Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[Gipper]

Right... You're the reasonable one... You accept everything the warmers peddle, ridicule anyone who disagrees, but reject all the "solutions" the warmers offer in agreement with those who you just ridiculed for not believing.

The decades of cannabis use may have come home to roast.


The Church of Climatology (aka DF Warmers) is a cult with many brainwashed zombies.

 

[orogenicman]

No because evolution suggests nature alone. The laws of nature demand more entrophy, not more organization. Plus the sudden appearance of new species with no evidence of transitional species might suggest the outright addition of new species.

Is this my explanation for how we got here? Not necessarily but it seems more plausable than any explanation offered up by evolutionists and certainly requires less of a leap of faith.

So, ET, taking the huge (and unlikely) risk to travel a gazillion light years to a back-galaxy world to "seed" it with life for unknown purposes rather than nature simply running its course as nature quite often does is, erm, the more plausible explanation? Hmm. Doesn't appear to satisfy Occum's Razor to me. But then, I'm a geologist, so what do I know about natural pheonemon, right?

 

[orogenicman]

Why do you keep trying to inject God into the conversation?

Do you believe that ID is only about God?

Absolutely. I know for a fact that it is ONLY about God. All ID is is creationism wrapped in scientific language to give it the appearance of legitimacy. And it's only purpose is not the pursuit of truth, but to get religion taught in our schools. The Dover case made this very clear. Weren't you paying attention?

 

[orogenicman]

Once more, wiki is not a credible source with regard to anything climate. If wiki is the best you can come up with, then you have nothing.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx

CLIP:
Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.


From the petition project itself:

5. Does the petition list contain names other than those of scientist signers?

Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.

6. Does the petition project list contain duplicate names?

Thousands of scientists have signed the petition more than once. These duplicates have been carefully removed from the petition list. The list contains many instances of scientists with closely similar and sometimes identical names, as is statistically expected in a list of this size, but these signers are different people, who live at different addresses, and usually have different fields of specialization. Primarily as a result of name and address variants, occasional duplicate names are found in the list. These are immediately removed.

7. Are any of the listed signers dead?

In a group of more than 30,000 people, deaths are a frequent occurrence. The Petition Project has no comprehensive method by which it is notified about deaths of signatories. When we do learn of a death, an "*" is placed beside the name of the signatory. For examples, Edward Teller, Arnold Beckman, Philip Abelson, William Nierenberg, and Martin Kamen are American scientists who signed the Petition and are now deceased.

Palerider, you don't get to decide for me what is legitimate criticism and what isn't. The Wiki article made many legitimate points about the survey, many of which have yet to be addressed. To blame others for their own mistakes and forgeries is quite the ethical issue.

 

[orogenicman]

Why might I give a crap about what goes on in a petri dish? You seem to really lack any sort of imagination.

What gaping holes? Well you might start by giving a rational explanation as to how living entities could develop from non living matter.

Well, first of all, all life is composed, ultimately, of non-living matter. Is calcium carbonate organic, or inorganic? What about phosphorus, iron, copper, magnetite, and a host of other inorganic molecules which combine to make up life? All organic molecules ar ecomposed of inorganic elements. And all the elements, minus hydrogen, ultimately, are derived from the processes that create and destroy stars.

RNA and DNA molecules are the givers and organizers of life here on Earth. And those molecule are composed of proteins and amino acids which can be produced in your petri dish, some of the precursors of which have even been discovered in molecule gas clouds in space, as well as some chondrites (stony meteorites). So, PR, if you are looking for ET, all you have to do is search for the remnants of the primordial birth cloud in which the solar system was formed, something NASA is looking for.

Furthermore, I believe I posted a link a while back on a re-examination of the Miller-Urley experiment, which found many more such organic molecules than were first discovered in the original analysis because that analysis lacked the sensitivity of current methods (such as Gas-liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry). So it looks like other biochemists are on the right track. I guess you missed the boat.

