scary new changes in the earth's eco-system

[TheNiche]

I did discredit the idea. My exact words were "To suggest that tiny variations in our calendar system are in the least related to climate change is, in a word, asinine."

The post to which I took exception had to do with various aspects of calendars - their history, lunar vs. solar, etc. . (There could, in fact, be an argument to be made there; it's my understanding that the Julian calendar was so inaccurate that it did indeed throw off the true equinoxes and solstices, and therefore the seasons.*)

However, Mr. Barnes did not make that argument.

If you'll read the posts, you'll note that his concluded with these words:"Now can you see where the so called shift in climates are nothing more than an inaccurate calender system, not Armageddon." Can you explain that conclusion to me, TheNiche? How does the slight error in modern calendars affect climate change? Either I'm too stupid to get it, or it never made any sense to begin with. I prefer the latter theory; but of course, I could be wrong.

I hope I'm able; if I'm unable, I assure you that I'm solely responsible. For better or worse, my words are my own.

Do you really believe every "source with credentials"? My! you have a lot to learn. Perhaps you're too young to remember the panel of experts (provided by the tobacco industry) who, straight-faced, testified in front of Congress that there was no link between smoking and cancer. They had credentials, but they were, how you say, a bunch of bought-and-paid-for lying little whores. How can you be sure that the professional global warming deniers are any different?

*From Wikipedia:

The Gregorian Calendar was devised both because the mean Julian Calendar year was slightly too long, causing the vernal equinox to slowly drift backwards in the calendar year, and because the lunar calendar used to compute the date of Easter had grown conspicuously in error as well.

You see, I credit my sources.)

I get a sense that you took my criticism personally. That wasn't how it was intended.

Climate change is typically a very slow process, occuring at very tiny increments per year on average unless caused by a major natural disaster as man could never hope to manufacture. So I can believe that applying our calendar with minute errors to geologic processes that occur in minute increments can produce some distorted patterns. I don't think that Mark was perfectly clear about that conclusion, but I saw where he was going. I consider it a valid argument, but I lack data, so it is theoretically valid, but not empirically conclusive.

As for credentials, more is better. You are correct that credentials alone don't mean that somebody doesn't have an incentive to confuse people for their own gain, but then those conflicts of interest apply to both sides of the issue.

[dbigtex56]

Climate change is typically a very slow process, occuring at very tiny increments per year on average unless caused by a major natural disaster as man could never hope to manufacture. So I can believe that applying our calendar with minute errors to geologic processes that occur in minute increments can produce some distorted patterns. I don't think that Mark was perfectly clear about that conclusion, but I saw where he was going. I consider it a valid argument, but I lack data, so it is theoretically valid, but not empirically conclusive.

You're kidding, right? It's theoretically absurd. Calendars be damned! The Earth's orbit around the sun, and its rotation on its axis are the important factors. The changes in these patterns are so slight as to be utterly insignificant. Such changes, if they were abrupt and drastic, would have an effect on climate, I suppose; but since they haven't occurred, why drag these red herrings into the discussion?

[Mark F. Barnes]

Not trying; succeeding.

And you're not even man enough to own up to it. Instead you come up with an excuse which would be laughable if only it wasn't so pathetic. You expect us to believe that you unconsciously memorized every word, every number, every comma exactly as it appears on another website? (Well, there is that part where you crudely cut the reference to the Science article, leaving a grammatically awkward construction.)

Wouldn't it be the honest - the honorable thing - to just admit it? Or are those concepts foreign to you?

I still curious as to why I am being accused of plagiarism, I didn't know I was turning in a term paper here, merely debating Global Warming, fact or fiction, I suppose all post from now on should include a bibliography of reference, anytime you repeat anything you've read or heard, that gave you reference to an idea, that was previously developed by someone else. Sure I cut to reference on theories I agree with numerous times, does that make the theory any less creditable because I agree with it. You've gone to great trouble to try and defend Global Warming by trying to discredit me. Now if that is your angle great, it solves nothing in your defense of Global Warming.

