Jump to content

Jack Frost

Members
  • Content count

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jack Frost

  1. Interesting read from the creator of Dilbert. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science I am a non-discriminatory poster that cites PhDs in Atmospheric Science and cartoonists. Candidly, the cartoonist is not as intellectually engaging but quite entertaining.
  2. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805 OK, I admit adding the "(Not)". Totally gnarly but at the same time compellingly heinous article dudes. From the article: "As you might expect, having tickets to the front row of a global environmental catastrophe is taking an increasingly emotional toll on scientists, and in some cases pushing them toward advocacy." LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. The same "scientists" that became so emotional upon hearing all of the catastrophes rattled off in an "Inconvenient Truth"?????? You know, the ones that didn't come true.....
  3. http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/health/climate-change-type-2-diabetes-study/index.html Adherents to the scientific method, cover your eyes and ears!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......
  4. 2017 Global Temperatures

    Prepare your bomb shelters! Life on earth is about to end. Oh, maybe not. Or maybe so. Of course, the science is settled. If you believe that, place your bets accordingly....
  5. Notwithstanding this quote, I have every confidence based upon some of your other posts that you are (can be) open minded.
  6. 1000 PPM

    My new goal. Everyone knows that CO2 is essential to life on earth. We breath in oxygen and exhale CO2. Plants in turn absorb CO2 and emit oxygen. Quite convenient. There is a problem, however. Plants thrive when CO2 levels average around 1000 ppm. That's the level used in actual greenhouses. But the current atmospheric component of CO2 is only 400 ppm, give or take. Houston, we have a problem. What to do? Fortunately, there is plenty that we can do. I, for one, am taking this head on as a personal challenge. First off, I'm driving a circa 1979 Suburban...loaded with free weights. Don't know if this has achieved holy grail "gallons per mile" status, but it's a start. You're thinking that's nothing compared to Al Gore's Gulfstream, and you're right. But I'm doing what I can. And since summer is around the corner, here's a thought. Crank the AC as low as it can go and, to compensate, burn wood in your fireplaces 24/7. Now that's what I call a "two-fer"! For those of you who think the above is ridicuous and actually want to reduce CO2 concentrations, you can do your part. First, move to regions of the planet that require no heating or cooling to survive. That would not include Vermont. Solar and wind power not allowed. That equipment is all produced in factories that, ironically, are powered by fossil fuels. Second, walk or ride a bicycle to get there. Third, stop releasing carbon by using electricity to go on-line and read forums like this one. And while you're at it, form an army to go to war with countries that emit CO2 on a massive scale. And, of course, when all else fails, just stop breathing. Not me though. I'm on the road to 1000.....
  7. 1000 PPM

    Very bad grammar to end a sentence with a preposition. Let's try "There is no substance to which to respond". Grammatically correct, but still substantively wrong. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
  8. The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science

    By the way, this has a little something for everybody.
  9. Interesting, the paper initially cited states that it was prepared in connection with a May 2012 conference. The RealClimate article addressing the cited paper was authored in 2006. Maybe the 2006 paper is still relevant and addresses the points in the 2012 article. But if you are going to cite a 2006 paper to refute a 2012 paper it is incumbent upon you to do the legwork and demonstrate its continued relevance. On an ironic note, it is more than interesting, in hindsight, that Dr. Grey was belittled in 2006 for daring to disagree with A Convenient Lie's citing to Hurricane Katrina as evidence that, due to AGW, Atlantic hurricanes would continually increase in number and intensity. Be afraid, be very afraid!!! Wrong and wrong. Dr. Grey for the win on that one!
  10. Harvard Geoengineering Study

    Talk about an open invitation to the Law of Unexpected Consequences....
  11. Interesting read. The comments back and forth are ongoing and worth the price of admission. http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/
  12. Dr. Ed Berry on Human and Atmospheric CO2!

