‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
4 of 8
When do we put the lid on Westar?
Posted: 13 February 2014 09:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  530
Joined  2014-02-09
Stacia Jones - 13 February 2014 09:10 PM
Rick Kramer - 13 February 2014 08:46 PM

Try sticking to the facts Michael…..diversions to squirm away won’t cut it. I have not called you stupid, not once, but there are entire encyclopedias of facts that you are totally unaware of…

OTOH YOU HAVE made personal attacks. Try answering my questions as a starter…

Rick, are you ever going to say anything of substance? It’s been a week or two of you sounding like a mentally deficient parrot, saying the same things over and over again: “You don’t have facts! You don’t answer my questions! You’re just being emotional!”

Why anyone even replies to you is a mystery. You’re not here to discuss, just distract.

So I am also a mentally deficient parrot now? Why does everyone accuse me of being the one making personal attacks?
With all due respect, I think I have made statements of substance. I said there is no scientific evidence that mankind is causing dangerous GW. I challenged anyone to refute that with an example. All I got was dodging.
The truth is that almost all predictions of dire GW caused by man came from computer models created by advocates of the CAGW meme. Computer models are not “science” especially when they come from “scientists” with a preconceived notion (agenda) and then construct a computer program to “prove” it. This is not science. Further, it is not science to declare that all scientists agree and the “science is settled.” Anyone who knows anything about the Scientific Method knows this is definitely not science. It is what led Hal Lewis to call it pseudoscientific fraud, along with some other well-documented examples of doctored data (exposed in ClimateGate) to enhance the supposed acceleration in warming. This is definitely not “science.” Years ago Dr Lindzen at MIT stated that the modelers were ignoring a whole host of relevant variables and were greatly exaggerating the sensitivity of manmade CO2 in the models. He argued that they were ignoring the strength of a lot of natural variables, such as water vapor in the atmosphere. He predicted that over the next decade or two, all the modelers would be proven wrong…perniciously wrong, in their wild “scenarios” of intensified GW. Guess who came out correct?

Here is a fact: there has been no global warming over the last 15+ years (close to 17 now) despite rapidly rising manmade CO2. It is putting serious holes in the CAGW hypothesis…and it is only a flawed hypothesis now….not scientific truth. Never was “settled.” There is no study that links mankind to harmful GW….I have searched for years.No one has presented one. All these catastrophic claims have come from computer models which have been shown to be horribly wrong over the last 17 years.

Another fact: the globe has warmed about 1 degree C since 1850, but there is absolutely no evidence to show that this warming was unprecedented, unusual, or anomalous to any other warming period in earth’s history. It was preceeded by a cold period called the Little Ice Age. Before that, long before the industrial age of man, there was the Medieval Warm Period, when it was hotter than it was recently. There is no link between manmade CO2 and GW, much less catastrophic warming, that can stand the rigors of the Scientific Method. So modern zealots just did away with the method and created their own reality. Unfortunately, Mother Nature is not cooperating with their doomsday scenarios.

Yes, CO2 is a GHG and it can cause a modicum of warming. But Lindzen made a convincing case that Mother Nature has many balancing mechanisms. Spending trillions of dollars on this non-problem is a huge waste of money. We could quadruple manmade CO2 and it would have little effect.

Don’t confuse CO2 with harmful particulate matter that does need monitoring.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 10:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  962
Joined  2012-10-12

Aimless babbling is a sign of a serious disorder. Perhaps you might check in with your doctor.He might have some pills that can help you through this mental crisis. I certainly hope so.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 10:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  530
Joined  2014-02-09
Michael Hadley - 13 February 2014 10:13 PM

Aimless babbling is a sign of a serious disorder. Perhaps you might check in with your doctor.He might have some pills that can help you through this mental crisis. I certainly hope so.

Tell me again who is avoiding discussion Michael? If we have had no warming in 17 years it makes it hard to claim manmade CO2 is causing dangerous GW, doesn’t it?

BTW, you will have to tell me what study you cited. I did not see it. I’m not sure you understand…..authors, links, date of study, etc.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 10:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  530
Joined  2014-02-09

Michael, I think you were unaware that claims of catastrophic warming came from computer models devised by advocates of the concept. It is hard to discuss anything when you are ignorant of facts and keep making fun of the other person.

Stacia, I got a lot more “substance.” How about addressing what we have so far.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 10:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  962
Joined  2012-10-12

Of course you didn’t see it, because you are blind…and an idiot. Goodnight.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 11:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  530
Joined  2014-02-09

Ahh, found what I think you are referring to Michael. The 97.1% study conducted by the same John Cook of SkepticalScience (SkS)

Did you know that noted climatologist Dr David Legates and three colleagues recently published a peer reviewed paper that Cook’s paper had severe math flaws and that only 41 out of 11,944 papers reviewed by Cook and associates said that mankind was the cause of most of the post-1950 warming? Rather than 97.1% that Cook claimed the correct number should have been a very small percentage. That is a big difference, wouldn’t you say? There have been about three 97% “studies” done, the first by Doran/Zimmerman at the U of Illinois and they have all been thoroughly debunked.


An excerpt (is this “substance"Stacia?:

Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.

“It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”

Dr Willie Soon, a distinguished solar physicist, quoted the late scientist-author Michael Crichton, who had said: “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.” He added: “There has been no global warming for almost 17 years. None of the ‘consensus’ computer models predicted that.”

Dr William Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not.

“In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s imminent Fifth Assessment Report, who found the errors in Cook’s data, said: “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.

