JFK: Did Oswald do all the shooting? I say yes. How bout you? chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: JFK: Did Oswald do all the shooting? I say yes. How bout you?

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 130 (view)

JFK: Did Oswald do all the shooting? I say yes. How bout you? Posted: 1/13/2009 5:38:14 PM
Unfortunately, Brave Stranger, the contention of no evidence to the contrary doesn't hold any water. Documentaries and books (I've read and watched all of them, including the two you cite) supporting the official myth do not answer the more scolarly questions posed. The timing of Oswald's supposed escape from the sixth floor to the second is doubtful, considering all that he needed to do to get there ahead of his boss, Roy Truly, and Dallas police officer Marion Baker. That he wasn't viewed by anyone on floors below as he descended is yet another anomaly that the Warren Commission failed to overcome. The Warren Commission claims, from testimony, that the men on the fifth floor below ran to another part of the floor and were blocked from viewing the open staircase as the shooter descended, yet they were pictured kneeling and peering out from the window in a picture taken only moments after the gunfire ceased---obviously, the Commission was wrong. The assumption of the single bullet striking both President Kennedy and Governor Connally is untenable in light of the angle of trajectory, as well as Connally's reaction after President Kennedy's obvious injury (if 4" of his rib was busted out as is claimed, twisting the way he did would have been excruciating, yet Connally displays none of the reaction you'd expect if this were true). The trajectory of the first shot as it traversed Kennedy was insufficient to have come from the sixth floor of the depository, as the wound to Kennedy's back (shown in autopsy photos) was several inches down from the place where Commission displays diagram it. The Commission and it's official myth is controverted by evidence found in the official record of official evidence. Conspiracy theories aside, it's obvious that the official mythology is simply another in a long list of stories that doesn't stand up well to the known facts. The Commission's conclusions fail these facts, and subsequent support of the official myth (like Beyond Conspiracy, Reclaiming History, or Case Closed) fail to explain away these facts.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 128 (view)

JFK: Did Oswald do all the shooting? I say yes. How bout you? Posted: 1/8/2009 6:11:53 AM
Re: msg. 127; I find the idea that the driver of the vehicle shot Kennedy to be no more than a wild story. Granted, I find substantial evidence that Oswald may not even have been the sixth floor TSBD shooter, but that theory is WAAAAAAYYYYY out there.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 115 (view)

being gay - genetic or social Posted: 1/4/2009 7:48:48 AM
Honestly, I can't see where anyone would choose to be gay. Choose to be alienated in most cultures, and in some you could be subject to violence, death, even legal sanctions. I see no way that this could be a "choice." I also don't see the harm that ensues because of it, nor why it should be classified a "disorder." But so what if it is a choice? What difference would that make? Being gay isn't harmful to anyone, in and of itself. What pains me is that many gays I've known seem to think they need an excuse for their persuasion, or (more often) their families need one to excuse their gay family members' "gayness." That's the real sad part.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 124 (view)

JFK: Did Oswald do all the shooting? I say yes. How bout you? Posted: 12/27/2008 12:42:11 PM
Mountain of evidence only works when the mountain definitively answers key questions. For instance, what point I was making above was that the staircase wasn't enclosed, but the floors below were also wide open. The two men pictured in the window below the "sniper's nest" would have heard the shots (and, if fact, said so) and would have heard the commotion as the shooter scrambled away from the window, hid the rifle, then made his way down the stairs. These men were photographed still kneeling at that window only moments after the shots were fired, and would have seen anyone descending the stairs as Oswald's assumed to have. That's only one problem with the Oswald as lone shooter hypothesis, there are plenty more.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 122 (view)

JFK: Did Oswald do all the shooting? I say yes. How bout you? Posted: 12/26/2008 8:33:23 AM
Hi, Steve; and season's greetings. Unfortunately for that assertion (that Oswald acted alone), there are a number of rather peculiar happenings that disagree. For instance, if Oswald is our sixth-floor shooter, and he was encountered only moments later on the second floor, then how did he get there unobserved? What Posner (an attorney, not a scientist or researcher) forgot to tell you is that the staircase Oswald's assumed to have used was not enclosed back in 1963, and anyone using them would have been observed by anyone on the floors below as he/she descended. That's just one anomoly that renders the case against Oswald as dubious, let alone that he was the "lone shooter."

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 326 (view)

Global Warming Real? [CLOSED FOR REVIEW] Posted: 12/21/2008 8:21:37 AM
In re: msg. 312. Well, let's see about these "challenges" and the way this poster has presented them. 1) Once again, where's the "misrepresentation?" Let's look for what the poster is referring to. This blow-up started in my message numbered 301, where I state that "if figures used by Woppelmann and Berge-Nguyen are accurate, sea level rise in this century should tally between 5 and 8 inches, roughly about the rate it's been rising for the last several centuries." Quoting the Woppelmann paper directly: "We show here an exercise of combining GPS and tide guage results that reduces the global average sea level rise to 1.3mm per year." Do the math, folks. 1.3 mm x 100 years is 13cm--roughly 5 inches. The challenge was met, and once again solidly refuted. There was no misrepresentation of any science, a falsehood now proven (if it wasn't before). 2) Oh, boy, "attacked the motives and sincerity of Morner." That, friends, is called a personal attack, an ad hominem. It's carried out against someone who's not here to defend themselves, rather than attack the scientific (and peer-reviewed) papers published by him. By the poster's own statements, this indicates the weakness of his arguments against Morner---which aren't even supported in the link the poster provided. 3) The poster's next challenge concerned "the last 6,000" years of sea level rise. Roughly, it's 0.5mm/yr. Of course, what the poster doesn't ask about is that between 15,000 and 6,000 years ago, sea level rose at about 10mm/yr. This blow-up was concerning what he called "natural" rate of sea level rise. The current rate (between 1 and 2mm/year) began around 1600 AD, well before humans began to pump GHG's from industry into the atmosphere. The point being made by me is that sea level rise isn't accelerating due to Anthropogenic factors, as alarmists claim. The data found in the papers I've cited bear that out. There is no "natural" static rate of sea level rise, which is the real point behind what the poster is implying (knowingly or not). 4) The poster next says he "challenged the (mis)interpretation of data analyses to mean wholesale theory refutation." From reading the post I'm responding to, I would suppose he's referencing my point concerning the fact that sea level rise isn't accelerating (in message 309). Evidently, the poster thinks that I'm saying that it refutes the whole theory of AGW. What I DID say was that it means that concerns for a catastrophic rise in sea level are unfounded. Check and read it for yourself. The poster does paste the quote from there in message 312 (to which I'm responding). 5) Steer clear of personal attacks, hey? Well, a personal attack is a personal attack, directed against another poster or any other individual, especially when that individual was only referenced by their work in a field. We're not sitting here discussing the character of Barak Obama or Stephen Harper. Morner was only referenced by his peer-reviewed work, and this poster makes an unmitigated effort to belittle Morner himself. The poster made no effort whatsoever to refute Morner's papers, just belittle the man himself. Let's further examine this point of "personal attacks," shall we? His claim in this post (#312) that when I pointed out his errors, I used the term "his mistake," then implies I'm "attacking" him by doing so. His exact claim is: "notice how almost everything is couched as 'his mistake'...tell us this isn't concentrating on personally attacking the opponent." Pointing out errors isn't the same as making a personal attack. It's pointing out the errors found in an argument. An example of a personal attack would be this poster's constant (and, incidentally, false) claims of misrepresentation of science or scientific papers. Notice item 1 of this post, where I directly refute his claim of "misrepresentation" of Woppelmann's figures. I stated in the beginning of this whole line of discussion that sea level rise in this century should be between 5 and 8 inches, citing figures found in Woppelmann's and Berge-Nguyen's papers. Yet, here comes the "B0rg," claiming that I'm misrepresenting those figures. Another example he discusses here; that of a prior episode on another thread. The poster claims the attack wasn't false. Wrong, it was. To demonstrate: the claim of the poster is that I had cited Esper et al.'s paper before, and another poster informed me that I was quoting it out of context, and I "ran away." Well, if one can read what transpired on that long ago thread, the truth would prove the lie of that claim. My opponent on that thread, upon reading the references I posted, accused me of "plagiarizing" my list from some obscure professor (who that same opponent regarded as a nutcase); and his vile behavior was more than most could care to be bothered with (as I stated, even an advocate came to my defense), and I no longer cared to bother with his ilk, as I had better things to do with my time. His obviously false statement (that I was "called" on my reference, then "ran away") becomes rather obvious, even on what little we can glean from the thread reader he provided as supposed support for his falsehood. Nobody on that long ago thread ever called my quote of the Esper paper "out of context," nor is it the reason I decided to stop posting on that thread. The only one who ever did was this poster here, calling himself a "collective." In his last post, he even goes so far as to say that I "altered" Esper's conclusion (what he actually says, if one can still read the other thread, is that I left out a portion of it---far from altering it---which constitutes (by stating I altered that text in quoting the Esper paper) another falsehood). Notice in that same post yet another example. The poster constantly uses the term "denier" in reference to his opponents. Here, he continues to defend it by distorting what I say, and says it violates "Godwin's Law." He even goes so far as to say, when my reference was only to the remote beginnings of the use of the term, that I have to point out where Elie Weisel is connected to climate change. He's not, and that wasn't the point being made--only the poster seems to think so. Fact is, and remains, that the term is a pejorative, intended to belittle and antagonize persons who show any real doubt of the notion that Anthropogenic Greenhouse Emissions are the primary cause of our current changes in climate. Yet another example is his claim that I believe climate science is "alchemy." Now, I'm the one who posts references to scientific papers found in scientific journals, and I believe a discipline of science is "alchemy?" I think the contradiction here is quite obvious. Not only have I ever said such, the notion is preposterous. Another false attack, but a personal attack nonetheless. I think most of you can see where I'm going with this. The poster complains that I continually engage in personal attacks (by pointing out his errors), then makes the ridiculous claim that he doesn't do so, and remains aloof from them. Calling one's opponents by pejorative terms like denier is one such. Making blatantly false charges of "misrepresentation" is another such. Using a false story, and calling another poster "emasculated," to belittle an opponent is one more. To falsely claim someone misquoted a paper by altering the text is yet another. To use a false charge (like saying your opponent thinks climate science is alchemy) as a strawman is yet another. Falsely asserting that your opponent broke something called "Godwin's Law" qualifies as another. Look, folks, I'm all for discussing the science of the matter and staying within that boundary. This is why I much prefer discussing this with the like of wvwaterfall, a much more civil fellow who doesn't stoop to such tactics (then claim not to!) as the poster whose message I'm responding to here. Under ordinary circumstances, I'd be inclined to wish him a happy POF birthday (as his date of joining says December 14), but it's obvious such a good personal gesture would be for naught. Everyone!

