Comments on: Two Scientific Approaches

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:16:14 +0000

Hunter: Physically impossible? How so?

By: Hunter

Hunter — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:18:52 +0000

It seems uncanny, Jim, that CO2 apparently wildly varied over very short timescales for much of the last several centuries, but stopped doing so in 1958 and has been slowly and steadily rising ever since then. It seems uncanny, because it’s physically impossible. Anyone who gives Beck even a moment’s credence is a fool, consciously allowing themselves to be taken for a ride.

By: cfdman

cfdman — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:29:17 +0000

Hunter:

Einstein was an f’ing patent clerk with little education. Smearing someone because of their occupation is a cheap shot. Confront facts, data or arguments – not people. Or you risk being ignored and understood as a hack with an agenda.

By: Jim

Jim — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:47:01 +0000

Hunter: I have been reading the papers on that site. I realize there are calibration and sampling errors in some of the measurements, but that does not damn the entire lot of measurements. It seems uncanny that data from a wide variety of sources show CO2 rising and falling over the same time periods. How do you account for that?

By: Frank Bellini

Frank Bellini — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 03:47:10 +0000

As geologists we are taught to try extrapolate the universe from a rock sample. The results of our attempts must be tempered with judgment fed by new facts as they emerge. Anyone with a degree and access to science journals can publish anything and they have.

Look at those that lay out the data, and not those that feature interpretation.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:06:40 +0000

Jim – it’s been vetted and confirmed bullshit. Stick to the scientific literature, you’ll find it more reliable than the misguided work of eccentric schoolteachers.

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:18:04 +0000

I just discovered this web site and was wondering if the data on it has been vetted and confirmed accurate. If it is, this is huge. It clearly illuminates at least two things:

1. The ice core CO2 measurement is a highly smoothed measure of CO2. The chemical measurements display more variability and a higher absolute value than the ice core measurements.

2. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is pointing to a third mover. My guess would be the ocean, but of course the Sun is another elephant in the room.

See:

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

By: Will Nitschke

Will Nitschke — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:22:27 +0000

I wished you’d written that sooner. Poor “Alarmist Hunter” hasn’t mastered the concept of satire yet, so no doubt he’s been in a panic over this all day.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:43:01 +0000

Just so everyone knows, the article that James is referencing is satirical. Al has not admitted any sort of error.

By: James

James — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:29:45 +0000

The debate is over. Al Gore just admitted he’s been wrong all along about climate change.

http://www.thomaspeep.com/?p=406