Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: durangobill.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to durangobill.com.

Comments · 7

  1. Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1 · on Science By Democracy Doesn't Work
    My data? Ask and ye shall receive:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

    The report is a little big, heading toward 46 Megabytes, but I'm certain there is a typo in there that will allow you to refute the whole concept of AGW.

    Have at it.

    But wait! There's more!

    Climate data online

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-w...

    Paleoclimatology data

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...

    Probably what people are referring to in trying to say there has been no warming recently is the Monckton analysis:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/20...

    He's an interesting character, for those who like to talk about Mann's irascibility. He wants scientists to be Christian, (or other appropriate religion) and wants climate change supporters to wear Swastikas in order to identify them.

    I only put that in here because deniers like to talk about Mann's personality, yet one of deniers biggest hero's is a hoot in his own right. But if he were correct, it doen't matter. Science is not right or wrong based on personality.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

    But he's pretty well been debunked now.

    http://transitionculture.org/2...

    The online presentation is the link you want.

    Here is a response to the movie "The Great global Warming Swindle" a movie about how global warming isn't. It's a little sarcastic and snarky, but you might understand that.

    http://www.durangobill.com/Swi...

    The first instance is telling. Altered graphics and ommission of data thatat doesn't agree with a conclusion. Omitting the last 20 years temperature data is plain and simple - fraud in the name of denialism.

    Anyhow, these are sources you can readily access via the internet. If you need more, I can find them for you. But you have an exercise first. Just one, taken from the last link. Explain how omitting the 20 years of data to prove the average global temperature is not increasing is ethical and honest, and adequate proof or disproof of anything. Might as well just drop all of the high temps, re-average, and claim it's getting colder. Yet it is the deniers "trump card".

    And this is why deniers bear a strong relation to creationists. The Monckhaven analysis is brought up time and again despite it being proven false. Not a whole lot unlike creationists continuing to cite the "humans walking with dinosaurs" fossil, or "the eye is so complex" arguments or polonium halos or variable speed of light, or even the grandaddy of them all "Humans did not evolve from Monkeys or Apes", which is true enough, but only because humans and apes and monkees evolved from some common ancestor a long long time ago.

  2. 2 Of The 16 Are Former Exxon Execs by AddisonW · · Score: 5, Insightful · on Don't Worry About Global Warming, Say 16 Scientists in the WSJ

    Edward David
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_E._David_Jr.

    Roger Cohen
    http://www.durangobill.com/RogerCohen.html

  3. Re:The glaciers are retreating! by borizz · · Score: 1 · on Formerly Classified Global Warming Spy Photos Released

    He probably uses we like scientists do. We as in the human civilization. Also, Google those things and put debunked at the end, if you're so sure. http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html For example.

  4. Re:Great Global Warming Swindle by KeensMustard · · Score: 1 · on Top Ten Scientific Discoveries of 2007

    Claiming that AIDS and HIV are unlinked is politicking, not science, just like claiming that humans are 'definitely' a cause of global warming, and that global warming is bad. Wow. What an absurd contortion.

    The CO2 content of the atmosphere does not cause the globe to heat up or cool down. Historically, CO2 levels and temperature correlate strongly. The problem is that CO2 levels peak about 800 years *after* temperature peaks, and only after a rise in temperature does the CO2 content of the atmosphere change. Myth debunked
    More debunking

    Also, it is colder now, globally, than it was in the Medieval Warm Period, Myth debunked

    Likewise during about 3000 years in the Bronze Age, when humanity flourished and temperatures were higher still. So during the last bronze age, there was 6 billion people. Cos, you know that if there WEREN'T 6 billion people, or even a billion people, but rather only a couple of million, then there is simply no way that those situations could be comparable. Because a bunch of hunter gatherers living along a small number of major river systems could easily adapt to change, whereas 6 billion people cannot, owing to the fact that they eat the entire fish stock of the ocean and farm all of the arable land on the planet. You DID realise that...didn't you?

