Seems that way.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/18/25...rylink=cpy

Wasn't this one of Mach's big fears?

Athumani Juma doesn't believe it. A guide who's been hiking the mountain for the past seven years, he laughed when he was asked about the likelihood that Kilimanjaro's snowcap would disappear soon. The glaciers, he claimed, no longer are shrinking, but growing.


So that solves it then. Athumani who has been hiking those parts for at least seven whole years thinks that they are definetly growing. Stop the presses................................

(01-23-2012 09:48 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Athumani Juma doesn't believe it. A guide who's been hiking the mountain for the past seven years, he laughed when he was asked about the likelihood that Kilimanjaro's snowcap would disappear soon. The glaciers, he claimed, no longer are shrinking, but growing.


So that solves it then. Athumani who has been hiking those parts for at least seven whole years thinks that they are definetly growing. Stop the presses................................

Yeah Mach, and you've been to Kilimanjaro how many times?

What part of "empirical evidence" do you not like?

The contortions you have to go through in your mind. The mental gymnastics in the face of such overwhemingly opposite data.

Oh come on! Torch has to be correct. It's gonna be darned near 50 in Michigan today.

(01-23-2012 09:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Oh come on! Torch has to be correct. It's gonna be darned near 50 in Michigan today.

And last year it was record cold and snow... But were only supposed to consider local weather when its warm...

(01-23-2012 10:14 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 09:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Oh come on! Torch has to be correct. It's gonna be darned near 50 in Michigan today.

And last year it was record cold and snow... But were only supposed to consider local weather when its warm...

Sarcasm detector turned off today?

(01-23-2012 09:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The contortions you have to go through in your mind. The mental gymnastics in the face of such overwhemingly opposite data.

Really?

And IIRC, you were very upset w/ the IPCC predicted that the tibetan glaciers would disappear, all with NO supporting evidence. They tracked that back to a whimsical phone conversation.

So back to the subject, why do you dislike empirical evidence so much?

(01-23-2012 09:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Oh come on! Torch has to be correct. It's gonna be darned near 50 in Michigan today.

Trolling again tommy? What's the matter, no local glee clubs to occupy your time?

(01-23-2012 09:49 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 09:48 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Athumani Juma doesn't believe it. A guide who's been hiking the mountain for the past seven years, he laughed when he was asked about the likelihood that Kilimanjaro's snowcap would disappear soon. The glaciers, he claimed, no longer are shrinking, but growing.


So that solves it then. Athumani who has been hiking those parts for at least seven whole years thinks that they are definetly growing. Stop the presses................................

Yeah Mach, and you've been to Kilimanjaro how many times?

What part of "empirical evidence" do you not like?

I don't like the part where idiots refer to anecdotal evidence as empirical evidence.

(01-23-2012 11:47 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 09:49 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 09:48 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Athumani Juma doesn't believe it. A guide who's been hiking the mountain for the past seven years, he laughed when he was asked about the likelihood that Kilimanjaro's snowcap would disappear soon. The glaciers, he claimed, no longer are shrinking, but growing.


So that solves it then. Athumani who has been hiking those parts for at least seven whole years thinks that they are definetly growing. Stop the presses................................

Yeah Mach, and you've been to Kilimanjaro how many times?

What part of "empirical evidence" do you not like?

I don't like the part where idiots refer to anecdotal evidence as empirical evidence.

Nice use of big words. Too bad you are using them wrong. Try doing a univariant analysis of the situation.

(01-23-2012 12:14 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:47 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 09:49 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 09:48 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Athumani Juma doesn't believe it. A guide who's been hiking the mountain for the past seven years, he laughed when he was asked about the likelihood that Kilimanjaro's snowcap would disappear soon. The glaciers, he claimed, no longer are shrinking, but growing.


So that solves it then. Athumani who has been hiking those parts for at least seven whole years thinks that they are definetly growing. Stop the presses................................

Yeah Mach, and you've been to Kilimanjaro how many times?

What part of "empirical evidence" do you not like?

I don't like the part where idiots refer to anecdotal evidence as empirical evidence.

Nice use of big words. Too bad you are using them wrong. Try doing a univariant analysis of the situation.

Stop pretending you know what the hell you are talking about.

I'm just going to stick by the 99% of climatologist's that say human induced global warming is real. I mean how can you actually reason with someone like that in this arena. He's the Baghdad Bob of the global warming ______________. I'm at a loss for words here because t's not even a debate to the people who have studied it.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world...s=PM:WORLD

scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/.../97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php

Torch can hang his hat on Athumani Juma.