Now if this is you as a Moderator seeking revenge for my disagreement with your buddy, and you seek to discredit me to hurt my feelings, you are wasting your time there too. That also sounds dangerously close to a personal attack, though I could give a crap what you think BigTex56, because you personally are no threat to me or my livelihood, either physically or mentally. In order for me to have to have plagiarized anything, first off I have to have presented it in some formal setting, such as a term paper or a book or article in the press and passed the entire concept off as my own. Give me a break it's a damn discussion forum, and I really don't think I did that. When my dissertation is complete, I will gladly forward you a copy, complete with an extensive bibliography of references (up to now is 14 pages long) if you like, once published it will be public record for anyone to view as far as that goes. You see it makes reference to many theories pro and con on the subject of Global Warming, but the main body of it entails the Thermodynamic aspect of it. You see sometimes to prove a point especially involving science, you have to explore many different avenues, ideas and theories. And if your point is from a certain slant or angle, you have to provided a why and how you disagree with anything opposing your point. I think it's all part of the process of elimination, or so I thought.

Anyway, so you think you've discredited me somehow, great. Now get back on subject and discredit the concept.

You made a reference first to my misspelling of the word calendar, and I sensed that was the direction you were headed anyway then you called the concept asinine. I really have to disagree with you one that. Our calendar as it is set is really inaccurate. Then we like to try and skew it with the injection of leap year to try a quick fix at a previous erred system. What magnifies my point is the fact that mankind now days are so hung up on a time line, and our entire lives today evolve around a day planner, or calendar. And when the seasons don't match up, we immediately scream the climates are shifting, global warming, gloom and doom, etc, etc, etc........ Could it be that our inadequate calendar is just now starting to come to light more, because of the surmounting error or flaw has multiplied itself enough, that the multiple factor is now more noticeable? I though that my reference to the variance in the vernal equinoxes made my point more clearly. I think it is a valid argument. I read somewhere that the Mayan calendar was more accurate than what we use today, because of it's basis on sun cycles, which made sense because the Incan Empire worshipped the sun. They were considered genius by some, because they intercalculated at least two celestial cycles. They were definitely way ahead of their time. But they also made reference in their writing to interplanetary space travel which the Roman Catholic church took as blasphemy and they were written off as idiotic concepts. Anyway there are huge dicrepencies on the ending date of the Mayan calendar, some say 2012 some say 2050, and I am sure there are more. Yet we use the perpetual calender, that counts on our solar and lunar cycles being repetitive to infinity, it gives no room for evolutionary changes, however so slight. I mean a calendar that is solely based on the calculation of Easter and not on Astrophysics is upheld as the highest authority as to when the first official day or Summer is , Spring, Winter and Fall, and so forth. How can that be right? Easter can vary as much as 21 days, doesn't sound to sound to me. I am not saying the inaccuracy of the calendar is affecting the seasons, just our concept of where they should fall. As I said before a tenth of a degree of tilt or variance in orbit by a fraction of a percent in an orbit of 583,400,000 miles can be huge in fall out. Tidal shifts, climate changes, etc, etc, etc. Doesn't mean the end of the world is coming or that there is anything we've done to cause this. I am saying it is cyclic change due to normal evolution. There is just too much evidence to the contrary, that Global Warming is a real concept, in the context it is being presented. Sure there is an ever so slight warming trend, it appears to be right on track with the 100,000 year glacial cycle, and has nothing to do with global warming as used in this context, rather solar magnetic activity, and nothing really out of the ordinary according to some. The magnetic activity is very active at this point in time, but it falls into the current cycle. Others want you to believe it's man made, I just am not buying it.

[TheNiche]

You're kidding, right? It's theoretically absurd. Calendars be damned! The Earth's orbit around the sun, and its rotation on its axis are the important factors. The changes in these patterns are so slight as to be utterly insignificant. Such changes, if they were abrupt and drastic, would have an effect on climate, I suppose; but since they haven't occurred, why drag these red herrings into the discussion?

