Get real. He gave correct answers to the question. How does that merit a zero?

I'd have given him full marks...more if it were possible for the creative thinking involved.

If I had made up the question like that I would be the one (rightfully) humbled by his clever answers and bite the bullet of my pride. IMO the question reveals more of the test taker than the student. Obviously it wasn't framed in such a way that allowed no logical alternatives (which it ought to have been if the one making up the question was worth his salt as an educator)

So contempt is good for marks (deducted)? Did it say THAT on the test? The kid was right to find the question an insult to his intelligence. Retaliation with a contemptuous (but correct) answer only points out the flawed question.

...and it was, was it not?

In that case, the question ought not to have allowed for it. If there exist more correct answers than are given in the answer key, whose fault is that?

It depends what you mean by discipline in process. If you mean "discipline" as in marking a zero for a contemptuous but correct answer, then that isn't discipline in process, that is narrow mindedness.

It seems telling that a majority of the posts in this thread, rather than celebrate a fun STORY about creativity and inventiveness, choose to perpetuate the pedantry that the STORY chose to challenge.

I'm quite sure that the STORY teller, in designing both the QUESTION and the ANSWER, chose to phrase things ambiguously for the benefit of the STORY. Perhaps the moral is more how WE choose to view the STORY ourselves, thus being somewhat more general than the message of the STORY itself. What does this say about the first sentence of the OP?

In all of the hyperbole about the 'best' method, no-one seems to have come up with any estimates of errors in the (presumed) desired method, or alternative methods in the story, so much of what has been said is mere speculation. Once more underlining the rigidity and even unrealistic arguments that always seem so easy to fall into.

Had the STORY teller chosen a truly smart student, he would have had the student acknowledge the expected answer, defining the expected measures and computations of the solution. In the process, highlighting assumptions and inacuracies (such as the 10% error acknowledged by NOAA - http://www.crh.noaa.gov/unr/?n=mslp) and then go on to list other methods.

Then, perhaps quoting Occam's razor to weed out excessive additional equipment, inaccuracies and assumptions, come up with the most appropriate solution. My guess would be comparing shadow lengths - or trading the barometer for a rangefinder.

It is regrettable that you did not read this thread in its entirety including all of Borg's posts. I would suggest that perhaps he felt he had to break it down step by step because some posters still appeared to misunderstand his explanations hence the employment of what you deem "wordiness".

In my opinion, Borg broke it down as well as it COULD be broken down and I happen to agree with him. By this point, you either "get" it or you don't. JMHO Goodnight.

Actually, the expected solution is often NOT the most approrpiate solution, not unless the question is selected very carefully, to match situations in which it would be the best solution.

That's dependent on the skill of the examiner to design appropriate questions. If the student can find another way to solve the problem, then the examiner has failed at his responsibility.

WE don't know that. The example doesn't say if the student contested the case or not.

Even then, he's not being tested on his ability to challenge authority, not in an educational environment, not purposely anyway. If he does, and the examiner is wrong, we don't commend the student, because we're not trying to get the student to challenge authority.

We tell the examiner that he didn't do his job properly, and this is his first warning. 2 more and he gets the sack. We don't benefit from having idiots as examiners.

In exams, 70%... …95%.

However, you can contest even that, if the exam question can be answered by your method, and if you do, you can get 100%.

One thing teachers teach you about passing exams, is to always read the question very carefully. If your method does answer the question, then it's a valid answer. If the examiner expected a different method, then he should have written a better question, one that excluded any other method from achieving the right answer.

However, without appropriate figures, the student is not being asked to demonstrate his knowledge of the formula that calculates altitude from atmospheric pressure. So the student still does not demonstrate appropriate knowledge that is required in practical applications of his knowledge of atmospheric pressure.

Here is one exercise in "critical thinking"… ….Any surveyor or building contractor or architect caught using a barometer, would be fired.

"You're in an unpressurised plane. Your altimeter breaks. You have a barometer and a scientific calculator, along with some pen and paper. Explain how you would use the barometer to calculate the altitude of the plane."

That WOULD be a valid question, as you cannot just go and get some rope, or a theodolite, or anything else on a plane, not until it lands. You are forced to rely on the barometer to calculate the atmospheric pressure, and to use that information to calculate the altitude. That's a valid question.

If the examiner HAD asked that question… …serious dressing down.

You have engaged Logic.

From what I remember from taking exams, the student would normally be marked down for not giving the expected answer. However, if he chose to contest the answer, he would get most of the marks for answering the question correctly.

In all the exams that I sat, we were marked for 2 things:
1) Getting a correct answer to the question.
2) Showing your working out, that your reasoning would allow you to arrive at the correct answer.

However, without appropriate figures, the student is not being asked to demonstrate his knowledge of the formula that calculates altitude from atmospheric pressure. So the student still does not demonstrate appropriate knowledge that is required in practical applications of his knowledge of atmospheric pressure.

The student is equally not being tested appropriately on his knowledge about barometers. In a real-life situation, a scientist will have many tools to hand. Only one will be a barometer. So there is no need to even use a barometer at all.

Moreover, unless the barometer is incredibly accurate, the result will not be all that accurate. It's an inappropriate form of measurement for measuring the height of a building.

This question is really a test of the student's aptitude in being given a set of tools, and being expected to determine the height of a building, but only in the ways that his employer wants him to use. It's NOT a test of the student's ability in making scientific conclusions. It's a test of the student's ability to divine the intentions of his employer, and to follow those intentions.

It's intended to test students, if they will be able to cope with supervisors who will delegate particular responsibilities to students, but who are NOT clear about their intentions, if those students can divine their intentions, without having to actually ask for clarity.

However, in reality, there is no right way. No supervisor hands you a barometer and asks you to find out the height of a building. You will be given access to a variety of tools, and then you will be expected to follow the methods you have been taught by your supervisor. However, if you have an equally accurate way, a good supervisor does not care how you achieved the result. He just wants to know it's accurate, and done in the quickest and cheapest way.

If you have a supervisor who expects you to do things in a certain way, and isn't clear about that, then you have a bad supervisor. He will then be just as inclined to hand you a barometer, but expect you to use a laser sighting tool to take measurements, and will then find he doesn't get what he wanted anyway.

So this method of teaching is just going to encourage students to make unconfirmed assumptions about the needs of their supervisors.