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 325 (view)

Global Warming Real? Posted: 12/21/2008 4:30:34 AM
Hi, Novascotialass; In actual fact, there never were 2500 scientists working on the IPCC reports. The IPCC consists of 600 scientists, 600 expert reviewers, and 1300 "bureaucrats." (Their word, not mine). That's according to the IPCC's own press release accompanying the release in February, 2007, of the Summary for Policymakers of the 4th Assessment Report. So, as one can see, it's actually worse than feared. The US Senate Minority report is now signed onto by 650 scientists, whereas the IPCC uses only 600. It seems clear that the tide in the scientific community is shifting, largely and unfortunately unbeknownst to the public at large.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 111 (view)

JFK: Did Oswald do all the shooting? I say yes. How bout you? Posted: 12/20/2008 9:29:39 AM
Hi, sabre; For a second there, when you mentioned the attention whore of an attorney, I thought you were referring to another one--Gerald Posner and his "Case Closed," LOL. In my case, I don't claim Oswald was innocent; rather that the case to be made is one of "reasonable doubt." I've seen all manner of theories concerning JFK's murder, and will have to check out Kurtz's book. Thank you. Best 2 U!~Nicebluiz

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 108 (view)

JFK: Did Oswald do all the shooting? I say yes. How bout you? Posted: 12/18/2008 4:25:38 AM
Hi, Omega. Actually, Oswald was known as a "rather poor shot." According to his Marine Corps buddies, they doctored his scores so he qualified. Also remember, more expert shooters failed to duplicate his "feat of marksmanship." You might also read my previous posts here concerning whether or not Oswald was the actual sixth-floor shooter. I have many grave doubts.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 105 (view)

JFK: Did Oswald do all the shooting? I say yes. How bout you? Posted: 12/13/2008 7:55:29 AM
Unfortunately for the premise of the show, Brave Stranger, it didn't tell you that an eyewitness (who testified before the Warren Commission) says that Officer Baker's ride and entry into the Depository Building wasn't more than 10 seconds. Add to this the fact that Oswald didn't just "lay down" the rifle, he actively hid it. Add to this the fact that the staircases in 1963 were wide open---meaning that had Oswald made his way down those stairs, he would have been observed by the men on the 5th floor (one of whom was Bonnie Ray Williams, whose testimony is in the Warren Commission's evidence) or Victoria Adams on the 4th floor on his way down. Nobody says they saw Oswald go down those stairs. As for the bullet hitting both President Kennedy and Governor Connally, there are several problems with this notion. It just doesn't square with the facts. Watch the Zapruder film, and listen to the testimony of Governor Connally. He says he heard what he took to be gunfire, turned around to his right, couldn't see the President, then tried to turn back around to his left; when he was turned near straight forward again is when he felt the impact. This squares well with what we see on the Zapruder film, where we see the Governor turning around, then turning back to face front and reacting to being hit (at roughly the same time as the President is hit in the head). He also maintained to the day he died that he was hit by another bullet than the one that struck the President in the back. Now, think on this for a moment. According to the reports believing in the lone gunman notion, the same bullet that struck President Kennedy in the back and exited his throat also struck Governor Connally in the back, took out 4" of one of his ribs, exited just under his right nipple, struck his wrist (severely damaging tendons controlling the thumb), then ricocheted into his thigh, where it came to a rest. Now, that wound in his chest would have caused the Governor extreme excruciating pain to turn around as he did in the film AFTER the President was hit (he's shown clutching his throat). Then the question also must be answered as to how he held on to his stetson with his wrist having supposedly been severely damaged by that same bullet (and there's no blood on the exposed shirt cuff covering that wrist). Truth is, none of those facts are consistent with the single bullet theory, and very consistent with the Governor's assertion that he was hit by a different round than the theory requires. Obviously, the notion that Oswald was the sixth floor shooter is questionable, at best, let alone the notion that he did all the shooting in Dealey Plaza that day. All these facts I'm presenting here are found in the official record of official evidence, not some conspiracy theory book. The Governor's testimony (a transcript) to the Warren Commission can be found in its appendices, as can the medical reports (including charts, and in the President's case, photos of the wounds taken during the autopsy) on the wounds to Governor Connally and President Kennedy, and the testimony of witnesses within the building and those standing outside it. The Zapruder film can be viewed on various sites online. It's impossible to reconcile these facts with the conclusion of the Warren Commission's steadfast belief in Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 102 (view)

