Where did the water go?

[corydoras]

i'l have you know cory knows about everything almost as much as i know nothing about anything

Tht's not true mate. NOBODY knows everything about everything. Cory just reads a lot and has a good memory. He's crap at maths, and no good at all with electricity, cars or plumbing. Edited August 31, 2011 by corydoras

[chesters1]

is it ok i know everything about nothing?

[corydoras]

is it ok i know everything about nothing?

Don't sell yourself so short chesters Edited August 31, 2011 by corydoras

[smudger]

Depends what you mean by 'ordinary Joe Public'. I'm an IT guy with a passion for all things technical scientific. Science is my big hobby after fishing. I am a keen amateur astronomer (there are quite a few on here) and also have a interest in for biology and evolutionary developmentology (evo-devo), but alas I have no formal scientific qualifications.

 

Ah, so the graphs from Goddards blog could be right, and just because he allows some one to write

a logical fallacy he's wrong, not to be trusted.

You've commented that you're more inclined to trust CSL site, what was your conclusion on the sea level data provided by them

Rising or falling

 

Is it true that cows are from the same evolutionary familie as whales??

Edited August 31, 2011 by smudger

[corydoras]

Ah, so the graphs from Goddards blog could be right, and just because he allows some one to write

a logical fallacy he's wrong, not to be trusted.

You've commented that you're more inclined to trust CSL site, what was your conclusion on the sea level data provided by them

Rising or falling

No my friend. The first sentence from Goddards post is a logical fallacy.

When warmists don’t like data, they simply throw it out – or hide it best they can.

The term "warmist" is being used in a derogatory fashion and is what amounts to an ad hominen attack that is an attack againt the arguer and not against the argument or "poisoning the well". Two fallacies in the first sentence from a site that purports to do"Real Science" is a bit poor to say the least.

 

Another thing that irks me slightly is that this Goddard chap has the gall to put a quote from Richard Feynman on his masthead. Richard Feynman is a hero of mine someone that I look up to, someone that I take inspiration from. What Mr Feynman meant when he said "Science is belief in the ignorance of experts" was that science is not about accepting a claim based on faith, or because it is the word of some famous professor,rather we should always go where the evidence leads, that experts should be treated skeptically, should be challenged and questioned. The ordinary workings of science challenges the claims of experts every single day. It's what we call peer review.

 

Belief in the ignorance of experts isn't the same as belief in the expertise of the ignorant.

 

No serious climatologist doubts that the earth is warming, you don't even need to be a climatologist to work that out, any 16 year old schoolboy from 1970s with an "O" level in physics could work out that the mean temperature of the earth is getting warmer, so I'll stick with the CSL graph. It shows a distinct trend showing that that global sea levels are rising and the data has not been "normalised" by some random "Joe Public" who I have never heard of.

Edited August 31, 2011 by corydoras

[chesters1]

puzzling

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/ipcc...-next-30-years/

 

half the problem is i read somewhere is that one of the main scientists (didnt catch who) the ipcc uses refuses now to release his results nor even say how he achieved them ,speaking as a kid i kinder remember it being hotter in the past than in the last couple of decades but perhaps we all feel it as kids

 

the strange thing is the southern part of the globe doesnt show the same results so i guess its best to move south for the summer.

 

if the temperature indeed rises 3 or 4 degrees in the next hundred years it will only give us (in the uk) the warmth we travel to the south of france for ,they haven't done so bad with it ,think of the nice holidays we can have in our gardens

the mammoths or rather its tusk found up the road felt global warming far more than we ever will ,not so many cars or 60 watt bulbs to blame either for them

 

i really wouldnt put much credence in experts ,just what expert said low energy bulbs were good for the planet ,yes they may save the user a little money long term but at probably 30 different chemicals in the dammed things compared to 5? in the filament versions it aint good for the planet!

now if you break a bulb at work you dont just need a dust pan you need health and safety and a decontamination kit (honest its mad!)) and when they die the gov suggests you use CO2 producing petrol to take them to the nearest tip ,you really couldn't make it up

 

experts dont "expert" because they want to they get paid to do it and have agendas like all businesses ,no scientist ever got paid another year saying "volcano ,Nah no problem with them were all safe dont worry" the more they can hype up a "maybe" "could" "should" "possibly" or "perhaps" (but never "will" you notice) the more they know their jobs safe

once our friends mere "volcano" (with the iffs and maybes ) doesnt get the attention suddenly its mega volcano or super volcano on his lips and he settles back his safe job playing with himself looking at online porn on his ten grand PC until the next financial year looms.

why do scientists strangely come u with the same results ,probably they compare notes baking each other up as we saw with the email fiasco ,what doesnt show what they what they want you to see strangely disappears "accidentally " or more likely deliberately ,as we know the more you say a lie and the more that say it the more chance it becomes a truth

 

 

enjoy ,after all someone is probably right there's believers and deniers in everyone

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7593305076218696987

 

this guys just using data ,the same data ,perhaps my guy has an agenda who knows things rarely happen without one ,this appears to be only a part of his presentation but the rest is out there somewhere

Edited August 31, 2011 by chesters1

[corydoras]

puzzling

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/ipcc...-next-30-years/

 

half the problem is i read somewhere is that one of the main scientists (didnt catch who) the ipcc uses refuses now to release his results nor even say how he achieved them ,speaking as a kid i kinder remember it being hotter in the past than in the last couple of decades but perhaps we all feel it as kids

 

the strange thing is the southern part of the globe doesnt show the same results so i guess its best to move south for the summer.

