OT: The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate

Zz Yzx wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 19:40:18 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
>
> 'k, here's the thing: Similar contorversies have occurred for
> centuries, I submit:
>
> 1. Earth-centric vs heliocentric solar system
> 2 . Spontaneous generation vs. biogenesis
> 3. Flat vs. spherical earth
> 4. Creationism vs. evolution
> 5. Force at a distance (i.e. "How can a magnet exert a force on a
> piece of iron AT A DISTANCE? There HAS TO BE AN ETHER!")
> 6. Plate tectonics
> 7. Numerous examples in physics including Maxwellian electromagnetic
> worldview vs. Ensteinian Relativsm
> &tc.
>
> These pardigm shifts took decades to centuries to resolve, and they
> were resolved by brilliant, educated men and women, despite public or
> religous opposition. But they WERE resolved and the pardigm shift
> accomplished.
>
> Now, global warming IS A FACT, despite popular laymen's lamenss and
> disbeliefs. Whether it's anthropological or not is unknown. But the
> fact is we CAN react and mitigate to some degree.
>
> The fact remains that for each paradigm shift, there was a winning
> side, and a losing side.
>
> I submit, respectfully, that you'd have been on the dumb side of each.
>

Good examples! You will note that the position that turned out to be right
was the one proved by the "hard" sciences.

I deny that global warming is a fact. Virtually all the evidence tending to
support that position is equivocal, manufactured, or improperly analyzed.
Even IF there is some global warming, I deny that we should react to it to
try to mitigate it. First, we have no idea whether proposed actions will
actually work. Second, a warmer earth is not a disaster, at worst it's a
push. Third, and most importantly, all the proposed actions to mitigate
global warming are hideously expensive. Unimaginably expensive.

On 6/2/2012 9:40 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 6/2/2012 12:07 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:


> There was a site that you could put in a name and amount and print your
> certificate carbon credits. IIRC I awarded Swingman with his own
> certificate good for 1 Brazillion carbon credits.

Still framed and proudly in prominent place of access:

http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/proud-brazilianholder.pdf

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Jun 1, 7:23=A0am, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/1/2012 7:40 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/31/2012 11:56 PM, Zz Yzx wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 May 2012 19:40:18 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>
> >>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_=
m...>
>
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
>
> >> So, what the story says is that the more scientific or mathematical
> >> knowledge a person has, the more they scrutinize and analyze an issue
> >> and think independantly?
>
> >> And you think THAT will make the same people's heads explode?
>
> >> Huh, go figure.
>
> > Well Yeah! The global warning enthusiasts think that people are going t=
o
> > take their word for it just because they have gathered data and arrange=
d
> > it so that it looks like global warming. Those that think, know you can
> > take that same data and make it look like we are headed for another ice
> > age.
>
> Lets not forget that much of the data on climate warming has been cooked
> and does not stand up when looked at from a scientific knowledge.
>
> The biggest falsification is taking a few statistically insignificant
> areas (relative to the total surface of the earth) and saying they can
> detect a couple of tenths of a degree change when the temperature of the
> earth varies by approximately 100 degrees at any minute on any day of
> the year. =A0 0.2 degrees with a a data spread of 100 degrees will not
> pass any statistical test of significance

meh.

Sconnie

On 05/31/2012 09:56 PM, Zz Yzx wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 19:40:18 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
>
> So, what the story says is that the more scientific or mathematical
> knowledge a person has, the more they scrutinize and analyze an issue
> and think independantly?
>
> And you think THAT will make the same people's heads explode?
>
> Huh, go figure.

Aw, come on - that was just a fire cracker. Let's have at least a hand
gernade!


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 5/31/2012 8:40 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
>

If global warming exists, that should be good news to woodworkers. It
would increase the supply of exotic rainforest hardwoods.

