Someone has to be the Rookie. you always go on about the laws of physics thermodynamics and chemistry, without explaining them. the argument of AGW is all about how the laws are interpreted, and how some are conveniently ignored, like the warming effect of CO2 logarithmically diminishes with concentration, that's what politics does cherry pick the physics that are involved, ignores reality for greater effect.
As you might have learned in school, had you paid attention, properly citing a source means putting quote marks around actual passages, and providing page numbers, from a book (e.g., Maggie's), or, in your case, the liar-denier anti-science blog you are copy-pasting which cherrypicks, distorts and misrepresents Maggie's book. It does NOT mean FAKING this process by quoting totally DIFFERENT passages of the source having little or nothing to do with fake claims and false misrepresentations advanced about what the source says.
ZIppie: I suppose you told your teachers (back in the days when computers were big black obelisks fed with punch cards?) if you don't believe the copy-pasted arguments in my essay, look then up yourself? How fun is to behave like an F student here without being branded as such? You don't want to admit that you haven't even cracked Maggie's book (when was the last time you read ANY book?) or disclose the anti-science crackpot blogger you are copy-pasting from, so I should do your homework for you, to help you BS less unconvincingly? No thanks, buddy.
I am still amazed how some will still think that politics dictates The Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics. Politics has no influence into what they are. Politics only influences how we respond to these Laws of Science. With this being said, politicians are just that, politicians. As far as Christopher Booker is concerned, the one I found that wrote the article and that you somehow believe is the gold amongst the pyrite, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher...
It must be fanciful believing that your dreams are real.
To Kano........
"Most people do not have free will, they are too easily swayed by propaganda, they swallow what they are told without bothering to think about it." ... If people are swayed by propaganda, then it is by their own free will that allows them to do so. They also have the free will to see beyond the propaganda and to discover what is true and what is untrue in the propaganda.
"Someone has to be the Rookie. you always go on about the laws of physics thermodynamics and chemistry, without explaining them." ... Yahoo Answers does not allow the space to give an in-depth discussion on The Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics. "Google Academics" can be your friend, if you want to learn something on these subjects.
"... the argument of AGW is all about how the laws are interpreted and how some are conveniently ignored, like the warming effect of CO2 logarithmically diminishes with concentration, that's what politics does cherry pick the physics that are involved, ignores reality for greater effect." ... Laws written by politicians are open for interpretation. The Laws of Science exist because they have withstood the scrutiny of constantly being tested and are not interpreted but, rather come to be understood as to how the universe works. Would you be so kind as to tell us what Laws of Science are being ignored when they do not support the AWGT? As far as the wavelength absorption of CO2 goes I would tend to agree with you, if there was a finite amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The problem exists when we continue to add tons/day of CO2, and other greenhouse gases, into the atmosphere. Think of adding a paper towel into a bucket full of water. The paper towel will become saturated and not be able to absorb any more water. What happens to the water in the bucket as more paper towels are added to the bucket? Once you have added enough paper towels to the bucket that all of the water has been absorbed then the addition of more paper towels will not absorb more water from the bucket. I wish for you to show us the observational data that will tell us that atmospheric CO2 has reached a saturation point.
Who said it was funded by the free will of people in the first place? All government endeavors are funded by the consent of the plurality but without the presumption of individual free will in the particular funding of programs.
Your rant about Margaret Thatcher is an ad hominem argument, and also ignores what happened before or since Margaret Thatcher.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
edit
It could be that Margaret Thatcher used the science for her own agenda, such as to use nuclear power to bust the coal miners' union. But she did not invent the science.
The IPCC does not fund or conduct scientific research.
====
edit –
>>Science is a "dream-world" for people who don't believe in absolutes.<<
Science is for people who believe in objective human knowledge – not subjective “dream-worlds.”
>>What law of physics is absolute?<<
What subjective rule or law is absolute?
>>You will not "ever" control or govern any law of physics, yet you want people to believe that we can.<<
Science is about explaining the physical universe. Name one scientist – climate or not - who has ever said we can govern the physics of our universe.
“Free-thought” – by definition – is based on the rejection of religious dogma and acceptance of empiricism, knowledge, and critical thought.
====
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
-James Madison – Father of the US Constitution - (from Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785)
What I want to know is why did we ever spend the first dime? There was never any statistically significant warming --- and even if there WAS statistically significant warming, that's just the point where you raise an eyebrow --- not the point where you go spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.
Good science would have dictated no action. All the money spent and the pockets it went into is proof it's all one huge political scam. And they want us to keep on funding them for maybe another 30 years, warming or not.
-----------------------
NO, Global Warming was TURNED OFF over 1 year + ago. Our environment was'nt or is'nt in harms way ever, it had absolutely nothing to do with Global Warming. Mike
I want my money back from the UN and the loons at the IPCC . It was wasted .
Let's not forget where and why the IP CC was established :
"... In bringing this about, Mrs Thatcher played an important part. It is not widely appreciated, however, that there was a dramatic twist to her story. In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.
She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the "doomsters", she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of "costly and economically damaging" schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind.
In other words, long before it became fashionable, Lady Thatcher was converted to the view of those who, on both scientific and political grounds, are profoundly sceptical of the climate change ideology. Alas, what she set in train earlier continues to exercise its baleful influence to this day. But the fact that she became one of the first and most prominent of "climate sceptics" has been almost entirely buried from view. ..."
