Dook, not only am I a geologist, I ranked in the top 10 percent of my class. I won't say anymore than that but suffice it to say I know way more than you do about geology and certainly almost any other branch of science. What is it with these weird anti-science types being obsessed with abiotic oil. There is no such thing. All oil must come from biotic sources. That doesn't mean it necessarily comes from the reworked biology of ancient seas. Believe it or not, we don't know exactly how it is formed. I know that would traumatize someone who thinks scientists know everything already. I guess I even have pity for Dook and want him to learn but in reality, I doubt anything I wrote will penetrate his wall of ignorance.
Edit: So true Ottawa. I suspect if Dookie read that whole article you linked to, his head would spin around and he would spew split pea soup and beg Al Gore to exorcize it from his memory.
'Geologist Jim', Google is clearly not your friend:
" I tend to now favor the abiotic theory. " Jim Z 3 years ago.
" I think the abiotic theory is the best explanation for all the known evidence. " Jim z 4 years ago
Jim Z –
>> Dook, not only am I a geologist, I ranked in the top 10 percent of my class. I won't say anymore than that <<
Then I will. At your school, being in the top 10% probably was not good enough to get you into grad school – or a half-way decent one, anyway. At my college, the top 40% not only got accepted into grad school, but went to grad school – REAL grad schools – the other 60% could have, but chose not to. A major oil company swooped in and hired two of geology friends during our junior year.
I have never come across anyone who calls themselves a scientist who knows less science than you.
And here is the bottom line – Hey Dook is right and you are wrong. Maybe you should have stayed in school a little longer.
That deniers still can't make a dent in either.
I note jim now backing away from his claims on abiotic oil, using his usual ploy of trying to call others anti science a ploy I note Ottawa is now also trying to use (perhaps he is another of jims twin brothers)
Jim now claims "There is no such thing", interesting
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
I think it goes without saying that a number of us here are well aware jim is not a scientist his own answers and failure over a now considerable period of time to address scientific points make that abundantly clear he would rather spout nonsense like the U.N. are "anti-American, anti-semitic?, and anti-freedom"
As for the link that is claimed will 'spin heads' (from Ottawa) it's the same one kano posted yesterday (deniers do like to copy each others homework) from long time denier Bob Carter, the only thing to make your head spin is that deniers are still sucked in by such nonsense.
as I pointed out to kano yesterday the site itself shut down 6 months ago
http://www.aitse.org/
This was directed at Hey Dook
"not only am I a geologist, I ranked in the top 10 percent of my class. I won't say anymore than that but suffice it to say I know way more than you do about geology and certainly almost any other branch of science. "
I'm sorry but based on, now years of questions and answers, to Peg, Trevor, myself and a number of others you don't know the first thing about science (in any field as far as I can tell) and you will run a mile before even trying to answer direct points, usually behind a hail of anti communist, anti science, anti government abuse. I'm not sure on what planet you think any of that makes you sound scientific, but it ain't this one buddy.
Make all the comments you want, but don't pretend to be something you are clearly not, don't make statements and then try to pretend you didn't make them as the link I supply above clearly shows you did and from several other comments here others also remember your comments on this as well, as would, I'm sure Trevor, if he was around.
@Jim Z: This has nothing to do with this question, but here is a very well written article by a geologist: http://www.aitse.org/global-warming-anth...
Of course, somebody like Hey Dook would find him stark raving mad and completely anti-science. That says it all by the way. We are dealing with fundamentalists.
_______________________________________...
@Linlyons: You forgot to mention that the owner of the site supports intelligent design. http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/...
Unlike you, I don't simply dismiss articles because the author or the website has a different worldview than I do.
Also "well-written" does not equal "agree with every point". Rather it means the author has stated his opinion very clearly. I'll take that any day over somebody who is duplicitous.
The major change for me was that the sensitivity to CO2 numbers had changed. The lower bound decreased and no central value was quoted. It sounds like they know less about the value for climate sensitivity than they did last time.
In "the other place" our resident climate scientist points out, in his own inimitable way, that: "Maybe the finding that – contrary to the lies of ignorant Deniers – and even though they were never indented (sic) to project short-term trends – temperatures for the period 1990 through 2012 generally fell within model projections made in all previous assessments"
Or as the Summary for Policy Makers says:
“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years”
IPCC AR5, Page SPM-9, Line 12
EDIT @Jeff M: Thanks for your input. I will mention it to the IPCC when I see them next. I am sure they will appreciate the correction.
