Marion Delgado’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I have to agree with Victory over Rationality

  The theory of reality is just that - a theory.

  And I am 100% sure that "He made the stars, also."

  Hence there never was, and never will be, and never could be a so called supernova producing something like the crab nebula and making winter warmer than summer, or a volcanic explosion making summer cooler than winter.

  How do I know with such precision?

  Ever seen a rainbow, smartasses?

  Sir Isaac Newton did. He learned two things:

  1. Optics
     
  2. That God's promise still holds.

  The Earth will perish in flames, not ice or water.

  That's 100% certain.
  On Did I say darndest? I meant stupidest posted 1 year, 4 months ago 26 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  snowbird, you don't grasp your cite at all

  Svensmark's cloud experiments aren't replicated, they had little in common with the press release about them, and as one of the people involved stated, more than half a year before you posted, absolutely every element that would impinge on global warming or climate change was poorly defined and not accounted for at all.

  At some point, it's remotely possible, for instance, that the science consensus will be that unusual conditions can make very, very tiny particles CCN that aren't normally, AND that those conditions are met AND that the cosmic rays hit a comparable mixture, etc. etc. but that's very low probability now, to put it mildly.

  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/tak ...

  Notice how often the PhD student who did part of the work says, yes, that's a good question, no we didn't account for that. Note it's not a replicated experiment. Etc.

  In the face of that, your statement:

  "Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
  Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
  series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
  shown that fluctuations in the Sun's output cause the observed changes in the
  Earth's temperature."

  is absurd, and completely non-scientific. I don't imagine I can teach you to think like a scientist, but this should do:

  If the entire paradigm of human-caused global warming were based on ONE set of LAB MODEL experiments with many of the variables not at all controlled for, and it was stated by the experimenters that much of it was tentative, AND it were not reproduced, how, exactly, would you, snowbird, respond?

  Can you state, for the record, that that would do it for  you? That you would state:

  "Recent research by James Hansen and his group at NASA Goddard points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
  series of experiments on greenhouse gases in test-tubes, these scientists have
  shown that human-produced GHGs cause the observed changes in the Earth's temperature.

  I mean, really? And if NOT, why on Earth don't people in your position think like this? How do you let your wishful thinking and political ideology lead you so far down the garden path and off a ledge without ever once even thinking, hey, am I actually saying anything remotely like reasoned scientific discourse? Or even reasoned argument, leaving out the scientific part?

  This defect, which the community of denialists and, frankly, cranks, shares, is exactly why we have difficulty treating these pronouncements with much respect.On A review of the distorted science in Michael Crichton's State of Fear posted 1 year, 10 months ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Dr Dave

  I have to assume that early caller's the proprieter of Dr Dave's TruthBlog, Dr. Dave's RadioBlog, Dr. Dave's Techblog, Soldiercentric, i.e. Dave Mason - he never says what he's a doctor of, just calls himself dr dave.

  I would say if that's him, then assuming he's a phd in something besides business or economics or what have you, then there was a debate. it's just that dr dave's side sucks eggs, and he's too ignorant even to make their strongest case. both his truth blog and his tech blog are foam-at-the-mouth right-wing screed-blogs, and he gives no evidence of understanding a science of any kind, let alone climate science. recommended (esp. the truth blog, which obsesses on global warming) because it'd be great for the next show to have him call in and be called to account for his pseudoscience.On Climate skeptic plays hookey posted 1 year, 10 months ago 11 Responses