US lists polar bear as threatened species

[GaryC 7]

Unfortunately you bolded the wrong sentence. Try the one underlined and then think about where you get your sources.

There is nothing wrong with my sources. The only problem lies with your inability to see beyond your narrow viewpoints.

[HAL 9000 96]

To follow Mav's analogy - the idea of "majority rules" is in regard to "expert" opinion, rather than just a majority of general opinion. Not to mention of course that general (lay) opinion counts for almost nothing when it comes to a field like the sciences. Lay opinion simply isn't very relevant to the work or conclusions of professional scientists.

I was making a point as to the idea that since a majority thinks something that makes it right. But of course you knew that already. I have some experience with the idea of the "majority is right" idea. In my work I am an "expert" in my field. I provide top level support for CNC machine tools for a Caterpillar plant. There are 6 of us in this building. Our opinions on various problems are the last word on the subject. There have been many times when we have a serious problem with one of our very complex automated machines where one specialist thinks the problem is in this direction, other specialists are called in and take up that line of thinking and beat their heads in trying to solve it. Then another specialist comes in that isn't colored by what the "consensus" view was and finds the problem was something totally different. It happens all the time. When one expert comes up with something that sounds right others tend to follow suit. After a while it gets hard to break away from that consensus because they get tunnel vision and can't see the flaws in that line of thinking. This is what Mav has fallen into. I have provided several opinions from reputable scientists on various aspects of the GW debate and he refuses to even consider them because it does not fit into his tunnel vision consensus view. Even when evidence to the contrary is staring him straight in the face he would rather accept a quickly concocted explanation that convenietly gives them 10 years of cooling rather than rethink the basis for his opinion. On this subject at least he is being a dishonest scientist.

Lets take this to the point, shall we?

This is what Mav has fallen into. I have provided several opinions from reputable scientists on various aspects of the GW debate and he refuses to even consider them because it does not fit into his tunnel vision consensus view. Even when evidence to the contrary is staring him straight in the face he would rather accept a quickly concocted explanation that convenietly gives them 10 years of cooling rather than rethink the basis for his opinion. On this subject at least he is being a dishonest scientist.

Me being dishonest or me questioning the science behind the "evidence" that you say stares at the reader? In fact, bring it on and I'll show your through simple reading that it, in fact, proves the contrary to your argument when the data is actual data and not opinionated, cherry-picked, conclusions. That you misrepresent as fact.

As the latest round of hoopla you brought- what was it? Ocean-derived cooling? Well, gee, Gary... like its been explained... you need a warming trend in order to have an ocean absorb a greater amount of heat, don't you? Simple thermodynamics defines cold as the absence of heat, so where does the heat go?

I sincerely think that you just don't have that scientific logic developed enough... but you can learn it more objectively rather than through ignorant conclusion-based subject finding.

[HAL 9000 96]

Unfortunately you bolded the wrong sentence. Try the one underlined and then think about where you get your sources.

There is nothing wrong with my sources. The only problem lies with your inability to see beyond your narrow viewpoints.

Yeah... so that is why I poured over every single one of the sources you last brought in a list. I explained them in pretty simple terms... Yet you continue to understand erroneous and unrelated conclusions in your own special way. I am sorry about that.

Keep scouring for pseudoscience though. Eventually you may understand what that means brother.

[GaryC 7]

To follow Mav's analogy - the idea of "majority rules" is in regard to "expert" opinion, rather than just a majority of general opinion. Not to mention of course that general (lay) opinion counts for almost nothing when it comes to a field like the sciences. Lay opinion simply isn't very relevant to the work or conclusions of professional scientists.

I was making a point as to the idea that since a majority thinks something that makes it right. But of course you knew that already. I have some experience with the idea of the "majority is right" idea. In my work I am an "expert" in my field. I provide top level support for CNC machine tools for a Caterpillar plant. There are 6 of us in this building. Our opinions on various problems are the last word on the subject. There have been many times when we have a serious problem with one of our very complex automated machines where one specialist thinks the problem is in this direction, other specialists are called in and take up that line of thinking and beat their heads in trying to solve it. Then another specialist comes in that isn't colored by what the "consensus" view was and finds the problem was something totally different. It happens all the time. When one expert comes up with something that sounds right others tend to follow suit. After a while it gets hard to break away from that consensus because they get tunnel vision and can't see the flaws in that line of thinking. This is what Mav has fallen into. I have provided several opinions from reputable scientists on various aspects of the GW debate and he refuses to even consider them because it does not fit into his tunnel vision consensus view. Even when evidence to the contrary is staring him straight in the face he would rather accept a quickly concocted explanation that convenietly gives them 10 years of cooling rather than rethink the basis for his opinion. On this subject at least he is being a dishonest scientist.