Climate Realist - "According to the 5th IPCC report it was a greater than 95% probability that humans were causing global warming."
And 95% of all the computer climate models that support this notion have been proven wrong. ROTFL
Zippi nailed it pretty good. They widened the projected range of warming and upped their confidence level (reasonable). Perhaps the most significat omission is they did not state a consensus equilibrium climate sensitivity. They were silent on this point.
Methinks they know, they just don't want to put it in the report.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...
" ... So it's worth diving deeper into the report, where a much more cautious picture of the state of climate science comes into view. Gone are some of the false alarmist claims from the last report, such as the forecast that the Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035 or that hurricanes are becoming more intense. "Current data sets," the report admits, "indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century." Recall the false claims of climate cause and storm effect last year after Typhoon Haiyan hit the Philippines. ... "
" ... Absent, too, are claims such as the one made in 2005 that global warming would create 50 million "climate refugees" by 2010 (later pushed back to 2020). In its place, we have the refreshingly honest admission that "current alarmist predictions of massive flows of so-called 'environmental refugees' or 'environmental migrants' are not supported by past experiences of responses to droughts and extreme weather events and predictions for future migration flows are tentative at best." ... "
" ... The report is also more cautious about temperature predictions. It acknowledges that the rate of warming between 1998 and 2012 "is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951," and it predicts modest temperature increases through 2035 of between 1° and 1.5° Celsius. More importantly, it acknowledges that "the innate behavior of the climate system imposes limits on the ability to predict its evolution." ... "
Time will tell about how alarmism is way off base when it comes to "Climate Change". The progressive realization of the truth will win the day over these environmental zealots!
Additionally :
Ol' Breitbarth has done it again : http://www.100percentfedup.com/news/1140...
" ... According to OMB [Office of Management & Budget], FY 2010 marked the third consecutive year in which U.S. contributions reached record highs. In FY 2010, they exceeded $7.691 billion — more than $1.3 billion higher than FY 2009’s record of $6.347 billion. ... "
" ... China, the world’s No. 1 polluter has given a total of $161,700K to the IPCC, No. 3 polluter India, has given zero, Russia No. 4 zip, Japan No. 5, $3.9 million. ... "
Funny enough your version of "intellectual" is someone that believes evolution to be false and believes the planet is 6000 years old.
Perhaps graphicconception should learn to differentiate between a slowdown in surface warming and he results in model projections which do not give exact numbers but a range. There can be both a slowdown in warming and the warming can still fall within model results.
http://www.cara.psu.edu/climate/images/7...
graphicconception: Again you fail to comprehend what I said. the two have very little to do with one another. You can have a slowdown in warming as well as the warming continuing to fall within model results. This is because there is a range not single variables related to future warming trends. It is not that difficult to understand is it?
Finally a halfway intelligent question from VI and he has to block most intellectuals. Ha! Ha!
Thanks justme for getting through. You will be blocked by the Dorkster very soon. I bet that surprised him to get an intelligent answer rather than his regular host of magpies.
The real answer apparently is :
Lies 4.0
to
Lies 5.0
Or in other words:
Same song:
Same verse.
A little bit louder:
A little bit worse!
According to the 4th IPCC report it was a greater than 90% probability that humans were causing global warming. According to the 5th IPCC report it was a greater than 95% probability that humans were causing global warming.
And all this time I thought he blocked denialists
4 was bogus and 5 is more paranoid . Crying Wolf and sky is falling at the same time
The fifth one seems to have been stated a bit more conservatively, yet all of this is solid malarkey...aka PROPAGANDA.
Nothing is more laughable on this site than abiotic oil ignoramus JimZ pretending to be a geologist.
"and he has to block most intellectuals."
FOTFLMAO ! ! ! ! !
Edit: Ottawa Mike, from their website, "AITSE is now closed." Why might that be? I suspect that it was a result of conflicting goals.
a) Some honest science.
b) Some complaining about honest science.
c) Depending on contributions, while having conflicting goals.
Bob Carter is a well known AGW denier. He's put forward his arguments, and they have been refuted. People who agree with the science advisory institutes of every industrialized country, aren't going to support an institution that publishes the likes of Carter. The Koch brothers aren't going to support any organization that in many cases, significantly disagrees with them. Seems that you can't be half honest and expect support from either the truth tellers or the liars. Surely not in our polarized society.
