# 97% Climate Scientists...



## Annie (Jan 1, 2011)

So who are those climate scientists? 

Lawrence Solomon: 75 climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming | Full Comment | National Post



> Lawrence Solomon: 75 climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming
> December 30, 2010  2:35 pm
> 
> ...To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken  those 2500 scientists hadnt endorsed the IPCCs conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCCs mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCCs conclusions, sometimes vehemently.
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Jan 1, 2011)

Old story.

That's 97% of the "scientists" culled from carefully screened respondents.


----------



## Annie (Jan 1, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Old story.
> 
> That's 97% of the "scientists" culled from carefully screened respondents.



I hadn't seen it, but it shows just how unscientific their pronouncements are. Should give concern to the believers, but nothing will.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jan 1, 2011)

This is what makes folks so furious and what threatens the foundation of good science.   

And I bet the 3% who answered no were either being sarcastic or were afraid of this kind of misuse being made of the survey.


----------



## daveman (Jan 1, 2011)

It's easy to win if you stack the deck.

Of course, that makes you a cheater.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 1, 2011)

*Really stupid.  Those 77 are the people who are actually actively publishing research in peer reviewed journals at present.

And here are some other numbers.*
97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans

A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. 

The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change. 

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences who conducted the survey late last year with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jan 1, 2011)

You frame the questions that way there is no alternative answer, unless you think the questioner is being a dick and you want to play with him.

That does not mean they endorse the weirdos who are pushing AGW.   Or that they endorse the remedies put up.


----------



## william the wie (Jan 1, 2011)

Actually I know an environmental scientist completing his MS and he is so violently anti-AGW his thesis is "Global Warming is Bogus, Climate Change is Real". He is afraid that real environmental degradation is being ignored to promote this AGW crap.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Really stupid.  Those 77 are the people who are actually actively publishing research in peer reviewed journals at present.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*

What on earth is an "earth scientist". There are only 3 sciences
1.)Mathematics
2.)Physics
3.)Chemistry
All others are self professed scientists. Of the 3,146 earth...whatever I doubt that any of them actually ever have been inside the arctic circle, least of all close to the poles.
I wonder how many of them, if polled would believe that there are entire regions  of Ellesmere Island and Northern Greenland peppered with tree stumps which still have roots attached, though totally dried out. Take a wild guess why the Vikings called it "Greenland"...O.K. more precisely it was "Groenland" but I don`t have the o with the 2 dots on top on my keyboard
How many of them would believe that the international "climate research station" closest to the pole can`t measure CO2 in the atmosphere with infrared spectroscopy, though that should be easy if CO2 absorbs IR enough "to warm the planet".
We use (and so does everyone else) GLC (Gaschromathography) because with IR you can`t even measure the difference between 5 and 10% CO2 (a lethal concentration).
Why would that be...You may ask. Because normal humidity a.k.a. H2O vapor absorbs IR 100 X times more than the fractional % CO2 we do have over the entire spectral region where CO2 has a few very weak absorption bands.
How many of them would believe that a short walk from the "international climate station" there is a power plant  running 6 large CAT Diesels 24/7 to also heat the "climate station".
We blow ~ 30 tonnes/day of CO2 out the exhaust stacks. But the climatologists claim that does not matter "because the wind blows most if that away".
Why don`t these "earth" whatever tell You that the entire region Ellesmere + Northern Greenland has always been a Low-precip region, not much difference other than temperature from the Sahara?
Most of the snow we do get is blown in during the winter months from the polar ice cap by winds 150+klicks. I could show you "brown" Greenland pictures from 1958, no grey actually because we have only b/w pics from then.
I posted all this in another thread here with a link to 100+ pictures I took over the years I was stationed there. If You examine these You will have no trouble making out that all the snow is always on the same mountainside, no matter which mountain you look at...because almost all is drift snow. Aside from there I lived in the Yukon. It does snow a lot there and our glaciers are doing just fine thank You...but in a low precip region where almost all snow is blown in how can you possibly relate from Sat-pics and glacier extend what the temperature trend is?
If the sand dunes in the Sahara are on average over a few decades a little lower, would You say it does`nt "snow" enough sand because of "global warming"?
Or try confront the "earth" whatever and "climate"...whatever with the Roman sea walls in Britain and ask what formed all that ice in such a short time that they are so high and far from today`s shores...they will have none of the mini ice age we just came out of due to unusual low solar activity...they try and tell You it was`nt the ocean level that dropped, but that the British Isles have "risen from the sea".
Whatever, anyway a whole lot of ice has to melt before the water is again  up at where it was when these walls were constructed.
Most people have no idea what kind of b.s. they are fed by the media and "earth"... whatever...Today on CNN there is an article where one "scientist" established how global warming is forcing our Inuit population into junk food, because "of the lack of ice cover, due to global warming seal hunting is almost impossible"...
my God, is that the first time this "Scientist" has been say in Iqaluit?"
They had a MacDonald`s there since it has an airport and Social-workers from Ottawa and Toronto...and You will not find a single Inuit who would give You a big Mac for raw seal!...and the same goes for every Inuit community up there. Its not just junk food they eat, they also have a huge drug and alcohol problem since they get rather generous welfare checks. They are by far more interested what`s on Satellite TV than what may or may not be within easy rifle range from the living room window..and none of that has anything to do with how thick or thin the ice is!
Everyone of these "social workers" have a degree in "Social Science" and the Inuit did just fine before these "Scientists" showed up with huge civil servant pay checks and the bars + Restaurants Ottawa built for them in these communities. Their very presence + their lifestyle ensures that they will never run out of "work"!....But CNN   publishes yet another idiotic "climate change" ramification one of the "experts" fed to their news room..
...But then I`m not an "earth"...whatever, just a Nuts and Bolts Chemical Engineer who served with the Military in the arctic and thus should keep my mouth shut when it comes to state of the art media driven propaganda science.
My God how much more stupid can this climate change "science" get?
And its always the same club they hit over Your head "94% polled agree that...blah blah"
and that is supposed to prove what?...that there are far more stupid than not quite so stupid people, sad but true, that is all You can prove with this method.*


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 1, 2011)

Watch out for Old Crock, he is like grandpa at Thanksgiving, someone has to feed him.