That will equally encourage lazy supervisors, who are not clear about their intentions, to become even more lazy. As a result, they will become even more unclear. That will result in serious errors. Errors like these cost lives. They are to be avoided.

IMHO, this student was correct in answering in an unexpected way, as it highlights a serious flaw in the question.

That would hopefully highlight a flaw in the proper planning of the examiner who drew up the exam, and cause him to be scrutinised, to draw up more accurate exam questions in the future.

If this scrutiny does not happen, then lazy, unclear supervisors get more lazy, and more unclear, and then errors are made, and lives are lost as a result. This is something we want to avoid.

If this is true then the education system fails. The exam question should have then said something like "what is the conventional way..." then.

Furthermore how does one know what Niels Bohr would do? Did he say that himself?

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

There's more than one way to critically think.

I had a friend who stated that 'cheating' was just another way of using critical thinking. If the end goal is achievable then by whatever means achieve it.

Where the 'system' fails is in its elitism. The system looks for a certain individual that thinks a certain way. The system also tries to force certain persons to think like the person who excels within the system. Obviously at the detriment of minds not geared towards thinking in the way the system demands one to think.

The result is a pedagogy that stifles creativity largely for a constrained version of 'critical thinking'. To that I say consider Richard Feynman:

Please note 're-creating' and 'utilizing his own notation'. Isn't this similar to the young man in quietjohn's story who wished to deliver more colorful answers. For didn't the young man come up with different and applicable ways of answering the exam question?

As a former student there is more motivation to… …our creativity!

I'd agree...however, the source is up for debate.

So where is the actual refuting? At no time did I claim uniform distribution of gasses in the atmosphere but you claim I did. I simply claimed at the surface, the absorption is near 100% within a few hundred feet. How is an explanation of the science propaganda?

One very close analogy is to refer to the bands as colors in a similar fashion to visible light split through a prism. That is where an analogy of paint colors comes from. Repetitious claims referring to yet more repetitious claims of some phantom refutation still doesn’t refute anything.

How do you explain how a specific wavelength of IR can be absorbed by a substance that simply cannot absorb that wavelength?

Its like painting a red car red over and over. It's still red. More red paint does not change that.

There is very little solar heating in the polar regions to heat the ice and most of that is reflected by the ice unless there is something to make the ice darker, say volcanic dust. It should be clear I am not a drone that accepts some collective consensus but I actually think for myself and try to understand the physics. After all this time, I am still awaiting explanations.

The real green house effect is primarily clouds reflecting radiated IR. Since the earth is traveling in a vacuum, the only cooling mechanism it has is radiation. The wavelength of the IR being radiated is determined by the chemical bonds of the substances involved. For earth, that is mostly water. Convection heating of the atmosphere would require that the gasses of the atmosphere be able to radiate in long wave IR to effect any cooling. CO2 can radiate heat from the earth’s atmosphere into space as can water vapor and clouds. In short, the real heat retainer is clouds just as it is on Venus.

Labeling me a denialist is an inaccurate simplification implying I favor unrestrained squandering on fossil fuels.

My concern is how the record of environmental destruction so far in the name of reducing CO2 does not bode well for the even more destructive initiatives on the table. The poor science behind the AGW theory goes hand in hand with the poorly though out schemes to fix the problem. The immense profits to be gained by those who are nothing more than non-productive parasites allude to less that honest motives.

In general, more CO2 will promote more plant growth in a self regulating negative feedback reducing the pressure to destroy more rain forests. The CO2 will also help the rain forests survive all the other crap we subject them to as well as reduce the land needed to grow food. In reality, the fossil fuels are biofuels. Wind turbines are a threat to migratory birds and likely a threat to climate that farming depends on. Ethanol directly competes with food production and creates pressure to use energy optimal crops resulting in massive sea life destruction from the algae blooms. PV cells at first seem like a good idea until one compares the energy they produce with the energy needed to make and deploy them. All these fixes are good in moderation and have their place but the Inconvenient Truth is that the AGW movement is not about moderation but profit and power of the few over the many. Nothing epitomizes the hypocrisy more than soon to be billion air Al Gore flying around in a private jet raking in millions from AGW fear mongering.

So, it will be interesting to see whether a causative relationship does exist. Time will tell I suppose.

I would never compare this science with that of the 2012 crowd, however. It's one thing to say the science is dodgy, but to compare the hypothesis of a legitimate academic with a fear-mongoring pseudoscience is more than unfair.

In any case, I don't agree with the concept of the op; climate is such a complex system. There's no reason to think there can't be a large number of factors that enter into the equation.

It seems that we're finally getting past the idea that the science is settled and we're continuing to learn more. Not a bad thing, for sure.

Oh, and I'd say flyguy did a fine job with the whole "greenhouse" thing.

The new scientific terms:

Claiming to have "debunked" by repetition of the claim is not refutation.

Thought I would revive this thread, since another on global warming has limits to the number of posts we are allowed to make.

I've found a couple of interesting articles recently on global warming, from opposing camps;

First, I've become a fan of Nir Shaviv, who inadvertently entered the AGW sceptics' camp when he discovered the effect of solar winds on clouds and therefore on global temperatures. Here's a great article on his story:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1063707.html

The other is by a group of scientists who have found an arctic sediment core that they think shows that humans have had an effect on global temperature
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1771883/arctic_lake_sediments_show
_warming_unique_ecological_changes/index.html

Borg: maybe my internal clock is off, but here is an event to place my trip for you: If you live in Vancouver you might remember the blackout that occurred that shut down several downtown blocks for a couple days? I was lucky enough to be in a hotel about 3 buildings down from the underground fire responsible for the blackout. Anyway, that's when I was in BC and the cabbie made the comment to me about the carbon tax. Maybe it was in May or June 2008. I've made a few trips in the last couple years, so I might have been confused. So was the cabbie looking for a large tip? Perhaps....that certainly would not surprise me.

Anyway, a carbon tax to reduce consumption is one thing, but the real problems arise when companies who pollute buy carbon credits from countries where old-growth forest is cleared and crops are planted (you can buy credits from said countries to plant trees, but obviously removing the old growth is the bigger atrocity). I'm not sure how much that happens, but I have heard of it.

I was in BC about a year ago and a taxi driver was complaining about the carbon tax people were paying on gasoline. It was driving up his costs and he was losing money.