 

[orogenicman]

That is the track. Till you can provide some hard, observed evidence that proves that CO2 is driving the climate and that mankind's contributions to the atmospheric CO2 is driving that, you have not made your case. Anything that does't involve that evidence is no more than a diversion on your part.

Your claim is that our 6 billion tons of CO2 is moving the earth towards a catastrophe. You have yet to prove your claim and by now, all these pages later, it is clear that you can't.

To clarify your argument, yo are claiming that the greenhouse effect has been falsified, and that CO2 therefore, cannot be warming the planet. First of all, if that were the case, whey do you make an argument that CO2 has been higher in the past? Why make that case if it isn't an important factor? You could simply state that it has been faslified and leave it at that.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist.htm

The skeptic argument...Greenhouse effect has been falsified

'The influence of so-called greenhouse gases on near-surface temperature - is not yet absolutely proven. In other words, there is as yet no incontrovertible proof either of the greenhouse effect, or its connection with alleged global warming. This is no surprise, because in fact there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect: it is an impossibility. The statement that so-called greenhouse gases, especially CO2, contribute to near-surface atmospheric warming is in glaring contradiction to well-known physical laws relating to gas and vapour, as well as to general caloric theory.' (Heinz Thieme).
What the science says...
The atmosphere of the Earth is less able to absorb shortwave radiation from the Sun than thermal radiation coming from the surface. The effect of this disparity is that thermal radiation escaping to space comes mostly from the cold upper atmosphere, while the surface is maintained at a substantially warmer temperature. This is called the "atmospheric greenhouse effect", and without it the Earth's surface would be much colder.

Most participants in climate debates can agree that the atmosphere's capacity to interact with thermal radiation helps maintain the Earth's surface temperature at a livable level. The Earth's surface is about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than required to radiate back all the absorbed energy from the Sun. This is possible only because most of this radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere, and what actually escapes out into space is mostly emitted from colder atmosphere.

This absorption is due to trace gases which make up only a very small part of the atmosphere. Such gases are opaque to thermal radiation, and are called "greenhouse gases". The most important greenhouse gases on Earth are water vapor and carbon dioxide, with additional contributions from methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and others. If the atmosphere was simply a dry mix of its major constituents, Oxygen and Nitrogen, the Earth would freeze over completely.

Observing the greenhouse effect in action
The simplest direct observation of the greenhouse effect at work is atmospheric backradiation. Any substance that absorbs thermal radiation will also emit thermal radiation; this is a consequence of Kirchoff's law. The atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation because of the trace greenhouse gases, and also emits thermal radiation, in all directions. This thermal emission can be measured from the surface and also from space. The surface of the Earth actually receives in total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the Sun.

The net flow of radiant heat is still upwards from the surface to the atmosphere, because the upwards thermal emission is greater than the downwards atmospheric backradiation. This is a simple consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. The magnitude of the net flow of heat is the difference between the radiant energy flowing in each direction. Because of the backradiation, the surface temperature and the upwards thermal radiation is much larger than if there was no greenhouse effect.

Atmospheric backradiation has been directly measured for over fifty years. The effects of greenhouse gases stand out clearly in modern measurements, which are able to show a complete spectrum.

Figure 1. Coincident measurements of the infrared emission spectrum of the cloudfree atmosphere at (a) 20km looking downward over the Arctic ice sheet and (b) at the surface looking upwards. (Data courtesy of David Tobin, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Diagram courtesy of Grant Petty, from Petty 2006).

When you look down from aircraft at 20km altitude (Fig 1a), what is "seen" is the thermal radiation from Earth that gets out to that height. Some of that radiation comes from the surface. This is the parts of the spectrum that follow a line corresponding in the diagram to about 268K. Some of that radiation comes from high in the atmosphere, where it is much colder. This is the parts of the spectrum that follow a line of something like 225K. The bites taken out of the spectrum are in those bands where greenhouse gases absorb radiation from the surface, and so the radiation that eventually escapes to space is actually emitted high in the atmosphere.

