Yea, what do you know?

If I need an expert on shallow marine benthic geologic habitats I know I can call you.

But what does global warming have to do with the ocean floor? Nothing? I thought so :smokin:

Perhaps a more important questions is, what does the microtidal coast look like in NEW ZEALAND? Or more importantly, what are New Zealanders wearing this time of year?

It should be warm so if they're wearing sweaters or polar fleece Global Warming must be a fraud. Then again, if they're wearing shirts it's possible there's a short term trend towards warmth so Global Warming must be a fraud.

-spence

What did you do, google me? :buds:

read your posts idiots...I highlighted yours if red Johnny, geeze

JD... "However, people that use this as evidence against climate change *are* idiots. "

SPENCE..."Only an idiot would measure climate change with a 10 year sample, or perhaps someone out to ignore science and make a political point."

Johnny you routinely roll with he "most people are ....(fill in the derrogatory slur)
and Spence's arrogant condecension is unmatched and remarkably boring...

with you two it's always the same thing, you make quite a couple:love:


this was written for you two...

July 10, 2009
The Audacity of Conceit
By Victor Volsky

Intelligent idiots, smart fools, multi-degreed morons - lots of monikers could describe a category of individuals dismayingly prominent in the ruling elites of the West. They are the people so divorced from reality, so engrossed in bookish pursuits that - for all their undoubted intellectual accomplishments and often as a direct consequence thereof - they invariably end up with egg on their faces whenever they try to engage in practical activities.


Worse yet, they idolize each other, sticking up for one another out of class solidarity.

If the people who formulate the administration's economic policy are so smart, why is it so disastrous? Last January, these wizards of smart predicted that if Obama's stimulus package were passed, the unemployment rate would not go beyond 8 percent by the end of the year. At this point, it is nearing 10 percent and shows no sign of slowing down. How could they be so wrong with their vaunted brilliance?


It is a common mistake of intellectuals to confuse IQ with common sense and verbal fluency with leadership qualities. They are simply unable to comprehend that academic success does not necessarily translate into a firm grasp on reality; the knack for endlessly bloviating on an abstruse subject does not automatically imply administrative ability; an academic degree is not a substitute for practical experience; and a professors' lounge is not a corporate boardroom.


Nobody would deny that the members of Obama's circle of economic advisors are indeed academically adept, well-spoken men and women. But have any of them ever run a lemonade stand, much less a bona fide business? Have they ever met a payroll? Do they know what it means to toss and turn in bed, worrying over the coming rise in vendor prices? They may have academic theories and marshal vast amounts of data, but have little practical knowledge of how things work in the real world.


So what do they bring to the administration other than long resumes and fearsome reputations as intellectual polemicists? All these brilliant academics have been brought on board for the sole purpose of lending an intellectual veneer to Obama's political schemes and validate his power grab. Hence the pitiful sight of these noted intellectuals being trotted out to the microphones to bleat pathetically in defense of the administration's agenda.

Karl Marx memorably said that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Obama's economic policy, which amounts to an all-out assault on the U.S. economy, repeats history as a farce -- which would be hilarious, if we didn't have to live with the consequences.

You are delusional. And quite skilled at taking things out of context in a poor attempt to further your baseless points. You should go back to copy/pasting other people's ideas.

People who make a simple observation and use that as evidence for or against global warming (or climate change) are idiots. It's not a matter of if they agree with me or not.

Interestingly, I haven't once actually stated in this thread what my opinion on climate change is.

Yet you find it appropriate to cite "there are an awful lot of PHD idiots running around that dipute this data and 'SCIENCE'," as though having a PHD automatically makes someone an authority. If a PhD is a "muti-degreed moron" and "divorced from reality", what does that make someone like you who mindlessly follows what they say?

I like that.

Book learning is great, but unless tempered with experience and
wisdom it only offers a very small part of a person's intellect.

here's the SIDE that I'm on with regard to this JD, first...I'm NOT on the side that has determined that the "Science is Settled", the "DEBATE IS OVER" and anyone who disagrees is a "flat-earther", "holocaust denier" and is in the pocket of BIG OIL...this is the constant montra of the AGW supporters from AL GORE on down....there has been NO scientific debate for the last 10 years, the "other side" has been told to shut up and has been routinely impuned while the population had been pummeled with green propoganda....Al Gore has refused to debate(thought he was the magnificent debater?) anyone or answer questions from anyone beyond adoring suck up media....the Republicans were refused by the Dems to bring a witness to respond to Gore in the Cap/Trade hearings....is this how open and honest debate takes place in a democratic society? NO...this is how STALINISTS forward an agenda...I'm on the side that says...hold on...there's far more to this than what Gore and the left are trying to ramrod down our throats, you only need to look at the countries that rushed in to this lunacy to see the results....this is the mother of all trumped up left wing scare tactics created crisis used to frighten the masses and further seize power...but that's just my uneducated opinion so take it for what it's worth...noone told me to say that...

you are cranky again, now I know you didn't catch anything, head south one of these days and I'll take ya out fishing, we'll have fun....

hey Rock, this guy is a GEOLOGIST...

Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites

Geologist Ian Plimer takes a contrary view, arguing that man-made climate change is a con trick perpetuated by environmentalists

By Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver SunJuly 28, 2009

Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.

Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.

Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me -- and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.

It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history. Many have made the argument, too, that it is rubbish to contend human behaviour is causing the current climate change. And it has often been well argued that it is totally ridiculous to suppose that changes in human behaviour -- cleaning up our act through expensive slight-of-hand taxation tricks -- can reverse the trend.

But most of these scientific and academic voices have fallen silent in the face of environmental Jacobinism. Purging humankind of its supposed sins of environmental degradation has become a religion with a fanatical and often intolerant priesthood, especially among the First World urban elites.

But Plimer shows no sign of giving way to this orthodoxy and has just published the latest of his six books and 60 academic papers on the subject of global warming. This book, Heaven and Earth -- Global Warming: The Missing Science, draws together much of his previous work. It springs especially from A Short History of Plant Earth, which was based on a decade of radio broadcasts in Australia.

That book, published in 2001, was a best-seller and won several prizes. But Plimer found it hard to find anyone willing to publish this latest book, so intimidating has the environmental lobby become.

But he did eventually find a small publishing house willing to take the gamble and the book has already sold about 30,000 copies in Australia. It seems also to be doing well in Britain and the United States in the first days of publication.

Plimer presents the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is little more than a con trick on the public perpetrated by fundamentalist environmentalists and callously adopted by politicians and government officials who love nothing more than an issue that causes public anxiety.

While environmentalists for the most part draw their conclusions based on climate information gathered in the last few hundred years, geologists, Plimer says, have a time frame stretching back many thousands of millions of years.

The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behaviour.

Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's evolution.

(Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)

Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth's daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide.

There is no problem with global warming, Plimer says repeatedly. He points out that for humans periods of global warming have been times of abundance when civilization made leaps forward. Ice ages, in contrast, have been times when human development slowed or even declined.

So global warming, says Plimer, is something humans should welcome and embrace as a harbinger of good times to come.

One nitwit's opinion that you found on the web doesn't really prove anything.

He certainly has some screws loose with this gem:
It's one thing to publish opposing articles, it's another to disrupt meetings and whatnot. Right way and wrong way.

Well, you certainly haven't really proved that he is a nitwit just by calling him one. What Scott's post did, among other things, is prove, by his credentials, that the author IS a geologist, of a high rank at that.