You are correct except that the data that we gather and the reality that we perceive are based upon calendar measurements, which only approximate the motion of the earth around the sun. Therefore, the interpretation of the data is subject to question.

I still curious as to why I am being accused of plagiarism, I didn't know I was turning in a term paper here, merely debating Global Warming, fact or fiction, I suppose all post from now on should include a bibliography of reference, anytime you repeat anything you've read or heard, that gave you reference to an idea, that was previously developed by someone else.

If I'm not mistaken, the HAIF guidelines strongly encourage citing sources. In your case, I think that that's very good advice to follow.

[CDeb]

It appears that Mr. Barnes's and Mr. Burnett's writing styles are remarkably similar. Yet, selfishly, Mr. Burnett doesn't even credit Mr. Barnes. How's that for irony, CDeb?

Ooooh, you Google wizard, you!

Like TheNiche, I still haven't seen anyone factually take on the bulk of scientific arguments posted in Mr. Barnes' missives, his calendar post being one point of many made here.

[Parrothead]

Mark, I have a new-found respect for you. Not that I didn't have any before. You and my husband would get along swimmingly.

[lockmat]

Speaking of "intelligent design"...if the designer was so intelligent, then why do we have global pollution and why do I need to wear eyeglasses? Couldn't the designer at least have invented an eye that didn't go bad so early?

sin happened. Things were perfect before the fall

[TJones]

I hope I'm able; if I'm unable, I assure you that I'm solely responsible. For better or worse, my words are my own.

Do you really believe every "source with credentials"? My! you have a lot to learn. Perhaps you're too young to remember the panel of experts (provided by the tobacco industry) who, straight-faced, testified in front of Congress that there was no link between smoking and cancer. They had credentials, but they were, how you say, a bunch of bought-and-paid-for lying little whores. How can you be sure that the professional global warming deniers are any different?

In your logic, one or the other side is "lying" on this whole "Global Warming" then, correct. Apparently if the "source" with credentials doesn't see things your way though, then THEY are obviously the liars ? You should practice a little bit of what you preach sometimes bigtex, you believe that a "source" with creditenials that touts the theory that Global Warming is upon us and that we need to quit producing cars and all ride bikes, absolutely knows what he is talking about, but a scientist with the same kind of credentials, has a theory that we filter out more CO₂ than we are actually producing per year, then THAT guy is a crackpot, and not credible ? What if YOUR so-called scientists are lying about "Greenhouse Gases", and are just bilking the Govt. out of trillions of dollars to fund their harebrained schemes. WHAT THEN ?

[Pumapayam]

In your logic, one or the other side is "lying" on this whole "Global Warming" then, correct. Apparently if the "source" with credentials doesn't see things your way though, then THEY are obviously the liars ?

If we add the word theory, it takes that stigma of "lying" away, and many would refer to it as a theory, the "theory of Global Warming". These are the choice words that people, including myself, don't use but probably should since, as you mentioned TJones and others, it makes it sound like a credible idea, when it may not be.

But even though it is not clearly proven, I would not refer to it as a lie, and I am not claiming you personally incinuated that either (playing it safe as to not be accusatory). It my not be true, but there is a lot of research and factual data to back up the drastic changse pre-industrialization and post-industrialization of the earth environment.

Just the other anomalies such blaming it on the earth natural behaviour is what people try to use to debunct this theory and say, "Well, how do you explain this then. . ." And that is all that is needed to cause the small aurgument in here to the huge political argument everywhere else.

[TJones]

If we add the word theory, it takes that stigma of "lying" away, and many would refer to it as a theory, the "theory of Global Warming". Choice words that many people including myself don't use, but probably should, since as you mention TJones and others. It is not clearly proven, but I would not refer to it as a lie, and I am not claiming you personally incinuated that either (playing it safe as to not be accusatory). It my not be true, but there is a lot of research and factual data to back up the drastic changse pre-industrialization and post-industrialization of the earth environment.