Yet we have these snippets:
Purely an obfuscation........counterfeit dénouement........repeat the same fallacies

In other forms of internet bullying:
many will resort to name-calling and ridiculing the critic.
And here we go:

From the inspiration of the poster's identity:
Resistance is Futile

Followed by trademark arrogance and denial of his own complicity:

We merely point out illogic (and the bullying that so frequently accompanies it) when we so desire (such is free will).
Note the "drone" character devoid of free will Borg identifies with.

And Borg is not openly hostile and discounting of open discussion?

The discussion of alternate mechanisms and exploring reasons for misleading observations is science!

To Borg, science is a vote.

Yet Borg says the science is resolved by vote no less.

EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF CO2 CAUSES. Borg appears to be ignoring the evidence of prehistoric climate change and a past with far higher CO2 levels than we have today. To understand the motive for such blind faith, one has to explore motives yet Borg dismisses such exploration. What more evidence of a religion is needed?

Accompanied by denial of Brog's very reason to post:


Unlike Borg, I have been open about my qualifications to form my own opinions and analysis of the topic. I do not often resort to citing some shaman of a religious-political movement as "proof" like Borg does but I actually form my own opinions and express them. In short, I am not a drone in some collective. I have argued repeatedly that people should think for themselves. Borg has done the opposite:

I have extensive experience in the measurement and analysis of time varying and cyclic real world parameters where my understanding of science is not up for a vote but must prove itself in producing results. Borg prefers a vote.

Then there is this:


yet this is the very accusation made about tobacco science! It has been pointed out that massive fortunes are to be made from carbon credit trading and fortunes are already being made from fear mongering movies such as that from Al Gore. This accompanies the motive of political power. Many scientists live in a publish or parish environment and political correctness steers grants to those who "witness their faith" and denounce the unfaithful with demeaning and inaccurate labels such as "denier."

Much of my career has been in energy conservation as well as the measurement and analysis patents I have generated. I also work throughout the IR spectrum with both IR enhanced vision systems and deep IR thermal imaging.

What qualifications does Borg have other than his identifying with a cancelled fiction TV show? Maybe it's because he read some internet published paper he like to cite. Yup, there's some facts we can count on along with the hair growth and male enhancement drugs.

I have been active in environmental causes for over 4 decades. It's not some petroleum industry I am arguing for but science.

Borg prefers blind faith in bureaucrats labeled as "scientists" as "resistance is futile". When the basis of policy is erroneous science, the environment suffers.

Note the ethanol mandates that is killing sea life and resulting in deforestation to grow fuel crops while burning oil to do it. The "profits" from such activity are driven by tax code, not free markets. The again, Borgs says "resistance is futile" so one should not question the wisdom of government.

Dear B0rg,
Thanks for your lengthy and well-thought out reply to my points.

I agree that your opinion to oppose my opinion is valid.

This allowance for differences of opinion is what I think makes the evidence inconclusive regarding man's involvement in the process of global warming.

If we were discussing "gravity", we would not be arguing whether humanity's influence on gravity as a physical phenomenon is significant or not.

We would also not argue whether issues in political science are influenced by humans or not.

The very fact that opposite opinions on global warming are each valid is why I maintain the liberty to not believe that humans contribute to it.

If it were proven either way, there would be no debate. And since the debate is happening, it will still not solve the puzzle. Only scientific findings in the physical world and their proper interpreation can solve that puzzle.

For whatever reason, we are not at that stage yet.

IP addresses do not ensure one email recipient -- one vote. That is so because after answering the set of questions, the scientist can walk over to the next machine in the next room in the facitily he works in, and vote again. Then repeat the process until he gets tired or runs out of computers.

The respondends were also a self-selected group within a selected group. If one assumes that every recipient was honest and voted only once, still, less than one-third of those contacted answered the questionnaire.

One-third participation does not make a valid statement about an issue.

"some are arguing here. that they are knowingly falsifying data" I donno, maybe someone claimed that. Everything is up to interpretation right now, that's why there is no consensus. No data needs to be falsified if the amount of it is so little that no consesus can be forced on the community by way of an overwhelming proof. Hence the interpretative nature of the interpretations and I simply choose to go with one instead of the other. If it was not left for interpretation, because proof existed, then the debate would not be going on.

I believe people choose one or another interpretations according to their temperament.

I am a contrarian, I tend to be very un-sheepish (unless around women). I think for myself, I come up with my own theories, false or true, no matter. I invent things. I am convinced that most scientists who side with the non-human effect on climate change are sorta dehumanized robots who look at things of science with no emotions, unless it's about the science of emotions. You know, Asperger's sufferers. Those who like to blame humans for the warming, they're like clever autodafe-directors. They like to keep the population feeling guilty, because they live in guilt and they can't imagine how somebody can live a happy and fulfilling life without the yoke of guilt.

"statistically speaking...one third participation could indeed make a valid statement if it could be shown to be representative of the entire population" This is true, but there is the conditional, there is the condition which at this point is not at all assured. It is a point that some people would like to prove or have others see that way. There is no way from our point to prove it, as "a representative sample" could only be interpreted if we had a view of the entire population, which then would render the significance of the representative sample moot. The problem is that 1. the gropup is self-selected and 2. the mechanics of the poll allow inaccuracies and prejudicial results. So this point about how it "could" be valid is null and void.

And if it were truly random, and the necessary integrity would be there, it would still be nothing more than opinion. Not enough evidence to support either side. This is like deciding by voting whether latmus turns blue in acid or in base liquids. A few experiments, and it's proven that it's not the other way around. We still need those few experiments / observations in the climate change scrutiny.

"but I don't find all of their findings suspect" So don't I. I just realize that their findings are not pointing at any specific and hard-and-fast interpretation. The findings they have are accurate, I believe, but their interpretation of it is not reliable, as either we don't have enough findings or we don't know how to handle them if we do have enough findings.

"hard to demonstrate how they benefit monetarily by being fraudulent" It's a common American misconception that money is the end all and the be all. In most cases in life, yes. But there is also the steadfast fidelity to a philosophy. A commitment to a belief. The belief in this case is not the fact of science, but that humans must feel guilt, so some scientists may be swayed and are without being fraudulent.

"apparently, you are completely distrustful of their findings." Not at all. You must get beyond appearances. Of course, by findings I mean data (as in "I found a piece of new evidence") whereas you may mean interpretation ("I find you guilty of the charges.")

