My boss is concerned about global warming

[Rye]

Perhaps he teaches at PATRIOT university, teaching all the Kent Hovinds of the world? That'd explain a lot. "How does this antichristian science hurt humanity, and how morally corrupt are its fiendish authors?" would be a good module that would require the "physics" the guy is teaching (looking up and spreading dirt about guys you disagree with).

I hope I get all internet researched next! That'll be great!! Perhaps we'll find out I have long hair!

[Shroom Man 777]

Your sexiness will be his undoing.

[Surlethe]

[quote=""ecofan""]The new bastion of the Global Warming Hoaxters is "Climate Modeling". Models can be created to produce any desired result, and "modeling" in this particular issue is so primitive it is currently classified as "Junk Science" at least in the field of atmospheric physics.[/quote]
I suppose that the fact the models happen to accurately predict the climate doesn't mean anything? And I guess, since models can be created to produce any desired result, all of astrophysics goes out the window.

[wautd]

Perhaps he teaches at PATRIOT university, teaching all the Kent Hovinds of the world? That'd explain a lot. "

Doesn't explain his lack of spelling errors though. I'm betting Liberty University

[Darth Wong]

Hey "ecofan", what's the matter? Cat got your tongue? For someone who was all gung-ho to "research" the participants in this thread, and who even had an entire team of people working on it, you seem to be awfully slow at composing a response.

Of course, I can imagine that it might take quite a while to figure out how to defend a moronic calculation which "simplified" the atmosphere into a one molecule-thick barrier. So please, feel free to take your time.

[Frank Hipper]

Hey "ecofan", what's the matter? Cat got your tongue? For someone who was all gung-ho to "research" the participants in this thread, and who even had an entire team of people working on it, you seem to be awfully slow at composing a response.

Of course, I can imagine that it might take quite a while to figure out how to defend a moronic calculation which "simplified" the atmosphere into a one molecule-thick barrier. So please, feel free to take your time.

Oh, c'mon, the guy's very busy!

Busy working on "his" website, one with a domain that's been around for nearly ten years; so you know he's consumed with industrious effort!

[Shroom Man 777]

He could be organizing a field trip with his research students.

A field trip to our homes!

[Surlethe]

He could be organizing a field trip with his research students.

A field trip to our homes!

Nah, he's lugging his class and a big water cooler with adult beverages around the country getting opinions from PhD-plus types, so he can come back here and really refute us. Or maybe he's just a one-shot wonder; who knows?

[brianeyci]

A real professor would never be that condescending. He violated the cardinal rule anyway: publicly showing the grades of his "students." At least where I am, there's always a ton of people who fail. So grades are private, and never revealed so carelessly like that. A professor would never point to a student and say "you got an A, you got a C, you got an F."

So he's probably never even been to college, at least one worth something where half the class flunks out and the professor has to be discreet. Or he would've faked it better.

[Galvatron]

Hey "ecofan", what's the matter?

He's busy doing consultant work for the Strategic Defense Instatute.

[Darth Wong]

Hey "ecofan", what's the matter?

He's busy doing consultant work for the Strategic Defense Instatute.

Speaking of Stewie, I find it remarkable that some people are such reflexive liars that they make up totally unnecessary lies, for no apparent motive whatsoever.

Take this "ecofan" kid from New York who claimed he was a professor from California, and then said that he was planning to go surfing later that day. Not only should it have occurred to him that his IP address might give him away, but you have to ask: why? Why make up a totally pointless lie about living on the opposite side of the country from where you actually live? It's bad enough that he's lying about being a professor; why add those completely arbitrary extra lies? Do some people just enjoy lying?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

A real professor would never be that condescending. He violated the cardinal rule anyway: publicly showing the grades of his "students." At least where I am, there's always a ton of people who fail. So grades are private, and never revealed so carelessly like that. A professor would never point to a student and say "you got an A, you got a C, you got an F."

So he's probably never even been to college, at least one worth something where half the class flunks out and the professor has to be discreet. Or he would've faked it better.

Unless it doesn't apply to higher education, there are some legal regulations in place for student information privacy. For instance, as a high school instructor, I can't display student grades either, as you mentioned. It violates the Buckley Amendment (FERPA).

[Zwinmar]

Other than what his mentioned, I must point out another flaw in the 'professors' diatribe. Namely that he does all this work and does not sign his name to it.

I am thinking that he is just another lurker around here, attempting to persuade someone because he still lives in his mother's basement. He needs friends after all. That does not mean that it has to be us.

I have to agree with Boyish-Tigerlily, the old boy here seems more like a sick fanboy, rather than he does any kind of professor, I for one want to see his degree and teaching certificate, both of which are required to be able to teach in high school.