----------



## rdean (Jan 1, 2011)

Baruch Menachem said:


> This is what makes folks so furious and what threatens the foundation of good science.
> 
> And I bet the 3% who answered no were either being sarcastic or were afraid of this kind of misuse being made of the survey.



They were probably Republicans.  97% of scientists believe in "evolution".  Only 6% of scientists are Republican.  Who wants to bet that HALF of all Republican scientists DON'T believe in evolution?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 1, 2011)

Annie said:


> So who are those climate scientists?
> 
> Lawrence Solomon: 75 climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming | Full Comment | National Post
> 
> ...





Holy shit..........never knew that!!!


*ePiC fAiL*




epic fraud too..........over time, shit like this will become more and more part of the mainstream thinking. Ten years ago, people like Rush Limbaugh were saying with 100% certainty that in the future, this global warming stuff will be viewed as nothing but a fad..........an engineered fraud on the world. Just 5 years ago, the crusaders owned the debate...........not anymore. They've been exposed..........thankfully, for the rest of us.


Think about it..........the two easiest things to doctor are statistics and weather.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jan 1, 2011)

rdean said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > This is what makes folks so furious and what threatens the foundation of good science.
> ...



No reputable scientist believes in anything related to his field.   There are theories that fit the known facts bit than any other hypothesis.    Belief is a religious  expression.

Every so often Evolutionary theory gets turned on its head.   Most significantly due to the discoveries in Africa between 1920 and 1960.   Also due to the research of folks like Jane Goodall.  Evolutionary theory today is unrecognizable as the same beast of William Jennings Bryans's day.   

The 6% figure was a poll of AGW scamsters assembled at a meeting on the subject.  It was not a poll of scientists in general.    It was, it seems to from the evidence, a poll of religious cranks calling themselves scientists.   This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
One can not extrapolate from a poll of  a cammora  dubious characters and then assign belief to all persons   in a class semi related, still less can you assign belief in an assertion where the question was not asked in the poll.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 2, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Old story.
> 
> That's 97% of the "scientists" culled from carefully screened respondents.


did you know that 100 years ago no geologists believed in Plate Techtonics?  Boy were THEY right!  And 150 years ago, 100% of biologists thought Louis Pasteur was insane for saying that spontaneous generation was false and germs did not exist!  What a loon that Pasteur fellow was!  Thank God nobody spread those crazy coot's theories.

In the 1700's every scientist knew that fire was caused by caloric fluid, and motion could not increase temperature.

And Geez!  How can we forget how Galileo's crazy little notion the Earth revolved around the sun!  I mean he was so wrong that the concensus of scientific scholars of the day AND the church got him to recant THAT one for a while.  Thank God for that!  Atlas and the Turtle were PISSED!


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

Baruch Menachem said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...


this has been pointed out to rdean several times, but he chooses to continue with his lies


----------



## polarbear (Jan 2, 2011)

It`s not my intention to dump my opinions about these climate change theories on Y`all.
I know my limitations especially when it comes to debating. I did not major in English or political "science" nor can I twist words like a lawyer. I just so happened that I`m (was..now retired) a chemical engineer with  Military service and have spent the better part of my life in the Arctic, winters @ 24 hours darkness and summers @ 24hrs blinding sunlight.
I have roamed the Arctic not just looking down from Hercs, Twin Otters and Choppers, but had both feet on the ground and even crawled into many ice caves. And dug in the gravel to feel the roots of tree stumps that pepper the landscape close to the Pole.
I took thousands of pictures, not all with the same Cam....You can grab one and sign it out and some were better than others. But I do think these pictures tell the real story what is happening at the North Pole and what is just plain B.S.
This forum has some rather awkward rules....You are not allowed to post any links till You made 15 posts. Sure I could  14 text boxes full of B.S. to qualify, but I know full well that the B.S. will be stuck in my face to "win" debates....because that`s the way this entire swindle "science" has been perpetrated since conception.
So, for now I`ll just refer to some pics which I have already uploaded to a newspaper in Germany on my personal Album. And I have to leave the "Youknowwhat" off and spell out the rest of the link, and when you re-combine the 2 & paste it in Your browser`s address bar You`ll have the picture that goes with the discussion.
F@##< ....I can`t even write hTtP,wWw with nothing else and this crap editor wraps me on the knuckles about these stupid 15 posts! What the hell is the bright idea behind that???

Anyway, here comes picture #1 and I wish an honest Geologist would finally come forward and tell all of us how many 1000 freeze thaw cycles it takes before entire mountain sides look like this:



> community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5502-sammelsurium-picture23858-sammelsurium.jpg


What..did all that happen since we have cars?

Next one is the Remus river, we go there lots of time because the fishing is pretty good.
I always preferred nosing around more and took this picture, had in mind to get an honest answer some day about this question:



> community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5481-noch+mehr-picture23749-noch-mehr.jpg



That river comes from a glacier just behind me from where I snapped the photo.
For how long has this glacier been melting to dig a river like that and form a sediment bank like that one on the right river bend, just before it goes into that Lake full of fish?
Did all that happen in the last 75 Years?

Next picture was taken form a little higher up same area...the "global warming melt" of arctic glaciers:


> community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5481-noch+mehr-picture23746-noch-mehr.jpg



That picture makes 2 things obvious at the same time. That`s not really a "melt" that is happening here...The ice is shoved by sheer force of gravity as ice into the warmer lake water and quasi dissolves...and I don`t really care where on Ellesmere Island or Greenland You look almost everywhere that`s how these glaciers are "melting".