(From another post:)
Can you name another field, other than science, where it is self correcting?
The only non-evidence based fields are philosophy and religion. We can cosider all fields as scientific if they are evidence based.

No, I cannot name another field which is self-correcting as science. The other two are philosophy and religion, and neither is self-correcting.

You win.

Call me Moreau, but I'd love to do some tinkering with a variety of bird genes and the occasional dose of croc, to recreate some dinos :> So a few peons get eaten along the way Then maybe combine some of those results with a good sized fruit bat and maybe a vampire bat...dragons anyone?? Fortunately for the world, I have only slightly more money than ethics.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Uh-oh, Dave (wvwaterfall), with the return of the borg, it's the end of the civil scientific discussion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

The supposed bee aeronautical physics came from weight and wing area. The velocity of wing movement provides lift but its still not enough area to lift the weight by the wings traveling through the air. The reality is that the insect wings are working together to pull a pumped vacuum, not the velocity driven vacuum of an airfoil. Its an interesting discussion about closed minds more than actual physics. My point was specifically about the case of the bee forcing science to be open minded where the debate over CO2 and coincidental observed warming does not have a "flying bee" to force minds open.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060111082100.htm

…It has been said that a bee cannot "fly" according to aeronautical theory. It flies because it uses techniques not known until recently. When considering "green house gas" theory, we don't have the benefit of the bee flying in front of us to force a reconsideration of the theory…

I don't doubt global warming and even that man contributes some but where I have issue is CO2 as the cause. For the most part, CO2 is completely transparent to IR radiated from the surface except for a few select and narrow wavelengths based on its chemical bonds. These wavelengths are completely absorbed yet re-radiated in a few tens of feet of the atmosphere. This means the entire effect of CO2 is well past saturation and adding more CO2 makes almost no difference. It's like coats of paint of the same color.

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/9117203datingPostpage10.aspx
August 16, (Hmm… global warming by co2, Msg 232), “…More CO2 is more like coats of the same color of paint…”
August 21, (Hmm… global warming by co2, Msg 235), “…Added CO2 is more like coats of paint of the same color…”
August 29, (Hmm… global warming by co2, Msg 266), “…More CO2 is like more coats of paint of the same color…”
September 2, (Hmm… global warming by co2, Msg 289), “…As I said, its more like coats of paint of the same color…”

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/10593991datingPostpage8.aspx
September 22, (Global Warming Real? Msg 176), “…The CO2 level is well saturated. It like more coats of paint…”
September 29, (Global Warming Real? Msg 211), “…More CO2 is like thicker paint, not thicker blankets…”
October 6, (Global Warming Real? Msg 228), “…It's like coats of paint of the same color….”

On the other hand, high atmosphere CO2 sharing heat from the atmosphere and will radiate IR as a result of its IR fingerprint. It is capable of actually cooling the upper atmosphere by radiating into space where nitrogen and oxygen can't. Water does the same thing only it has hydrogen bonds and phase changes in the atmosphere causing it to precipitate into clouds that both radiate their heat and reflect IR back to the surface. The complex nature of the hydrogen bonds cause it to have a far more complex spectrum of IR absorption/radiation.

The resident treckie seems to have trouble comprehending this concept.

CO2 is an essential ingredient for life on this planet as we know it. In the history of the life, much of the CO2 has been permanently sequestered by that life. Ancient life didn't incinerate, it thrived on accelerated plant growth and the accompanying production of stored chemical energy from sunlight. It was from the life abundant, CO2 rich past that get the fossil fuels.

I'm not sure if variations in in solar heat output are as important to earth's atmospheric mean temperature as are its particulate emissions. Cloud formation requires particulate "seeding". Lower atmospheric clouds more likely come from earth sourced particulates while higher clouds from extraterrestrial, sun and otherwise. When these clouds form in relationship for the earths rotation determine if the atmosphere reflects high energy light from the sun thus cooling earth or forming at night and reflecting IR back to the surface and retaining heat. Slight variations in phase have a huge effect on the mean temperature.

One can rant endlessly about observed coincidences but they are still coincidences, not proof of some direct forcing mechanism. When the same coincidences can be explained by other mechanisms, it should be obvious that continuing the closed minded chanting has a negative impact on the progress of knowledge and real progress.

The bee flies on.

I whole-heartedly agree with this and was wondering why anyone would question someone who stated that they are part of the two in their professional life.

Then I started to think whether warmer air, in itself, could really heat up oceans...Considering the depth of the oceans and the variability in air temperature, I'd have to say, probably not.

Everyone is quick to dismiss the solar scientists, but from a very simplistic point of view, it makes sense that an outside heat source is what's responsible for heating the oceans and not CO2 increases (which I agree would heat up our atmosphere according to traditional science)....And since oceans make up the majority of our planet in surface area (and problem volume, too), it would make sense that they would have a very large impact on weather systems.

I'm just thinking out loud and haven't Googled anything on this this morning. When I do, if I find anything, I'll let you know.

Attention span problem Borg?

In the narrow lines of absorption of IR, CO2 in the atmosphere is way past saturation. As I said, its more like coats of paint of the same color. Everything the CO2 will absorb has been done in the first few tens of feet of the atmosphere. Increasing the concentration a factor of ten, say like it was in the ancient past when life thrived on this planet without incinerating, would not make a significant difference.

As for the random direction of radiated heat in the form of photons, those same photons will be absorbed in other CO2 molecules and be radiated again. The net result is that the radiation of heat favors toward the coldest and away from the warmest much like walking by a window in winter.

Only a very small spot in space is occupied by the sun. The rest of space is extremely cold. The warm CO2 is a gas and increases convection by the small amount of heat it absorbs from is IR fingerprint.

Water vapor has a much broader range of IR absorption. When the water forms clouds of water droplets and ice crystals, it reflects an even greater spectrum of IR. CO2 does not precipitate and reaches altitudes above the clouds where it radiates heat. Note how overnight temperatures drop less during times of cloud cover than during clear skies.

As for plate tectonics, there is direct evidence in a great many sciences to back up that theory.