Lets take this to the point, shall we?

This is what Mav has fallen into. I have provided several opinions from reputable scientists on various aspects of the GW debate and he refuses to even consider them because it does not fit into his tunnel vision consensus view. Even when evidence to the contrary is staring him straight in the face he would rather accept a quickly concocted explanation that convenietly gives them 10 years of cooling rather than rethink the basis for his opinion. On this subject at least he is being a dishonest scientist.

Me being dishonest or me questioning the science behind the "evidence" that you say stares at the reader? In fact, bring it on and I'll show your through simple reading that it, in fact, proves the contrary to your argument when the data is actual data and not opinionated, cherry-picked, conclusions. That you misrepresent as fact.

As the latest round of hoopla you brought- what was it? Ocean-derived cooling? Well, gee, Gary... like its been explained... you need a warming trend in order to have an ocean absorb a greater amount of heat, don't you? Simple thermodynamics defines cold as the absence of heat, so where does the heat go?

I sincerely think that you just don't have that scientific logic developed enough... but you can learn it more objectively rather than through ignorant conclusion-based subject finding.

Thats a load of BS. The facts are this. GW caused by man relied completely on models that had a prediction. None of those predictions came true. If fact they were totaly wrong. So instead of re-examining the models they came up with a "fix" to explain it and in the process gave themselves 10 years of cooling while they can still claim that GW is real. It stinks and is dishonest. The fact that the ocean has absorbed the heat means that the planet has compensated for the extra heat. That heat has natural causes and the cooling we are having now is also natural. Everything we have seen is natural fluxuations and you just can't admit it. The models are wrong Mav. Admit that.

Unfortunately you bolded the wrong sentence. Try the one underlined and then think about where you get your sources.

There is nothing wrong with my sources. The only problem lies with your inability to see beyond your narrow viewpoints.

Yeah... so that is why I poured over every single one of the sources you last brought in a list. I explained them in pretty simple terms... Yet you continue to understand erroneous and unrelated conclusions in your own special way. I am sorry about that.

Keep scouring for pseudoscience though. Eventually you may understand what that means brother.

See? Listen to you. The studies I posted came from reputable scientists. But since they didn't fit your pre-conceved ideas it's labeled pseudoscience. Your arrogance is stunning.

[HAL 9000 96]

To follow Mav's analogy - the idea of "majority rules" is in regard to "expert" opinion, rather than just a majority of general opinion. Not to mention of course that general (lay) opinion counts for almost nothing when it comes to a field like the sciences. Lay opinion simply isn't very relevant to the work or conclusions of professional scientists.

I was making a point as to the idea that since a majority thinks something that makes it right. But of course you knew that already. I have some experience with the idea of the "majority is right" idea. In my work I am an "expert" in my field. I provide top level support for CNC machine tools for a Caterpillar plant. There are 6 of us in this building. Our opinions on various problems are the last word on the subject. There have been many times when we have a serious problem with one of our very complex automated machines where one specialist thinks the problem is in this direction, other specialists are called in and take up that line of thinking and beat their heads in trying to solve it. Then another specialist comes in that isn't colored by what the "consensus" view was and finds the problem was something totally different. It happens all the time. When one expert comes up with something that sounds right others tend to follow suit. After a while it gets hard to break away from that consensus because they get tunnel vision and can't see the flaws in that line of thinking. This is what Mav has fallen into. I have provided several opinions from reputable scientists on various aspects of the GW debate and he refuses to even consider them because it does not fit into his tunnel vision consensus view. Even when evidence to the contrary is staring him straight in the face he would rather accept a quickly concocted explanation that convenietly gives them 10 years of cooling rather than rethink the basis for his opinion. On this subject at least he is being a dishonest scientist.