The second thing that`s rather obvious, is how the snow that formed these glaciers came from...it does not fall from the clouds like in the Yukon or Alaska , commonly known as "It`s snowing"...no almost all of that snow is blown in by furious winds in the winter months from the polar ice cap.
To convey this a little better:
First another picture:


> community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5500-+hier+rumkriecht-picture23846-hier-rumkriecht.jpg


That was "in broad daylight" in the winter on our base...no at that rare time it did not storm!...but notice the rope in the background?
Most of the time You have to wear a harness and clip to that rope else no one will ever find You again, *and the snow blows so thick You literally cannot !!! see the hand before Your eyes or a strobe light just a few feet in front of You!!!!*
But if You happen to be so unlucky as "being trapped" above in an aircraft ~ 1000 feet agl...*there is a crystall clear star studded sky.*....but the time will come when the fuel beepers come on and You will have to descend into that inferno and land...that`s why the surroundings of this base is littered with wrecked aircraft from Hercs, Griffins, DC 6es and even an old Lancaster from 1958. You cant` really charter a tourist "skidder" to fly there nor would You be allowed, this always was and still is a restricted area for military use. The international "climate station" appeared in a hurry, after a horrific crash blew the cover of secrecy what is really on this base, which had either been denied or lied about that it is "weather research station" and in order that the American and Canadian Public had not been lied to a real weather station had been slapped together inside 7 days...and later been improved...and is today the "International Polar Research Station"....
But AFB Trenton and SAC Thule control who is allowed to go there and who not.

Oh yeah...here are some of the many tree stumps, these are around Fort Conger, which is where 14 men miserably died when they tried to reach the North Pole:



> community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5481-noch+mehr-picture23747-noch-mehr.jpg



Lots more of these all over the northern part of Greenland!

And now here is a real puzzle, I wish and so do many others who made these "rings"...
There are lots of these all around SAC Thule:


> community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5481-noch+mehr-picture23748-noch-mehr.jpg


No there are no "Eskimos"...Inuit they are called today there. They don`t go that far north. The closest Inuit settlemnt is over 1000 miles as the crow flies south of us. We (the military) are the northernmost people on the face of this planet who live on Land at taht place...but someone made these rings...
And before anyone makes a wise crack about spotting some man made bricks in this ring...there are entire mountain sides of almost perfect bricks and shingles in all colors from red, to blue, green and brown....take a closer look at this picture, there are a lot of "bricks" and a lot of almost perfect "shingles":


> community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5491-raetselhaftes-picture23791-raetselhaftes.jpg


It really sucks if You cant` even show a picture, because after this I don`t have a whole lot I want to say and rather sit back to see what thoughts You guys have about this material...don`t keep me waiting too long. Soon I`m planning to move back north again..I just don`t fit in where we are at the moment and where I returning to there are no phones and no Internet, but lots of glaciers!
Oh yeah do Polar bears drown or starve when the ice melts like it did every summer for X 1000 Years?...
Does he look staved to You...I have hundreds and hundreds of such polarbear  pictures, they all looked pretty healthy to me, just like that one:


> .community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5485-cfs+alert+canada-picture23766-cfs-alert-canada.jpg


They LOVE SWIMMING!!!
Oh Gee, almost forgot to link to the pictures which make it pretty clear how different snow deposits here ...where it hardly ever snows as people in the south understand it we have mostly "snow dunes"...I guess You could call them "drifts" but they are pretty bis drifts, which form under their own weight Ice:


> community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5481-noch+mehr-picture23744-noch-mehr.jpg


Notice how sparse the snow is on one side and how deep (hundreds of feet) on the "lee-side":


> community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5481-noch+mehr-picture23750-noch-mehr.jpg


That`s not how "Donner Pass" looks were* it dumps snow* in the Wintertime..
It NEVER dumps snow up in the arctic..well hardly ever and the Mountains and the landscape tell You a story that spans who knows how many thousands of years.
Now I wish I would get some honest answers from a well proven and seasoned Geologist who does`nt smoke pot, how on earth these phony rising average temperatures have anything to do with how much blowing snow is trapped by these mountains  and the terrain-turbulence. Even a Geologist should know, that the "colder" the snow is the easier the wind keeps stripping it from the mountains in Greenland + Ellesmere and then You have consequently less snow left behind to form glaciers.
And that applies summer and winter...it`s not that there is no snow in theses mountains in the summer...hey when the wind kicks up in the summer in these mountains you are blinded by snow, just like in a Sahara sandstorm!
Like I said, these "climatologists" say one thing , *these mountains told me all these years I watched them an entirely different story
*

I am getting TOTALLY annoyed by this 15 Post B.S. I got flagged over and over again and had to go over it with a fine toothcomb till I found where this idiotic editor put a {UrL} where I never asked it too and then refused my post till I finally found it.
*I don`t think I will continue posting here again, as if I have don`t any better things to do than putting up with B.S. Like that...so Bye You`all
It`s been nice knowing You*


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

polarbear said:


> It`s not my intention to dump my opinions about these climate change theories on Y`all.
> I know my limitations especially when it comes to debating. I did not major in English or political "science" nor can I twist words like a lawyer. I just so happened that I`m (was..now retired) a chemical engineer with  Military service and have spent the better part of my life in the Arctic, winters @ 24 hours darkness and summers @ 24hrs blinding sunlight.
> I have roamed the Arctic not just looking down from Hercs, Twin Otters and Choppers, but had both feet on the ground and even crawled into many ice caves. And dug in the gravel to feel the roots of tree stumps that pepper the landscape close to the Pole.
> I took thousands of pictures, not all with the same Cam....You can grab one and sign it out and some were better than others. But I do think these pictures tell the real story what is happening at the North Pole and what is just plain B.S.
> ...


hey, hang in there
the limits on posting links till after 15 posts is to give spammers a harder time, its an annoyance, but its a needed one


----------



## Douger (Jan 2, 2011)

It's perfectly obvious to anyone but dumb fucking brainwashed murkins.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp4ASr43e1I&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Douger (Jan 2, 2011)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcWpkWBX04E&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## polarbear (Jan 2, 2011)

Hey THAAAAANK YOUUUUU! for doing that...just came back here to add a few more of my "picture ghosts"....and noticed what You did here for me!
You know I`m the kind of guy who goes fishing with a shotgun and buckshot, that`s how patient I am!

