Well, then it's OK to be skeptical of the results of this paper. Why are you defending it so vigorously? Science used to be about defending one's research results against people trying to also replicate the results. These days, it's up to the "Deniers" to disprove studies, and then when the studies are at least proven to be correlated, at best, the bar gets moved by those whose own studies are laughable upon inspection. Smear someone as a Denier if they try to replicate studies, and can't get the same results, or even know what the control group was supposed to be according to models. That's the new scientific method.
Perhaps we have already addressed this issue, I has been known for many many years. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3014/ Probably more to take care of in some other countries though.
Mercury has been on this planet long before humans. We can't just and create more of it out of thin air. Just because we have mined gold doesn't mean we have created more it. The same goes for mercury.
I'm not defending it at all. I've stipulated that I (like you and everyone else in the thread) don't really know what it says. It's fine to be skeptical of a paper you haven't read, but it's not very meaningful. There are hundreds of thousands of scientific papers I haven't read, and I'm skeptical of all of them. Because, you know, there's a global scientific conspiracy. barfo
Perhaps they is a good reason for all the research papers and articles. The Government is paying for the Research on Climate Change! About 2.5 billion in grants a years. Check out the agenda http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=2O3Vh9uT6bWE6thLnng77Q&bvm=bv.72676100,d.cGE http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=sgBflimRPXUfJKT7rp1m5g&bvm=bv.72676100,d.cGE How much do you think is spent on Grants to counter Climate Change? Or Grants to show it is happening with or without Homo Sapiens? I find zero.
Of course. If I pour Round-Up on my lawn every day, it's going to kill the grass. This has been proven. I'll pour it on my lawn in a spot and show you the results, if you'd like to see an actual experiment. Group A: 1' x 1' area of grass on which I'll put Round-Up. Groups B-Z: 1' x 1' areas of grass that I'll put the same amount of water on each day. My "skeptical" study is that Group A will die faster than the other groups from the same back lawn. Would you bet $100 against that theory being proven correct?
You now understand scientific skepticism. Nice! Welcome to the Denier Club! It's nice to have a new member.
I will fund this study, but I'd like a few changes. I'd like the control group to be of equal size as the study group, and evenly distributed. I think a checkerboard pattern of 1' squares across the entire lawn would do nicely, assuming the lawn is of a reasonable size. barfo
Thanks! There are a great many subjects I know nothing about, so I'm sure I will bring great value to your club meetings. barfo
I'm not asking anyone to fund it. It's my own skepticism of existing results that I want to try and replicate. Why would you fund it? The proven science means any differing result I find would be questioned and re-tested, as it should be. Perhaps my one-off would be an outlier?
No, you didn't mean me. You said "the other side" meaning the people who are duped by the AGW scam. I'm absolutely certain of what the study's authors are quoted as saying. I'm also absolutely certain that using models to predict the future of a non closed system is akin to astrology.
Another $500M to Solyndra plus unpublished larger amounts to similar scam artists. And all the$10s of $billions a year in treehugger subsidies. A blue collar bank robber robs one bank at a time, at the point of a gun. A white collar one robs hundreds of banks, or the treasury, itch out a gun or stepping foot on the premises. They're talking about Manhattan Project scale projects and funding yet to come.
Just as certain other posters are absolutely certain that God is going to take them off to heaven after they die, etc. It's quite easy to think of examples of non-closed systems where a model could very accurately predict the future. For instance, a box of lighter-than-air gas after the lid is removed. barfo
The example of modeling light air escaping a box is accurately based on physical research that has been observed in a controlled experiment. That has nothing at all to do with predicting future climate parterns.
I can create an accurate computer model of a rock dropping from my hand to the ground. I would have high confidence in the accuracy of such a model to predict that future behavior.
Sure, movement of gasses into the atmosphere has nothing at all to do with the climate. Like CO2, for example. Absolutely irrelevant. So you agree that non-closed systems can be modeled as long as the models are based on physical research. Denny disagrees. But anyway, that wasn't my point. I was just addressing Denny's comment. barfo