    Got this from "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which is obviously biased. The UN panel on climate change correctly bashed that documentary on a few points, but the claims I repeat here they didn't touch. I wonder why? Maybe because they're actually correct? See The Great Global Warming Swindle Strangely enough, that documentary was shown on Australian television last year - much to that amusement of the population at large, but to the ire of the scientific community. Here is some responses:
    http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/globalwarmingswindle/
    http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm
    There was a panel discussion after the showing of the documentary (mentioned here ). A group of scientists tore into the movie and it's supporters - it was awesome to watch. The denialists had nothing - in the end they resorted to conspiracy theory and ranting. In the end there was no question that the The Great Global Warming Swindle was itself the swindle.
  5. Re:Great Global Warming Swindle by KeensMustard · · Score: 1 · on Top Ten Scientific Discoveries of 2007

    Claiming that AIDS and HIV are unlinked is politicking, not science, just like claiming that humans are 'definitely' a cause of global warming, and that global warming is bad. Wow. What an absurd contortion.

    The CO2 content of the atmosphere does not cause the globe to heat up or cool down. Historically, CO2 levels and temperature correlate strongly. The problem is that CO2 levels peak about 800 years *after* temperature peaks, and only after a rise in temperature does the CO2 content of the atmosphere change. Myth debunked
    More debunking

    Also, it is colder now, globally, than it was in the Medieval Warm Period, Myth debunked

    Likewise during about 3000 years in the Bronze Age, when humanity flourished and temperatures were higher still. So during the last bronze age, there was 6 billion people. Cos, you know that if there WEREN'T 6 billion people, or even a billion people, but rather only a couple of million, then there is simply no way that those situations could be comparable. Because a bunch of hunter gatherers living along a small number of major river systems could easily adapt to change, whereas 6 billion people cannot, owing to the fact that they eat the entire fish stock of the ocean and farm all of the arable land on the planet. You DID realise that...didn't you?

    Got this from "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which is obviously biased. The UN panel on climate change correctly bashed that documentary on a few points, but the claims I repeat here they didn't touch. I wonder why? Maybe because they're actually correct? See The Great Global Warming Swindle Strangely enough, that documentary was shown on Australian television last year - much to that amusement of the population at large, but to the ire of the scientific community. Here is some responses:
    http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/globalwarmingswindle/
    http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm
    There was a panel discussion after the showing of the documentary (mentioned here ). A group of scientists tore into the movie and it's supporters - it was awesome to watch. The denialists had nothing - in the end they resorted to conspiracy theory and ranting. In the end there was no question that the The Great Global Warming Swindle was itself the swindle.
  6. A detailed explaination of lottery odds by davidwr · · Score: 1 · on Patterns in Lottery Numbers

    Durango Bill's Applied Mathematics: Mega Millions Odds.

  7. Wow, it must be science :\ by umrgregg · · Score: 1 · on Evidence Found of Lake, Catastrophic Flood on Mars

    Gimmie a break. I love how your 'research' links point to religious web pages. You think they have a motive behind their theories? Some of their references are terribly outdated and misrepresented. I'm sitting in the same room as 16000 geological and geophysical journal publications and 2200 books going back to the 1880's. I did a quick skim through the referenced GSA and JSP publications and needless to say, they had NOTHING to do with what they were referenced for.

    I liked the giant Andean clam page too some of my prof's got a kick out of it. As everyone commented on the page, they are most likely concretions. You can't really go on hearsay and fuzzy pictures, but a sample -loan would be nice. And like I said, dieing closed != cataclysmic death. Even if it were for these unlikely monster clams, who is to say that they were not suddenly killed and redeposited by a storm?

    Evolutionist != Scientist or geologist. Sorry. Who knows what your evolutionist was smoking? I sure don't, and he probably wasn't a geologist.

    I'm glad you're interested in educating yourself. Here's a non-intensive link that explains away some of your logic with noah's flood and the grand canyon. I can explain again why you're wrong regarding the river's erosion (a first semester geologist would understand) if you're interested. I'm getting tired of feeding the religion trolls in the science forum and I have to get back to my thesis.