And thats what You see when You get there in the Summer and look out the window when the Command Pilot  says hey guys buckle up we`re gonna touchdown in a few seconds...
The ENTIRE approach is littered like that:


> augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5481-noch+mehr-picture23758-noch-mehr.jpg


I guess that`s why "climatologists" rather look at Sat-pics in a city down south than go there to see for themselves. 
Do polar bears starve when it`s "warm" near the pole?


> community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5510-alltagsbilder-picture23918-alltagsbilder.jpg


A stray "climatologist" might well be an easy snack...no they look just as well fed on and off the ice...and that is in the summer too..else it would be dark no matter what the time of day...it`s on the permanent ice pack:


> community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5502-sammelsurium-picture23860-sammelsurium.jpg



And that is at the exact geographic North Pole...also in the summer:


> community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5502-sammelsurium-picture23862-sammelsurium.jpg



Only You can`t see the "Pole" You have to bring Your own...is it warm there in Midsummer,...?... Hell no!:



> community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5502-sammelsurium-picture23861-sammelsurium.jpg



And that what this Base really was and still is:




> community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5503-damals+und+heute-picture23864-damals-und-heute.jpg



A listening post...only we have much fancier "gadgets" today...the one at the South Pole is pretty well the same thing...it`s a tid for tad "sister station".
All "Mil-sats '" are on "polar Orbits" They up- and download there with a very tight "footprint".

Was there more "precip" or snow in 1958 than today...No it was then also officially classified as a "desert area"...so where does that leave "global warming"...????...:


> community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5503-damals+und+heute-picture23865-damals-und-heute.jpg



Spammers, O.K. I understand now...I guess it was for far too long my job to yell at the ranks...Sorry folks, we`re civilians now,...I`m recently retired and have yet to learn to adjust to that!


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

polar, just go into either the flame zone of the rep zone and make a couple short posts
LOL
or in the intro forum and welcome other people
you'll have your 15 in no time


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Hey THAAAAANK YOUUUUU! for doing that...just came back here to add a few more of my "picture ghosts"....and noticed what You did here for me!
> You know I`m the kind of guy who goes fishing with a shotgun and buckshot, that`s how patient I am!
> 
> And thats what You see when You get there in the Summer and look out the window when the Command Pilot  says hey guys buckle up we`re gonna touchdown in a few seconds...
> ...


hang in there you only need a few more posts


----------



## polarbear (Jan 2, 2011)

About the CO2...try this experiment. Get a balloon full of that stuff, maybe from dry-ice or You neighbor-hood pub that serves draft beer...they have it in cylinders.
Then get a bottle of whine and suck it dry in the name of some real science, but save the cork...You`ll have to drill a hole through it so that a drinking straw fits snug and with no leaks through the cork.
But don`t jam the cork + straw into the bottle neck just yet.
First place a few but only a few drops of hot water in the empty whine bottle...are You still sober enough to follow me?...Then connect the balloon with the CO2 to the whine bottle and run cold water over the bottle...it will suck itself full of CO2 if You did it right.
After that jam the cork with the straw into the bottle neck...Most of straw should protrude from the assembly. Now fill a bowl with water and submerge the straw into the water.
Watch the fountain that  squirts into the whine bottle....That`s how eagerly CO2 dissolves in water!
7/10 th of our planets surface is water...take a guess what absorbs more CO2, the trees or the oceans..? No, oceans do NOT saturate with CO2 it combines there with Calcium Ions and forms Calcium Carbonate...and that`s how most of the lime stone rock on earth was formed!
And guess what...although that experiment has been shown to school kids all over the world for almost a century, it was only last Year, that "climatologists" made a public  statement, that "They underestimated how much CO2 ocean spray from wave tops absorbs"...
Some "science".....eeyh (Canadian slang)
*Geee thanks again Divecon....Some day I`ll find You and buy You a beer!*


----------



## editec (Jan 2, 2011)

> What on earth is an "earth scientist". There are only 3 sciences
> 1.)Mathematics
> 2.)Physics
> 3.)Chemistry


 
How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

Biology isn't science?

Geology isn't science?

Astronomy isn't science?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 2, 2011)

Polar is another fruit loop. There is a surplus of them on this board.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Really stupid.  Those 77 are the people who are actually actively publishing research in peer reviewed journals at present.
> 
> And here are some other numbers.*
> 97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans
> ...



Atta boy, Rocks....holdin' on by the fingernails!

Beats cuttin' out paper dolls.


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 2, 2011)

rdean said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > This is what makes folks so furious and what threatens the foundation of good science.
> ...



90% of the scientists we now find out are not scientists at all, that leaves 1% Democrat scientist, 3% Independent, and 6% Republican. 

Evolution, that is theory, correct, they are still trying to make it fact but even in the age of computers they have failed to change theory to fact.


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Polar is another fruit loop. There is a surplus of them on this board.



I see your posting, that means your ignoring your stupidity in Energy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 2, 2011)

mdn2000 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...



Dumb ass. There are no facts in science. Theory is as good as it gets. Look up the definition of theory when it is used in science. For obviously you have no idea of what the meaning of the word is in scientific discussion.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 2, 2011)

Mankind produces less than 0.5% of CO2 which composes 0.04% of the total atmospheric composition.  It is a weaker greenhouse gas than water vapor (4%) and yet.... our contribution is concluded to cause MASSIVE GLOBAL changes when our species and it's buildings only covers less than 5% of the whole globe on only 27% of the surface.

And you expect to get me to believe that is going to cause a change in the cliimate of an entire planet?

