| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards OR Defying t [message #793596] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 03:15 |
|
On Feb 8, 7:20 pm, Stuart 'Snake Finger' Aikens <ds... [at] hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Justin Case <thinh... [at] pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > "Governor Swill" <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:bg2oq354sm8o6s8dscfqr0kqr0uncs6nrm [at] 4ax.com...
> > > "V-for-Vendicar" <Just... [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> used a stick in
> > > the sand to babble
>
> > >>"Governor Swill" <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrote
> > >>> I've seen a couple of climatologists make a case for a wetter climat=
e
> > >>> in the great plains. This is predicated on warming causing the
> > >>> prevailing west to east weather flow to shift to more north-south
> > >>> patterns thus reducing the drying effect of the western mountains on=
> > >>> the interior.
>
> > >> The models show the region will dry. And it is experiencing a recor=
d
> > >>drout.
>
> > > Which doesn't prove the models correct.
>
> > > Swill
>
> > When will you idiots wake up. It's the sun, stupid.
>
> > http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=3D28727941258717 5
>
> It's always nice to read an editioral as a substitute for science.
> Especially when the first sentence raves about Al Gore, as if he invented =
the
> notion of man made global warming all by his lonesome and didn't have the
> support of the world's major scientific bodies (while there isn't a
> scientific body in the world supporting "the sun" idea.
** Aikins: Tell me how a trace gas in the
atmosphere can heat the world? You don't
even have a clue about the mechanics which
are so simple any kid in 6th grade can
understand it. <G>
** Solar radiation, and sonic rays provide much
of the heat while vulcanic activity provides
almost all of the rest. When you want further
explanation go back to school, but be careful
which you choose.
When I was 14 and in grade nine, I asked my
chemistry teacher to help me with an organic
chem experiment I was trying. When I told him
the problem, he said "Dunnow" ran into his
office and slammed the door.
>
** These are all political organizations. And I
refuse to take political considerations into
science.know as a fact that too many are not
publishing because disputing AGW could
cost their jobs need their jobs and job funding.
** The NOAA Media Policy: Political pre-approval
for public communication by scientists
Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006
The official NOAA Media Policy establishes a procedure that requires
pre-clearance of contacts between NOAA scientists and the media. Under
this policy, the NOAA Public Affairs office is designated as
responsible for coordinating and approving media communications
involving NOAA, including advisories, press releases, interviews, and
other related media contacts. NOAA=E2=80=99s policy establishes a framework
for politicization of decisions about public communication by federal
climate scientists.
In June 2004 NOAA issued a new =E2=80=9CNOAA Media Policy=E2=80=9D over the =
signature
of Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. (ret.), the NOAA
Administrator and Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere. The media policy document is posted on the Web site of
the NOAA Office of Public, Constitutent, and Intergovernmental Affairs
(OPCIA) and the full text is posted below.
In the NOAA organizational structure the Director of Public Affairs
reports to the NOAA Deputy Administrator (Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere) a Senate-confirmed political
appointee who is also the Director of the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program. The NOAA Deputy Administrator, in turn, reports to the NOAA
Administrator, Adm. Lautenbacher. The Public Affairs Office is subject
to being used as an instrument for implementing an Administration
political agenda.
Note Section 3 of the NOAA Media Policy: Media and Public Interactions
Requiring Prior Notification. This section can readily be interpreted
to apply to media and public interactions involving pretty much
anything having to do with discussion of climate science research and
its implications. Prior notification implies prior approval=E2=80=94of
content, of who will be allowed to speak with the media, and of
whether to allow the media contact or public interaction at all.
Section 4.02 also raises problematic issues. Would requiring
responses to media queries to =D6=93focus on science and fact, not
speculation, allow the reporting of findings but limit scientists=D4=92
freedom to offer a judgment about the implications of the findings?
Would limiting discussion to =E2=80=9Cmatters for which you are responsible
and of which you have direct knowledge=E2=80=9D limit scientists=E2=80=99 fr=
eedom to
comment on research findings by scientists at other institutions? And
how can it possibly be legitimate to say to NOAA personnel: =E2=80=9CWhether=
in person, on camera, or over the phone, when speaking to a reporter
you represent and speak for the entire agency.=E2=80=9D If scientists do not=
purport to represent the official policy of the U.S. Government, or of
their agency, how can they be told they cannot offer their viewpoint
as individual scientists?
|
|
|
| Pop Bottle Experiment for Low IQ Denialists confrms Warming [message #793767 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 11:52 |
|
<last_post [at] rogers.com> wrote
> Aikins: Tell me how a trace gas in the
> atmosphere can heat the world? You don't
> even have a clue about the mechanics which
> are so simple any kid in 6th grade can
> understand it.
Co2 is a pigmant Put 12 drops of food coloring (another pigmant) into a
2 litre bottle
of water and see if the color of the water changes.
The dilution ratio is .03% for the food coloring - rougly the same as the
CO2 in the atmosphere.
A trace material changing the color of the water? Impossible the
denialists yammer.