When I discussed the ocean currents melting sea ice where the sea ice melt provides the heat sink to power the currents into the polar regions, I specifically mention geology as part of this physical engine and possible controllers of the flow. The channels for polar currents must be open or the freeze will restart. Once the ice "fuel" is depleted, the flow will slow or stop as well restarting a freeze cycle. The melt cycle reinforces itself leading to a geometric increase in melt rate. This is part of the so called proof of AGW.

So did his theory prove out? Nope. It is not the gas in a green house. It is the glass. How many of your 17,000 bureaucrats and scientists know this? Why use a label that is wrong but supports a specific theory unless it purpose is to deceive?

No matter how many ways you look at a coincidence, it's still a coincidence. When such things as sea ice melt is used as an example yet has another explanation, that is a coincidence. Assuming the increasing polar temperatures would begin to thaw tundra and allow its decay and thus CO2 release, is more than just a coincidence, it's an explanation for the elevated CO2 during warming periods.

you going to address my comments about the models and sampling theory?

As for ending your posts with a quote from canceled TV show and your silence on any qualifications to argue physics or climate, it seems clear you are more grounded in fiction than reality.

The phrase "colluding and raising the price of oil." is pretty clear in addressing your emotions about oil companies. What about the millions Gore makes from AGW speeches and his movie while flying around in a private jet? Even that pales in comparison to the concept of carbon credit trading in which he is personally heavily invested. The oil companies, those not nationalized, are largely owned by pension funds etc. Their profit margin is smaller than most businesses. What is your investment in carbon credit trading? What is your stake in this debate?

For those who don't understand what carbon credit trading is, it is an artificial commodity that only exists on paper. Companies that release carbon, say your local power company or employer, will need to buy carbon credits from companies that don't. The customers pay the price so expect higher energy prices. In between, there are people like Gore who will make a profit from this trade. Do you think his profit margin will be more than the oil companies? He will be able to buy a whole fleet of jets. Its kind of like some TV preachers and their private jets who have thousands of devout followers. It's a religion.

Conserving energy has its own merits to justify the effort. We don't need the corruption of government power forced on us.

But you neglected to answer any of the other questions (actually ALL of the questions) opting instead to attack my arbitrary statement.

Again, I would ask Borg to try to refute a single aspect of the physics I have described that refute the concept of CO2 acting to warm the atmosphere. I have repeatedly described the physics in ways some have described as "high school" level yet with worlds like "insincere", at best Borg only insults.

I have stated that coincidence is not cause and effect while a direct explanation of the physics is. The physics principals I have described indicate CO2 would have a slight cooling effect. Not a single aspect of this explanation has even been argued much less refuted. If any of those chanting the AGW dogma understand enough physics, please step forward. At best, the chanters cite papers that do nothing more than observe changes and assume coincidence is cause and effect. The authors of these papers usually have a financial stake in promoting the theory and getting published. One could just as easily argue the hot air from the AGW chanting has also coincidentally increased at the same time therefor it is responsible.

Even the term "green house gas" is deceptive and I would argue its use is meant to deceive. The term arose when the understanding of the physics indicated the gas in green house was responsible for its higher than ambient yet more modern analysis proves this is false. So why keep a false label?

The observed climate changes have occured many times in the past before human influence and can be expected again. Why now assume such changes are a result of evil oil companies? Because there is profit and political power to be gained. Simply look at the leaders of the AGW movement. Look at the income for the "scientists" promoting the theory.

Borg's identity and qualification are not revealed and he has stated only a credentialed climatologist is qualified to discuss the climate changes. I don't agree yet borg himself has made no claims to be qualified under his own rules.

A climatologist is outside his field when he discusses the physics of CO2 and infrered light. A climatologist is a glorified weatherman and the models used for their AGW arguments are modified weather prediction programs. These programs are self-modifying statistical analysis programs that use past errors to refine their prediction accuracy through long term error feedback. There is no long term error feedback when discussing global changes whose cycles are well beyond recorded human history or even the fossil record of human existance.

Certainly not deployment of accurate instrumentation. In my instrumentation development, I specialize in time and frequency domain analysis algorithms. In that work, there are specific aspects of sampling theory such as the Nyquist criteria define the uncertainties of sampled data analysis.

What is being claimed as the proof of AGW is pure fiction. It is nothing more than speculation based on coincidence and anecdotal observations even if elaborate and well funded. To make claims the AGW is a real factor, one must demonstrate the direct physical principals to show cause and effect.

I have shown such an analysis does the opposite. Where is the counter argument?

Ok I don't even like tall guys but you make me want to debate you. Silent Man goes on and on needlessly to justify all this ''reasoning'', when all it comes down to is preferences. Everyone has them.

My preference is for someone near my height. Other women want tall guys. I dated a guy who was 5 ft 4 once with a huge block on his shoulder, but even he had a preference for ''tall'' women. He'd never dated anyone shorter than him. He also had a preference for '''white'' women. He was Latino.

So many guys tell me ''I prefere white women'' or ''I've always wanted a blonde''. "I'm a breats man." "I like Asian women, sorry."....."You're too big for me, I prefer a woman in shape.
I don't get all bent out of shape about it. It is what it is.

Hmm...men with preferences too? Imagine that.

We do get it now actually - in the past who could pay a mortgage and make a good father was more the direction the criteria went in for women. Now many take care of their own children and mortgages, so all women are doing now is choosing who they actually want rather than who can take care of them best. We didn't get it when men did it, but we learned that once we got to where men were where we didn't need them to survive, we could also be free to choose what we want, or not choose at all. Luckily, what women want varies greatly with each woman.

Men also taught us to shop around, and not to throw all our eggs in one basket - and it's not spite, it's being where men are and getting why they did what they did and really agreeing with the strategy. Yay men!

Yep, I am a woman who could care less what someone's requirement is - if he's into me, fine. If not, fine. I don't question that stuff; it is what it is. I look at it this way; if a man could date me but won't because of something like this - then that makes him a man I probably wouldn't be able to date for long anyway. *shrug* They become not my type in that sense, so what's the point of it being offensive to me? It's really not - a guy wants a woman shorter than me - may the force be with him, he should be able to go find it.

Not in my case, he's not - I know men who are turned on by thin blonds with large breasts; more power to em if that's what floats their boat. I sort of wouldn't be able to date those men anyway to be honest; but that's for another thread.

I'm willing to bet that the women who want to be "loved" for who they are and the ones who are clear about what they are attracted to are in different groups. I like what I like, and if I liked a guy who felt he couldn't date me because of the color of my eyes or skin or my chest size - I'd actually be ok with it - people like what they like.