You still leave a tooth under your pillow for the tooth fairy don't you?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 2, 2011)

Annie's signature quote pretty much says it all............the modern liberal will gladly buy a bag of dog shit for $1,000.00 a pop if it is packaged just right. When there is little meaningful in your life, you'll embrace anything AS LONG AS ITS HYSTERICAL.
They want to belive in man-made global warming becuase they HAVE TO believe in it!!!


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 2, 2011)

The Deniers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Three of those profiled by Solomon in his "Deniers" columns disputed his portrayals of their opinions and/or research. Sami Solanki stated on his personal website that Solomon's article was a misleading account of his views and reiterated his belief that manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming and their effects would continue to be felt as concentrations increase. Solanki also stated that he felt that The National Post had similarly misquoted other scientists regarding the topic.[12] Nir Shaviv disputed Solomon's 2007 National Post profile of some of his opinions and research findings. Shaviv stated on his blog that he was never interviewed by Solomon and that there were several inaccuracies in Solomon's article.[13] Nigel Weiss, "rebutted claims that a fall in solar activity could somehow compensate for the man-made causes of global warming"[14] and The National Post retracted the allegation and published an apology.[15] Solanki and Shaviv were included in Solomon's subsequent book; Weiss was not


----------



## Oddball (Jan 2, 2011)

Oooo!...A Wiki link!

You win.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 2, 2011)

Im kinda concerned these days that with all this cold going on all over the world, Kim might start to develop snowcaps on those deamy mountain peaks..................


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 2, 2011)

A convention of climate scientists.  Since there are only 3% Who deny global warming, guess which one is that?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 2, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> The Deniers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Three of those profiled by Solomon in his "Deniers" columns disputed his portrayals of their opinions and/or research. Sami Solanki stated on his personal website that Solomon's article was a misleading account of his views and reiterated his belief that manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming and their effects would continue to be felt as concentrations increase. Solanki also stated that he felt that The National Post had similarly misquoted other scientists regarding the topic.[12] Nir Shaviv disputed Solomon's 2007 National Post profile of some of his opinions and research findings. Shaviv stated on his blog that he was never interviewed by Solomon and that there were several inaccuracies in Solomon's article.[13] Nigel Weiss, "rebutted claims that a fall in solar activity could somehow compensate for the man-made causes of global warming"[14] and The National Post retracted the allegation and published an apology.[15] Solanki and Shaviv were included in Solomon's subsequent book; Weiss was not


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 2, 2011)

So the guy lies about what sceintists have said and you just believe him instead because??????

Oh yeah you are a political hack


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 2, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> So the guy lies about what sceintists have said and you just believe him instead because??????
> 
> Oh yeah you are a political hack


The essence of the econazi's argument:


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Polar is another fruit loop. There is a surplus of them on this board.


yeah, your here


----------



## polarbear (Jan 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Mankind produces less than 0.5% of CO2 which composes 0.04% of the total atmospheric composition.  It is a weaker greenhouse gas than water vapor (4%) and yet.... our contribution is concluded to cause MASSIVE GLOBAL changes when our species and it's buildings only covers less than 5% of the whole globe on only 27% of the surface.
> 
> And you expect to get me to believe that is going to cause a change in the climate of an entire planet?
> 
> You still leave a tooth under your pillow for the tooth fairy don't you?



Thanks for trying, but none of these "scientists" have ever actually done some IR Spectroscopy. To date IR is used mostly for qualitative Analysis rather than quantitative.
Quantitative IR might work better if we were living on a planet without humidity. I wish I`d have saved a few IR scans that cover the spectral region where the only bands are where the molecular  stretching and scissoring molecular bond vibrations are...superimposed with a scan of normal air with a trace of humidity...and all these "experts" would have to shut their faces for good.
The person You responded to has not even grasped that *CO2 is because of that measured using Gaschromathography with F.I.D. or E.C.Detectors instead of IR.
*
Even if You were to use air from which every trace of moisture had been removed You would be hard pressed to detect CO2 at these low concentrations at extreme path length unless you crank the photomultiplier up to the limit...and then the noise level is more than double the signal level and You are just "measuring" bullshit.
IR works fine if You want to follow a chemical reaction and want to monitor if You detect Aldehyde, Carboxyl Groups etc etc, but God forbid there is even a trace of water in Your sample, forget about seeing these absorption bands.
The whole thing is a joke. It originated in the former East Germany, the DDR. They came up with all kinds of Propaganda schemes to show what criminals we were in the west.
With the CO2 they tried the "acid rain" scenario   first. All forests are going to die, and then all the animals etc etc...because rainwater had a pH of ~6.
Only Problem was, that the best and purest de-ionized or distilled water also has a pH of ~6, because pH 7 is only a theoretical value form the square root of the H2O "p.K.a" 10 ^(-14)...and all it takes is somebody breathing in the same building then you have "acid water"...because the negative decade logarithm of the hydrogen g-atoms per liter was
the square root of 10 to the minus twelth power of 10 "acid" hydrogen g- ions in one liter of water...
F@@< do that one in parts per "Quazzillon" yourselv, I dont have the patience to sit here and type out all these zeros behind the comma how little "acid" Hydrogen was in that "acid rain"
My God it took years to explain that to the public and what the difference is between (acid)-neutralization value and the pH. The public still does not know the difference but the trees and animals did not die, so the CO2/acid rain doomsday scenario fizzed out...and out of the same former DDR Propaganda science came the CO2 "global warming /greenhouse gas" doomsday scenario.
They have it a little easier today, because most of the frormer Communist Party "Apparatschiks" have usurped their way to power, like Angela Merkel...and in the EU goes largely what Germany says. So now You have Your "Greenhouse gas disaster".
Anything that can destroy free enterprise will do...and science has nothing to do with it.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 2, 2011)

editec said:


> > What on earth is an "earth scientist". There are only 3 sciences
> > 1.)Mathematics
> > 2.)Physics
> > 3.)Chemistry
> ...



