly mac, incessantly fabricates utter crap and attributes it to any and all "deniers", inventing and attributing new red herrings with every post on the topic. It's no wonder so many folks like mrgybe left this part of the forum; nailing warm jello to a wall is easy by comparison.
• For every 1,000 claims on either side there are another 1,000 on the other. It's up to each individual to decide for himself whom to believe.
• I have a life.
• I did my initial and subsequent AGWA research with an open mind, and over a couple of years reached my ~95% certainty conclusion. That's good enough, especially since the preponderance of new information I watch closely supports my conclusion.
• I choose science over politics in something this vital to the nation.
• I'm answering you here only because I generally respect your usually impersonal posts and am willing to ignore your occasionally snarky interjections; I answered frederick because he's new and seems sincere and genuine.
• That's already too much time spent on this stupid, pointless, POLITICAL debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J64TWB
Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, just finished reading my 2500 posts. Now that I have paid my dues, I feel qualified to post.
Here is my take (just kidding guys, I appreciate and respect you all)
mac. Is right most all of the time. He seems to have a lot of patience, respect, knowledge and sounds like a true gentleman. How he has so much patience? Got me.
I believe stevenbard is an honest guy, and worthy of a good debate, but when he looks at a compressed 28 year satellite loop of ice buoys screaming out of the Arctic and says the Ice is growing, and is at record thickness, then I have a problem, and I need to get my eyes checked.
GURGLETROUSERS (great name by the way). Don’t know you that well. All I can say is “What happens on Mars, stay on Mars”.
windoggie. (where are you windoggie) Probably the smartest of us all. Stays out on the fringe, watching, waiting, not getting involved (why he is smart) and then kills it with a comment. Very funny.
isobars. Iso is the glue to this website. Without him this would all be nothing. So many people have such animosity and vitriol with his posts that life would suck without him. He is intelligent, writes very well, and has great passion. Both for the sport (a real good thing) and his dark side. He seems to have a genuine passion for others to learn about windsurfing, and I bet he would make a great teacher. I also think in the real world, if I was drowning, he would save me. Maybe Pueno too, but that may be a stretch. His posts can be extremely witty and funny (wetsuit fuggetaboutit). That is on the windsurfing side.
His dark side. I wonder what all this accolade stuff is about? Did he not get an award in his flux capacitor work? What is with that? I worry he is on the FBI watch list. He says I should not listen to mainstream media? What should I listen to, Fringe media? Iso, please don’t go postal, we need you. 
Apparently I should not trust The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, The Goddard Institute for Space Studies, etc., and I should rely on “Uncle Joes Real Time Atmosphere” site? Windoggie, can you find it?
Actually, I know very little about the science of global warming and will refrain from pretending to debate it. It is a fascinating subject and for the sake of our children, we should figure it out.
I think all of us know that none of us is going to change anyone here, but there is the possibility we can evolve. Best to everyone. Over (for now). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| frederick23 wrote: | | ...if I was drowning, he would save me. Maybe Pueno too, but that may be a stretch. |
Nahh......
He already wished me dead -- something about eating cyanide-rich apple seeds.
I just laugh at him.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="frederick23"]
GURGLETROUSERS (great name by the way). Don’t know you that well. All I can say is “What happens on Mars, stay on Mars”.
[quote]
Just a quick note, both Mars and Earth share the same sun, you know, the thing that creates heat throughout the entire solar system.
According to most alarmists, that doesn't count, because the Earth must be inside some sort of political bubble that has it's own set of solar rules.
The rest of our solar system be damned!
Don't be foolish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2856
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | | When biologists do that for developers, we call them biostitutes. |
I prefer the term "scientwists"
_________________
The universe is made up of proton, neutrons, electrons, and morons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| frederick23 wrote: | 1. mac. Is right most all of the time. He seems to have a lot of patience, respect, knowledge and sounds like a true gentleman.
2. (Iso's] dark side. I wonder what all this accolade stuff is about?
3. He says I should not listen to mainstream media? What should I listen to, Fringe media?
4. Apparently I should not trust The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA,
5. I worry he is on the FBI watch list. |
1. Virtually everything mac posts about any conservative, any "denier", or anyone else he disagrees with is false. He knows it and the archives prove it. He and runner-up swchandler were the primary motives for my killfile.
2. Accolades are about backing up one's statements with bona fides ... facts to illustrate evidence of truth. To sell a prospect on hiring you to paint his house, you show him other houses you painted -- your bona fides -- to prove you do good work. Calling it "boasting" or "patting one's self on the back" reveals ignorance or deception.
3. You can listen to any news source you wish. Many independent types* of research, however, show that ABCCBSNBCBSNBCNPRLATNYTBGAPMcC etc. -- what was once the "mainstream" media -- are biased left to very far left in their coverage of ANYthing and EVERYthing with ANY political overtones.
* Almost all on-air and newsroom personnel of those network news and news agencies listed above say they are Democrats, donate to the Democratic party, and/or describe themselves as liberals. Independent analysis of their broadcast content reinforces that left wing bias very dramatically. IOW, many of those listed above have been proved by research to be fringe media, with BSNBC leading the pack and NBC close behind. Their own ombudsmen (factcheckers) in several of those networks (e.g., NPR, ABC) admitted left wing bias and chastised their own networks publicly for that bias. I stopped watching most of them many years ago when my own independent fact checking and that of factcheck websites and government sources such as the IRS and Census Bureau and videos of moving lips showed that a) most of them lie much of the time and b) one cable network almost always proves reliable and their hard news shows rank near dead political center.