 

if the temperature indeed rises 3 or 4 degrees in the next hundred years it will only give us (in the uk) the warmth we travel to the south of france for ,they haven't done so bad with it ,think of the nice holidays we can have in our gardens

the mammoths or rather its tusk found up the road felt global warming far more than we ever will ,not so many cars or 60 watt bulbs to blame either for them

 

i really wouldnt put much credence in experts ,just what expert said low energy bulbs were good for the planet ,yes they may save the user a little money long term but at probably 30 different chemicals in the dammed things compared to 5? in the filament versions it aint good for the planet!

now if you break a bulb at work you dont just need a dust pan you need health and safety and a decontamination kit (honest its mad!)) and when they die the gov suggests you use CO2 producing petrol to take them to the nearest tip ,you really couldn't make it up

 

experts dont "expert" because they want to they get paid to do it and have agendas like all businesses ,no scientist ever got paid another year saying "volcano ,Nah no problem with them were all safe dont worry" the more they can hype up a "maybe" "could" "should" "possibly" or "perhaps" (but never "will" you notice) the more they know their jobs safe

once our friends mere "volcano" (with the iffs and maybes ) doesnt get the attention suddenly its mega volcano or super volcano on his lips and he settles back his job safe playing with himself looking at online porn on his ten grand PC until the next financial year looms.

why do scientists strangely come u with the same results ,probably they compare notes baking each other up as we saw with the email fiasco ,what doesnt show what they what they want you to see strangely disappears "accidentally " or more likely deliberately ,as we know the more you say a lie and the more that say it the more chance it becomes a truth

 

 

enjoy ,after all someone is probably right there's believers and deniers in everyone

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7593305076218696987

 

this guys just using data ,the same data ,perhaps my guy has an agenda who knows things rarely happen without one

Super volcanoes exist, it's just the term that is new. It was coined by the BBC in 2000. Vulcanologists don't use the term "supervolcano" they call them "caldera". Yellowstone National Park is a fine example. It sits in a caldera that is about 40 miles in diameter. Vulcanology is not a cushy number, a lot of them die. Katia and Maurice Krafft were killed at Mount Unzen. David A. Johnston was killed at Mount St Helens. He was 6 miles away from the volcano when it erupted. Talking of Mount St Helen's, Dwight Crandell predicted the Mount St Helens eruption 6 years before it erupted, but nobody would listen to him. Edited August 31, 2011 by corydoras

[chesters1]

i predict it "may" happen again ,dont half the old volcanoes have calderas its just the outer ring isnt it ,was Krakatoa a caldera? went with a bang though but i dont think it was i think it was the pointy top type

i think culdara types have more surprise factor when they pop do we need vulcanologists people still cling to them despite knowing the danger let them burn

Edited August 31, 2011 by chesters1

[smudger]

No my friend. The first sentence from Goddards post is a logical fallacy. The term "warmist" is being used in a derogatory fashion and is what amounts to an ad hominen attack that is an attack againt the arguer and not against the argument or "poisoning the well". Two fallacies in the first sentence from a site that purports to do"Real Science" is a bit poor to say the least.

 

Another thing that irks me slightly is that this Goddard chap has the gall to put a quote from Richard Feynman on his masthead. Richard Feynman is a hero of mine someone that I look up to, someone that I take inspiration from. What Mr Feynman meant when he said "Science is belief in the ignorance of experts" was that science is not about accepting a claim based on faith, or because it is the word of some famous professor,rather we should always go where the evidence leads, that experts should be treated skeptically, should be challenged and questioned. The ordinary workings of science challenges the claims of experts every single day. It's what we call peer review.

 

Belief in the ignorance of experts isn't the same as belief in the expertise of the ignorant.

 

No serious climatologist doubts that the earth is warming, you don't even need to be a climatologist to work that out, any 16 year old schoolboy from 1970s with an "O" level in physics could work out that the mean temperature of the earth is getting warmer, so I'll stick with the CSL graph. It shows a distinct trend showing that that global sea levels are rising and the data has not been "normalised" by some random "Joe Public" who I have never heard of.

 

 

What about the term "denier" with all it connotations thrown at sceptical person's,do you expect people to suit back and take it lying down.Ever seen the 10.10 video...bit more than a ad hominen wouldn't you say.

Edited September 1, 2011 by smudger

[Phone]

corydoras,

 

We seem to acquire and loose mass to space and from space at approximately the same rate. The more things change, the more they are the same.

 

I do know after reading along on this thread the obvious has been missed. You guys should have concentrated on the "Australian Carp" thread.

 

"The ocean begins exactly at waters edge." Scientifically speaking - You can quote me.

 

Phone