Normally I would not even respond to this kind of bickering, that avoids the subject entirely and is supposed to be a "counter-argument"...but hey I need to run up my post count to 15.
Lets start with Astronomy...since when is that a separate  science from physics?
Is thermodynamics or quantum mechanics a different science from physics where you were educated? How the heck did You manage to graduate from physics at Your college without having studied these physics chapters?
Almost but just almost, they same thing applies for Geology but that`s where it crosses the line and the method of proof starts to get wishy washy, but not quite as bad as "climatology".
You can call anything You want and end it with "-ology" if You claim you have "knowledge of". Like Religion..."Scientology" or "Theology".
Lets get to Biology...is that a science, no!
No more than if you observe people what they eat and how they breed as a tourist and then write a book when you get back home..the sames as Bio-"ologists" do about any other organism or living cell.
Where it does apply *exact SCIENCE* is when it runs into* BioCHEMISTRY.
* Or do You believe that amino acid seuquencing and electrophoresis was invented by Biologists?....or medical "science"..?
Who do You think determined the structure of Chlorophyll...a Bio-"logist".?????
Or could it be that is a product of one of the *3 internationally recognized exact sciences.*
The medical art has tried for decades to get recognized as an exact science, did not succeed and have since not tried to acquire that status again.
Doesn`t matter, anyway, because today the truth does not matter any more, only what most people believe!


----------



## rdean (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



WHAAAAT!

PEW research is one of the most respected, if not THE most respected research organization in the world.

The truth is that right wingers simply can't face the facts.  

Come on guys, look at how the right rails against "evolution" and "climate change".  And now right wingers are going after vaccinations?  They go after the research that proves the "effectiveness" of balanced sex education over the failed policies of "abstinence only".

Because scientists are constantly "learning", right wingers say scientists can't "make up their minds".  Not only does that "prove" the majority of right wingers don't understand science, they don't even understand how "learning" works.

I hate to have to be the one to point out the obvious, but come on, get real.  Why would anyone in their right mind, think more than 6% of scientists would be Republican?  Seriously.  Why?  If right wingers on this site are any indication of the average Republican, then certainly, 6% may be vastly overstated.


----------



## rdean (Jan 2, 2011)

polarbear said:


> It`s not my intention to dump my opinions about these climate change theories on Y`all.
> I know my limitations especially when it comes to debating. I did not major in English or political "science" nor can I twist words like a lawyer. I just so happened that I`m (was..now retired) a chemical engineer with  Military service and have spent the better part of my life in the Arctic, winters @ 24 hours darkness and summers @ 24hrs blinding sunlight.
> I have roamed the Arctic not just looking down from Hercs, Twin Otters and Choppers, but had both feet on the ground and even crawled into many ice caves. And dug in the gravel to feel the roots of tree stumps that pepper the landscape close to the Pole.
> I took thousands of pictures, not all with the same Cam....You can grab one and sign it out and some were better than others. But I do think these pictures tell the real story what is happening at the North Pole and what is just plain B.S.
> ...



                                   [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn8YubD01sk&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

rdean said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...


no where did i say anything negative about Pew, dipshit
you just took their data and skew the fuck out of it to make you claim
thats not Pews fault, its YOUR'S


----------



## polarbear (Jan 2, 2011)

I should actually thank You for trying to sell almost everything you read in newspapers or see on TV as a science, because I can squeeze one more post point out of that. 
Some here advise I should just post a dozen blah blah posts, but I think that just defeats the 15 Post anti-spam rule. If it`s just blah blah then I think there is no difference to Spam...it certainly ain`t information.
To You it might however be news how an exact science is INTERNATIONALLY defined...
and there are only the 3 I did mention that qualified to date.
To prove what is a scientific fact you have to be able to make EXACT predictions and these have to be 100% correct 100% of the time... 
and what you stated has to withstand every scrutiny + counter experimentation...not censor it...and what You claim to be a scientific fact has to apply anywhere anytime in the Universe, not just most of the time or even sometimes...else it will not qualify as science.
Look at what length Astro-PHYSICS or Nuclear PHYSICS have to go through before what is merely a theory is accepted as a scientific fact.
My God if we would allow the exact sciences to be ruled by public believes we would still be trying to invent gear to communicate with the dearly departed like Elvis Presley...
Well some Biologists do claim they can communicate with a pot plant after they smoked some leaves.
And there are tons of people + newspapers who bought that too.
Do you really believe in the exact sciences You can say "most people agree...or most people believe...or 97% polled say...." and get away with it?....Like this Scharlatan "Greenhouse Gas/Global warming/Climate change" crap....These jerks have done nothing but that!....and how so many of the public consider them "Scientists" is a *sad reflection of the achievements of "Progressive Liberal" Politics and their Opinion Mafia selling methods*.
Can we get back to it now how many freeze thaw cycles these mountains had to go through so that solid rock is shattered like that...in the arctic, that is supposed  to have been be a perpetual deep-freeze until we turned on the car ignition?.....Or why all these tree stumps that should not be there are there?
Or would You rather continue now by claiming I work(ed) for an Oil company?


----------



## rdean (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Hey Sparky, you might want to visit the PEW site.  At the end of their report, they go through the "methodology".  It's an interesting read.






Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

rdean said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


already have, dipshit
your take on the data is faulty
something they dont ever claim


----------



## rdean (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



What part of:

Party Affiliation among Scientists:

6%      55%      32%

Don't you get?

And look through their article.  They mention it more than once.

You see?  How can you have a debate with Right Wingers?  They only see what they want to see.  If they disagree, it's because it's a "lie".


----------



## rdean (Jan 2, 2011)

polarbear said:


> I should actually thank You for trying to sell almost everything you read in newspapers or see on TV as a science, because I can squeeze one more post point out of that.
> Some here advise I should just post a dozen blah blah posts, but I think that just defeats the 15 Post anti-spam rule. If it`s just blah blah then I think there is no difference to Spam...it certainly ain`t information.
> To You it might however be news how an exact science is INTERNATIONALLY defined...
> and there are only the 3 I did mention that qualified to date.
> ...