4. Depends on which stories we hear from those sources. You can read and hear whatever you seek from them; I try to dig further, such as studying the Challenger disaster to find that NASA -- for whom I once worked -- lied about that deadly corruption to garner funding. After having worked for various federal government agencies for a combined 45-50 years, my wife and I have little faith in the credibility of most of them and virtually zero faith in anything the media report about them. Example: I informed a LAT federal government news reporter in 1988 they would get no more news from the Air Force Weapons Lab after they "pulled a mac" on me (i.e., lied on their front page about what my true press release stated).
5. That fear is based on what these guys falsely CLAIM I said, not on what the archives prove I actually DID say (the difference would fill the Grand Canyon). I've never said anything online that an honest government is not welcome to read, and a dishonest one may audit my taxes just because I vote Republican.
Frederick, you and a very small cadre of your honest peers here have long and openly been invited to openly question my behavior any time you don't like what I've posted. I have and will always give an honest answer, providing I have the time to respond.
Last edited by isobars on Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is so much fun. Glue? Isobars is a lunatic, who is incapable of research or rational discussion, much less debate. Here's one of the things he went ballistic about when called on. His quote, from 2011:
| Quote: | | If you REALLY cared about the world and its populace you'd read Lomborg "Cool It" is the easy read with mere hundreds of references; |
In this forum, the Global Cooling thread, April 25, 2011. Now let's look at Lomborg's two books, "Cool it" and "Global Crises, Global Solutions" . Lomborg is one of those self-promoting righties, think Ann Coulter, who likes to be provocative in order to sell books. His thesis for "Cool It" was that global warming wasn't anything to worry about. That book came out in 2007, and was followed by a movie. Here is a critical review of the content:
| Quote: | In a more dispassionate review of TSE in the June 2003 issue of The Economic Journal, University of Birmingham economist Matthew Cole concurred with the main finding of these early assessments: “Lomborg’s analysis suffers from several problems, including selective use of data, oversimplification of issues, posing the wrong questions, and lack of objectivity in his quest for optimistic trends.”
In his preface to Friel‘s fact-checking analysis of Lomborg’s Cool It, ecologist Thomas Lovejoy described what he sees as the scientific community’s early and abiding frustration with Lomborg: “[F]ellow conservation biologists attending a Lomborg talk would correct his science, only to find the same assertions made in subsequent talks as if the corrections had never occurred. ”http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/05/a-critical-review-of-bjorn-lomborgs-cool-it/ |
There's lots more, but suffice to say that Lomborg, Iso's go to guy on the science side, is sloppy and doesn't respond to criticism. Ignores data that doesn't support his bias. A man after Iso's heart.
But the really funny part is that Mike summarized Lomborg, pretty inaccurately, after Lomborg's next book came out--admitting global warming was a problem, but arguing that he could solve it, cheap. Of course Lomborg, like Monckton, is not a scientist. His Master's and Phd are both in Political Science, and he runs an economic institute. Kind of libertarian, who'd have guessed?
Now I subscribe to moderate responses to warming, and agree that we need to be careful about economic dislocation. But that is a very different thing than denial, ignore the evidence, and flack the book.
I had engineers work for me who jumped to conclusions too early and didn't complete their research. Couldn't trust their work. How would you like to be responsible for the Star Wars project--remember, they couldn't hit the moving target even if they had the trajectory given to them, and have Mike Fick working for you?
A rocket scientist indeed. Biggest laugh of the new year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LHDR
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 528
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pointster wrote: | | isobars wrote: | | pointster wrote: | | This does not negate the role of CO2 and NO as greenhouse gasses in the lower atmosphere. |
And the beat goes on. Tit, tat, tit, tat, ad infinitum.
I can't believe any rational person or nation wants to commit trillions of dollars to this crap. |
Note that Mike did not respond to the substance of my post: the NASA report does not support the conclusions drawn by real-agenda.com... |
Thanks Poinster for pointing out that Isobars posted claims from a propaganda piece. His post caught my eyes, but upon further reading, it becomes obvious that the claims have nothing to do with the original NASA research. He must be unable to understand this or is intentionally misleading or simply doesn't care. Either way, I suspect that this type of information underlies his and lots of other right winger's opinion on global warming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | | boggsman1 wrote: | | I love the way the righty media is downplaying global warming as the polar vortex swept across the country, yet California is 85 degrees in mid January, and forrests, and fields that are usually covered by 20 feet of snow, or drenched by torrential rains, are crispy dry, and burning in some cases. |
LOL, the polar vortex which has been around since weather became a studied science.
20' of snow and torrential rains? Really? In Cali? Where?
I've lived here my entire life, skiing, surfing, totally taken advantage of what this state has to offer, and I've never been anywhere in this state where 20' of snow and torrential rains are common, especially w/in the current drought area.
And just for shits and giggles, compare the size of our current drought area, to the rest of the country. |
NW...please. I have been skiing Squaw 50-60 days a year since 1989, and usually this time of year the Sierra pack is about 180 inches going to 240 by Feb- March. In 2010-2011, Squaw got 788 inches of snow. In July 2011 I skiied Squaw , it had 160 inches of base at the top Of Granite. I was there this past weekend...I hiked to the top of Castle Peak...no snow IN JAN!!! In Sonoma County, where I live, we get 80 inches of rain a year in some parts....You really are quite a dummy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