Lets take this to the point, shall we?

This is what Mav has fallen into. I have provided several opinions from reputable scientists on various aspects of the GW debate and he refuses to even consider them because it does not fit into his tunnel vision consensus view. Even when evidence to the contrary is staring him straight in the face he would rather accept a quickly concocted explanation that convenietly gives them 10 years of cooling rather than rethink the basis for his opinion. On this subject at least he is being a dishonest scientist.

Me being dishonest or me questioning the science behind the "evidence" that you say stares at the reader? In fact, bring it on and I'll show your through simple reading that it, in fact, proves the contrary to your argument when the data is actual data and not opinionated, cherry-picked, conclusions. That you misrepresent as fact.

As the latest round of hoopla you brought- what was it? Ocean-derived cooling? Well, gee, Gary... like its been explained... you need a warming trend in order to have an ocean absorb a greater amount of heat, don't you? Simple thermodynamics defines cold as the absence of heat, so where does the heat go?

I sincerely think that you just don't have that scientific logic developed enough... but you can learn it more objectively rather than through ignorant conclusion-based subject finding.

Thats a load of BS. The facts are this. GW caused by man relied completely on models that had a prediction. None of those predictions came true. If fact they were totaly wrong. So instead of re-examining the models they came up with a "fix" to explain it and in the process gave themselves 10 years of cooling while they can still claim that GW is real. It stinks and is dishonest. The fact that the ocean has absorbed the heat means that the planet has compensated for the extra heat. That heat has natural causes and the cooling we are having now is also natural. Everything we have seen is natural fluxuations and you just can't admit it. The models are wrong Mav. Admit that.

I don't think you're still understanding. The models are based on... here it is... DATA OBTAINED from more than just current fluctuations and past samples from where they can be obtained.

How do you assess they are totally wrong? Because a pseudoscientist insinuated that the model was slightly flawed? That in science is called revision, Gary, not disproving. You're just reaching to fit your conclusion. Maybe it stinks to you, but you still should try and accept the obvious process of scientific revisions.

And not all science that deals with climate change deals in computational modeling which goes farther than your understanding of the variables applied to reach modeled conclusions.

But lets look at the only science in that last post and think about cause and effect for a moment:

The fact that the ocean has absorbed the heat means that the planet has compensated for the extra heat. That heat has natural causes and the cooling we are having now is also natural. Everything we have seen is natural fluxuations and you just can't admit it.

Yes, and as in the articles cited previously elsewhere, and explained in abstract form, it was also shown that this excess absorption had secondary effects of their own as a result of the causality of ... duh... warming. Which means that your conclusion that the warming is natural is not only unfounded but based on what you wish were true...

Again, it means that having a better understanding of causality and downstream consequences is in need for you. Please don't take this as a ball of condescension... I am trying to help you better place cause and effect so that you can understand that the sources you are relying on are explaining observations that in reality do not fit your conclusions.

See? Listen to you. The studies I posted came from reputable scientists. But since they didn't fit your pre-conceved ideas it's labeled pseudoscience. Your arrogance is stunning.

My arrogance or your lack of understanding?... since getting you to accept not just a valid scientific-based interpretation is much more difficult than convincing (with all due respect and in no way a literal analogy) a member of the KKK to love African Americans as human beings.

I sadly am convinced that it is more your lack of understanding the subject matter. My preconceived notions trained me to look critically at the sources you present and discover quite easily that 1) the data do not support your conclusions and 2) the sources are non scientific.

Edited May 17, 2008 by maviwaro

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's pointless trying to have this discussion with Gary when talking about science. I'm sure he doesn't have the same approach with his doctor or auto mechanic, but God only knows what drives him on his crusade of self delusion and denial.

[HAL 9000 96]

I always have an interest in making sure folks understand what it is they are claiming to discuss with authority. Heck, I'll settle for common scientific sense to be honest. That's a far cry from having arrogance per se.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I always have an interest in making sure folks understand what it is they are claiming to discuss with authority. Heck, I'll settle for common scientific sense to be honest. That's a far cry from having arrogance per se.

We should start a new thread about what everyone's opinion is about jet propulsion, or quantum physics. I'm getting all excited just imagining what Gary's opinion is on those two scientific fields. Can't wait.