On 06/01/2012 06:48 PM, Zz Yzx wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 19:40:18 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
>
> And another thing:
>
> The author of that article is an illiterate buffoon:
>
> The title states "The more science you know, the less worried you are
> about climate". Which you geefully regurgitated.
>
> Yet, the opening paragrapgh states:
>
> "Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical
> knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change"
>
> So, the illiterate author made the jump from "skeptical of the data"
> to "less worried" (a classic non-sequitor). And you swallowed hook,
> line and sinker.
>
> You are subscribing to the "Great Global Warming Scientists
> Conspiricay".
>
> Do you aslo subscribe to the "Great Jewish Global Banking Domination
> Conspiracy"?
>
> -Zz

Great - now we're getting at least one exploding head :-)

--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 06/01/2012 10:07 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:47:06 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2012 4:57 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:20:58 -0500, "HeyBub"<[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>>> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
>>>>
>>>> Let's summarize: The soft science people are using real science (statistics)
>>>> to discover that real science types don't agree with the soft science
>>>> experts.
>>>>
>>>> Who to believe?
>>>>
>>> Yeah, but... which group is that really smart guy, Al Gore, in?
>>
>> Truly, the only thing Al Gore believes about global warming is that a
>> lot of suckers will make him rich.
>
> I'd love to have seen his face when he learned that The Great Carbon
> Scam wasn't going to happen after all.
>
> BTW, did you get your carbon credits printed up? Shoot, now I can't
> find the site, but here's another fun one:
>


Here you go, LJ:

http://freecarbonoffsets.com

Live green and prosper!

PS: I have ten million and counting :-)

--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 6/1/2012 3:20 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
> Let's summarize: The soft science people are using real science (statistics)
> to discover that real science types don't agree with the soft science
> experts.
>
Statistics isn't science, it's mathematics.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/2/2012 9:40 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 6/2/2012 12:07 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>
>> There was a site that you could put in a name and amount and print your
>> certificate carbon credits. IIRC I awarded Swingman with his own
>> certificate good for 1 Brazillion carbon credits.
>
> Still framed and proudly in prominent place of access:
>
> http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/proud-brazilianholder.pdf
>
As I am not familiar with the quantity, Brazillion, I have to ask. Do you
have more or less carbon credits than Al Gore? Also, were you, in any way,
responsible for creating the internet? ;-)

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 6/2/2012 2:58 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/2/2012 9:40 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 6/2/2012 12:07 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There was a site that you could put in a name and amount and print your
>>>> certificate carbon credits. IIRC I awarded Swingman with his own
>>>> certificate good for 1 Brazillion carbon credits.
>>>
>>> Still framed and proudly in prominent place of access:
>>>
>>> http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/proud-brazilianholder.pdf
>>>
>> As I am not familiar with the quantity, Brazillion, I have to ask. Do
>> you have more or less carbon credits than Al Gore? Also, were you, in
>> any way, responsible for creating the internet? ;-)
>
> It's Bush's fault ...
>
> Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes
> by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."
>
> "OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"
>
> His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as
> the President sits, head in hands.
>
> Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"
>
LOL It is all coming back now. Didn't Bush provide an unending amount of
material for comics?

On 6/3/2012 12:36 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 6/2/2012 3:18 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 6/2/2012 2:58 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 6/2/2012 9:40 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/2/2012 12:07 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There was a site that you could put in a name and amount and print
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> certificate carbon credits. IIRC I awarded Swingman with his own
>>>>>> certificate good for 1 Brazillion carbon credits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still framed and proudly in prominent place of access:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/proud-brazilianholder.pdf
>>>>>
>>>> As I am not familiar with the quantity, Brazillion, I have to ask. Do
>>>> you have more or less carbon credits than Al Gore? Also, were you, in
>>>> any way, responsible for creating the internet? ;-)
>>>
>>> It's Bush's fault ...
>>>
>>> Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He
>>> concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."
>>>
>>> "OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"
>>>
>>> His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching
>>> as the President sits, head in hands.
>>>
>>> Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"
>>>
>> LOL It is all coming back now. Didn't Bush provide an unending amount of
>> material for comics?
>>
>>
>>
>
> > Since the beginning of SNL back in 1974 all presidents gave an
> unending amount of material for the comics and writers. :!)

You forget David Frye in the 1960's, getting his material from LBJ and
Nixon.

On 6/2/2012 3:18 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/2/2012 2:58 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/2/2012 9:40 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/2/2012 12:07 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There was a site that you could put in a name and amount and print
>>>>> your
>>>>> certificate carbon credits. IIRC I awarded Swingman with his own
>>>>> certificate good for 1 Brazillion carbon credits.
>>>>
>>>> Still framed and proudly in prominent place of access:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/proud-brazilianholder.pdf
>>>>
>>> As I am not familiar with the quantity, Brazillion, I have to ask. Do
>>> you have more or less carbon credits than Al Gore? Also, were you, in
>>> any way, responsible for creating the internet? ;-)
>>
>> It's Bush's fault ...
>>
>> Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He
>> concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."
>>
>> "OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"
>>
>> His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching
>> as the President sits, head in hands.
>>
>> Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"
>>
> LOL It is all coming back now. Didn't Bush provide an unending amount of
> material for comics?
>
>
>

> Since the beginning of SNL back in 1974 all presidents gave an
unending amount of material for the comics and writers. :!)