JFK: Did Oswald do all the shooting? I say yes. How bout you? Posted: 12/10/2008 4:41:59 AM
Well, OP, I'll take a crack at why I think you're wrong on all that. Why do I question whether or not Oswald was the actual shooter? The Warren Commission tested whether or not Oswald could have beaten his boss and a police officer to the second floor breakroom, where the two saw him calmly drinking a coke. Most "Oswald did it" believers (like Bugliosi or Gerald Posner) concentrate on whether or not Oswald got to the breakroom "in under 2 minutes." That wasn't the problem. It was whether or not (during the retracing of steps) the Oswald stand-in could do what he's alleged to have done and still beat the two men tearing through the building to the sixth floor to that breakroom from that sixth floor. They managed 3 simulations, and only on the third (very unrealistic) one did the Oswald stand-in do so. By the two men's own testimony, the officer (a Dallas motorcycle officer) came tearing into the building as the gunfire ceased. The building's manager joined him on his way up to the sixth floor. As they passed the second story breakroom, the officer noticed Oswald, and questioned the building manager if he worked there or not. When told that he did, they continued up to the sixth floor. The officer swore it couldn't have been more than 2 minutes (where that figure comes from) from the time the gunfire ceased and he entered the Schoolbook Depository to the point of the confrontation in the breakroom. It was likely a lot less. Could Oswald have beaten them down there? Well, remember he had to go all the way across the sixth floor of the building to the stairs (assuming he was the actual sixth floor shooter), hide the rifle in the place he did (according to the testimony of those who found it, it wasn't "just dropped in"), then proceed down the stairs SLOWLY (in order not to be out of breath, as Oswald was observed to be "calmly drinking a coke") to beat the two men who confronted him there that day. Could he have done it? Extremely doubtful, to put it politely. First, the Warren Commission documents 3 simulations with the assumed route of Oswald and the known route of the officer and manager being used. The first two were miserable failures at getting "Oswald" to the place he needed to be before the two who confronted him. The third? It only managed it after having "Oswald" go as fast as he could (for instance only dropping the rifle into its hiding place) and slowing the two stand-ins for the officer and manager go "at a sort of trot" (i.e. slowing them down from their own testified pace). Another issue with the "lone shooter" theory is that of the bullet that supposedly struck both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. The Zapruder film definitively refutes this. Next time you see it, concentrate on Connally's wrist. According to his injury report, Connally was struck in the wrist, and advocates say it was the same bullet that struck Kennedy initially. If so, then why is there no blood on the Governor's wrist (the area he was struck is clearly visible, covered only by white shirt cuff---which obviously should have been blood-stained if he'd been struck by that same bullet), and why is he still holding his stetson, which would have been impossible if the medical report is accurate (no reason to think it's not). It's obvious Connally wasn't struck by that bullet. If not, then there were more than 3 rounds fired---and 3 was all that was found fired from that Mannlicher-Carcano rifle allegedly used by Oswald. Yet another problem with that "lone shooter" scenario is the initial wound to President Kennedy, the one to his back (not the fatal wound to his head). The problem is that the angle is incorrect. The medical photos place that wound in his back (as do the holes in Kennedy's clothing), too far down to have been a shot from the elevation alleged, if the shot came from the sixth floor of the schoolbook depository. That, too, is assuming that (as the advocates of the Warren Commission scenario do) that the wound to Kennedy's back is, in fact, an entry wound. Given these difficulties (and others), I can't help but doubt the case for Oswald as the shooter at all, let alone his being the "lone gunman" in Dealey Plaza that day. Conspiracy? Probably, but I don't think it's the "all-powerful" conspiracy that is alleged by most conspiracy theorists. For all we know, it might have been two gunmen who had an axe to grind---which would be a conspiracy, as well, but not the kind most think of.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 309 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 12/5/2008 12:52:29 PM
Yes, Novascotialass, I read that as well (in scientific american mag). But I do have scientific references for the melting of Arctic ice: Slingo & Sutton, Sea ice decline due to more than warming alone, Nature, 450, 27 (2007); and one for the soot: Koch & Hanson; Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, D04204, doi: 10.1029/2004JD005296 (2005). Another paper has even another opinion: Kerr, Scary arctic ice loss? Blame the wind; Science, 307, no. 5707, pg. 203 (2005). There are even more opinions on what causes arctic sea ice conditions in the literature, like regional sea level pressure variations related to the North Atlantic Oscillation (Maslanik et al; On the arctic climate paradox and the continuing role of atmospheric circulation in affecting sea ice conditions. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, doi: 10.1029/2006GL028269 [2007]).

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 305 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 11/29/2008 9:56:52 AM
In re: msg. 302 Ah, once more unto the breach, dear friends. Time once again to discuss the topic at hand, and point out the mistakes of the poster of that message. His bolded paragraph makes the oblique accusation (and a false one) of making personal attacks based on falsehood, aimed obviously at me. But just what are those "personal attacks" based on "falsehood?" Let's find out. 1) He first quotes part of my post (#262), and declares that "refutation" is met by "deflection or selective cognition (and very often personal attack)." In reference to realclimate.org, I'd hardly call what I wrote "deflection" or "selective cognition." It is a fact that the funding of that site comes exactly from where I said (and the poster doesn't deny it), and the site (for those who've never bothered to look) is basically used by the scientists reporting on it to either offer commentary (by way of alerting readers) to studies supporting their view, or attempting to argue concerning studies that don't---and every time the pet graph of 2 of them comes under review, the site is used to either say "we're vindicated yet again," or "no, the study's got it wrong because..." Sounds exactly like what I said in that quote, that the 2 on the site that co-authored the hockey stick (Drs. Micheal Mann and Raymond Bradley---the 3rd co-author was Malcolm Hughes) spend their time defending the hockey stick and the hypothesis it supports. 2) He then brings up "cherry-picking" data or text, saying it's "not evidence." Well, folks, quoting the pertinent segments of a scientific paper (either data or concluding text) is hardly "cherry-picking." Yes, he and I've been over this, and will (evidently) go over it again. It is also "evidence" (as he calls it) supporting my point. 3) His next claim (all in the same paragraph!) is that "barring deflection, deniers will resort to direct personal flaming." As I pointed out in the first section, pointing out the truth could hardly be termed "flaming," that is unless this same poster considers himself above such a label for his attempt to say (in a now-deleted post) that Professor Bob Carter's positions are due to his funding by "big oil." His next set of remarks comes in response to my post #258. In it, I commented on his rather odd claim of "discussing the science" and then proceeding to use 2 blatantly political sites. I then informed everyone of the editor's past remarks in the online blog of one of them, and invited him to disavow it. Let's see how he ansers this. 1) He says that "political asprirations are not considered (nor should they be). Only the logic to refute the junk science is necessary (original in bold)." The "logic" used still doesn't "refute" anything, it disputes it---which, incidentally for those who read this and don't know, is exactly what I do with this topic; and is the very definition of a skeptic, that I inform you that there is science (in the peer-reviewed literature) that disputes what this poster calls "the current understanding." There is very little about AGW that isn't in dispute. As an example of gristmill's outdated method, though, it lists "stages of denial." Stage one is one that practically nobody disputes anymore, at least anybody that's followed the science. As late as 2004, the claim of skeptics that there was no significant warming trend was scientifically defensible. Satellite and radiosonde measurements disagreed intensely with the surface record, much to the consternation of advocates. This changed when errors in the satellite and radiosonde data were corrected, bringing them closer to agreement with surface temperature trends; which explains why you don't hear such an argument seriously made anymore. A more serious mistake at gristmill's is made in trying to garner confidence in the surface record. In this segment (entitled "the temperature record is simply unreliable"), there's a link to "Urban Heat Islands," in an effort to show that this has been "investigated." Clearly, for those who know the literature, it simply is untrue. The link references paper by Peterson et al. (Journal of Climate, 16, 2941-2959, 2003), which makes that point. However, this has since been superceded by papers found in the literature (such as Ren et al., Journal of Climate, 21, 1333-1348, 2008; or Chung et al., Climatic Change, 66, 127-136, 2005; or Gonzalez et al., EOS, 86, 397-403, 2005; or Hinkel & Nelson, Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, doi: 10.1029/2006JD007837, 2007; or Bottyan et al., International Journal of Climatology, 25, 405-418, 2005 for starters) that would indicate that this is claim of "accounting for" surface temperature contamination is in serious dispute (to say the least). The segment claims that it's the trend that counts, not the actual numbers, but the literature does indicate that as urbanization and land uses change, it also affects the trends, as well. 2) The next major point brought up by the poster is that of a personal nature again, in reference to gristmill's editorial comments (that skeptics should be tried in a "climate Nuremburg"). Here, he defends it by stating his unaffiliated status with Gristmill, and invokes "Godwin's law." Basically, for those who don't have time to Google it, he's saying that I've "lost" my argument since I "invoked" a Nazi analogy. What he's referring to (read his quote above concerning "equating the term 'denier' with genocide") is this: I've pointed out to him several times that his use of the term "denier" to refer to skeptics is offensive, and why. It's a term started by a news reporter complaining about climate skeptics requesting fair coverage, who bluntly fumed that if he were to interview Elie Wiesel, should he have to interview a holocaust denier as well. Since that time, advocates and alarmists have used that term "denier" to belittle and antagonize anyone skeptical of their view of the topic. See just how far he goes? The term is meant to (on the surface) indicate someone who is "in denial" of what they think is obvious (no, B0rg, I'm referring to advocates in general when I say "they," not referencing you in the plural as you do yourself), and is meant also to belittle and antagonize the same; yet our poster, here, distorts it in yet another false attack. His next set of "answers" is in response to my post #256. In the first section, I pointed out his bad analogy (check his post #253 for that). It's bad analogy simply because it doesn't support the contention. Using that analogy, ghg's would need an initial forcing to amplify, which isn't the charge of advocates; that being that it's GHG's that are acting as a forcing on their own this time. To answer his point under this first quote of that post, historically (in those papers in the journals cited before), Co2 doesn't initially force a climate change, and in fact, doesn't even "amplify" it significantly. The charge of advocates is that 20th century climate warming occured primarily due to anthropogenic greenhouse emissions. Do, folks, note his taunting behavior below his challenge to "prove" the bad analogy. His next quote of message #256 is still on this point of gristmill's rebuttal to the fact that historical Co2 hasn't acted the way it would need to in order to prove it's role as a major climate forcing. As I've pointed out, gristmill makes the same argument that realclimate does: that being that, while true Co2 didn't initiate climate change, it did amplify it over the course of the millenia that it took to complete the rises in temperature. Yet the point doesn't take into account that the data in the cited papers doesn't support that contention: the temperatures didn't accelerate their way up when the co2 rose up, nor did they fall more slowly until Co2 levels fell back as well, which would have to be the case if the advocates' charge is proved true. His next quote of the same message (#256) contains his spurious argument that I "misrepresented" Dlugokencky's paper. Spurious? Yep. Dishonest? Well, go back to message #253 and see where he quotes my post to wvwaterfall ( #238) concerning Dlugokencky's remarks in a recent interview is where this blow-up began; yet out poster still makes the case that I "misrepresented" Dlugokencky's paper, because "that's not quite what Dlugokencky said in 2003 (and that would have been quite a feat of clairvoyance to state that about 2007 levels back in 2003)." To answer his other "point" about "misrepresentation," go back to message #233, and you'll see what point I was making that our poster is distorting. That being this: that the prediction was for methane levels to continue rising throughout the 21st century, and this is not the case. No misrepresentation here. The fact that SOME levelling off of methane levels MAY be due to some human agricultural efforts at mitigation doesn't change that fact, nor indicate any "misrepresentation" on my part. Now, you'll also note something in the next segment, where he again quotes from post #256. He says, "Khalil's studies in the recent past involve wholesale change in rice cultivation techniques in China, AND, how those techniques have a reduced CH4 footprint, don't you? We have no doubt that Khalil's papers would say that when viewed within this context." He's evidently one to charge me with "misrepresentation." Here, he makes a purely speculative comment in the most determined affirmative with no support for it whatsoever. His next several segments cover items already adressed and refuted. The whole point of this debate, folks, isn't what some here imply it is. As a skeptic, what I point out is that the entire topic isn't what advocates call it, "settled science." The science is still in serious dispute by science itself. I continue to point out that science is determining that the impacts of climate change (whatever the cause, which I think is much more due to natural causes than human greenhouse emissions) are likely to be minimal, and nowhere near the catastrophe that would necessitate the wholesale changes alarmists call for. Til next time, Best 2 U~Nicebluiz