[HAL 9000 96]

I always have an interest in making sure folks understand what it is they are claiming to discuss with authority. Heck, I'll settle for common scientific sense to be honest. That's a far cry from having arrogance per se.

We should start a new thread about what everyone's opinion is about jet propulsion, or quantum physics. I'm getting all excited just imagining what Gary's opinion is on those two scientific fields. Can't wait.

Don't taunt me so Steven. I was such a nerd for quantum physics and more so... quantum chemistry...

I do have a weak spot for quantal release of neurotransmitters though... I admit that I don't know enough of that topic and I studied it repeatedly not too long ago.

Can we just balance chemical equations in a simple thread (so it doesn't look like a Democratic polling thread)?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To follow Mav's analogy - the idea of "majority rules" is in regard to "expert" opinion, rather than just a majority of general opinion. Not to mention of course that general (lay) opinion counts for almost nothing when it comes to a field like the sciences. Lay opinion simply isn't very relevant to the work or conclusions of professional scientists.

I was making a point as to the idea that since a majority thinks something that makes it right. But of course you knew that already. I have some experience with the idea of the "majority is right" idea. In my work I am an "expert" in my field. I provide top level support for CNC machine tools for a Caterpillar plant. There are 6 of us in this building. Our opinions on various problems are the last word on the subject. There have been many times when we have a serious problem with one of our very complex automated machines where one specialist thinks the problem is in this direction, other specialists are called in and take up that line of thinking and beat their heads in trying to solve it. Then another specialist comes in that isn't colored by what the "consensus" view was and finds the problem was something totally different. It happens all the time. When one expert comes up with something that sounds right others tend to follow suit. After a while it gets hard to break away from that consensus because they get tunnel vision and can't see the flaws in that line of thinking. This is what Mav has fallen into. I have provided several opinions from reputable scientists on various aspects of the GW debate and he refuses to even consider them because it does not fit into his tunnel vision consensus view. Even when evidence to the contrary is staring him straight in the face he would rather accept a quickly concocted explanation that convenietly gives them 10 years of cooling rather than rethink the basis for his opinion. On this subject at least he is being a dishonest scientist.

I don't know if that's a fair conclusion not knowing the specifics of his work - or indeed the makeup of what is a very broad, very large professional community.

[GaryC 7]

To follow Mav's analogy - the idea of "majority rules" is in regard to "expert" opinion, rather than just a majority of general opinion. Not to mention of course that general (lay) opinion counts for almost nothing when it comes to a field like the sciences. Lay opinion simply isn't very relevant to the work or conclusions of professional scientists.

I was making a point as to the idea that since a majority thinks something that makes it right. But of course you knew that already. I have some experience with the idea of the "majority is right" idea. In my work I am an "expert" in my field. I provide top level support for CNC machine tools for a Caterpillar plant. There are 6 of us in this building. Our opinions on various problems are the last word on the subject. There have been many times when we have a serious problem with one of our very complex automated machines where one specialist thinks the problem is in this direction, other specialists are called in and take up that line of thinking and beat their heads in trying to solve it. Then another specialist comes in that isn't colored by what the "consensus" view was and finds the problem was something totally different. It happens all the time. When one expert comes up with something that sounds right others tend to follow suit. After a while it gets hard to break away from that consensus because they get tunnel vision and can't see the flaws in that line of thinking. This is what Mav has fallen into. I have provided several opinions from reputable scientists on various aspects of the GW debate and he refuses to even consider them because it does not fit into his tunnel vision consensus view. Even when evidence to the contrary is staring him straight in the face he would rather accept a quickly concocted explanation that convenietly gives them 10 years of cooling rather than rethink the basis for his opinion. On this subject at least he is being a dishonest scientist.

Lets take this to the point, shall we?

This is what Mav has fallen into. I have provided several opinions from reputable scientists on various aspects of the GW debate and he refuses to even consider them because it does not fit into his tunnel vision consensus view. Even when evidence to the contrary is staring him straight in the face he would rather accept a quickly concocted explanation that convenietly gives them 10 years of cooling rather than rethink the basis for his opinion. On this subject at least he is being a dishonest scientist.