Nowthen, can we discuss tall men now? There are already 80 threads on short men - we don't need to discuss it here.

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.

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.

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).

"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.

The real problem I have with the GW factions is POLARIZATION so most people only think along certain lines. As a scientist (though far removed from climatology), I recognize that it takes an awful long time to come up with a proper scientific understanding of anything, with many detours and false starts along the way. I've seen many scientific bandwagons come and go and GW seems to have spawned something which looks like, smells like and feels like one of the biggest I've encountered. Big enough to engage most of the world and most of the governments of the world. Is this bandwagon headed down the right road, or did we miss a key turn because of the blinkers we are wearing? Science never works well when everyone has the same opinion. Especially when that includes PUBLIC opinion. Galileo comes to mind.

The scary thing about all of this is that the CO2 fuss may be distracting us from the REAL issues involved. Global temperature fluctuations aren't new. Climatologists accept they happen. Environmental changes aren't new. The standard response for ANY organism is to adapt. Maybe that thought should at least be a backup plan. Failing that, provide a map of the world's beaches to help people keep their heads buried in the sand.

The one thing that REALLY puzzles me about the CO2 hype is where all of that fossil fuel carbon came from in the first place. Wouldn't have been the atmosphere would it? That really knocks down the credibility of all those "we're killing the planet" types.

The highest probability for global warming is a result of many, probably interacting systems where fixing just one isn't going to solve much at all. We need people to be looking at the BIG picture, not just focussing on an isolated corner.

What about oceanic pollution? Altering the balance of life in our oceans, but perhaps more significantly altering the depth to which sunlight penetrates and heats? How does agriculture, deforestation, urban development alter the 'color' of our planet and modify energy transfer?

What about water? Carbon fuels add as much water as CO2. Has that added as much water as the hypothesized global warming?

]By all means investigate CO2, take economic advantage of it, but for goodness' sake, don't diminish other efforts as a result of this misguided self-satisfaction. The 'crisis' for humanity doesn't seem to be taken taken seriously in money terms. It's hard to get concrete figures, but the US govt. still spends ~twice as much on medical research as it does on all other research combined. Presumably they think illness is a bigger impact on humans than global warming.

I see the paranoia of the TV character wannabes shines through. An anonymous AGW troll listing a personal attack web site as "unbiased" as exxonsecrets in an attack on some non-anonymous PHD?

How is it possible to make a personal attack on a non-person?

What the "collective" is so vigorously attacking is open minded doubt all the while screaming "lies" yet not offering anything to refute the so called lies. Where are the refuting facts?

Those who claim the jury is still out only wish for more science, not dogma and condemnation of their logical concerns. Where is the "censorship" except for the rants of "lies" themselves? The quest for more data to make conclusions is about is as far from censorship as one can get yet any observations not following the "collective" talking points are labeled lies. Except for such illogical things as spiked heels, the TV borg were far more logical and certainly more self controlled.

I would like to see how my theories and explanations are half truths without a speck of facts to prove it. Some more reasonable people following your religious chanting will at least parrot the biased conclusions of the AGW movement. You simply resort to citing personal attack web sites and padantic but empty rants.

Would you prefer censorship?

If the definition fits, then the definition stands. TROLL although mindless drone would be fine if preferred.

The previous threads did not prove anything about the quantitative analysis of the ocean currents. Speaking as an expert on measurement technologies with a real identity as opposed to some borrowed identity from a canceled TV show, we are not there. At best, there is nothing more than publish or parish academic opinions for grant money.

Speaking of reviewing old threads, applying the ironic term "evil oil" and religious beliefs is quite appropriate for the TV show villain collective. 7 of 9 was hot but the spiked heals? Pretty much jumping the shark. What characterized the assimilated creatures was an inability to think for themselves so I suppose it could be an appropriate moniker.

Back on the topic of CO2; one cannot separate atmospheric CO2 from its sources. As an example, the collective should revisit the ethanol scheme its ilk forced on us. Its easy to research but as I prefer people to think for themselves therefor, I let them find their own sources. One can find a vast array of pro and con sources on the internet on just about any topic.

I see no reason to quote a few biased to my argument when my focus is to get people to think for themselves.

Very different from the TV science fiction portrayal of the drone Borg.

To continue; the massive die-off resulting in large part from the ethanol effort has resulted in massive releases of CO2 in the oceans and is killing the coral reefs just like its killing other sea life in the dead zones and beyond.

The borg-like drone disciples of CO2 global warming religion interpret the CO2 as coming from fossil fuel burning as they are blind to their own political activism being a cause. If one is able to see the big picture, when discussing man made issues, the root cause is political. After all, the intent of the GW crowd is political controls on the activities of society.

I'm gonna poke my head in here hoping it doesn't get shot off like it does on most AGW threads. I'm a scientist. BS Chemistry. I don't believe it's science yet. I believe it's a burgeoning science but not yet ready for prime time.

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.

The term troll is the appropriate here. It is characterized by anonymous posters with little to no substance, only dismissal of opposing views.

Their posts wreak of theater and when discussing science, they tend to confuse science and science fiction as the general public has little ability to discern the difference. As an example, the claims of debunking are patently false.

The effect of ocean currents distributing heat around the planet are well known and have been known for centuries. They account for much of the current population distribution. The mechanisms fueling the currents are well known. The quantitative analysis of the currents is sketchy at best as space observations only cover surface temperatures, not temperatures and salinity distributed and in motion throughout the oceans. A sprinkling of monitors at best can only see a few points in an environment with at least a half dozen significant dimensions.

If the trolls had any substance, they would stand behind them with their reputation on the line but that is not the nature of trolls. Instead of actually expanding an open mind, they tend to obsess with science fiction or mythology.

I used to keep bees (Borg) on the ranch. I harvested the product of their hard work. A few moths moved in and killed all the hives all the way down to the last bee. Hive resistance was futile.

On a related topic, the "evil oil" religious fanatics… … a crime against humanity.

Yes, the politics of this religion and the trolls who so elequently support it do a real bang up job don't they? If these trolls are blindly followed, just think of the damage they will do to planet Earth. Resistance is not futile, its necessary.

Mr. Solomon is an active environmentalist. That's what drew my attention to this particular release. I bet it will cause a very large commotion in the political and science circles.