When you look up from the surface (Fig 1b), what is "seen" is thermal backradiation from the atmosphere. In some frequencies, thermal radiation is blocked very efficiently, and the backradiation shows the temperature of the warm air right near the surface. In the "infrared window" of the atmosphere, the atmosphere is transparent. In these frequencies, no radiation is absorbed, no radiation is emitted, and here is where IR telescopes and microwave sounding satellites can look out to space, and down to the surface, respectively.

The smooth dotted lines in the diagram labeled with temperatures are the curves for a simple blackbody radiating at that temperature. Water vapor has complex absorption spectrum, and it is not well mixed in the atmosphere. The emissions seen below 600 cm-1 are due to water vapor appearing at various altitudes. Carbon dioxide is the major contributor for emission seen between between about 600 and 750 cm-1. The patch of emission just above 1000 cm-1 is due to ozone.

 

[orogenicman]

Continued

The term "greenhouse"
The term "greenhouse" was coined for this atmospheric effect in the nineteenth century. A glass greenhouse and an atmospheric greenhouse both involve a physical barrier that blocks the flow of heat, leading to a warmer temperature below the barrier. The underlying physics is different, however. A glass greenhouse works primarily by blocking convection, and an atmospheric greenhouse works primarily by blocking thermal radiation, and so the comparison is not exact. This difference is well understood and explained in most introductions to the subject. Where confusion arises, it is usually the glasshouse that is improperly described, rather than the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

The enhanced greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect itself has always been an important effect on Earth's climate, and it is essential for maintaining a livable environment. Without it, the surface would rapidly freeze.

The existence of a greenhouse effect itself should not be confused with changes to the greenhouse effect. Global warming in the modern era is being driven by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Figure 1. Coincident measurements of the infrared emission spectrum of the cloudfree atmosphere at (a) 20km looking downward over the Arctic ice sheet and (b) at the surface looking upwards. (Data courtesy of David Tobin, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Diagram courtesy of Grant Petty, from Petty 2006).

When you look down from aircraft at 20km altitude (Fig 1a), what is "seen" is the thermal radiation from Earth that gets out to that height. Some of that radiation comes from the surface. This is the parts of the spectrum that follow a line corresponding in the diagram to about 268K. Some of that radiation comes from high in the atmosphere, where it is much colder. This is the parts of the spectrum that follow a line of something like 225K. The bites taken out of the spectrum are in those bands where greenhouse gases absorb radiation from the surface, and so the radiation that eventually escapes to space is actually emitted high in the atmosphere.

When you look up from the surface (Fig 1b), what is "seen" is thermal backradiation from the atmosphere. In some frequencies, thermal radiation is blocked very efficiently, and the backradiation shows the temperature of the warm air right near the surface. In the "infrared window" of the atmosphere, the atmosphere is transparent. In these frequencies, no radiation is absorbed, no radiation is emitted, and here is where IR telescopes and microwave sounding satellites can look out to space, and down to the surface, respectively.

The smooth dotted lines in the diagram labeled with temperatures are the curves for a simple blackbody radiating at that temperature. Water vapor has complex absorption spectrum, and it is not well mixed in the atmosphere. The emissions seen below 600 cm-1 are due to water vapor appearing at various altitudes. Carbon dioxide is the major contributor for emission seen between between about 600 and 750 cm-1. The patch of emission just above 1000 cm-1 is due to ozone.

The term "greenhouse"
The term "greenhouse" was coined for this atmospheric effect in the nineteenth century. A glass greenhouse and an atmospheric greenhouse both involve a physical barrier that blocks the flow of heat, leading to a warmer temperature below the barrier. The underlying physics is different, however. A glass greenhouse works primarily by blocking convection, and an atmospheric greenhouse works primarily by blocking thermal radiation, and so the comparison is not exact. This difference is well understood and explained in most introductions to the subject. Where confusion arises, it is usually the glasshouse that is improperly described, rather than the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

The enhanced greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect itself has always been an important effect on Earth's climate, and it is essential for maintaining a livable environment. Without it, the surface would rapidly freeze.