Me being dishonest or me questioning the science behind the "evidence" that you say stares at the reader? In fact, bring it on and I'll show your through simple reading that it, in fact, proves the contrary to your argument when the data is actual data and not opinionated, cherry-picked, conclusions. That you misrepresent as fact.

As the latest round of hoopla you brought- what was it? Ocean-derived cooling? Well, gee, Gary... like its been explained... you need a warming trend in order to have an ocean absorb a greater amount of heat, don't you? Simple thermodynamics defines cold as the absence of heat, so where does the heat go?

I sincerely think that you just don't have that scientific logic developed enough... but you can learn it more objectively rather than through ignorant conclusion-based subject finding.

Thats a load of BS. The facts are this. GW caused by man relied completely on models that had a prediction. None of those predictions came true. If fact they were totaly wrong. So instead of re-examining the models they came up with a "fix" to explain it and in the process gave themselves 10 years of cooling while they can still claim that GW is real. It stinks and is dishonest. The fact that the ocean has absorbed the heat means that the planet has compensated for the extra heat. That heat has natural causes and the cooling we are having now is also natural. Everything we have seen is natural fluxuations and you just can't admit it. The models are wrong Mav. Admit that.

I don't think you're still understanding. The models are based on... here it is... DATA OBTAINED from more than just current fluctuations and past samples from where they can be obtained.

How do you assess they are totally wrong? Because a pseudoscientist insinuated that the model was slightly flawed? That in science is called revision, Gary, not disproving. You're just reaching to fit your conclusion. Maybe it stinks to you, but you still should try and accept the obvious process of scientific revisions.

And not all science that deals with climate change deals in computational modeling which goes farther than your understanding of the variables applied to reach modeled conclusions.

But lets look at the only science in that last post and think about cause and effect for a moment:

The fact that the ocean has absorbed the heat means that the planet has compensated for the extra heat. That heat has natural causes and the cooling we are having now is also natural. Everything we have seen is natural fluxuations and you just can't admit it.

Yes, and as in the articles cited previously elsewhere, and explained in abstract form, it was also shown that this excess absorption had secondary effects of their own as a result of the causality of ... duh... warming. Which means that your conclusion that the warming is natural is not only unfounded but based on what you wish were true...

Again, it means that having a better understanding of causality and downstream consequences is in need for you. Please don't take this as a ball of condescension... I am trying to help you better place cause and effect so that you can understand that the sources you are relying on are explaining observations that in reality do not fit your conclusions.

See? Listen to you. The studies I posted came from reputable scientists. But since they didn't fit your pre-conceved ideas it's labeled pseudoscience. Your arrogance is stunning.

My arrogance or your lack of understanding?... since getting you to accept not just a valid scientific-based interpretation is much more difficult than convincing (with all due respect and in no way a literal analogy) a member of the KKK to love African Americans as human beings.

I sadly am convinced that it is more your lack of understanding the subject matter. My preconceived notions trained me to look critically at the sources you present and discover quite easily that 1) the data do not support your conclusions and 2) the sources are non scientific.

Yep, you have all the answers and this dumb old hick just doesn't understand. And out of the kindess of your heart your trying to enlignten me to the errors of my ignorance.

You don't even see how arrogant you sound. The things I posted came from reputable sources and yet you still call it pseudoscience or if that fails you say I lack the ability to understand that it really supports your prefered theory. You dismiss the fact that the models are totaly wrong and instead you say they are slightly flawed. Missing a 10 year cooling cycle is slightly flawed? Really! You try to tell me that this cooling is a result of the oceans absorbsion of the heat from our bad old GW? Really! I might swallow that the ocean would absorb the heat and slow the warming but cause it to cool??? Come on now! It's useless trying to talk to you. Your trying to use your status as a "scientist" as some sort of trump card and a reason to dismiss anything this dumb hick has to say. It's apparent that your part of the problem. You will push this hoax as far as you can because it's a political issue for you. Your not an objective observer.

[GaryC 7]

Here is some pseudoscientists that disagree with your consensus, 400 of them to be exact. But I bet you know more than they do, don't you? I guess all you really need to do is to dismiss the source of the post and in your mind that nullifies anything in the post.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb

[HAL 9000 96]

Yep, you have all the answers and this dumb old hick just doesn't understand. And out of the kindess of your heart your trying to enlignten me to the errors of my ignorance.

