Looney-toones junk science redux

[Mr. White]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCashFan

Junk science or not, I personally believe we are wrecking the planet in a sort of impossible-to-stop way.

Nah, when the planet gets tired of us it'll eject us off it's surface and start over again.

However as far as smoking goes. Indians 3,000 years ago were smoking. Forests were burning, volcano's erupting. etc.

What's polluting the air is our cars, and big business.

[MoTheMan]

As long as I can keep smoking my stogies and not worry about depleting the ozone layer by doing that, I'm OK.

[Raoul in Colorado]

Originally Posted by mmblz

Nope, that's where your original article came from. Show me an article where he has changed his mind.

....Peter Gwynne is a reporter, a science writer, he was reporting, not advocating...he was posting an article, not an essay..he has no dog in the global warming/cooling fight, there's nothing to change his mind about....., in comparison, Dr. Steve Schneider, global warming guru of the activist Greenpeace organization, advocated the threat of global cooling in the 1970s...

[rumballs]

Originally Posted by Raoul in Colorado

in comparison, Dr. Steve Schneider, global warming guru of the activist Greenpeace organization, advocated the threat of global cooling in the 1970s...

Ah. Well as far as I can tell, he wasn't even mentioned in the original article you sited. Perhaps a discussion about him (or links to his work) would have served your point better.

[Raoul in Colorado]

Originally Posted by RcktS4

Quandary (-1/sp) would imply that i thought it was vital to understand, and was in a distressed state of confusion over my inability to comprehend.

I'm not sure I would consider that accurate.

....whatever...

[Raoul in Colorado]

Originally Posted by mmblz

Ah. Well as far as I can tell, he wasn't even mentioned in the original article you sited. Perhaps a discussion about him (or links to his work) would have served your point better.

....the Newsweek article merely and conveniently shed light the environmental mindset of the times..

[rumballs]

Originally Posted by Raoul in Colorado

....the Newsweek article merely and conveniently shed light the environmental mindset of the times..

I don't mean to sound like a total jerk, so let me clarify what I mean.

Your initial post contained an interesting link to an old article about how the world was going getting colder. Other than that, it had a number of spelling errors and a lot of "wacko this" and "wacko that". You said that the scientists in the 70s who thought the world was getting colder are the same scientists who now believe in global warming, which you have yet to prove with the exception of mentioning one person who has held both views, but who was not cited or mentioned in the initial article. A single article from the 70s does not indicate that everyone back then thought the world is getting colder, the scientists were wrong, and now since scientists say the world is getting warmer we should not believe them.

Even if some people did believe one theory in the 70s and another now, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that global warming is "looney-toones junk science" as you like to call it. If you had, I might be interested in that point of view. Otherwise, it simply looks like you are frothing at the mouth.

Looking back at all of your posts: with the exception of two posts about cars, every single post has been about "nanny-states" or anti-smokers. While it's true that anti-smokers and anti-smoking legislation may be of interest to members of this forum, you have not provided an opinion about a single cigar, or even a directly cigar related topic. Most of the anti-smoking agendas you hate so much are focused more on cigarettes.

If you enjoy cigars as much as we all do, I'm sure we have some interesting things to talk about. If not, the "wacko, looney-toones [sic], nanny-state" stuff is getting really old.

[SeanGAR]

JUNK JOURNALISM

Scientists don't publish in Newsweek, journalists do. So if this is anything, it is junk journalism.

You note that the scientists that were quoted were reporting climactic trends, hardly someting that can be argued with, unless you think their thermometers need calibration. You saying that Murray Mitchell's data were wrong?

The NAS report says "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not know enough to pose the key questions".

The "grim reality" was inserted by the journlist. This is certainly not junk science, I'd agree that it is junk journalism.

[RcktS4]

Originally Posted by Raoul in Colorado

....whatever...

Alright, I apologize for letting my smartass side get the best of me.

I am just easily annoyed, and intellectually insulted, by your rhetorical tautology. You begin with the a priori assumption that 2nd hand smoke is junk science, and bolster that claim with a comparison to global warming, which you also assume to be junk science. The only suport for the claim that either is "junk" in your post is the comparison with the other. There is just no substance at all to what you have said. You might as well resoprt to making some comparison of the "Hitler wanted to ban smoking in Germany in 1934, therefore anyone who wants to ban smoking is evil." I understand that you are upset about non-smoking activism, and to be honest I sometimes am as well, but I just don't see how this point makes any headway, or in fact where you have made any point at all.

</rant>

[AAlmeter]

Originally Posted by SeanGAR

JUNK JOURNALISM

Scientists don't publish in Newsweek, journalists do. So if this is anything, it is junk journalism.

You note that the scientists that were quoted were reporting climactic trends, hardly someting that can be argued with, unless you think their thermometers need calibration. You saying that Murray Mitchell's data were wrong?

The NAS report says "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not know enough to pose the key questions".

The "grim reality" was inserted by the journlist. This is certainly not junk science, I'd agree that it is junk journalism.