Yea, those darn  "Progressive Liberal" Scientists and their "Progressive Liberal" Science.

Places like NASA and Silicon Valley, while they are hotbeds of  "Progressive Liberal" Science, they are also hotbeds of  "Progressive Liberal" innovation.  In fact, it seems like ALL "hotbeds" of technology and innovation come from those darn "Progressive Liberals". 

Without those darn "Progressive Liberals", we would BE Afghanistan.  And if Republicans have their way, we still might be.  Teach the "controversy".  Because that's what it is, a "con".


----------



## polarbear (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



See?...What am I talking about, You do and have seen how this "science" conducts "scientific proof"..."The most respected blah blah agrees, blah said blah blah"...and nothing but.
They all fall for the buzzword college graduate Wizard of Oz spectacle...and will continue to do so, because there is no way to unscramble egg(brains) that have "green" fungus.

No way will they accept how often the outcome if the CO2 under a plexi- glass salad bowl with heat lamps and Wallmart Thermometer "experiment" got  debunked since then.

That gay (You can`t say f@g any more) British Lead- "scientist" might threaten suicide again , as he has when the "average global temperature" hockey stick swindle was discovered, and at the same time a Canadian Geologist discovered how all the "experts" have agreed for decades how fast the glaciers will disappear, was out by a factor of what was it again 20x or so, *and none of them have noticed that...but used that as a debate winning  argument for Years!...Then came back with one press conference after another one, how excusable that was to make an error with where a decimal point is placed...we are all supposed to forget that!...ALREADY!
*
I always did wonder, how exactly do You calculate what the average temperature of a planet is. By averaging all the readings  you take and most of them are from airport "Met-" Stations in big cities...or did they make sure that 7/10 of all these were taken evenly spread out over all our oceans?
CO2 IR absorption is warming the atmosphere, my God...(rumor has it he exists)
For ~20 bucks everyone can find out how atmospheric warming and cooling really works...if they only took the trouble.
Go to any airport that runs a flight school and ask for a ride in a glider.
1.Observe the thermometer they all use to "sniff out thermals"...these are updrafts caused by hot & humid air columns that can lift elephants in excess of 2000 feet per minute...
*That is REAL HEAT ENERGY and it comes from the sun!*
2. While You are at it let the pilot explain how he looks for these thermals.

First thing You will hear, *that they are gone as soon as the sun is down.*
Second You might notice that he is not trying to circle over a bunch of cars that "spew CO2" .
He looks for stuff like a large black area surrounded by moist green forest and similar conditions!..*.and avoids lakes etc!*
As soon as he finds a good one get ready...You are in for a wild ride!
Could be, that one wingtip is still in the downdraft while the other one hits a violent updraft and You will despite full counter aileron do a roll.
After that You jaw might be jarred open when he gets it centered in the updraft of the hot and moist air column,...Because You can then experience some pretty serious G-loads.

Now do a little math and consider how much *HEAT ENERGY* comes for the sun at any given time and *is absorbed BY THE DARK SURFACE BELOW..*..to heat air to hurl say a Schweizer 222 Trainer with 2 occupants, say 1500 pounds  at a vertical speed > 2000 feet per minute skyward...
And we are supposed to believe that was because of a fractional difference in CO2 content 6 places behind the decimal point.
After he tops out with this thermal, take another look at the thermometer...depends how good the thermal was, you might not even have to, because the hot air that just gave you that wild ride is now so cold You might be shivering!...Pilots use standard laps rate of 3.5 degree F temperature drop per 1000 feet.
So, how does that hot air You just rode allegedly melt all the glaciers in Greenland?
I guess it must be that the air with all that CO2 car exhaust is so much heavier that it crawls along the ground from a Farmers Filed in South Dakota all the way to Greenland...if there was a Farmer driving around in a John Deer tractor and registers because of the Diesel exhaust  on every "Global warming" scientists thermometer on its way to the North Pole!


----------



## gunnyrogers55 (Jan 2, 2011)

funny how after the 2008 elections the democrats never really have said much about global warming and haven been pushing to do what the wanted to do with environmental laws.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 2, 2011)

rdean said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, those darn  "Progressive Liberal" Scientists and their "Progressive Liberal" Science.
> ...


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jan 2, 2011)

rdean said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...



This is why you would never be a scientists Deany.    You have your conclusion before you start, and any element that challenges it is invalid.

First, you take a badly bungled poll by  a political hack organization (How you get "Most Respected " is another fallacy right there, but we will have to come back to that later) and stretch it way out beyond what it purported to show.

It was not a poll of all scientists.   It was a poll of folks who met at a politically motivated symposium.   Since they were supposedly of a very small slice of the science universe (Climateologists) They didn't bother to survey biologists , anthropologists,  geologists......   You can't go from a badly skewed sample and extrapolate to the science community at large.

What we have in your posts over and over again is appeals to bogus authority, circular reasoning, appeal to the antecedent as proof of the assertion.... 

Now the other problem you have is your sample of Republicans.  Like me and Daveman and others.    The sample of Republicans on this board (Admittedly not representative)  belies your assertion that all republicans believe in Genesis.   I am sure USArmy retired does, and a few others.   But even here you would be hard pressed to get 30% of us to say Genesis trumps Darwin and Mendell.   You toss in Jake Starkey, it gets even harder.

The Republicans you know show that your assertion that all Republicans are this way.  If you expanded your universe of republicans it would show your assertions are even more foolish.