My own personal theory is that climate change is complex, that we as a species are contributing to the problem through increased emissions in CO2, but that the weak solar cycle might very well hide the effects of our actions until 2030 or so, when we will enter into the next strong solar cycle.

My fear is that the politicians, large enterprises, and the public will not believe the researchers any more, because there won't be evidence of climate warming, and so any strides we've taken to remedy the problem will be reversed. Then we'll be in a position where we have astronomical amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and we'll head into a warming period.

In any case, this book might cause people to reconsider the whole issue. It remains to be seen whether that's good or bad...I simply like to know the truth and make decisions based on that...ones that are good for the environment of course

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.

Fact is, if it weren't for the notion that this whole global warming thing will be "catastrophic," this whole argument would be an academic excercise. That should explain why I ignored Borg's charge of "strawman" when I spoke of the alarmist position.

As for temperatures rising, I would make another point that doesn't fit with the anthropogenic greenhouse hypothesis. According to the best data, there's been no significant temperature trend in the last 10 years, coupled with a 4% rise in CO2 during that time. This really shouldn't be happening if the hypothesis of anthropogenic greenhouse warming is, indeed, fact. But it does square well with what's said by another paper Borg blew off as "junk," that being Zhen-Shan & Xian. They've been blown off by him and his linked detractors due to the fact that they think that, with lessening solar activity we should be starting a cooling (which isn't exactly far off base with recent temperature trends). Looks like the peer-reviewed Zhen-Shan & Xian could easily be right.

Abelian; you might want to look at whether or not those models being used are accurate---if they're not, then you might want to re-examine the accuracy of the "conclusions" drawn from them. If the models can't accurately reflect what's observed, then it's obvious that the flaws are too great to say anything conclusively.

Remember, models are theoretical constructs, not reality---which is the real test in science for accuracy. How well does the hypothesis (which is represented in the models) stand up to observations in the real world? Not well at all. What I'll reference for you here are some of the papers found in the peer-reviewed literature showing great, massive flaws revealed from observations of real-world conditions.

Boy, Borg, did you GOOF!! Let's have a look at a few of these, which (by the way) are but 7 of about 400 or so papers I could reference that dispute one aspect or other of the supposed "consensus" (yep, the one that doesn't exist). The question I was answering (check earlier in the thread) was whether or not there existed peer-reviewed papers disputing the hypothesis; and there are. Needless to say, your verdicts are worth about as much as tips on wort.

To give some idea of the worth of the verdicts, let's see about the one paper he calls "legitimate." He says it doesn't "deny" anything. Well, it tests one of the great hypotheses of the advocating science, that of presumed feedback effects. The reason we hear about a rise in temps as great as all that from Al Gore and the IPCC is due to those very feedbacks. What Schwartz, using empirical science, found out is that the net effect of the feedbacks is roughly nil. That's right, they basically cancel each other. What he found was that (given everything else being equal), a doubling of CO2 (from 280 ppmv to 560 ppmv) would produce about a 1 degree celsius warming---a far cry from the 2.5 to 4.5 projected by the models and the IPCC. It means that this (global warming from greenhouse) won't be a problem.

First, if you'd like, I can pull out the arsenal. You continually act as if realclimate is some scientific, politically-neutral, objective site and reference it continually in your "debunkings." Sorry, just not so. The site is run by a number of climatologists who (as it happens) are defenders of the true faith. Anything that disagrees with Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming must be destroyed.

Here comes part one of the arsenal (I suspect you'll attempt to shoot them down, so I've got more references in store for you, buddy-boy). One of those climatologists running realclimate is one Dr. Micheal Mann, a disagreeable personality if ever there was one. Most of us will recall his primary claim to fame came in 1999, when he and two others authored the infamous "hockey stick graph." There is an importance to this graph, and it's perfectly stated by one of Mann et al's scientific adversaries, Jan Esper.

In one of his many papers that disagree with Mann et al (and subsequent papers cited as supporting it), Esper stated: "So what would it mean if the reconstructions indicate a larger (Esper et al, 2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; Moberg et al, 2005) or smaller (Jones et al, 1998; Mann et al, 1999) temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role on natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact on anthropogenic emissions and affecting future predicted scenarios."~Esper et al, Climate: past ranges and future changes (Quarternary Science Reviews, 24, 2164-2166, 2005).

honestly think I am. Understand, I'm a skeptic. I don't think it's been disproven (the anthropogenic greenhouse warming hypothesis), but with all the evidence against it, I seriously doubt what we're being told is true. Another key problem with the greenhouse/climate connection is that (according to all the ice core data) temperature change (climate change) comes BEFORE CO2 rise (main variable greenhouse gas). The laws of cause and effect say that this is impossible, the cause of an event must come before it; therefore if temperature rise occurs before rise in CO2 (and it has, historically), then it follows that temperature change can't be caused by CO2 change---if anything, the reverse would be true.

TRANSLATION: If I agree with the website bloggers , than it is factual. If I disagree with the website bloggers, it is just all hogwash.

Its my duty to repeat my charge against your repeat of claims from sites only YOU deem holy. Blogs are blogs, & agendist sites are agendist sites, no matter who they side with.

I still fondly remember your undying blind love affair with thedailygreen.com.

I rest my case.

The audience at large is eerily silent.

...and youre doing a bang up job of it!!
Here we go again.

Sorry, but these agendist Astro-turf blog sites you try to pass off as a legit debunking wellspring:

~www.worldclimatereport.com
~www.realclimate.org
~http://rabett.blogspot.com

...are , to say the least, self serving, slanted & 2 faced. Good try though. I expected nothing less, actually.

Next time, try not using junk sites as ammunition for branding opposing viewpoints as "junk science". Some of us dont fall for it as easily as you would expect.

Despite what we all hear in the media (TV, newspapers, etc.), the science is far from settled on the topic at hand. One early poster asked if there were any peer-reviewed papers stating that greenhouse is either greatly exaggerated or a non-factor. I can reference several. Here are some:

Before some of you ask why I referenced some papers that are clearly out-dated, it's because the claim of advocates and alarmists that there's no published work disputes their claim: that climate change is caused by human greenhouse emissions which, if left unchecked, will cause a human global catastrophe.