“It is unscientific to assume that most scientists believe what they have neither said nor written.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 11:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  530
Joined  2014-02-09

Am I an idiot now, Michael? After reading what 4 noted scientists wrote about a paper that came from a non-scientist?

Do you feel better calling me an idiot? Aren’t you showing reams of hypocrisy after pompously lecturing me on personal attacks?

I’m not the one who grabbed some flawed study you found in 2 minutes and tried to pawn it off as climate truth. If the shoe fits, wear it, Michael.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 11:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  530
Joined  2014-02-09

I have lots more substance Stacia. Just let me know.

I am still waiting for any substance from the proponents of the GW fairy tale on here.

Try this one: Saying the polar bears are endangered because of global warming is simply false. Their lowest population was in the 1970s when they were wantonly slaughtered by human hunters with high powered rifles. When laws were passed and vigorously enforced to stop the hunting, the polar bears started a remarkable recovery. It is estimated that the population has quadrupled since then. They could almost be described as thriving.

I still remember something John Christy sent me in an email. He said Arctic ice and glaciers have been melting and advancing for millennia. Which should we prefer? The recent melting is certainly not unprecedented and there is NOTHING to show mankind has anything to do with it.

Do you know the USS Skate surfaced at the North Pole in 1959 and reported seeing very little sea ice? But the hype persists about unprecedented. I won’t even mention sailing vessel logs from the early 1800s.

Kansas was once covered by a glacier. Would that suit you better?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 11:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  530
Joined  2014-02-09

Bishop Hill writes:

The Benestad (Cook, Nuccitelli) et al paper on “agnotology”, a bizarre concoction that tried to refute just about every sceptic paper ever written has been rejected by Earth System Dynamics


Based on the reviews and my own reading of the original and revised paper, I am rejecting the paper in its current form. The submission is laudable in its stated goals and in making the R source code available, but little else about the paper works as a scientific contribution to ESD. While I think as an ESDD publication at least a discussion was had and the existence of the R routines has been brought to the attention of the various interested communities, the manuscript itself is not a good fit for this journal and would need substantial further revisions before being ready (if ever) for this journal.

In other words, this isn’t scientific and can’t be published in a respected scientific journal.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2014 05:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  784
Joined  2012-10-10

Yes, Michael, I do believe the long silent CS has resurfaced!!!  It is with heatwarming joy, we welcome his bloviating back to the discussion board.  The entire discussion began… over 50 posts ago… with your questioning the numerous and large rate increases by Westar.  Almost immediately, RK/CS began his sermonizing that the rate increases were the hand-on work of the POTUS in the President’s effort to promote a politically concocted global warming farce.  From that point on, there was no talking common sense.  You responded respectfully, only to be met with argumentative politcial rhetoric.  I posted links to… no blogs by politicians… but studies by scientists and scientific groups.  Nothing acknowledged, only more political jargon that echos Limbaugh and Beck.  I love it.  Makes for hilarious reading.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2014 09:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  530
Joined  2014-02-09

Larry,
I’ll address your links in due time. You should be aware (if you read Hal Lewis’ letter, which I doubt) that these scientific groups were hijacked by CAGW zealots who moved into the leadership of those bodies and had the unmitigated gall to speak for the entire membership. It is one of his complaints in the letter.  You are unaware that the rank and file members disagree with the official position of those scientific groups. If you sit around and accept spoon fed pablum into this cult religion of global warming, you can be convinced of anything. Computer models are not science. The sordid story of the hockey stick and Dr Michael Mann is the real weak link in the CAGW fantasy. It remains a major tenet of CAGW proponents even though it is a sham of science.

Read and learn the following. It may be too long and have too many facts for your short attention span.  The only ones bloviating are you and Michael. Stacia, I think this will be all the substance you can handle:

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2014 10:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  784
Joined  2012-10-10

No problem, RK/CS.  I understand completely…  Your suggestion that the blog ‘A Skeptical Mind’ bleeds truth, while most scientific groups have been “hijacked by CAGW zealots” speaks volumes.  ‘A Skeptical Mind’ links to Bill Whittle as substantiation.  Awesome!!  I pulled up a number of the journalist Whittle’s videos on YouTube.  That he refers to the many states who have subscribed to Common Core as “being overrun by pathetic pea-brained parasite progressives” is just the type of “expert in scientific fact” America needs.  His “Rich Man, Poor Man” video is a work of art.  The old adage, “figures lie and liars figure” is alive and well when you come to this presenation. 

Please… We understand your hard right lean.  We understand that no common sense prevails if it should differ with the Beck and Limbaugh mantra.  Carry on…  We understand.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2014 10:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  282
Joined  2012-10-10

Whelp, if Kramer is the guy formerly known as Common Sense, I’d love for him to tell me how he knew my full, real name, back on the old forums.

And no, my little conspiracist, a personal blog which links only to Wikipedia is not exactly substance. There’s not even a signed author on that thing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2014 10:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  530
Joined  2014-02-09

These links should provide enough links for an entire year of reading. It doesn’t matter, however, if you are talking to true believers with a closed mind.

They should at least point out that “the science is settled” is a complete lie. You don’t hear about this from Brian Williams or the NYT. It doesn’t fit with the propaganda charade about manmade GW:

http://www.c3headlines.com/

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2014 10:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  530
Joined  2014-02-09

Stacia, are you getting enough substance yet? Let me know.

Profile
 
 
   
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
4 of 8
 

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | The Manhattan Mercury, 318 North 5th Street, Manhattan, Kansas, 66502

Reproduction of any kind is prohibited without written consent.