Doesn't make him a bad person. It's just to the point with him he has soooooo much time and effort wrapped up in a pre made conclusion. It's sad, because obviously he's an intelligent individual. How can somebody be so wrong about AGW and Evolution.

(01-23-2012 01:18 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm just going to stick by the 99% of climatologist's that say human induced global warming is real.

Really? I mean what about the falsefied or fraudulent data?

I mean why believe false data over "anecdotal" data?

You want a catastrophe Mach. The question for you to ask yourself is, "Why?"

(01-23-2012 02:05 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 01:18 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm just going to stick by the 99% of climatologist's that say human induced global warming is real.

Really? I mean what about the falsefied or fraudulent data?

You mean this "fraudulent" data?

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

(01-23-2012 02:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 02:05 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 01:18 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm just going to stick by the 99% of climatologist's that say human induced global warming is real.

Really? I mean what about the falsefied or fraudulent data?

You mean this "fraudulent" data?

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

Yes I mean those. And finding some alarmist who is defending them is hardly the rigorous critique that Mach holds so highly.

The fact that you're posting bait is predictable.

I've often thought about how to talk or converse with people in this arena. I think you have to establish ground rules.

Here's my proposal.


1. You can't bring up extremes to justify your point. This should go both ways. Obama made a mistake a couple of months ago when he poked Perry about AGW and Texas burning up. Don't go all Limbaugh when there's a record cold snap.

2. You have to take EMOTION out of the equation. Don't be so invested in a particular outcome that you ignore facts.

3. You have to talk facts as much as possible.
1. Are we putting more CO2 in the air?
2. Is this being measured?
3. Can we see evidence of this?
4. Where we would see the evidence?

4. This is for Torch. He once mentioned to me that there was a saturation point with CO2. I've looked it up and have never seen anything to verify it. I did think take the time out to research it. Do you have any links. Everything I have is that more CO2 more heat that's trapped.

(01-23-2012 02:50 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  3. You have to talk facts as much as possible.
1. Are we putting more CO2 in the air?
2. Is this being measured?
3. Can we see evidence of this?
4. Where we would see the evidence?

You left out the need for proof that CO2 in the air provides enough impact to see significant warming. That's why Warren Meyer's presentation is so good, he identifies all the steps in the logical chain that you need to have significant AGW.

Quote:4. This is for Torch. He once mentioned to me that there was a saturation point with CO2. I've looked it up and have never seen anything to verify it. I did think take the time out to research it. Do you have any links. Everything I have is that more CO2 more heat that's trapped.

Good question. Don't have any links. In fact spent some time looking and it may be that we're still quite a ways from saturation for most CO2 absorption lines. So more CO2 would mean more absorption. However, you can't ignore the Stefan-Boltzmann equation either. More temperature means more radiation...as a function of Temp^4. Not much of an increase in temp means a huge increase in radiation. And that means an increase in all wavelenghts, including those not absorbed by CO2.

(01-23-2012 02:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 02:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 02:05 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 01:18 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm just going to stick by the 99% of climatologist's that say human induced global warming is real.

Really? I mean what about the falsefied or fraudulent data?

You mean this "fraudulent" data?

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

Yes I mean those. And finding some alarmist who is defending them is hardly the rigorous critique that Mach holds so highly.

The fact that you're posting bait is predictable.

The fact that you responded in the disingenuous manner you did was also predictable.

"Some alarmist?"

Did you not see these links in the article I linked?

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/pres...entreviews
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa.../38708.htm
http://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/Response-to...from-.aspx
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf
http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangermen...facts.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/...vironment/

(01-23-2012 04:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 02:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 02:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 02:05 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 01:18 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm just going to stick by the 99% of climatologist's that say human induced global warming is real.

Really? I mean what about the falsefied or fraudulent data?

You mean this "fraudulent" data?

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

Yes I mean those. And finding some alarmist who is defending them is hardly the rigorous critique that Mach holds so highly.

The fact that you're posting bait is predictable.

The fact that you responded in the disingenuous manner you did was also predictable.

"Some alarmist?"

Did you not see these links in the article I linked?

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/pres...entreviews
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa.../38708.htm
http://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/Response-to...from-.aspx
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf
http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangermen...facts.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/...vironment/

Well factcheck.org and msnbc! What else could you want?

Tom, you can actually read the emails yourself. I read some of them, I know what they said.

But I did make a mistake, those aren't the only source of fraudulent data. I've posted other times when Hanson presented incorrect data, which he subsequently changed. There are many other sources of incorrect data.

What the emails show is that the "scientists" invovled in this aren't interested in the accuracy of the data, just whether the conclusions support their bias.