On Thu, 31 May 2012 19:40:18 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>
><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>
>http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5

I wanna see the YouTubes of their heads exploding! LOTS of 'em,
please.

--
In reality, serendipity accounts for one percent of the blessings
we receive in life, work and love. The other 99 percent is due to
our efforts.
-- Peter McWilliams

On Thu, 31 May 2012 19:40:18 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>
><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>
>http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5

So, what the story says is that the more scientific or mathematical
knowledge a person has, the more they scrutinize and analyze an issue
and think independantly?

And you think THAT will make the same people's heads explode?

Huh, go figure.

On 6/2/2012 3:18 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/2/2012 2:58 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 6/2/2012 9:40 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/2/2012 12:07 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There was a site that you could put in a name and amount and print
>>>>> your
>>>>> certificate carbon credits. IIRC I awarded Swingman with his own
>>>>> certificate good for 1 Brazillion carbon credits.
>>>>
>>>> Still framed and proudly in prominent place of access:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/proud-brazilianholder.pdf
>>>>
>>> As I am not familiar with the quantity, Brazillion, I have to ask. Do
>>> you have more or less carbon credits than Al Gore? Also, were you, in
>>> any way, responsible for creating the internet? ;-)
>>
>> It's Bush's fault ...
>>
>> Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He
>> concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."
>>
>> "OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"
>>
>> His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching
>> as the President sits, head in hands.
>>
>> Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"
>>
> LOL It is all coming back now. Didn't Bush provide an unending amount of
> material for comics?

I'd rather laugh, than be forced to cry ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:20:58 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Doug Winterburn wrote:
> >> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
> >>
> >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
> >
> >Let's summarize: The soft science people are using real science (statistics)
> >to discover that real science types don't agree with the soft science
> >experts.
> >
> >Who to believe?
> >
> Yeah, but... which group is that really smart guy, Al Gore, in?

He's a politician, which means that you can tell he's lying because his
lips are moving.

Doug Winterburn wrote:
> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5

Let's summarize: The soft science people are using real science (statistics)
to discover that real science types don't agree with the soft science
experts.

Who to believe?

On 5/31/2012 11:56 PM, Zz Yzx wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 19:40:18 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
>
> So, what the story says is that the more scientific or mathematical
> knowledge a person has, the more they scrutinize and analyze an issue
> and think independantly?
>
> And you think THAT will make the same people's heads explode?
>
> Huh, go figure.

Well Yeah! The global warning enthusiasts think that people are going
to take their word for it just because they have gathered data and
arranged it so that it looks like global warming. Those that think,
know you can take that same data and make it look like we are headed for
another ice age.

On 6/2/2012 2:58 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 6/2/2012 9:40 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 6/2/2012 12:07 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There was a site that you could put in a name and amount and print your
>>> certificate carbon credits. IIRC I awarded Swingman with his own
>>> certificate good for 1 Brazillion carbon credits.
>>
>> Still framed and proudly in prominent place of access:
>>
>> http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/proud-brazilianholder.pdf
>>
> As I am not familiar with the quantity, Brazillion, I have to ask. Do
> you have more or less carbon credits than Al Gore? Also, were you, in
> any way, responsible for creating the internet? ;-)

It's Bush's fault ...

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes
by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as
the President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:20:58 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
>
>Let's summarize: The soft science people are using real science (statistics)
>to discover that real science types don't agree with the soft science
>experts.
>
>Who to believe?
>
Yeah, but... which group is that really smart guy, Al Gore, in?

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:42:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 06/01/2012 06:48 PM, Zz Yzx wrote:
Do you aslo subscribe to the "Great Jewish Global Banking Domination
>> Conspiracy"?
>>
>> -Zz
>
>Great - now we're getting at least one exploding head :-)

Or one left behind.

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:57:53 -0500, Gordon Shumway
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:20:58 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
>>
>>Let's summarize: The soft science people are using real science (statistics)
>>to discover that real science types don't agree with the soft science
>>experts.
>>
>>Who to believe?
>>
>Yeah, but... which group is that really smart guy, Al Gore, in?