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 309 (view)

Global Warming Real? Posted: 11/22/2008 8:59:38 AM
In re: msg. 304 Woppelmann's figures show a 1.4 mm/yr increase in relative sea level, and the poster of that statement points out in bold print that it's an order of magnitude larger than the "natural" sea level rise, whatever that's supposed to mean. I would guess (until this poster corrects me) it was what is in the next part of the bolded statement: the last 3,000 years show a rise of 0.1 to 0.2 mm per year rise. First error. The actual correct rise in relative sea level is 1 to 2 mm per year (Larsen & Clark, A search for scale in sea level studies, Journal of Coastal Research, 22(4), 788-800, 2006), and it's roughly steady, and began in the 1600's (about the point where the Little Ice Age began to decline). The next section this post's author responds to says my quoted statement (found again in msg. 301, as the previous one was) is basically a misinterpretation of scientific studies. He then goes on to explain what he means by that, which (as it turns out) isn't what is under discussion here. It's the fact that sea level rise isn't accelerating as predicted by most advocates. Nowhere do I say here that scientists exaggerate anything, in fact, the point is pretty clear from my posts that the exact opposite is true. Even the IPCC is cautious on this point of accelerating sea level rise. Next, the poster who started his post by challenging me to answer him point-by-point without personal attacks or other such "tactics" stoops to one himself. Here, he goes into one on Dr. Morner. He charges others (me included) with making personal attacks, saying it shows a lack of true ability to challenge the current "understanding;" now he makes another of his own. He talks something of Morner's belief in "dowsing," and not even noticing that his link doesn't even support that. It leads to a letter to the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences that discusses Dr. Morner's supposed representation of himself as president of INQUA'a commission on sea level change (he is, in fact, a President emeritus of that commission, and is usually noted as such in interviews). The letter presents no supporting evidence of the truth of that charge, and the only other item of consequence is the assertion of it's author that INQUA doesn't share his views of AGW. In the next section, he quotes from my post, numbered 298. Note his next paragraph, where he belittles that quote with a blatantly false analogy. Nowhere do I mention the computer models, I bluntly state that the most current research shows that sea level rise isn't accelerating (and obviously such an acceleration can't be caused by AGW if it's not happening). He next goes into a discussion of Holgate's paper, which isn't even the most recent. Berge-Nguyen et al.'s paper is, and I'll remind everyone of the first error of his I pointed out here (about sea level rise in geological terms). There are other papers, as well, that make the point that I've made that I haven't presented. True enough, sea level rise falls within the range of predictions by the IPCC, but it's in the lower ends of the range---meaning that the problems discussed by high end scenarios are just what I called them: far-fetched. His next quote comes again from post 298; and he again makes the same mistake he made before. As I pointed out first, sea level rise began at it's current rate at the end of the LIA, and it hasn't accelerated above that rate in the 20th century. If sea level rise is, indeed, an "extrapolation" of mean temp rise, what's that saying if it's not accelerating as predicted? It means that concerns of a catastrophe are uncalled for. His next quote comes from post 299, where he then launches into complaints about personal attacks and other tactics he claims to abhor. To answer one distortion here, he claims that I claim that his use of "denier" to mean "holocaust denier," ("like incredibly linking 'denier' to mean 'holocaust denier,'" to use his own words exactly). To be precise, I've pointed out why that word (as opposed to skeptic or contrarian) is offensive---that being it's meant to equate those who aren't convinced by arguments for AGW, based on rather tenuous science, with modern-day nutcases who literally deny the fact of the holocaust of the Nazi era, which has much more substantial evidence to support it as fact. It stems from a reporter years ago (2005, if memory serves) complaining skeptics were wanting interview time. To be precise, he said, "If I interview Elie Weisel, should I have to grant equal time to a holocaust denier?" Since then, the word "denier" has caught on as a belittling tactic always used by advocates to mean someone who disbelieves what (to them) should be beyond question. Note, if you will folks, how he accuses others of defending their viewpoint in much the same manner he does his. As an example of this, there's another thread on the subject open on this forum where both of us appear. It is here he makes a false personal attack, and he knows it as such. He falsely claims that (in msg. 193) I tried "using that same ploy" (quoting a paper by Esper et al.), and "failed." In the thread he referred to, I was personally character attacked by an advocate, wvwaterfall even came to my defense, if you'll look at the thread and it's posts in their entirety (impossible now, even on the threadreader). The attacking advocate claimed I "plagiarized" my references from some individual or other. This is what is was called in his msg. 193 of that thread "emasculated." Another example of this hypocrisy is seen in this message I'm responding to. Note the many times he responds to a quote from one of my posts with topics not even discussed by me in that quote. Like when he quotes from my message 298 ("As far as sea level goes..."). Note what he says first after the quote. Nowhere do I make any reference there that climate science is "alchemy." One can even note more of this type of hypocrisy earlier in that thread. On message 178, he makes personal attacks on the scientists of two of the papers I quote, instead of showing the errors found in the papers themselves. Perhaps he should tell us all why he resorts to "tactics" like these to defend his position. As has been this poster's M.O., he makes the vague, unsupported charge that "deniers" misrepresent the science and challenges those of us who have grave doubts of this notion of AGW to answer it, without even pointing what he's challenging us to answer. On topic, as I've said many times here on this forum; no catastrophe caused by greenhouse gasses is in the offing, even one from the change in climate it's alleged to be causing. On here, I've demonstrated through peer-reviewed science that sea level rise isn't accelerating, meaning that the alarm raised on sea level rise should be silenced.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 301 (view)