[Zwinmar]

Editor's Introductory Note: Our planet has been slowly warming since last emerging from the "Little Ice Age" of the 17th century, often associated with the Maunder Minimum. Before that came the "Medieval Warm Period", in which temperatures were about the same as they are today. Both of these climate phenomena are known to have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, but several hundred years prior to the present, the majority of the Southern Hemisphere was primarily populated by indigenous peoples, where science and scientific observation was limited to non-existent. Thus we can not say that these periods were necessarily "global".

However, "Global Warming" in recent historical times has been an indisputable fact, and no one can reasonably deny that.

But we're hearing far too often that the "science" is "settled", and that it is mankind's contribution to the natural CO2 in the atmosphere has been the principal cause of an increasing "Greenhouse Effect", which is the root "cause" of global warming. We're also hearing that "all the world's scientists now agree on this settled science", and it is now time to quickly and most radically alter our culture, and prevent a looming global catastrophe. And last, but not least, we're seeing a sort of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really quite disturbing. Historians ponder how the entire nation of Germany could possibly have goose-stepped into place in such a short time, and we have similar unrest. Have we become a nation of overnight loonies?

Sorry folks, but we're not exactly buying into the Global Hysteria just yet. We know a great deal about atmospheric physics, (bio) and from the onset, many of the claims were just plain fishy. The extreme haste with which seemingly the entire world immediately accepted the idea of Anthropogenic ( man-made ) Global Warming made us more than a little bit suspicious that no one had really taken a close look at the science. We also knew that the catch-all activity today known as "Climate Science" was in its infancy, and that atmospheric modeling did not and still does not exist which can predict changes in the weather or climate more than about a day or two in advance.

So the endless stream of dire predictions of what was going to happen years or decades from now if we did not drastically reduce our CO2 production by virtually shutting down the economies of the world appeared to be more the product of radical political and environmental activism rather than science. Thus, we embarked on a personal quest for more information, armed with a strong academic background in postgraduate physics and a good understanding of the advanced mathematics necessary in such a pursuit. This fundamental knowledge of the core principles of matter and its many exceptionally complex interactions allowed us to research and understand the foundations of many other sciences. In short, we read complex scientific articles in many other scientific disciplines with relative ease and good understanding - like most folks read comic books.

As our own knowledge of "climate science" grew, so grew our doubts over the "settled science". What we found was the science was far from "settled".. in fact it was barely underway.

It was for a while a somewhat lonely quest, what with "all the world's scientists" apparently having no doubt. Finally, in December 2007 we submitted an article to one of our local newspapers, the Addison Independent, thinking they would be delighted in having at minimum an alternative view of the issue. Alas, they chose not to publish it, but two weeks after our submission (by the strangest coincidence), published yet another "pro-global-warming" feature written by an individual whom, to the best we could determine, had no advanced training in any science at all, beyond self-taught it would appear. Still, the individual had published a number of popular books on popular environmental issues, was well-loved by those of similar political bent, and was held in high esteem among his peers. We had learned a valuable lesson: Popular Journalists trump coupled sets of 2nd-order partial differential equations every time. Serious science doesn't don't matter if you have the press in your pocket.

In fairness to the Addison Independent and its editors, our article was somewhat lengthy and technical, and presumably the average reader most likely could not follow or even be interested in an alternative viewpoint, since everyone knew by now that the global warming issue was "settled science". And we confess that we like the paper, subscribe to it, and know a number of folks who work there personally. They're all good folks, and they have every right to choose what does or doesn't go in their publication. They also have a right to spin the news any direction they choose, because that's what freedom of the press is all about. Seems everyone, both left and right, does it - and it's almost certain we will be accused of doing the same here. And we just may be, as hard as we may try to avoid it. We humans aren't all shaped by the same cookie cutter, and that's a blessing that has taken us as a species to the top of the food chain.

But by then we had been sharing our own independent research of the literature with others via email, and receiving a surprising amount of agreement back in return. (We're in contact with a large number of fellow scientists around the country, dating back to our college days in the 17th century when beer was a quarter a bottle). One local friend, in particular, kept pressing us to publish, and even offered to set up a "debate" with the Popular Journalist who had usurped our original article. This we politely declined, arguing that "debate" cannot prove or disprove science...science must stand on its own.

But then something unusual happened. On Dec. 13, 2007, 100 scientists jointly signed an Open Letter to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, requesting they cease the man-made global warming hysteria and settle down to helping mankind better prepare for natural disasters. The final signature was from the President of the World Federation of Scientists.

At last, we were not alone...

(continued here)

I just make 2 points that completely discredits the autority of the author:
1.) "We're in contact with a large number of fellow scientists around the country, dating back to our college days in the 17th century when beer was a quarter a bottle."
2.)"100 scientists jointly signed an Open Letter "

Problems:
1.) A scientific article is not the proper forum to be witty
2.) 100 scientists is not peer review
3.) The author will not, it appears, debate his findings

As such, I find this article is complete and utter bullshit.