The existence of a greenhouse effect itself should not be confused with changes to the greenhouse effect. Global warming in the modern era is being driven by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect.
This is covered in more detail as a separate argument: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

 

[orogenicman]

So only a scientist, from a related field, can legitimately criticize AGW but any drooling idiot is welcome to support AGW... I've seen that fallacious argument in many forms, most commonly used with abortion and the military.

Next...

Are you suggesting that those who support AGW are drooling idiots? Because it appears that that is what you are saying?

 

[orogenicman]

All of your AGW buddies.

That is not what we are saying, but hey, if it makes you feel better to believe that, go for it.

 

[orogenicman]

The decades of cannabis use may have come home to roast.


The Church of Climatology (aka DF Warmers) is a cult with many brainwashed zombies.

And you wonder why people on the other side of this issue have so little respect for those on your side.

 

[palerider]

So, ET, taking the huge (and unlikely) risk to travel a gazillion light years to a back-galaxy world to "seed" it with life for unknown purposes rather than nature simply running its course as nature quite often does is, erm, the more plausible explanation? Hmm. Doesn't appear to satisfy Occum's Razor to me. But then, I'm a geologist, so what do I know about natural pheonemon, right?

And the logical fallacy just keeps on coming. Here is a list of them. Be original, try something new. You'll get stuck in a rut if all you do is appeal to ridicule, engage in the various ad hominems, and confuse cause and effect.

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Belief
Appeal to Common Practice
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
Appeal to Emotion
Appeal to Fear
Appeal to Flattery
Appeal to Novelty
Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Popularity
Appeal to Spite
Appeal to Tradition
Bandwagon
Begging the Question
Biased Sample
Burden of Proof
Composition
Confusing Cause and Effect
Division
False Dilemma
Gambler's Fallacy
Genetic Fallacy
Guilt By Association
Hasty Generalization
Ignoring A Common Cause
Middle Ground
Misleading Vividness
Personal Attack
Poisoning the Well
Post Hoc
Questionable Cause
Red Herring
Relativist Fallacy
Slippery Slope
Special Pleading
Spotlight
Straw Man
Two Wrongs Make A Right

 

[palerider]

Absolutely. I know for a fact that it is ONLY about God. All ID is is creationism wrapped in scientific language to give it the appearance of legitimacy. And it's only purpose is not the pursuit of truth, but to get religion taught in our schools. The Dover case made this very clear. Weren't you paying attention?

And yet again, you prove beyond doubt that you don't know what the hell you are talking about and prove it by making claims that you can't support. Once more, I am laughing in your face.

What makes people like you claim that you know a thing for a fact when you have to know by now that you will be asked to prove it and you know as well as I that you can prove no such thing.

 

[palerider]

Palerider, you don't get to decide for me what is legitimate criticism and what isn't. The Wiki article made many legitimate points about the survey, many of which have yet to be addressed. To blame others for their own mistakes and forgeries is quite the ethical issue.

Of course I don't. You have proven already that you are perfectly capable of believing in whatever the hell you choose to without regard to its basis in fact. You have proven clearly that belief is all you have as you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you squarely on the ass.

 

[palerider]

Well, first of all, all life is composed, ultimately, of non-living matter.

No rational explanation, and no supporting observed evidence. How completely unsurpising. YAWWWWWWN

 

[palerider]

First of all, if that were the case, whey do you make an argument that CO2 has been higher in the past?

To point out to you that higher concentrations of CO2 didn't result in the "catastrophe" you claimed was coming.

The hypothesis of agw depends on backradiation. Sorry guy, but NO gas can re emit radiation and further warm its original heat source. You still believe in an energy surplus, ie perpetual motion.