Global Warming Real? Posted: 11/19/2008 4:36:09 AM
If the figures used by Woppelmann and Berge-Nguyen are accurate, sea level rise in this century should tally between 5 and 8 inches, roughly about the rate that it's been rising for the last several centuries. Honestly, this is one alarm that needs to be turned off. Basically, all the alarms raised over the issue of climate change keep turning out to be false. Thermohaline slowdown, stronger and more frequent hurricanes, more frequent droughts, species extinctions, etc. All are seriously HUGE exaggerations or downright false alarms, as science is finding out. As all the alarms raised are basically nothing to worry about, this whole excercise should be an academic one, not one of primary political import.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 299 (view)

Global Warming Real? Posted: 11/17/2008 7:23:08 AM
Dave; That "overwhelming agreement" in the scientific community isn't supported by what's been showing up in the scientific journals over the past 2 or 3 years. This is where it counts. If there ever was such agreement, it's showing serious cracks as it stands now. I've been pointing this out for some time on this forum, despite numerous difficult personalities making such discussion nearly impossible. As a politico, I seriously doubt President-elect Obama will bother to objectively look at the science and see that it has far too numerous glaring flaws (just like those climate models you touted again) to act so hastily upon, such as what was done in the 1990's with the Kyoto treaty. With every passing month, more papers come out with more glaring errors on behalf of the AGW advocates, and even less reason for alarm over the subject.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 298 (view)

Global Warming Real? Posted: 11/17/2008 7:07:04 AM
As far as sea-level goes, folks, the newest research that I know of indicates that sea level rise isn't accelerating, confirming what other papers have either bluntly said or at least hinted at---AGW doesn't cause sea level rise acceleration. Recent papers (peer-reviewed) on sea level rise: (referenced) Berge-Nguyen et al., Global and Planetary Change, 62, 1-13 (2008) Morner, Global and Planetary Change, 40, 49-54 (2004) Unnikrishnan & Shankar, Global and Planetary Change, 57, 301-307 (2007) Kolker & Hameed, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L23616, doi:10.1029/2007GL031814 (2007) Woppelmann et al., Global and Planetary Change, 57, 396-406 (2007) Holgate, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L01602, doi: 10.1029/2006GL028492 (2007) I could reference many more, Nova and Dave, but the facts contained in these seem obvious enough that sea levels aren't accelerating as they should if the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming (AGW) is correct. "Studies" calling for a 1M rise in sea levels by 2100 are quite far-fetched in light of these others.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 274 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 8/30/2008 2:33:34 PM
Having checked the NASA site you referenced, coolnomad, it is lacking, as well. The first thing that jumps out at me is the reliance on circulation models. That's a giant red flag, and both AhoythereDave and I have informed you as why. There are huge discrepancies between modelled projections and observations (Wild et al., Stanhill et al., Douglass et al.) and other shortcomings and uncertainties associated with these models, yet climatologists insist on using them as science; enough to state that they're "90% certain" of what they believe based on them. This stubborn refusal to acknowledge this problem reminds me of an historical episode---the witch hunt of Massachussetts in 1693. The chief judge of the accused considered a thing called "spectral evidence" sufficient to send an accused person to the gallows, despite the well-known warnings of clergy of it's shortcomings. I also notice that some recent research is missing in the references that would cause any rational scientist to update their views. For instance, look at the second question asked how scientists are so certain that it's human greenhouse emissions that are causing current observed warming; from which NASA tells us that "since 1950" "none of the natural processes that influence Earth's climate have changed enough during that time period to explain the warning." This is simplifying some of the problem with what is being said here. As I've pointed out before, some variables are harder to figure than has been thought. For instance, while it's debatable how much solar influences have increased during the time observed, advocating scientists usually say it has no or only negligible effect on climate; despite what Scaffetta & West have published only last year, saying that solar activity could account for as much as 50% of the observed warming of the last half century. True, this may not be all the warming, but it's A LOT more than what is modelled. It also ignores the research of Goode & Palle, published last year as well, concerning modern and historical solar irradiance and Earth reflectance and their finding that Earth's large-scale reflectance to be "a much more variable climate perameter than previously thought." That, sir, is just for starters. The site also references realclimate.org. Do you now blindly accept the conclusions drawn there? I, for one, do not. What I've shown is just for starters, I'll further critique it in another post, just to demonstrate those scientific shortcomings. It may not be politically motivated, but many who maintain it might have some. References: Wild et al., From dimming to brightening: Decadal changes in solar radiation at Earth's surface. Science, 308: 347-350, (2005). Stanhill et al., A perspective on global warming, dimming and brightening. EOS, 88: 58 (2007). Douglass et al., A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, doi:10.1002/joc.1651 (2007). Scafetta & West, Phenomenological of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600. Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 112, D24S03, doi:10.1029/JD008437 (2007). Goode & Palle, Shortwave forcing of the Earth's climate: Modern variations in the Sun's irradiance and the Earth's reflectance. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 69, 1556-1558 (2007).