You don't even see how arrogant you sound. The things I posted came from reputable sources and yet you still call it pseudoscience or if that fails you say I lack the ability to understand that it really supports your prefered theory. You dismiss the fact that the models are totaly wrong and instead you say they are slightly flawed. Missing a 10 year cooling cycle is slightly flawed? Really! You try to tell me that this cooling is a result of the oceans absorbsion of the heat from our bad old GW? Really! I might swallow that the ocean would absorb the heat and slow the warming but cause it to cool??? Come on now! It's useless trying to talk to you. Your trying to use your status as a "scientist" as some sort of trump card and a reason to dismiss anything this dumb hick has to say. It's apparent that your part of the problem. You will push this hoax as far as you can because it's a political issue for you. Your not an objective observer.

Hey its your self esteem, not mine, brother Gary. I think of you higher than that.

Again, I've explained this before, so I'll do it again:

Missing a cooling cycle? Who missed it? They clearly state the natural oscillations- what you can't get to understand is that the cycle periodicity is one that you are not quite able to adjust to the time scale at hand- here you are talking about a 10 year period which makes it a weather variation while quite clearly its been explained repeatedly that climate is a much larger time scale.

So yes, Really!

As a matter of fact... looking at the oceans. Am I saying that GW is causative of oceanic cooling? Where did I say that? Do enlighten me, please.

What I did write was altogether different, brother- and I'll reword it again...

1. Cause = atmospheric warming. Heat is the excitation of molecules, giving off thermal energy in the process. This extra energy is transferred to other molecules in the vicinity (the ocean, in this case), that have lower energy states.

2. Effect = atmospheric cooling. Yet gee... oceanic temperature observations in areas associated with such atmospheric cooling takes place go up...

And no offense, but I remember a class all the way back in the 7th grade that dealt with such complicated science, so my degrees are off the hook on this one. Whether or not I've been trained in scientific methodology is not really up to you to judge.

Here is some pseudoscientists that disagree with your consensus, 400 of them to be exact. But I bet you know more than they do, don't you? I guess all you really need to do is to dismiss the source of the post and in your mind that nullifies anything in the post.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Marc Morano again?

He's in the same boat as you, brother Gary.

We already went over these sources and found out that they did not support the conclusions that GW is false. Get over it already.

[GaryC 7]

Yep, you have all the answers and this dumb old hick just doesn't understand. And out of the kindess of your heart your trying to enlignten me to the errors of my ignorance.

You don't even see how arrogant you sound. The things I posted came from reputable sources and yet you still call it pseudoscience or if that fails you say I lack the ability to understand that it really supports your prefered theory. You dismiss the fact that the models are totaly wrong and instead you say they are slightly flawed. Missing a 10 year cooling cycle is slightly flawed? Really! You try to tell me that this cooling is a result of the oceans absorbsion of the heat from our bad old GW? Really! I might swallow that the ocean would absorb the heat and slow the warming but cause it to cool??? Come on now! It's useless trying to talk to you. Your trying to use your status as a "scientist" as some sort of trump card and a reason to dismiss anything this dumb hick has to say. It's apparent that your part of the problem. You will push this hoax as far as you can because it's a political issue for you. Your not an objective observer.

Hey its your self esteem, not mine, brother Gary. I think of you higher than that.

Again, I've explained this before, so I'll do it again:

Missing a cooling cycle? Who missed it? They clearly state the natural oscillations- what you can't get to understand is that the cycle periodicity is one that you are not quite able to adjust to the time scale at hand- here you are talking about a 10 year period which makes it a weather variation while quite clearly its been explained repeatedly that climate is a much larger time scale.

So yes, Really!

As a matter of fact... looking at the oceans. Am I saying that GW is causative of oceanic cooling? Where did I say that? Do enlighten me, please.

What I did write was altogether different, brother- and I'll reword it again...

1. Cause = atmospheric warming. Heat is the excitation of molecules, giving off thermal energy in the process. This extra energy is transferred to other molecules in the vicinity (the ocean, in this case), that have lower energy states.

2. Effect = atmospheric cooling. Yet gee... oceanic temperature observations in areas associated with such atmospheric cooling takes place go up...