Yup...didnt read the article because it was from Newsweek. However you want to believe that the world will end, too hot, too cold, Mothra, it is pretty irresponsible to base predictions about 10s of thousands of years on +/- 100 years of data. And yes, you can compare fossils and remenants from different periods to estimate temperature....but until thats compared to recorded data, its unreliable. Until then, the world is not ending (well, at a vastly accelerated rate at least), your Camry will not melt the ice caps, and dont burn 55 gallon drums of oil in your back yard to keep the mosquitoes down. It may take a while, but eventually science catches up with common sense.

[galaga]

Originally Posted by AAlmeter

...........And yes, you can compare fossils and remenants from different periods to estimate temperature....but until thats compared to recorded data, its unreliable.

an interesting explanation of paleothermography


Stable oxygen isotopes and the temperature/ice balance of the Earth.
http://www.gly.uga.edu/schroeder/geol1121H/isotope.html

Sir Bedevere: ...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped.
King Arthur: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

[Raoul in Colorado]

Originally Posted by mmblz

I don't mean to sound like a total jerk, so let me clarify what I mean.

Your initial post contained an interesting link to an old article about how the world was going getting colder. Other than that, it had a number of spelling errors and a lot of "wacko this" and "wacko that". You said that the scientists in the 70s who thought the world was getting colder are the same scientists who now believe in global warming, which you have yet to prove with the exception of mentioning one person who has held both views, but who was not cited or mentioned in the initial article. A single article from the 70s does not indicate that everyone back then thought the world is getting colder, the scientists were wrong, and now since scientists say the world is getting warmer we should not believe them.

Even if some people did believe one theory in the 70s and another now, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that global warming is "looney-toones junk science" as you like to call it. If you had, I might be interested in that point of view. Otherwise, it simply looks like you are frothing at the mouth.

Looking back at all of your posts: with the exception of two posts about cars, every single post has been about "nanny-states" or anti-smokers. While it's true that anti-smokers and anti-smoking legislation may be of interest to members of this forum, you have not provided an opinion about a single cigar, or even a directly cigar related topic. Most of the anti-smoking agendas you hate so much are focused more on cigarettes.

If you enjoy cigars as much as we all do, I'm sure we have some interesting things to talk about. If not, the "wacko, looney-toones [sic], nanny-state" stuff is getting really old.

...if you want to debate, why don't you get off your butt and come up with your own counter point arguments instead of yammering that you are "not convinced" by my schpeel...., if you are interested in the topic and take issue with my assertions, then do your own research to support or refute your skepticism ....., your straw man characterization of my assertion is erroreous however I'm not going to waste my time arguing over it...., spelling errors!!!!; typos!!!!....heaven pray tell!!! If my stuff is getting old then put me on your "ignore list"---I would be honored. Check out the broad-stroke article below if you want to delve further into the topic...

http://www.junkscience.com/news/jonker.htm

[rumballs]

Originally Posted by Raoul in Colorado

...if you want to debate, why don't you get off your butt and come up with your own counter point arguments instead of yammering that you are "not convinced" by my schpeel...., if you are interested in the topic and take issue with my assertions, then do your own research to support or refute your skepticism .....,

Because I'm using the same approach you and most other "junk science" folks use - just assert that someone else's theory is wrong, perhaps with a few reasons why, but don't actually prove anything to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Raoul in Colorado

Check out the broad-stroke article below if you want to delve further into the topic...
http://www.junkscience.com/news/jonker.htm

Yeah, where broad-stroke means the guy is not out to prove anything but just to spout a lot of attacks that sound good, like:

There are many more nails in the coffins of the global warming "experts". Query: how did Greenland get its name? Guess what: when the Vikings first settled (and named) it, it was in fact green, because there was no ice and snow covering it. Ergo, today it is quite cooler there than it used to be.

Quite scientific of him. Also I noticed he only cited one single article/paper (from the 70's with a quote about cooling). All of the more important points (if they were provably true) like that temperature changes over the last 100 years don't fit global warming models, are not backed up by anything.
To make this absolutely clear, see at the bottom of the page "Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author."

So as I mention above, if you really think global warming is "junk science" then how about finding some "real science" studies showing that there is no global warming?


Here's a brand new article about global warming from yesterday.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/sci...al.warming.ap/

A couple of key excerpts:

."There can no longer be genuine doubt that human-made gases are the dominant cause of observed warming," said Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University's Earth Institute. "This energy imbalance is the 'smoking gun' that we have been looking for."

Average atmospheric temperatures rose about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.56 degrees Celsius) in the 20th century, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-organized network of scientists, says computer modeling shows they will rise between 2.5 degrees and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees and 5.8 degrees Celsius) by the year 2100, depending on how well emissions are controlled.

Are they 100% right? Probably not. But unless I see some reasonable counter evidence, I have no reason to believe that they are 100% wrong.

[Raoul in Colorado]

....computer models, the epicenter of junk science...., you can use computer models to prove that within the next 3,000 years the moon will turn into green cheese .....or that secondhand smoke will cause a violent volcanic eruption in Sumatra; .....thank you for proving my point....

A propos, ....scientific data shatters junk science dire prediction of Antarctic heat wave, penguins can now breathe a sigh of relief:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml

[SeanGAR]

Originally Posted by Raoul in Colorado

....computer models, the epicenter of junk science...., you can use computer models to prove that within the next 3,000 years the moon will turn into green cheese .....or that secondhand smoke will cause a violent volcanic eruption in Sumatra; .....thank you for proving my point....

No you can't.