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 262 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 8/28/2008 4:12:13 AM
Coolnomad; I have been punching holes (ones you can drive a giant crane through) in the ridiculous "science" presented by those on realclimate.org. This isn't a neutral site presenting solid science, it's a politically motivated site funded by an organization that makes its money from alarmism. It's climatologists include 2 who authored the original (and now scientifically indefensible) "hockey stick graph," who now spend their time defending it and the hypothesis it supports. In fact, if you noticed, the discussion above concerning the lag of CO2 behind temperature directly exposes the weakness of realclimate's mealy-mouthed answer to the problem.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 258 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 8/27/2008 9:59:19 AM
Another curious note concerning message 253: for someone who claims to simply "discuss the science, not the politics," I find it odd that this same poster uses 2 blatantly political sites to "refute" the skeptics. In fact, one editor of one of them (Gristmill) advocated on the online blog that skeptics should be tried in a "climate Nuremburg" (his term, not mine). In fairness, the editor retracted that statement 3 weeks later, but the blatant advocacy of wrongdoing to skeptics was revealing. Let us hope that this poster doesn't hold this up as an ideal situation. He's invited to disavow that particular statement.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 256 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 8/27/2008 7:37:48 AM
in re: msg. 253 In the poster's first response to my post (numbered 252), a bad analogy is used. What is ignored, both by the poster and by the "scientific" responses on the advocating sites linked, are the two OTHER points that constantly go unheeded. The analogy, basically saying that we "know" CO2 is a variable that can act as both initial forcing and feedback mechanism, ignores the observation found in the data that temperature (representing climate) continues on its merry way, evidently without much effect from CO2. What this poster's sites (and the poster himself) does not adress is the fact that CO2 rise didn't cause any significant acceleration (in some cases, it slowed) in temperature rise. The other fact, more importantly, is also unadressed; being that when the warming was over, temperatures dropped for another 1,000 years (approximately) while CO2 continued on its merry way up the scale. Failure to adress these flaws (and the answer to the other point is also only speculative) represent a major failure to refute the point. In response to my post, numbered 238, I will point out that I wasn't referencing Dlugokencky's 2003 paper, I was referencing his statement made recently in an article in Dave's post (#234). He was commenting on the recent spike in atmospheric methane levels measured in 2007 after nearly 10 years of flat methane levels. During this poster's discussion of my post (#233) on atmospheric methane, I am rather struck by the failure to adress points made in Khalil et al. (cited in that post). In that paper, Khalil makes the point that methane levels have been rising at slower rates since the beginning of measurements; and the abstract even points out that certain events cause a spike of 10 ppb (parts per billion) or more every 7 or 8 years, just like the 2007 spike, then fall back. The graph in the paper shows yearly fluctuations (up and down), but a relatively flat trend since 1998. This is not in keeping with the predictions shown in the IPCC's TAR, which are also representative of the advocating position. In their conclusion, Khalil et al. tell us, "it is questionable whether human activities can cause methane concentrations to increase greatly in the future." During this discussion, the poster also quotes two of the papers I've cited, and makes the thinly veiled accusation of misrepresenting the papers. Note that both papers make the same conclusion concerning the trend that I reported. The Simpson quote included some speculation, but agreed on the point of the trend. The Dlugokencky paper agrees also on the trend, although it comes to conclude possible reasons that seem at odds with the more recent Khalil research. Obviously, I'm not making any misrepresentation at all. I'm citing more recent research concerning methane concentrations, rather than the speculation and seemingly mistaken conclusions of prior research. One notable mistake this poster also makes here is the failure to note that atmospheric methane levels are measured in parts per BILLION, not million. The 2007 spike was about 12 ppb (parts per billion), well within the norm noted in the Khalil data. That's the equivalent of about 28 HUNDREDTHS of a part per million of CO2 (276 parts per billion, to be precise). Nothing refuted here today. More to come.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 252 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 8/26/2008 7:05:27 AM
Yet another scientific problem with the notion of Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming is something I've discussed before, but many of the posts are now deleted. This being that co2 and temperature history are the opposite of what you would expect if greenhouse warming were a plausible hypothesis for the current observed warming period(see references below). What you would expect is that co2 (representing greenhouse) would rise practically simultaneously with temperature, or at least a little ahead. Instead, what we see in the scientific literature is that temperatures rise well ahead of co2. Look, I understand the point that advocating scientists make (like at Realclimate.org), that greenhouse didn't start the warming but was the force behind it's continued climb that lasted 5 or 6 thousand years. Unfortunately for advocates, this simplistic explanation has no scientific study to support it in the literature (i.e. it's pure speculation) with the exception being Siegenthaler's unsupported contention; plus it fails to adress two rather obvious points that basically sink the explanation into the realm of doubtful at best. The first of these is that when co2 does begin it's rise, the temperatures (which, remember, have already been rising for as much as 1,000 years) don't rise at a faster rate than before. Not once. In some instances found in the literature, the rise in temperature slows. Rather curious if what advocates say is true. If greenhouse is such a moving force, then why does temperature (as climate representative) continue on it's way practucally without any noticeable effect when co2 does "kick in?" Hmmm... The next point, and an even more important one, is that co2 rise continues unabated while temperatures go in the opposite direction on the other end of the cycle. Once again, it goes this way for as much as 1,000 years. Imagine this if you can, folks. We're told that the variable called co2 drives temperatures up, when in fact the temperatures go down while co2 rises for 1,000 years. The evidence is staring us in the face that there's something wrong with this picture. Basically, folks, we're applying an old-fashioned scientific test to our hypothesis of AGW. We're testing to see if such a correlation actually exists (it wouldn't prove it if it did, it would make it simply plausible) in the historical context. As far as science has been able to look, co2's effects aren't readily noticeable; meaning that the hypothesis fails the test. If co2 doesn't cause significant alteration to climate, then human emissions of GHG's can't do it, either. References: Petit et al., Climate and atmospheric history of the last 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature, 399, 429-436 (1999) Fischer et al., Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last 3 glacial terminations. Science, 283, 1712-1714 (1999) Caillon et al., Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science, 299, 1728-1731 (2003) Monnin et al., Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination. Science, 291, 112-114 (2001) Mudelsee, The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quarternary Science Reviews, 20, 583-589 (2001) Siegenthaler et al., Stable carbon cycle-climate relationship during the late Pleistocene. Science, 310, 1313-1317 (2005) Stott et al., Southern hemisphere and deep-sea warming led deglacial deglacial atmospheric CO2 rise and tropical warming. Science, 318, 435-438 (2007)

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 251 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 8/23/2008 7:02:09 AM
Actually, AhoythereDave, I would accept the term "contrarian," it sure beats "denier." When advocates of one side of a controversy can cite scientific sources as a basis of their opinions, the other side of the controversy can't really call them "deniers" in the sense it's intended (basically, the advocates of AGW intend it to indicate someone who is "in denial" of what they think is obvious). "So borg, do you have anything of substance to discuss with us contrarians or is 'polarization' still our fault for not chanting in unison? Somehow, I had the impression that science was open to disagreement and discussion while religion has a dogma requiring only belief." I'll agree with that, and invite the Borg to enlighten us "contrarians" if we're somehow mistaken.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 248 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 8/22/2008 7:00:46 PM
Uh-oh, Dave (wvwaterfall), with the return of the borg, it's the end of the civil scientific discussion. Unless a new leaf's been turned since the mass deletion of posts on this thread. In any case, I'll agree with you as to the fact that it will be interesting to see what the coming years indicate. Continuing with the scientific discussion, I'll bring up another sub-topic related to AGW. Another supposed ominous impact that global warming is supposed to bring is the rise in sea levels to the point of endangering islands and coastal cities. According to the dire predictions, sea level is supposed to be accelerating with global warming (allegedly due to human greenhouse emissions). But is it? Well, not according to the science that has come out the last few years. Most who believe in the AGW advocate position that global warming is causing an acceleration of sea level rise cite satellite altimetry readings, which basically say that sea level rise is about 3 mm per year since 1993 (in fairness, the IPCC says it's unclear whether this represents a longer term trend or a short term fluctuation). But recent research in the scientific journals indicates this is not the case. Holgate reported in his paper that sea level rise was slower in the SECOND half of the 20th century than the first. Woppelman et al. reported that sea level rise is about 1.35mm/yr, even less than that of tide guage readings from previous studies. Berge-Nguyen et al. reported similar findings from multi-source analysis; in fact, their data shows a decline in sea level in the eighties. Interestingly, the claims that sea level rise is a concern have been quite exaggerated. There has been no acceleration of sea level rise, despite alleged increasing greenhouse driven climate change. This is one fear that need not frighten anyone. References: Holgate, On the decadal rates of sea level change in the twentieth century. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, doi: 10.1029/2006FL028492 (2007) Woppelman et al., Geocentric sea level estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide guages world-wide. Global and Planetary Change, 57: 396-406 (2007) Berge-Nguyen et al., Reconstruction of past decades sea level using thermosteric sea level, tide guage, satellite altimetry, and ocean reanalysis data. Global and Planetary Change, 62, 1-13 (2008)

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 238 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 8/22/2008 7:14:18 AM
In all fairness, though, Dave, you might check that quote from Dlugokencky in that article. In it, he says it's too soon to tell whether or not this is a return to the rising trend or some temporary spike.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 233 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 8/21/2008 5:50:30 AM
Yet another problem for the advocating position is the fact that (as I've cited before on this thread) atmospheric methane levels have leveled off over the last decade or so (Dlugokencky et al., Khalil et al.). This is important because of the claim of advocates is that even if melting icesheets aren't raising sea levels (we'll get to that), it's still adding methane to the atmosphere as the ice melts, which will (allegedly) increase the greenhouse effect. The reason that this is commonly said is the fact that (as a greenhouse gas) methane has the effect of 23 times as much co2. Although we're not commonly told the fact that atmospheric methane is measured in parts per billion, whereas co2 is measured in parts per million. Atmospheric co2 is currently (from the latest figures I've seen) around 382 ppm, where atmospheric methane is about 1.7 ppm (1,751 ppb, to be more precise, from Dlugokencky). According to the IPCC's Third Assessment Report, the prediction was for atmospheric methane to continue to rise throughout the 21st century. The first doubt of this is seen in Simpson et al.'s data in 2002, although Simpson called it "premature" to report that such an opposite trend was occuring. Dlugokencky was the first paper to report the definite leveling trend, and in 2006, Simpson even admitted as much in another paper. The final nail in the coffin for the atmospheric methane alarm came in 2007, with Khalil's paper. The data found there shows no significant rise in atmospheric methane in nearly a decade. Back to why I'm pointing this out. According to alarmists, the melting of icesheets at the poles will release long-sequestered methane, which allegedly is happening and should have continued, which also should have accelerated the effect of greenhouse forcing. But, as this data has proven this basic assumption incorrect, would it not stand to reason that the entire certainty concerning greenhouse effects on climate be in error as well? It seems that, without human intervention, methane levels slowed their rise and leveled off, defying the hypothesis of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (which was also displayed in the General Circulation Models); yet the IPCC and other advocates continue to proclaim a "90%" certainty that human greenhouse emissions are a major factor in climate change? This fact alone is enough to re-examine that statement (never fear, there are a multitude of others). References: Simpson et al., Implications of the recent fluctuations in the growth of tropospheric methane. Geophysical Research Letters, 29, doi:10.1029/2001GL014521, (2002) Dlugokencky et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 30, doi:10.1029/2003GL018126, (2003) Simpson et al., Implications of biomass burning during recent fluctuations in the slow growth of global tropospheric methane. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, 10.1029/2006GL037330 (2006) Khalil et al., Atmospheric methane, trends and cycles of sources and sinks. Environmental Science and Technology, doi:10.1021/es061791t (2007)