Just the other anomalies such blaming it on the earth natural behaviour is what people try to use to debunct this theory and say, "Well, how do you explain this then. . ." And that is all that is needed to cause the small aurgument in here to the huge political argument everywhere else.

Puma, the difference is the "Global Warming" activists, perpetuate their scientists' theories as FACT ! Most GW activists would point to "signs" as proof, when in FACT, GW is still just a theory, so in their minds anyone that believes different is just lying to themsleves and the Enviroment. I would tell them to go hug a tree and stay right there until the Lumberjacks come so they could stop them.

[dbigtex56]

Spoken as predicted, crawl back into your hole where you belong, and while you're in there produce the source of the so called "paste", I'll bet you can't, know why, because there is no source. I am not a C&P kinda person

But you are. You've been caught, sir.

I see what you are trying to get at, and you are trying awful hard to accuse me of plagiarism I think. If that's what you're driving at, just come out and say it, do not beat around the bush. I can also sit down and write down many things I've read almost word for word from memory, that's the way my mind works

No; that's the way cut-and-paste works.

Now if this is you as a Moderator seeking revenge for my disagreement with your buddy, and you seek to discredit me to hurt my feelings, you are wasting your time there too. That also sounds dangerously close to a personal attack, though I could give a crap what you think BigTex56, because you personally are no threat to me or my livelihood, either physically or mentally.

I was waiting for the Green Peace light (in the loafer) brigade to show up with a little more ammo than that though, big guy, please share with us some more of your brilliance oh wise one.

No, sir; a personal attack is calling someone light in the loafers. That was you, not me.

In order for me to have to have plagiarized anything, first off I have to have presented it in some formal setting, such as a term paper or a book or article in the press and passed the entire concept off as my own.

From The American Heritage Dictionary:

plagiarize 1. To steal and use (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own. 2. To appropriate passages or ideas from (another) and use them as one's own.

It doesn't mention anything about a formal setting. Perhaps you're of the opinion that plagiarism only counts if you get sued. I'm of the opinion that it reflects on a person's integrity.

[Pumapayam]

Puma, the difference is the "Global Warming" activists, perpetuate their scientists' theories as FACT ! Most GW activists would point to "signs" as proof, when in FACT, GW is still just a theory, so in their minds anyone that believes different is just lying to themsleves and the Enviroment. I would tell them to go hug a tree and stay right there until the Lumberjacks come so they could stop them.

I agree with you TJones regarding the way the activist portray "Global Warming" (some of which are a bit extreme, hence the term "tree hugger", but will counter it that they use facts that are proven and collected by scienctist/meteorologist to support the theory.

I think the activists confuse that and translate the theory into fact, which is wrong.

I am hoping that you do show come compassion when it comes to the environment in other ways TJones. Little things like people flicking a cigarette butts out their car window or using people using the gutter as a trash can is really avoidable and should bother you.

[TJones]

Those things DO bother me Puma. I don't smoke, but the industry I am in is full of those nasty tarlung degenerates, flickin' their butts on the ground. I recycle, I restore cars instead of throwing them away and buying NEW. I believe I do my part, everyday, as I am sure most on here do. I keep a watchful eye on the enviroment around me, and quick to point a finger at evildoers because that is just the way I am. I just don't like trash on the ground, doesn't mean I think we are even at a beginning stage of a global crisis where fluxuating temperatures are the "Gabriel's Horn" trumpeting that the end of the Earth is here. I am still looking for the other 6 "signs".

[Pumapayam]

Those things DO bother me Puma. I don't smoke, but the industry I am in is full of those nasty tarlung degenerates, flickin' their butts on the ground. I recycle, I restore cars instead of throwing them away and buying NEW. I believe I do my part, everyday, as I am sure most on here do. I keep a watchful eye on the enviroment around me, and quick to point a finger at evildoers because that is just the way I am. I just don't like trash on the ground, doesn't mean I think we are even at a beginning stage of a global crisis where fluxuating temperatures are the "Gabriel's Horn" trumpeting that the end of the Earth is here. I am still looking for the other 6 "signs".