And no offense, but I remember a class all the way back in the 7th grade that dealt with such complicated science, so my degrees are off the hook on this one. Whether or not I've been trained in scientific methodology is not really up to you to judge.

Here is some pseudoscientists that disagree with your consensus, 400 of them to be exact. But I bet you know more than they do, don't you? I guess all you really need to do is to dismiss the source of the post and in your mind that nullifies anything in the post.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Marc Morano again?

He's in the same boat as you, brother Gary.

We already went over these sources and found out that they did not support the conclusions that GW is false. Get over it already.

As expected. Dismiss the source of the post and ignore the content. Yes I know that you went through some of the posts and that is the source of my disdain. 400 scientists, some of which served on the very same UN board that came up with your famous study, now say that elements of GW are wrong. And little old you were able to debunk every one of them. Dude! when is your nobel prize coming? Your some sort of a wonder scientist!

[HAL 9000 96]

Yep, you have all the answers and this dumb old hick just doesn't understand. And out of the kindess of your heart your trying to enlignten me to the errors of my ignorance.

You don't even see how arrogant you sound. The things I posted came from reputable sources and yet you still call it pseudoscience or if that fails you say I lack the ability to understand that it really supports your prefered theory. You dismiss the fact that the models are totaly wrong and instead you say they are slightly flawed. Missing a 10 year cooling cycle is slightly flawed? Really! You try to tell me that this cooling is a result of the oceans absorbsion of the heat from our bad old GW? Really! I might swallow that the ocean would absorb the heat and slow the warming but cause it to cool??? Come on now! It's useless trying to talk to you. Your trying to use your status as a "scientist" as some sort of trump card and a reason to dismiss anything this dumb hick has to say. It's apparent that your part of the problem. You will push this hoax as far as you can because it's a political issue for you. Your not an objective observer.

Hey its your self esteem, not mine, brother Gary. I think of you higher than that.

Again, I've explained this before, so I'll do it again:

Missing a cooling cycle? Who missed it? They clearly state the natural oscillations- what you can't get to understand is that the cycle periodicity is one that you are not quite able to adjust to the time scale at hand- here you are talking about a 10 year period which makes it a weather variation while quite clearly its been explained repeatedly that climate is a much larger time scale.

So yes, Really!

As a matter of fact... looking at the oceans. Am I saying that GW is causative of oceanic cooling? Where did I say that? Do enlighten me, please.

What I did write was altogether different, brother- and I'll reword it again...

1. Cause = atmospheric warming. Heat is the excitation of molecules, giving off thermal energy in the process. This extra energy is transferred to other molecules in the vicinity (the ocean, in this case), that have lower energy states.

2. Effect = atmospheric cooling. Yet gee... oceanic temperature observations in areas associated with such atmospheric cooling takes place go up...

And no offense, but I remember a class all the way back in the 7th grade that dealt with such complicated science, so my degrees are off the hook on this one. Whether or not I've been trained in scientific methodology is not really up to you to judge.

Here is some pseudoscientists that disagree with your consensus, 400 of them to be exact. But I bet you know more than they do, don't you? I guess all you really need to do is to dismiss the source of the post and in your mind that nullifies anything in the post.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Marc Morano again?

He's in the same boat as you, brother Gary.

We already went over these sources and found out that they did not support the conclusions that GW is false. Get over it already.

As expected. Dismiss the source of the post and ignore the content. Yes I know that you went through some of the posts and that is the source of my disdain. 400 scientists, some of which served on the very same UN board that came up with your famous study, now say that elements of GW are wrong. And little old you were able to debunk every one of them. Dude! when is your nobel prize coming? Your some sort of a wonder scientist!

Actually, your source is the very example of what I am laughing at. Nowhere on it is there actual science. Just conjecture. Like in your evading any actual scientific logic here.

Again, are they, as scientists stating that GW is false? No. They are raising doubts as to the accuracy of the research in the absolute majority of the more established and well-documented material, like the sources that I get by actually going into the literature- coincidentially where I make my conclusions from... not from preconceived notions as you like to do.

Again, at discussion is not my ability to read, but your inability to make logical conclusions after reading material that admittedly, can be pretty dense.