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 107 (view)

This is for the guys. would you date a virgin? Posted: 8/16/2008 10:20:53 AM
Answering the original question (of preference), it's not something I usually bother to find out in the beginning. I'm more interested in her than whether or not she's bedded anyone. At my age, that would be looking for the near-impossible, though, LOL, as I only date women within 10 years of me (my girlfriend is only 7 months my junior). She has 3 boys, I'll let you decide if she's a virgin or not, LOL.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 106 (view)

Red flag statements or questions Posted: 8/16/2008 10:07:36 AM
If a question like that sticks out that prominently from the conversation, OP, then it should definitely be cause for apprehension. Not all women are gold-diggers (in fact, very few are), but the vast majority are looking (in the words of an ex of mine) to be swept off their feet and taken care of; meaning she was doing an audit on you (to see how affluent you are). The second "reason" for asking is being far too optimistic, in any case.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 63 (view)

why men want women to have all this.. Posted: 8/16/2008 9:57:21 AM
Ah, another one, LOL. OP, you forgot the big #1 rule when dealing with men: we are visual creatures. No mystery about it, we don't go from the inside out, but from the outside in. We see the outside first, and if we're attracted, we'll check under the hood. If we like what's there, we'll label this one a keeper. Hope that helps.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 229 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 8/13/2008 7:49:19 AM
Unfortunately, Dave, your fellow advocates (those in media) make inflated and dishonest claims, which was the point I was making. Even a supposed authority like The Weather Channel acts with such callous disregard of the truth in an effort to promote the advocating viewpoint. The major point in regards to the topic at hand, though, is that without these negative impacts upon climate that are alleged, the concern becomes merely academic. From my reading of the literature, the vast majority says that global warming isn't a major factor in hurricane formation or intensity. Most of those I've seen claiming a correlation only go back about 40 years, surely not enough data to make that determination. Of those that go back further (and still support the advocate position), the data collection doesn't use the same method of observation over the timeframe. It's not just "not enough evidence," it's a case of very weak evidence. Best 2 U!

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 226 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 8/9/2008 8:49:14 AM
Last week's 'Forecast Earth' episode on The Weather Channel should prove instructive as to how advocates in media take efforts to hide the fact that science on our subject does not favor their viewpoint. One segment covered the alleged intensification and increased frequency of hurricanes due to global warming, and the hostess (Natalie Allen) both cited and interviewed the co-author of one research paper stating the case that this is so, one Dr. Greg Holland (Webster et al., Changes in tropical cyclone number, intensity, and duration. Science, 309, 1844-1846, 2005). In it's effort to appear fair, also interviewed were meteorologists who disagreed; as well as citing a PEW Center "paper" that also disagreed. Allen's voice over bluntly stated that "Dr. Holland's research was peer-reviewed, the PEW Center's was not." Clearly, the implication was that science (found in the scientific literature) favors the view that global warming is causing intensification and increased frequency of tropical cyclones. Clearly, from a review of literature, it does not. It would have gravely damaged the case for the viewpoint being promoted by The Weather Channel if Dr. Chris Landsea had been the subject of the opposing interview (or had his research been cited by the program); which would make it obvious why he was not. Dr. Landsea has long been an outspoken critic of the notion that global warming (from whatever source, anthropogenic or natural) will cause either greater intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones, and has authored or co-authored numerous peer-reviewed papers on the topic. What about recently published research on the topic? Well, there are numerous papers over the years on the subject of whether or not tropical cyclones are affected by global warming, and the overwhelming answer is no, they're largely unaffected, probably due to too many factors other than those that warming produces. One recent study (Englehart et al.) presents graphs and charts showing a decrease in frequency and intensity of storms in recent years; and another study rejected the notion that hurricane strike frequencies are increasing in time (Parisi & Lund). I have reviewed about 3 dozen or so papers on the subject itself, and only a handful actually make the case that global warming has increased either frequency or intensity of storms; the vast majority are at odds with this notion. References: Englehart et al., Defining the frequency of near-shore tropical cyclone activity in the Eastern North Pacific from historical surface observations (1921-2005). Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L03706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032546 (2008) Parisi & Lund, Return periods of Continental US hurricanes. Journal of Climate, 18, 403-410 (2008)

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 57 (view)

OK, what about the World Court and its opinion on the Child Rapist/Murderer on Death Row Posted: 7/29/2008 8:41:56 AM
The only flaw in that argument there, Grotty, is huge. The court is alleged to be "optional," which means participation is optional. Withdrawal is also an option if it is so. Oh, btw, I've been a clown before, and you're right---it IS fun! LOL

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 46 (view)

OK, what about the World Court and its opinion on the Child Rapist/Murderer on Death Row Posted: 7/28/2008 4:57:14 AM
Ezzee; I have some difficulty with that line of argument. In the summer of 2001, some guy (I would assume the shadowy figure I confronted was a guy) picked the lock of my ground floor apartment, and entered. I heard the noise, grabbed my shotgun, took position, pointed it at the doorway--and worked the slide action. The crook did exactly as I hoped he would, tucked tail and ran. He committed illegal entry, which is a crime in Florida, and I have no idea what he would have done had I not had that weapon. I was prepared to fire it, had the warning of the sound of the slide action not been enough--believe me, I knew what the consequences were. Point is, you don't know what a crook is up to when he enters your home---just to rob you, or does he leave no witnesses to his crime? The idea is to be prepared to take a life if need be to defend yourself (that's what you're risking in shooting someone), not just to defend your posessions (which you had to work for part of your life to earn the money to obtain---in effect, the crook is literally taking part of your life, albeit however small), but to protect your own life or that of someone you care about. It's not about materialism simply, but more about self-protection.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 109 (view)

The Science of Global Warming Posted: 7/28/2008 4:39:58 AM
As for the sea ice in the arctic melting, there is some science that says the problem's not simply global warming (Kerr; and Slingo & Sutton). It seems natural factors (such as winds and something called Pacific Decadal Oscillation) have quite a bit to do with it. As for the temperatures, Dave, there is some problem there, too. Urbanization and land use (more than what the algorithmic filters have allowed for) cloud the issue. It seems the thermometers still have a warm bias in them for the last couple of decades (McKitrick & Micheals; Pielke et al.) of measured temperatures. The recent surface warming has been shown to be certainly exxagerated. References: Kerr, Science, scary sea ice loss? Blame the wind. Science, vol. 307, 5707, 203 (2005) Slingo & Sutton, Sea ice decline due to more than warming alone. Nature, 450, 27 (2007) McKitrick & Micheals, A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data. Climate Research, 26, 159-173 (2004) Pielke et al., Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment. American Meteorological Society, 88:6, 913-928 ((2007)

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 5 (view)

How would dating be affected if people no longer aged? Posted: 7/20/2008 7:52:37 PM
Now THAT is an interesting question. I suppose we humans would adapt, but as for the last question, I rather doubt that there'd be any such thing. Heck, they're rare enough as they are now, and our lifespan expectancy is roughly 70-80 years. I can only imagine what it would be if we had life expectancies of hundreds or thousands of years, especially with youthful appearances. I think society in general would adapt, though.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 16 (view)

OK, what about the World Court and its opinion on the Child Rapist/Murderer on Death Row Posted: 7/19/2008 11:07:52 PM
The ICC is the only court that could be considered as having any possible jurisdiction over the matter under discussion. The other is a court between nations and treaty law, not governing cases involving citizens breaking the law in one nation besides their own. The US and Mexico have no treaty disallowing US law to be enforced on Mexicans breaking it within the US. The law of the jurisdiction in which the crime occured is what prevails, in this case, it's Texas.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 58 (view)