Glad to hear it, it was your Lumberjack reference that made me think you just want to rid the earth environmentalist, but I will take it as more of the annoyance factor than anything else.

Sounds like you do more that I would have ever imagined, Bravo to you.

[CDeb]

they use facts that are proven and collected by scienctist/meteorologist to support the theory.

I can find "facts" that would support a theoy that the world is really flat.

That doesn't make it so.

[Pumapayam]

I can find "facts" that would support a theory that the world is really flat.

That doesn't make it so.

Oh CDeb , I know you are just being silly.

But taking that stance for a bit a seriousness, I would think you could not find an fact to support something like that.

We already know the world is not flat, global warming has not been proven, but likewise, it has not been proven false either CDeb.

[Pumapayam]

What timing huh.

New article about 2006 temperatures!

[nmainguy]

No; what I see is good ol' "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS".

These feats of public mathematical masturbation and spewing of irrelevant data are rather less convincing than you might hope. To suggest that tiny variations in our calendar system are in the least related to climate change is, in a word, asinine.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Oh, and you might want to learn to spell 'calendar' before you present yourself as some sort of expert on the subject.

Look out there, tex...he might bribe the editor with another $1000 to have you kicked out of HAIF.

[nmainguy]

Anyone else find it ironic that scientific take-downs of the Global Warming Taliban are dismissed as "cut-and-pastes" while the posts in support of it have been nothing but?

It's one thing to cut and paste and not give the credit to the original source-that would be plagerism as practiced by barnes. It's another thing to cut and paste and attribute it to the original source-as practiced by puma, TJones, macbro, myself and most HAIFers. That would be sourcing.

Now whether or not you agree with the source is an entirely different topic-but it should at least be cited and not presented as the poster's own words.

[CDeb]

Now whether or not you agree with the source is an entirely different topic-

Um, no, slick, that IS this topic. And the fact that someone is better at sourcing their argument doesn't make their argument better, which seems to be the tangent that this thread has taken.

[nmainguy]

Um, no, slick, that IS this topic. And the fact that someone is better at sourcing their argument doesn't make their argument better, which seems to be the tangent that this thread has taken.

And the fact that someone uses another's words as his own-barnes-makes him a plagiarist whose veracity will be forever questioned.

[CDeb]

And the fact that someone uses another's words as his own-barnes-makes him a plagiarist whose veracity will be forever questioned, Miss Coulter.

More delicious irony in that you invoke the name of Coulter in attacking the messenger rather than the message.

[TJones]

And the fact that someone uses another's words as his own-barnes-makes him a plagiarist whose veracity will be forever questioned.

Even if the words were not his own, it doesn't change the fact that they are still the correct words, now does it ? You can only say the words in so many ways to spell out what the real facts are. It is not a "theory", that America filters more bad air than it produces, it has been scientifically proven as so. You lefties need to start trying to discredit the evidence instead of trying to discredit the producer of it. I don't claim to know what is going on in Mark's head, but I am sure that he meant no ill-will or pulling of wool over anyone's eyes. He is doing his thesis on this very subject, so I will chalk it up to reading his own notes that he has taken and forgetting that someone was feeding him the proof, and giving credit.

. So, I will forgive Mark this one misguided attempt to enlighten everyone here, and I will move on.

[nmainguy]

I'm not sure I would consider "junkscience.com" all that creditable, which appears to be the source for some material that has been posted in this topic.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com

Even if the words were not his own, it doesn't change the fact that they are still the correct words, now does it ?

If the words were his own, we wouldn't be discussing it. The problem with the poster is plagiarism. Most people on HAIF do a good job at keeping it straight so when one so blatantly copies and pastes, they are ususually called on it. It has nothing to so with the verascity of what he copied-it has everything to do with the fact that he did copy it and then tried to fawn it off as his own words.