    WidreMann, Thank you for your thoughtful response that doesn't resort to mindless name calling. I appreciate your questions and have an answer. Whether you agree or disagree, maybe we both can benefit from the discussion. While some reading this forum are too far gone to get it, my posts do have a purpose. "1000 PPM" is a good example. The point of that post is to remind folks that C02 is part of the "cycle of life". How many people have no idea that we exhale CO2, plants use it for photosynthesis and then provide food and oxygen to sustain life? Not having conducted a credible poll, I don't know exactly but my suspicion is a great many. Your analogy to water in that thread is a good one and I agree that too much of anything, even a good thing, can cause problems. I grew up being taught that moderation in everything is key. And the water analogy highlights the point of that thread. CO2 should not be classified by the US EPA as a pollutant no more tham water should be classified as a pollutant. That is utterly ridiculous but plays perfectly into the propaganda and lies seen in a great many articles about AGW that feature ugly black or white gasses belching from smokestacks - an obvious deceit to make the public think C02 is a dangerous pollutant when we both know that it is a colorless odorless gas that we exhale with every breath and that is essential to the cycle of life. So, having digressed, what is my point in highlighting the numerous inaccurate predictions made about the consequences of additional CO2 in the atmosphere - which all assume that the ecosystem has no mechanisms to constantly strive toward whatever balance is required to maintain itself? Very simple. Just as CO2 is not a "pollutant", climate science is not "settled". I am not saying climate science is "wrong", although you can see that I am very suspect. And perhaps part of my suspicion is based upon the strident assertion that it is settled, move along, nothing to see here folks. Combine that with the obvious lies, data manipulation and propaganda and I find it truly amazing that anyone could be "all in" and not have questions. But the fact that some in this forum have called a PhD in Atmospheric Science derogatory names without ever having addressed the assertions made in a well-reasoned paper only increases my suspicion that there are more than valid reasons to conclude that the science is no where close to settled. And I say that with the full realization that the college professor from Texas may be horrified and request the I be banned from this forum - LOLOLOLOLOL. Sorry, could't resist.
  13. Dr. Ed Berry on Human and Atmospheric CO2!

    The article you linked to is entitled: "Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011" Rather dated, but putting that aside, presume it's premise is true. "Sea levels are rising faster than anticipated by the authors". Doesn't that make the authors' anticipations suspect and less credible? Let me answer - YES, if you have an open mind! NO, if you are an AGW Religious Zealot. Skierinvermont and others participating in the GROUPTHINK, please report this post. SAFESPACES must be protected. The scientific method be damned....
  14. 1000 PPM

    Quite interesting. Does AWXF support diversity of thought? Regardless of the ultimate outcome, the skimiester has revealed himself. LOLOLOLOLOLOL Still waiting for the well reasoned scientific response to Dr. Berry's paper. Oh yeah, I forgot. The PhD in Atmospheric Science is a troll as well. In fact, everyone who doesn't ski in Vermont is a troll. I've reported skierinvermont. Others should do the same. LOLOLOLOLOLOL
  15. 1000 PPM

    More name calling. Boring.... Let me try to groupspeak so you will not be offended. The air that we exhale is a pollutant that will destroy the planet by 2016. Wait, that's Al Gore's line. Sorry, guess I'm just not meant to be part of the "in" crowd. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
  16. 1000 PPM

    The analogy to water is quite interesting. May we presume that you advocate that water be classified as a pollutant by the EPA just as the breath you exhale (CO2) was so classified?
  17. Dr. Ed Berry on Human and Atmospheric CO2!

    FloridaJohn, Re-watch the movie. With 11 years of hindsight, it is a hoot. Beyond comedy!
  18. The LINK between Climate Change and Diabetes

    No AGW religious zealots willing to support the casual link between CO2 and diabetes? Embarrassing, isn't it?
  19. 1000 PPM

    Awesome scientific analysis skiboy. Based upon the totality of the evidence, it is more than apparent that you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation. Quite the opposite in fact. Since when does name calling qualify as a replacement for the scientific method? Oh right, never.... Are the other 23 as lame as ya'all?
  20. Dr. Ed Berry on Human and Atmospheric CO2!

    Well, for one, if you are in the Sunshine State, you should be reading this underwater according to the dire predictions of A Convenient (and Quite Lucrative) Lie. Seriously, if you have a chance, please re-watch it with the benefit of 11 years of hindsight. Comedy at its best! And, FloridaJohn, I agree 100% with your sentiment of "try to rise above." But sometimes, you have to give as good as you get. Some in this forum like to disparage anyone who does not participate in the groupthink mentality. If you ever catch me starting a thread or otherwise belittling someone who has not attacked first, please don't hesitate to call me out. Thanks!
  21. Dr. Ed Berry on Human and Atmospheric CO2!

    ""We've" can also refer to the scientific consensus in this area." Good grammar. "They'd rather expend their energy in more easily obfusticatable areas." You've obfuscated me on that one. I do sometimes get the feeling that I'm dealing with a groupthink mentality, but I had no idea there were a couple of dozen of you. How impressive! If I convert and become a religious zealot, can I become a member of your really cool gang? As for Dr. Berry's paper and the conclusions therein, I find it quite revealing that you never address the substance in any way whatsoever but instead resort to the typical and oh so boring name calling. Sorry, my money is still on the PhD in Atmospheric Science on this one. Do you find it at all ironic to be an unapologetic AGW zealot with your chosen screen name?
  22. 1000 PPM

    And you are hazardous waste. There, now that we're done with the name calling, let's get back on the road...to 1000.
  23. I don't think the author(s) of the article cited above did much research, do you? I understand the compelling nature of groupthink and am not surprised when people of otherwise solid character cave to be part of the "in" crowd. That, however, does not make for compelling science, now does it?
  24. April 2017 Observations and Discussions

    Of course you think that. Oh wait, that's Forky's line. Sorry.
×