Now take this colored bottle and a second bottle full of clear water out
into the sun on a sunny summer day stick a thermometer into both of them and
measure their temperature.
Which one gets hotter? The one full of clear water? Or the one that
contains the colored pigment?
Clearly the one with the pigmant will get warmer because it darker and
absorbs more light than the transparent bottle.
Impossible the ignorant denialists say.
Ahahahahahahahhhhhhhhhhhh
|
|
|
| Re:Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards OR Defying th [message #793811 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 23:55 |
|
On Feb 10, 4:59 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <gsgs... [at] gsgsg.com> wrote:
> "Anarchore" <e... [at] t.me> wrote in messagenews:mn.52df7d8208db82aa.75909 [at] t.me...
> > V-for-Vendicar laid this down on his screen :
> >> <last_p... [at] rogers.com> wrote
> >>> Aikins: Tell me how a trace gas in the
> >>> atmosphere can heat the world? You don't
> >>> even have a clue about the mechanics which
> >>> are so simple any kid in 6th grade can
> >>> understand it.
>
> >> Co2 is a pigmant
>
> > CO2 is a colourless, invisible gas. It is not a pigment. Clorophyll is
> > used by plants to create oxygen get it?
>
> Damn you.. Stole my thunder...
** Not quite right. Carbon Dioxide is absorbed by growing
plants to provide carbon for growth.
> "Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
>
> -Eddie Haskell
|
|
|
| Simple Science Experiment for Children show Denialists to be Liars and fools [message #793910 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 11:38 |
|
<leonard78sp [at] gmail.com> wrote
> Not quite right. Carbon Dioxide is absorbed by growing
> plants to provide carbon for growth.
Meaningless.
You denialists have repeatedly claimed that a trace gas at .03% can't
alter the temperature of the
surface of the earth.
And here we have an experiment that any child can perform that proves that
You Denialists are either Liars or Spectacularly ignorant.
|
|
|
| Re: Simple Science Experiment for Children show Denialists to be Liars and fools [message #793933 ] |
Mon, 11 February 2008 16:51 |
|
"V-for-Vendicar" <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
news:eAVrj.12994$612.6876 [at] read1.cgocable.net...
>
> <leonard78sp [at] gmail.com> wrote
>> Not quite right. Carbon Dioxide is absorbed by growing
>> plants to provide carbon for growth.
>
> Meaningless.
>
> You denialists have repeatedly claimed that a trace gas at .03% can't
> alter the temperature of the
> surface of the earth.
>
> And here we have an experiment that any child can perform that proves
> that You Denialists are either Liars or Spectacularly ignorant.
Have you actually tried the experiment, or are you just assuming that you'll
get the result you are hoping for? And have you tried the experiment with a
number of different dyes? I don't know that all dyes would respond the same.
And of course your experiment is very simplistic compared to what actually
happens in the atmosphere.
Ed
|
|
|
| Re: Simple Science Experiment for Children show Denialists to be [message #793990 ] |
Tue, 12 February 2008 05:14 |
|
On Feb 11, 10:51 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi... [at] mindspring.com> wrote:
> "V-for-Vendicar" <Just... [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
>
> news:eAVrj.12994$612.6876 [at] read1.cgocable.net...
>
>
>
> > <leonard7... [at] gmail.com> wrote
> >> Not quite right. Carbon Dioxide is absorbed by growing
> >> plants to provide carbon for growth.
>
> > Meaningless.
>
> > You denialists have repeatedly claimed that a trace gas at .03% can't
> > alter the temperature of the
> > surface of the earth.
** The trace gasses at any amount can only assist the
principal gas to block the sun's rays an d cool the
atmosphere
> > And here we have an experiment that any child can perform that proves
> > that You Denialists are either Liars or Spectacularly ignorant.
>
> Have you actually tried the experiment, or are you just assuming that you'll
> get the result you are hoping for? And have you tried the experiment with a
> number of different dyes? I don't know that all dyes would respond the same.
> And of course your experiment is very simplistic compared to what actually
> happens in the atmosphere.
>
> Ed
|
|
|
| Re: Simple Science Experiment for Children show Denialists to be Liars and fools [message #794419 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 19:36 |
|
"C. E. White" <cewhite3 [at] mindspring.com> wrote
> Have you actually tried the experiment, or are you just assuming that
> you'll get the result you are hoping for? And have you tried the
> experiment with a number of different dyes? I don't know that all dyes
> would respond the same. And of course your experiment is very simplistic
> compared to what actually happens in the atmosphere.
Never tried it. Neither do I need to, the fundamental priniples of physics
demand the stated outcome.
Feel free to do it yourself though.
|
|
|
| Re: Simple Science Experiment for Children show Denialists to be Liars and fools [message #794420 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 19:38 |
|
<leonard78sp [at] gmail.com> wrote
> The trace gasses at any amount can only assist the
> principal gas to block the sun's rays an d cool the
> atmosphere
But this is not the case for trace liquids dissolved in water - for example
food coloring in a bottle full of water.
Ahahahahahahaah........
Stuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuppppppppppppiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iddddddddddddd
|
|
|