[TheNiche]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com

I can't help but notice that this website does little more than to continue the argumentative pattern common to the subject of environmentalism as it is seen by the far left. The repeated attempt is made to discredit the person, in large part by use of circumstantial ad hominems, without discrediting the hypotheses or theories. Where sourcewatch.org does attempt to point out that Millory has made infactual statements, they fail to provide any sound examples. The asbestos argument is the closest that sourcewatch.org comes to making a pertinent argument related to factual evidence, except that they say:

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, for example, he claimed that greater use of asbestos insulation in the World Trade Towers would have delayed their collapse "by up to four hours." In reality, there is no scientific basis for claiming that asbestos would have delayed their collapse by even a second, let alone four hours.

But you will note that they did not use language to the effect that 'there is evidence that asbestos would not have delayed the collapse, even by a second.' If they were speaking from a scientific position, they would recognize the need to provide evidence in order to discredit a hypothesis. The source to which they link is also carefully ambiguous.

On the contrary, they seem to have made a glaring factual error, and perhaps ironically, revealed to the public that they do not speak from a scientific position. They say:

Although Milloy frequently represent himself as an expert on scientific matters, he is not a scientist himself. He holds a bachelor's degree in Natural Sciences, a law degree and a master's degree in biostatistics. He has never published original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

However, if one is to reference several definitions of scientist, no where it stated that one must be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal...but several of the definitions do state '...especially natural or physical sciences' as a qualifyer for being a scientist. According to sourcewatch.org's own description, Millory has a degree in Natrual Sciences, but isn't apparently a scientist.

What I am left to take from this is that a source coming from a position of self-proclaimed superiority is attempting to discredit someone who has extensive scientific credentials without exhibiting any indication of competence with respect to formal or informal logic. Pathetic.

[TJones]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com

If the words were his own, we wouldn't be discussing it. The problem with the poster is plagiarism. Most people on HAIF do a good job at keeping it straight so when one so blatantly copies and pastes, they are ususually called on it. It has nothing to so with the verascity of what he copied-it has everything to do with the fact that he did copy it and then tried to fawn it off as his own words.

Subdude's assumption that info. was gained from Junkscience.com doesn't show me anything, he needs to elaborate just a little bit for me on that. I know I myself have not used anything from Junkscience.com, and further more, I didn't even know the site existed. So if I could see some examples, I can be more convinced.

The issue is about Global Warming not whether Mark plagerized or not. You want to draw attention away from the science that discredits GW theories which is what the thread topic is about and focus on Mark. Focus on the science for the debate, and refute the science. Quit shooting the messenger, and get back to the issue of Global Warming, that is the topic of the thread. I will play along and say OK, Mark messed up, now, let's get back to what was in the information, not who wrote it or didn't write it. Show me some science that says America produces more bad air than we actually filter per year. Show me where scientists say that America is the leading cause of "Greenhouse Gases" and why ?

[houstonmacbro]

But

[houstonmacbro]

What timing huh.

New article about 2006 temperatures!

How about that.

Jan. 9, 2007, 10:55AM

Dead birds leave behind a weird scene in Austin

Mystery lingers after 63 carcasses prompt the closure of a dozen streets

By LISA FALKENBERG

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

AUSTIN

[houstonmacbro]

Group: ExxonMobil paid to mislead public

Wed Jan 3, 2:15 PM ET

WASHINGTON - ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.

The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change."

Full article here

ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report.

Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.

[TheNiche]

Macbro, what exactly are you trying to prove by posting links to all these articles? It isn't relevant that some place somewhere is warmer than normal. That's going to happen in any given year...there are too many places for some place not to be warmer than normal. And by slapping a GW label on it, it works as a fear-based story in a slow news cycle. And just as it isn't relevant that some researchers are able to coax funding from government sources by using scare tactics, it also isn't relevant that ExxonMobil is contributing money to activist groups. Both sides can legitimately point the finger at one another on this issue and claim financially-based bias...but that doesn't mean anything as far as the science is concerned. It just means that perhaps you should not believe everything you read. Think for yourself and ask meaningful questions.

If you want to talk GW, lets talk about GW and the hypothetical effects. Not a closed ski resort. That datapoint signifies nothing.