Korean Job Discussion Forums

[keane]

[keane]

Oh, and sundubu? If I'm the one who is rigid and dogmatic in his thinking, why are you the one slinging insults and making dogmatic statements about churches of enviro worship while claiming that global warming simply doesn't exist despite their being almost no evidence to support your theory?

While at the same time I, the mad hatter of the environment, have embraced and wondered at the meaning of the one good piece of science to come from the paid thugs that make up the anti crowd.

Interesting, isn't it, that the only "science" to come out of the Ostrich Society of ExxonMobile, was an independent, unpaid blogger?

Tells you something, if you are willing to open your eyes.

[sundubuman]

Just wait a few years dude, and you'll be forced to find a new religion.

Was the ice age consensus right?

The Malthusians?

I actually feel sorry for you. Because unlike Buddhists, Christians, Muslims etc.....

your religion is about to be disproved. No one can disprove heavan or a future armageddon....

BUT when sea levels don't rise (oh I know your new religion talks about decades from now...convenient) and glaciers grow....and no CATASTROPHE... happens....

you'll be to use a Kentucky phrase......up s h i t creek without a paddle....all cause of global warming!!!!

[keane]

[sundubuman]

Since the sky is falling folks are on their third strike in three decades....

I too will repeat...

Just wait a few years dude, and you'll be forced to find a new religion.

Was the ice age consensus right?

The Malthusians?

I actually feel sorry for you. Because unlike Buddhists, Christians, Muslims etc.....

your religion is about to be disproved. No one can disprove heavan or a future armageddon....

BUT when sea levels don't rise (oh I know your new religion talks about decades from now...convenient) and glaciers grow....and no CATASTROPHE... happens....

you'll be to use a Kentucky phrase......up s h i t creek without a paddle....all cause of global warming!!!!

[keane]

[sundubuman]

There is a big difference between desperate and annoyed.

Arguing with religious fanatics is a NO-WIN proposition.

A good place to start to receive a balanced scientific view on the issue is this wikipedia page listing some of the leading skeptics of the nature of the much vaunted "consensus"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming


here are the type of people Keane would claim are "in denial" and Kennedy would call "traitors to the human race"

Roger A. Pielke, Senior Research Scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute:

Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station:

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison:

Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia:

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University

George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory,

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware:

Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Universit� Jean Moulin:

Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:

Tim Patterson [33], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "

Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences:

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem:

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia:

Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London

Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center:

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Prof

essor Emeritus from University of Ottawa:

[sundubuman]

And if your fervor is great enough....if you can link every one of these scientists to Exxon or some other bogeyman...

then I will answer your "questions".

[keane]

[sundubuman]

you didn't respond to my request....

maybe you are not a full-fledged member of the Global Warming Church after all...

Maybe you are just a wayward young liberal.....who thought you finally found a spiritual/meaningful home..."Fighting Global Warming"....

only destined to find yourself homeless...once again.

[sundubuman]

keane is not keen on responding to my challenge....in a manner of speaking....

[keane]

[keane]

See, first you do THIS:

[keane]

[sundubuman]

The Climatic Research Unit is the UK's leading scientific propaganda mouthpiece.They will try everything in their power to squash any science, theory, or hypothesis that may possibly interrupt the milk of the taxpayer-funded teat for which their entire livelihood is based upon.


Instead of posting an article written by a piad-lackey of the Global Warming Church,

tell us what you think of the thoughts of the eminent scientist Freeman Dyson...

Dyson: Climate models are rubbish
More science, less hysteria please
By Andrew Orlowski → More by this author
Published Tuesday 14th August 2007 09:38 GMT

British-born physicist Freeman Dyson has revealed three "heresies", two of which challenge the current scientific orthodoxy that anthropogenic carbon causes climate change.

"The fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated," writes Dyson in his new book Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe, published on Wednesday.

He pours scorn on "the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models".

"I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields and farms and forests," writes Dyson.

Biomass holds the key to carbon, he writes - leaving us to infer that he thinks the human contribution is negligible. Overall, Dyson issues a plea for more scientific research into the behaviour of the planet's biomass.

"Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet," he says.

"We do not know whether intelligent land management could increase the growth of the topsoil reservoir by four billion tons of carbon per year, the amount needed to stop the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. All we can say for sure is that this is a theoretical possibility and ought to be seriously explored."

That's the first heresy - and it's not the first time he's made it. For several years, Dyson has argued that the carbon religion is self-indulgent, when there are more urgent, fixable problems to face:

"I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does," he told students two years ago. "Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education, and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans."

The second heresy is that "warming" might not be such a bad thing.

"If we could choose between the climate of today with a dry Sahara and the climate of 6,000 years ago with a wet Sahara, should we prefer the climate of today? My second heresy answers yes to the first question and no to the second. It says that the warm climate of 6,000 years ago with the wet Sahara is to be preferred, and that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may help to bring it back. I am not saying that this heresy is true. I am only saying that it will not do us any harm to think about it."

The third heresy, you can read for yourselves here. It's not such a heresy as the other two, but how long those remain heresies is a moot point. Dyson can expect another round of crucifixion with the predictable chorus that he's not a climate "scientist".

His contention, that the models aren't really science when they're programmed to produce the expected results, will no doubt be overlooked.