Al Gore mentioned it in his movie, and it's often repeated or implied in many media, and they usually cite the work of Naomi Oreskes, published in Nature (if memory serves) in 2004. She allegedly covered the peer-reviewed literature from 1993-2004, and found no papers that disputed that claim. That, from those few that I've cited above, shows that to be completely false.

Additionally, I can cite numerous papers with alternative explanations (all scientific, found in the peer-reviewed literature) for the warming, including dozens that cite solar influences. Yes, that thing that advocates poo-poo as the basic cause of climate change is still alive and well as such in the peer-reviewed literature. I can cite several that show that the historical actions of co2 and temperature are the reverse of what must be if co2 rise causes temperature to rise---it would violate the laws of physics if co2 followed temp rise and still caused it, which is what advocates are saying. I can cite over 100 papers that show that (within the last millenium) temperatures and co2 levels don't correlate (basically, they are temp reconstructions that show that the Earth didn't have stable climate during an age of stable greenhouse gasses).

For those of you who claim that it's a settled notion, you'd best think again. Science isn't done by consensus, and there isn't one on the subject at hand.

With the large number of papers published in the peer-reviewed literature skeptical of the role of greenhouse gas emissions in the claims of advocates and alarmists. In short, the claims that we're headed to doomsday if we don't do what alarmists say are questionable, at best, and certainly shouldn't subject the whole of humanity to the forcible obedience to the whims of unfounded alarmism.

^^^^^^ Hey OP....you don't have to be a smart*** and call people names because they posted a reply in your thread. If they just decided to reply about the first line of your post they are entitled to.....

Besides I think your thread is crap…..you’re just jumping on the bandwagon to soften the egos of short guys who believe the entire dating world is against them..

And everyone gets offensive comments made against them in some way during their lifetime…...regardless of stature or weight..

Because a lot of people don't see "short" as a negative description of height... It is used like "brunette" or "blue-eyed" to pin-point someone's particular identity --to sort someone from the rest...
It seems pretty neutral to label it "name-calling" and get offended over it.

"Fat" always will be insulting in this society, unless instead of you, it describes your wallet!

The true talent of a supervisor is in the perceptions of those below them in rank. If height is an important component of that, then that is a consideration.

Technically the term "Napoleon Complex" does not exist as a mental disorder. It's a social stereotype aimed at short men. The working term for this is "inferiority complex" and it is based on Alfred Adler's work. The word Napoleon was coupled with is, as Adler used Napoleon as an example. Actually, Napoleon was said to be of average height for a Frenchman of that period.

Related to this subject, there was a study at Cornell in 2005 where men become aggressive if they feel their masculinity is threatened. Height was not directly researched in this, but inferences may be made as you please. It's not a long stretch if masculinity perceived by females is relative to height.

Another study published recently from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, ties shorter stature to a higher levels of jealousy among males, but a study from the University of Central Lancashire, found short men were less aggressive. However the British study included only 20 men and the study in the Netherlands contained 219 men. As far as the study goes since they are not the exact same sort of experiment it is like comparing apples and oranges.

There are all kinds of preferences that people have when choosing a date. Height may and or may not be one of them. Just because someone has a preference, does not make them a "shallow skank". It makes them a person with preferences.

Just remember when you are trying to find a date, that it is not a helpful strategy to sit around and bemoan the reasons why you don't have one. This calls attention to your, pardon the pun, shortcomings. It makes you look like a bitter person, and that is not a very attractive feature in anyone, regardless of their position in life.

Einstein himself stated that if you have to explain something in terms that only you and a select other few could understand, you really didn't understand it yourself.

Attraction DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.. it isn't logical. It just is.

I think part of the problem is the concept that women (poeple really) HAVE to find a partner. I don't.. and so I can be picky.

Now if I was complaining that I couldn't find a partner and had expressed that that was a serious goal.. then I could be criticized for overlooking some men because they didn't meet my ridiculously high standards.. and yes, my standards ARE ridiculously high (for me.. but this is relative) I don't, nor do I think I should have to, apologize for them. That's my right, and my choice to date whom "I" think is right for me.

I think some women make a decision about what they find attractive by trial and error.. and KNOWING what does it for them, and what doesn't. There's no point in trying to change their minds.

That would be like telling a guy who is a breast man to only date women who are flatchested.. or a leg man that even if a woman has legs like a tree stump it is "shallow" of him and he should give her a chance. What it will come down to is that he will NOT be as attracted to her as he would someone with a great set of gams... and that WILL affect the relationship.

There is competition between men that women never see... I know this.

Somewhere back in time there came a biological imperative that larger males were the more attractive... you can see this in apes... a silverback gorilla (dominant male) is 3 times the size of a female... humans have evolved so that men are, on average, larger.. and I DO believe there is a subconscious genetic attraction for women to choose men who are bigger than them. Does it make modern logical sense? Is it politically correct? No. But biology is an instinctual thing..

I understand the feeling of people who feel "left out" because they don't fit the modern standard of "attractiveness". I'm not blond or busty (and have some native indian in my background, so I'm dark also.. I HAVE experienced racism even though I'm 90% European background).

I have narrow hips (no "hourglass" here) Some men find my figure far too boyish to be attractive.. this was emotionally painful to me as a young woman. Yes, it hurts not to be one of the "beautiful" people. But.. I have come to the conclusion that the only person I can change is myself, and I can't even do that in an authentic and healthy way if I don't love myself first, accept who I am, warts and all. There will always be obstacles and limits for people... each one of us has our challenges and unfortunately life is not fair.

I like the saying, if life gives you lemons, make lemonade. If one percieves an obstacle that is an opportunity for personal growth and self-actualization.

many people put preferences on here and people don't go and start up threads because of it

northeast25 and other who just don't get it

erm, how about, that is wrong? Actually **** it your ALL WRONG!
this heightism business lives in your heads! GET OVER something you can't change and be confident in the person you are! Above all confidence in YOURSELF will land you quality women not your freakin' height!
Its all in your head, Joe. All in your head.

to the gentleman that wrote that...THANK YOU! and lois you were right, kind of given up on this whole topic since certain people are WAAAYY too insecure with themselves to be able to look at things objectively and give opinions that aren't full of gibberish and nonsense. and guess what? i've actually been talking to a guy who is 2 inches shorter than me and he's fantastic! so it really doesn't matter if you have the proper approach. it is a preference, not written in stone guys!