I think you're using IPCC values, which include their feedbacks. I was actually being very generous with the 1.7C number. The usual number tossed around is 1C.
From wikipedia:
"Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.
So yeah, it takes a long time to educate folks on these processes. People are tossing around what they call "science" when they really mean "IPCC propaganda".
And as I said on another thread, no amount of links in web posts can bring enlightenment. To get that, you have to do some footwork for yourself. I've pointed the way here and will say the next thing to look into is water vapor's role in all of this.
From here, I'll leave you to your own devices to do that footwork.
Wikipedia on this topic!? It's pointless, really.
As I said before, march right long. There's no law against scientific illiteracy.
He drove the funding junior. As the lead US Senator he pushed for all the funding for the research for the entire time he was a US Senator, but don't worry about it. If you cared about facts you'd know that already.
To quote my Dad (a taxpayer in the great State of Franklin) "We finally got the SOB out of Tennessee, now you keep him"
...should have titled his book - Fat, Dumb and Happy
He drove the funding junior. As the lead US Senator he pushed for all the funding for the research for the entire time he was a US Senator, but don't worry about it. If you cared about facts you'd know that already.
So, to follow your logic:
Sergey Brin and Larry Page didn't invent Google.
Mark Zuckerberg didn't invent Facebook.
Steve Chen and Chad Jurley didn't invent YouTube.
Steve Jobs didn't invent Apple.
... it was the angels that were the "inventors".
Hell, we can take that one step further and say that if you were a taxpayer in that time period, you can say you are an "inventor of the internet" also since it was your money that funded the project.
There's also no law against moronic, elitist ecofascism, so lead the way toward preserving gaia's eternal happiness...and remember not to insult your pets by calling them pets any more.
Making up insulting names in place of real argument is a sign that you have nothing intelligent to offer. Which is descriptive of your side indeed.
The global-warming movement needs this sort of whiz-bang graphics to make up for lack of evidence.
EDIT:
Come to think of it, Al Gore and Lady GaGa have a lot in common. Image over substance....
Amen, this whole "science" thing is vastly overrated. And why isn't that Darwin character in jail yet? Anyone can see monkeys and people are separate species. Sheesh!
Not to take anything from Gore on the issue, but having used DARPANET back in the early 80's, I wouldn't give them credit for the internet. DARPANET sucked.
Researchers at CERN, using NeXT computers, developed HTML and only then did we have something that resembles the internet today.
Actually, it wasn't until researchers at NCSA, funded through Gore's initiatives, developed Mosaic that we had something that resembles the "Internet" today.
Making up insulting names in place of real argument is a sign that you have nothing intelligent to offer. Which is descriptive of your side indeed.
Feigning self-righteous indignation after calling somebody "scientifically stupid" is descriptive of yours. As is the forging of data to fit your pre-determined enviro-religious paradigm, presented under the banner of "science". Your side is no more scientific than a Chicago politician is honest. Own it.
Feigning self-righteous indignation after calling somebody "scientifically stupid" is descriptive of yours. As is the forging of data to fit your pre-determined enviro-religious paradigm, presented under the banner of "science". Your side is no more scientific than a Chicago politician is honest. Own it.
If you imagine that the scientific consensus on climate change is founded on "forged data" there is literally nothing anyone can say to you to change your mind.
As has been observed elsewhere, you can't use rational argument to dissuade opinions that were arrived at by something other than rational means.
Amen, this whole "science" thing is vastly overrated. And why isn't that Darwin character in jail yet? Anyone can see monkeys and people are separate species. Sheesh!
I think you may have inadvertently posted in the wrong thread.
Feigning self-righteous indignation after calling somebody "scientifically stupid" is descriptive of yours. As is the forging of data to fit your pre-determined enviro-religious paradigm, presented under the banner of "science". Your side is no more scientific than a Chicago politician is honest. Own it.
Convince people that you understand what "Science" means, and show willingness to conduct an argument based on science instead of ideology and emotion, then people won't call you "scientifically stupid".
Actually, it wasn't until researchers at NCSA, funded through Gore's initiatives, developed Mosaic that we had something that resembles the "Internet" today.
It doesn't matter. It is like asking who invented the wheel. A bunch of people over a period of time. What matters it what we are going to do with the wheel or the Internet going forward.
On the political subject of Gore, global warming etc:
There is nothing wrong with striving for less pollution, emissions, and destruction of the natural environment. Trying live together without disturbing your neighbors is a good thing. We definitely need fewer cars on the road and less dependance on oil for energy. When you look at nature, it really is the perfect model to copy. The entire ecosystem runs on solar power. Burning of fossil fuels is the root cause of many problems, some current and some yet to be.
You only have to look at the recent disasters of the Japanese nuclear accident or the oil spill in the gulf of Mexico to see that technology is a double edged sword. Whether it ends up killing us or saving us is also yet to be determined.
Comments
I think you're using IPCC values, which include their feedbacks. I was actually being very generous with the 1.7C number. The usual number tossed around is 1C.