The Science of Global Warming Posted: 7/19/2008 10:57:46 PM
Not exactly, Peace. It's not PROVEN a fraud, but it's certainly open to serious doubt and open question. The science behind it is largely based on computerized General Circulation Models, and they've been shown to be invalid time and again, yet climatology still refuses whatever to reconsider them. Climatology treats the models as if they were experiments against reality, when they are not. As several papers on the subject of climate sensitivity have shown, the feedback mechanisms roughly cancel each other, and we're left with a small one degree celsius rise in temperature from a doubling of co2 (from the pre-industrial 280 ppm to 560 ppm). This is far from the expected rise and resultant alleged problems that such a warming would bring, as represented in the models. Models are consistently incorrect, what do you suppose would be the reasonable conclusion concerning the hypothesis programmed into them? That it's incorrect, as well.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 12 (view)

OK, what about the World Court and its opinion on the Child Rapist/Murderer on Death Row Posted: 7/19/2008 4:13:18 PM
Actually, ezzee, the US isn't subject to the terms of the World Court. The treaty establishing it was never ratified by the US Senate, as required by the US Constitution.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 116 (view)

Global Warming's New 'Consensus' Posted: 7/19/2008 11:06:00 AM
Actually, Max, the disclaimer on the Monckton "paper" says that the Council of the APS disagrees with it's conclusions. What the article that referenced that paper says is that APS may be re-apraising that position on global warming. Much of what Monckton says is actually up to date and found in the peer-reviewed literature, not stuff long debunked.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 53 (view)

The Science of Global Warming Posted: 7/18/2008 5:13:18 AM
Dave, I'm going to add something here in response to your msg. 44, because for once we're in agreement here. Government is not the solution, as you only hope that government sets the target and adds incentives, then steps aside. Unfortunately, my fine fellow, I think you and I both know that politicians can't and won't "step aside" once they're involved. Unlike the admiral of yore, who simply sends a ship's captain to a pre-determined location then lets him get the ship there as best he knows how (trusting he knows what he's doing); politicians not only set the goal, they then tell us all how to achieve it and steer the ship (even if it's in the wrong direction). That is why it's best to leave politicians out of any of the "take action" changes you advocate. Once you've set them in the "leadership" role, they think they know better than you what should be done---and advocates have made the mistake of convincing them that the reason they're doing this is to save the planet, which will give them more impetus to label anyone who disagrees with the way to achieve a goal as some sort of heretic. Basically, Dave, politicians are uncontrollable, and should be left in charge of as little as possible. That is what the history of politics teaches.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 48 (view)

The Science of Global Warming Posted: 7/17/2008 5:36:17 AM
Peacethx, I'm going to correct you for future reference here. The IPCC consists of 600 scientists, 600 expert reviewers, and 1300 "bureaucrats." My source here is the press release of the IPCC accompanying the release of the Summary for Policymakers in February, 2007. There aren't 5,000 scientists to make their opinion known in those reports.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 14 (view)

The Science of Global Warming Posted: 7/12/2008 2:11:39 PM
I'll voice my agreement here with Count Ibli. Kindly post the science from the peer-reviewed journals that back up that statement.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 217 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 7/9/2008 6:52:18 AM
Is too hot; You've got it essentially right. The notion of the falsifiable test is one that the AGW hypothesis refuses to even consider. But you might check out youtube, for Bob Carter's "5 tests of Co2." He applies 5 tests to Co2 and whether or not it actually causes climate change, and it fails all 5. Including the test of correlation; it even failed that one. Don't worry too much about getting your head shot off. Words aren't like gunfire.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 206 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 7/7/2008 9:03:34 AM
Believe the researchers about what, NovaScotiaLass? That the science is "settled?" When that's not true, they'd best be disbelieved. Currently, there is no climate problem caused by human greenhouse emissions to be "remedied." Hurricanes aren't getting more frequent or stronger due to warming (human caused or not), sea levels aren't rising any faster because of melting glaciers or polar ice (whether caused by human emissions or not), there's no danger of the thermohaline or other circulations of the oceans stopping due to any human cause, or any other catastrophe that is commonly touted as a reason to act in ways that might prove detrimental to human society. As a US President once said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." (Franklin D. Roosevelt)

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 203 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 7/6/2008 8:47:49 AM
NovaScotiaLass; Mr. Solomon has it essentially correct. There are minor points that are incorrect, such as the "2500 scientists," which are actually 600 scientists, 600 "expert reviewers," and 1300 "bureaucrats" are what makes up the IPCC. But the fact remains, despite what some of our entrenched advocates say, that the science is far from settled on the topic.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 55 (view)

Do you think she is out of your league? Posted: 6/26/2008 3:13:11 AM
For that lady, Wonkabar, I'd say you were the one in 200 that came across as genuine. You would be shocked at how many guys use generic messages to contact a lady, instead of simple, observant initial messages. Who knows, you might have been the one who shared her interests and caught her attention, because a good number of those other 200 guys probably just liked her pic and took the chance.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 35 (view)

So she says she loves me Posted: 6/25/2008 11:42:23 AM
Hey, mat! You made her choose? Well, glad to see you finally grew your manhood back. Let her think it's all your fault if she wants; if that's what she thinks about you being broke up. You don't have to see her anymore, and thank god for it, man. What do you do? Like most of the previous posters here say, pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start again when you're ready. She's not worth your time; and don't bother with the other (new) guy. He'll see her for what she is (a cheating two-timer) in time. I don't know how old she is, but there'll come a day when she realizes that guys aren't a dime-a-dozen anymore for her, and regret all the things she'd ever done. You won't want to be around when that happens.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 196 (view)

Hmm... global warming by co2? Posted: 6/25/2008 7:37:06 AM
Abelian, my point was in response to a question that fringed on the political. ("I don't see why you're opposed to reducing emissions"). That is why. Because I'm not sufficiently convinced that there is a real threat behind those emissions. They are not pollutants in the popular sense. They don't adversely affect human health in the trace amounts found in the atmosphere. The only threat posed, according to you (the generic "you," i.e. advocates and alarmists in general), is that of climate change. I don't know what you think will happen (I haven't seen you post it) if these emissions are left unchecked, but the general position of advocates of action (meaning the reduction of emissions) is that it will cause a series of catastrophes that threaten modern civilization---and the only way to check them (according to advocates) is to use the political process to force people (individuals and businesses) to reduce their emissions. As for "overruling" the scientific process, that's downright false, and you know it. I'm insisting that empirical science be used, not theoretical science. All this is what will happen in theory (shown in the models), but what does reality say? That's the acid test, if you will, of any theory or hypothesis. Models are theoretical constructs, which means that what you're telling me is that testing a theory (or hypothesis) with another is scientific verification of that hypothesis. I think any amount of deductive reasoning will tell you otherwise. Such tools as MRI machines only assist in a true scientific objective---observing functions of a real object, like a human body---whereas climate models only demonstrate what will happen if a hypothesis is correct 100%. Unfortunately, this is known (for the hypothesis under consideration) to be inaccurate. Observation after observation fails to verify what the models indicate should occur if the hypothesis (demonstrated in the models) is accurate. In empirical science, anything that fails to hold up under real conditions must be discarded as inaccurate. Basically, if none of these "catastrophes" will occur, then this hypothesis is still an academic excercise. Climate's always changing, as geology has shown, and what causes that change is still so poorly understood that models (programmed with that same understanding) are of no practical use---yet advocates still claim them as sufficient authority to insist upon political "solutions" to the "problem" as perceived by these models.

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 52 (view)

second chances Posted: 6/24/2008 10:45:35 AM
Nope. I don't give second chances anymore. We break up, that's it. I had a shot at a second chance fairly recently, and turned her down. This was last September. Pleasant as it was being with her, I wasn't about to let that get in the way of the memory of our breakup. Some things you just don't do as a matter of principle, and giving second chances is (for me) one of them. The last second chance I ever gave ended in divorce. That answer the question?

nicebluiz

Joined: 5/23/2006

Msg: 3 (view)

Do you think she is out of your league? Posted: 6/24/2008 9:21:23 AM
Unless you're playing games (or he is), there's no such thing as being "out of your (or anybody's) league."

Show ALL Forums