A whole sub-class of his own. He truly deserves to have his head
explode for his many sins in this lifetime, specifically associated
with Anthropogenic Global Warming(kumbaya).

--
In reality, serendipity accounts for one percent of the blessings
we receive in life, work and love. The other 99 percent is due to
our efforts.
-- Peter McWilliams

On Thu, 31 May 2012 19:40:18 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>
><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>
>http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5

And another thing:

The author of that article is an illiterate buffoon:

The title states "The more science you know, the less worried you are
about climate". Which you geefully regurgitated.

Yet, the opening paragrapgh states:

"Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical
knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change"

So, the illiterate author made the jump from "skeptical of the data"
to "less worried" (a classic non-sequitor). And you swallowed hook,
line and sinker.

You are subscribing to the "Great Global Warming Scientists
Conspiricay".

Do you aslo subscribe to the "Great Jewish Global Banking Domination
Conspiracy"?

-Zz

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:43:22 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 6/2/2012 9:40 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 6/2/2012 12:07 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>
>> There was a site that you could put in a name and amount and print your
>> certificate carbon credits. IIRC I awarded Swingman with his own
>> certificate good for 1 Brazillion carbon credits.
>
>Still framed and proudly in prominent place of access:
>
>http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/proud-brazilianholder.pdf

He says "brazillion" now but spelled it "brazilian" on the cert. ;)

--
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:24:46 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 06/01/2012 10:07 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:47:06 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/1/2012 4:57 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:20:58 -0500, "HeyBub"<[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>>>> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's summarize: The soft science people are using real science (statistics)
>>>>> to discover that real science types don't agree with the soft science
>>>>> experts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who to believe?
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but... which group is that really smart guy, Al Gore, in?
>>>
>>> Truly, the only thing Al Gore believes about global warming is that a
>>> lot of suckers will make him rich.
>>
>> I'd love to have seen his face when he learned that The Great Carbon
>> Scam wasn't going to happen after all.
>>
>> BTW, did you get your carbon credits printed up? Shoot, now I can't
>> find the site, but here's another fun one:
>>
>
>
>Here you go, LJ:
>
>http://freecarbonoffsets.com

That was it, Dougie.


>Live green and prosper!

Laugh Loud and Perspire! (Vulcan curse)


>PS: I have ten million and counting :-)

I printed mine at 247,619,423.6 back in 2009. ;)

--
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
-- Thomas Jefferson

On 6/1/2012 4:57 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:20:58 -0500, "HeyBub"<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
>>
>> Let's summarize: The soft science people are using real science (statistics)
>> to discover that real science types don't agree with the soft science
>> experts.
>>
>> Who to believe?
>>
> Yeah, but... which group is that really smart guy, Al Gore, in?

Truly, the only thing Al Gore believes about global warming is that a
lot of suckers will make him rich.

On 6/1/2012 7:40 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 5/31/2012 11:56 PM, Zz Yzx wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 19:40:18 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
>>
>> So, what the story says is that the more scientific or mathematical
>> knowledge a person has, the more they scrutinize and analyze an issue
>> and think independantly?
>>
>> And you think THAT will make the same people's heads explode?
>>
>> Huh, go figure.
>
> Well Yeah! The global warning enthusiasts think that people are going to
> take their word for it just because they have gathered data and arranged
> it so that it looks like global warming. Those that think, know you can
> take that same data and make it look like we are headed for another ice
> age.

Lets not forget that much of the data on climate warming has been cooked
and does not stand up when looked at from a scientific knowledge.

The biggest falsification is taking a few statistically insignificant
areas (relative to the total surface of the earth) and saying they can
detect a couple of tenths of a degree change when the temperature of the
earth varies by approximately 100 degrees at any minute on any day of
the year. 0.2 degrees with a a data spread of 100 degrees will not
pass any statistical test of significance

In news:[email protected],
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> typed:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:43:22 -0500, Swingman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 6/2/2012 9:40 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 6/2/2012 12:07 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There was a site that you could put in a name and
>>> amount and print your certificate carbon credits. IIRC
>>> I awarded Swingman with his own certificate good for 1
>>> Brazillion carbon credits.
>>
>> Still framed and proudly in prominent place of access:

Common sense helps a lot, too. Well said.