From wikipedia:
"Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate...ity#Essentials
So yeah, it takes a long time to educate folks on these processes. People are tossing around what they call "science" when they really mean "IPCC propaganda".
And as I said on another thread, no amount of links in web posts can bring enlightenment. To get that, you have to do some footwork for yourself. I've pointed the way here and will say the next thing to look into is water vapor's role in all of this.
From here, I'll leave you to your own devices to do that footwork.
Wikipedia on this topic!? It's pointless, really.
As I said before, march right long. There's no law against scientific illiteracy.
He drove the funding junior. As the lead US Senator he pushed for all the funding for the research for the entire time he was a US Senator, but don't worry about it. If you cared about facts you'd know that already.
To quote my Dad (a taxpayer in the great State of Franklin) "We finally got the SOB out of Tennessee, now you keep him"
...should have titled his book - Fat, Dumb and Happy
You can not legislate stupidity.
go Tipper, go Tipper
He drove the funding junior. As the lead US Senator he pushed for all the funding for the research for the entire time he was a US Senator, but don't worry about it. If you cared about facts you'd know that already.
So, to follow your logic:
Sergey Brin and Larry Page didn't invent Google.
Mark Zuckerberg didn't invent Facebook.
Steve Chen and Chad Jurley didn't invent YouTube.
Steve Jobs didn't invent Apple.
... it was the angels that were the "inventors".
Hell, we can take that one step further and say that if you were a taxpayer in that time period, you can say you are an "inventor of the internet" also since it was your money that funded the project.
There's also no law against moronic, elitist ecofascism, so lead the way toward preserving gaia's eternal happiness...and remember not to insult your pets by calling them pets any more.
Making up insulting names in place of real argument is a sign that you have nothing intelligent to offer. Which is descriptive of your side indeed.
The global-warming movement needs this sort of whiz-bang graphics to make up for lack of evidence.
EDIT:
Come to think of it, Al Gore and Lady GaGa have a lot in common. Image over substance....
Amen, this whole "science" thing is vastly overrated. And why isn't that Darwin character in jail yet? Anyone can see monkeys and people are separate species. Sheesh!
Not to take anything from Gore on the issue, but having used DARPANET back in the early 80's, I wouldn't give them credit for the internet. DARPANET sucked.
Researchers at CERN, using NeXT computers, developed HTML and only then did we have something that resembles the internet today.
Actually, it wasn't until researchers at NCSA, funded through Gore's initiatives, developed Mosaic that we had something that resembles the "Internet" today.
Making up insulting names in place of real argument is a sign that you have nothing intelligent to offer. Which is descriptive of your side indeed.
Feigning self-righteous indignation after calling somebody "scientifically stupid" is descriptive of yours. As is the forging of data to fit your pre-determined enviro-religious paradigm, presented under the banner of "science". Your side is no more scientific than a Chicago politician is honest. Own it.
Feigning self-righteous indignation after calling somebody "scientifically stupid" is descriptive of yours. As is the forging of data to fit your pre-determined enviro-religious paradigm, presented under the banner of "science". Your side is no more scientific than a Chicago politician is honest. Own it.
If you imagine that the scientific consensus on climate change is founded on "forged data" there is literally nothing anyone can say to you to change your mind.
As has been observed elsewhere, you can't use rational argument to dissuade opinions that were arrived at by something other than rational means.
Amen, this whole "science" thing is vastly overrated. And why isn't that Darwin character in jail yet? Anyone can see monkeys and people are separate species. Sheesh!
I think you may have inadvertently posted in the wrong thread.
Feigning self-righteous indignation after calling somebody "scientifically stupid" is descriptive of yours. As is the forging of data to fit your pre-determined enviro-religious paradigm, presented under the banner of "science". Your side is no more scientific than a Chicago politician is honest. Own it.
Convince people that you understand what "Science" means, and show willingness to conduct an argument based on science instead of ideology and emotion, then people won't call you "scientifically stupid".
Actually, it wasn't until researchers at NCSA, funded through Gore's initiatives, developed Mosaic that we had something that resembles the "Internet" today.
It doesn't matter. It is like asking who invented the wheel. A bunch of people over a period of time. What matters it what we are going to do with the wheel or the Internet going forward.
On the political subject of Gore, global warming etc:
There is nothing wrong with striving for less pollution, emissions, and destruction of the natural environment. Trying live together without disturbing your neighbors is a good thing. We definitely need fewer cars on the road and less dependance on oil for energy. When you look at nature, it really is the perfect model to copy. The entire ecosystem runs on solar power. Burning of fossil fuels is the root cause of many problems, some current and some yet to be.
You only have to look at the recent disasters of the Japanese nuclear accident or the oil spill in the gulf of Mexico to see that technology is a double edged sword. Whether it ends up killing us or saving us is also yet to be determined.
http://bitsandpieces1.blogspot.com/2...re-office.html