Search results

All animals fight nature. We're just more successful because we use technology to do it. You fight nature with pollution? I don't. Pollution is a by-product of my fight, one that I try to limit. If you don't think our current ways of fighting nature are better, what is stopping you from...

Because he's honest? Because he's concerned with real science, not ideology? You've dodged the question. The scientist in question has all the evidence necessary to prove his hypothesis. Would he discard said evidence and resort to fraud? Actually it is quite easy to prove the globe is either...

So the bears are becoming smaller. Yes I heard those stories. Why are they becoming smaller? Speculate, blame it on the effects of global warming. Everthing gets blamed on global warming these days. You still take that seriously? Are their populations shrinking? No. Some are shrinking...

I don't think he intend that at all. He said something similar in a subsequent post.

Oh indeed there are people who live WITH nature, but at the same time, they're fighting it. And the more successfully we fight it, the better we live. I go to the dentist to fight what nature is doing to my tooth. Much better than just living with it. Ancient people died from abcessed teeth. I...

No, that only makes it a tool that gives an accurate prediction (which, by the way, has been tried and never succeeded). We weren't talking about evidence of use of he tool. Evidence of use of a climate model would be the prediction. But the model would still be a tool, nothing more.

You've diverged from the question. You're correct as for reasons why a scientist might commit fraud, they're people like anyone else and would do so for the same reasons, but that's not the question I'm asking. I'll ask it again a little differently. If a scientist wants to prove an...

Our comfort isn't hurting them at all. And if we gave up that which provides our comfort (cheap abundant energy) we would lose our wealth, they would lose the spinoff from that wealth and we would no longer be able to give them aid. It is very much in their interest that we stay comfortable...

Well I won't argue that, but I still see no reason to fear for polar bears. Here's a few facts: They've had a population explosion over the last 50 years, some say they've quintupled in that time, so it hardly seems that warming is hurting them. They've survived much warmer climate that the...

Really???8O All those climate scientists who are warning of climate Armaggedon know absolutely nothing about climate? Wow! I'll bet you're really ticked off at those AGW alarmists!

Tell you what. Currently it's -15C outside. Why don't you walk outside in the alltogether and see how long you last. The fact is, our comfortable convenient lives, so well protected from the environment (and Mom Nature) are utterly dependant on fighting it. Nature gave us smallpox...

Good point. I took it as meaning that all effect of CO2 on oceans is detrimental and that's what my "maybe not" referred to. Yes indeed he did. You didn't read the article, did you?

Even then it isn't evidence. If that's the case then it becomes tool that gave an accurate prediction, but not evidence in itself. A hammer is used to bash in the head of a victim. The tool then become evidence in the ensuing investigation. A totally different scenario, unrelated to what we're...

It isn't a tactic, and I welcome response to anything I post. It's just that I don't spend all that much time here. After a couple days away I just respond to all the answers that have accrued. Since the replies are to different comments by different posters, putting them all in one post...

No, my recollection is not much more than a week below -40. The rest of the time it would creep above that in the daytime.

Depends on what's being modeled. In the case of climate it's quite clear. The output is a forecast, a projection, a prediction. It isn't evidence. Really? 8O You must have a very unusual hammer. The output of my hammer is force, energy transfer to the nail. A very generalized question. It...

I can't believe you're serious. Please explain to me why a serious scientist would discard actual evidence and then try to build a case using fraud. You sure got that right. That's 'cause he has a political agenda he's promoting under the guise of environmentalism. Yes and no. It is as...

A model can be used in lieu of actual evidence. The real evidence is still "what's observed". Hmmm, so the model would be a tool.

And no ice, then where do the marine mammals go to rest? That would be on land, where they can't move near as fast as the polar bear (which spends the vast majority of its time on land anyway.)

Utter rubbish! Manmade signal is virtually undetectable except for the effects of the Asian Brown Cloud or urban heat islands.