>>
>> http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/proud-brazilianholder.pdf
>
> He says "brazillion" now but spelled it "brazilian" on
> the cert. ;)

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:47:06 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 6/1/2012 4:57 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:20:58 -0500, "HeyBub"<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
>>>
>>> Let's summarize: The soft science people are using real science (statistics)
>>> to discover that real science types don't agree with the soft science
>>> experts.
>>>
>>> Who to believe?
>>>
>> Yeah, but... which group is that really smart guy, Al Gore, in?
>
>Truly, the only thing Al Gore believes about global warming is that a
>lot of suckers will make him rich.

I'd love to have seen his face when he learned that The Great Carbon
Scam wasn't going to happen after all.

BTW, did you get your carbon credits printed up? Shoot, now I can't
find the site, but here's another fun one:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/03/print-out-your-own-carbon-credits.html

--
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Thu, 31 May 2012 19:40:18 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>
><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>
>http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5

'k, here's the thing: Similar contorversies have occurred for
centuries, I submit:

1. Earth-centric vs heliocentric solar system
2 . Spontaneous generation vs. biogenesis
3. Flat vs. spherical earth
4. Creationism vs. evolution
5. Force at a distance (i.e. "How can a magnet exert a force on a
piece of iron AT A DISTANCE? There HAS TO BE AN ETHER!")
6. Plate tectonics
7. Numerous examples in physics including Maxwellian electromagnetic
worldview vs. Ensteinian Relativsm
&tc.

These pardigm shifts took decades to centuries to resolve, and they
were resolved by brilliant, educated men and women, despite public or
religous opposition. But they WERE resolved and the pardigm shift
accomplished.

Now, global warming IS A FACT, despite popular laymen's lamenss and
disbeliefs. Whether it's anthropological or not is unknown. But the
fact is we CAN react and mitigate to some degree.

The fact remains that for each paradigm shift, there was a winning
side, and a losing side.

I submit, respectfully, that you'd have been on the dumb side of each.

-Zz

On 6/2/2012 12:07 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:47:06 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2012 4:57 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:20:58 -0500, "HeyBub"<[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>>> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
>>>>
>>>> Let's summarize: The soft science people are using real science (statistics)
>>>> to discover that real science types don't agree with the soft science
>>>> experts.
>>>>
>>>> Who to believe?
>>>>
>>> Yeah, but... which group is that really smart guy, Al Gore, in?
>>
>> Truly, the only thing Al Gore believes about global warming is that a
>> lot of suckers will make him rich.
>
> I'd love to have seen his face when he learned that The Great Carbon
> Scam wasn't going to happen after all.
>
> BTW, did you get your carbon credits printed up? Shoot, now I can't
> find the site, but here's another fun one:
>
> http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/03/print-out-your-own-carbon-credits.html

There was a site that you could put in a name and amount and print your
certificate carbon credits. IIRC I awarded Swingman with his own
certificate good for 1 Brazillion carbon credits.

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:42:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 06/01/2012 06:48 PM, Zz Yzx wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 19:40:18 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
>>
>> And another thing:
>>
>> The author of that article is an illiterate buffoon:
>>
>> The title states "The more science you know, the less worried you are
>> about climate". Which you geefully regurgitated.
>>
>> Yet, the opening paragrapgh states:
>>
>> "Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical
>> knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change"
>>
>> So, the illiterate author made the jump from "skeptical of the data"
>> to "less worried" (a classic non-sequitor). And you swallowed hook,
>> line and sinker.
>>
>> You are subscribing to the "Great Global Warming Scientists
>> Conspiricay".
>>
>> Do you aslo subscribe to the "Great Jewish Global Banking Domination
>> Conspiracy"?
>>
>> -Zz
>
>Great - now we're getting at least one exploding head :-)
You didnt aswer the question

Just Wondering wrote:
> On 6/1/2012 3:20 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>> This ought to make the global warming alarmists heads explode:
>>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/>
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/7olglo5
>> Let's summarize: The soft science people are using real science
>> (statistics) to discover that real science types don't agree with
>> the soft science experts.
>>
> Statistics isn't science, it's mathematics.

Um, of course you are correct.

Without mathematics, though, scientist would just be guessing.

I recall a professor telling us, in his class on Tensor Analysis, that some
of the math we were studying was literally only weeks old and that the
physics community was really raising hell wanting better (math) tools.

Maybe that's why, come to think on it, my fellow graduate students in the
physics department went out of their way to avoid me. Yeah, that was it!