Now Polarbear has brought in some interesting information .  He was up there looking at the glaciers.   Dealing with them on an intimate basis. Rocky on the other hand is a steelworker in Portland OR living in  a nice temperate place where the glaciers are only something he can see out of his window, but not anything he has to work with on a daily basis.   So if we are going to have an appeal to authority, which authority should we go with?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

rdean said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


what part of it wasnt a random sample of all scientist but a poll of a specific GROUP of PRO AGW scientists that you dont understand
no one would expect a PRO AGW group to have many republicans
you are an idiot


----------



## polarbear (Jan 2, 2011)

Hey while we are at it discussing "Progessive Liberal" fledgling scientist research and sucking up to the Prof, why don`t You make a list of what came out of that "research" to date...
Second hand cigar smoke causes cancer would be right up top!
..and I`ll make up a list what came out of the research Labs of all these evil world polluting Industries...
What the F@@* had for example anyone from these "progressive liberal" fledglings scientists to do with say a cruise Missile...I have never met any of these say at Garett Air-research in Phoenix or say where solid fuel "doughnuts" are made for the shuttle boosters...just a whole lot of "outdated, anti-gay, ultra conservative right wing" cigar smoking old chemists.
But hey thanks, soon I`ll have my 15 posts and I`ll be able to stick YOUR face in some REAL stuff!
You know all that stuff just from TV and Hollywood movies, Wikipedia and Internet blogs... and have no idea how stuff REALLY gets done!
Hey look up CNN, a "scientist" has just proven there that the polar ice is too thin because Eskimos "have to eat"at MacDonalds and can`t get raw seal meat....which by the way Your "progressive Liberal University research" has said (~1978) we evil Industrialists have polluted with Mercury...
Only later to find out they had no idea what a reference beam on an Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer is supposed to be used for...
After that all this "Mercury poison" vanished like a miracle from the face of the earth and no one wanted to know how!
That`s what happens when "Environmental Scientists" f***k around with stuff that`s way over their head....they have been measuring NO2 fumes from the Nitric acid in which they dissolved their samples as "Mercury content"....
And You want to tell me what`s what...?....try again...I need 15 posts!


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Hey while we are at it discussing "Progessive Liberal" fledgling scientist research and sucking up to the Prof, why don`t You make a list of what came out of that "research" to date...
> Second hand cigar smoke causes cancer would be right up top!
> ..and I`ll make up a list what came out of the research Labs of all these evil world polluting Industries...
> What the F@@* had for example anyone from these "progressive liberal" fledglings scientists to do with say a cruise Missile...I have never met any of these say at Garett Air-research at Phoenix or say where solid fuel "doughnuts" are made for the shuttle boosters...just a whole lot of "outdated, anti-gay, ultra conservative right wing" cigar smoking old chemists.
> But hey thanks, soon I`ll have my 15 posts and I`ll be able to stick YOUR face in some REAL stuff!


you got it NOW


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 2, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Mankind produces less than 0.5% of CO2 which composes 0.04% of the total atmospheric composition.  It is a weaker greenhouse gas than water vapor (4%) and yet.... our contribution is concluded to cause MASSIVE GLOBAL changes when our species and it's buildings only covers less than 5% of the whole globe on only 27% of the surface.
> ...





yup


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 2, 2011)

rdean said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


DING!  Hairnet strikes again!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 2, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Mankind produces less than 0.5% of CO2 which composes 0.04% of the total atmospheric composition.  It is a weaker greenhouse gas than water vapor (4%) and yet.... our contribution is concluded to cause MASSIVE GLOBAL changes when our species and it's buildings only covers less than 5% of the whole globe on only 27% of the surface.
> ...


::inches bridge of nose:::

yeah okay... I see pseudo-consensus science leaking out of your ears.  We're good.  You're not worth debating to.  Talk to ole crocks.  he speaks eco-libberish


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 2, 2011)

Well, well, now here we have the Conservative Neanderthals flapping yap about how dumb the scientists are while posting on the internet. Just can't get anymore ironic than that.

Pseudo consensus, dumb ass? Show me a single Scientific Society from any nation that states that AGW is not a fact. How about a National Academy of Science? A major University? I have posted this challenge many times, and all you fruitcakes do is resort to mindless derision, because there are none. Yes, there is the same overwhelming consensus among scientists concerning AGW as there is concerning evolution.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, well, now here we have the Conservative Neanderthals flapping yap about how dumb the scientists are while posting on the internet. Just can't get anymore ironic than that.
> 
> Pseudo consensus, dumb ass? Show me a single Scientific Society from any nation that states that AGW is not a fact. How about a National Academy of Science? A major University? I have posted this challenge many times, and all you fruitcakes do is resort to mindless derision, because there are none. Yes, there is the same overwhelming consensus among scientists concerning AGW as there is concerning evolution.



Rocks, do you attach any signficance to this?

"On Election Day 2010, Reuters noted briefly that Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE) was shedding some 40 employees from its  Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) by the end of the year, with further cuts [expected] in 2011. In its curt announcement, Reuters said that all trading on that exchange had virtually stopped in July due to the lack of U.S. action on climate change.
Chicago Climate Exchange Closes in Silence


No?

How about this:
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 2, 2011)

The latter should be written on the walls of the energy corperations. 

Yes, there will no action on the reduction of GHGs. You people have won. And your grandchildren will suffer for your idiocy.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The latter should be written on the walls of the energy corperations.
> 
> Yes, there will no action on the reduction of GHGs. You people have won. And your grandchildren will suffer for your idiocy.


thank you chicken little


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The latter should be written on the walls of the energy corperations.
> ...



You are welcome, Dumb Ass.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The latter should be written on the walls of the energy corperations.
> 
> Yes, there will no action on the reduction of GHGs. You people have won. And your grandchildren will suffer for your idiocy.



The truth has a way of getting out, huh?

But don't change a hair, Rocks...I can't imagine how many threads would be empty if it wasn't for you!

Bravo!


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


you are the one running around like the sky is falling, and you call me dumb


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 2, 2011)

I am stating that the GHGs that we have put, and are continueing to put, into the atmosphere are increasing global temperatures and has a good chance of creating a choatic climate change. 

Now, if it was just me, a not so humble millwright, stating this, then derision would be in order. However, virtually the whole of the scientific communtity that deal with earth science are stating the same thing. In fact, it is their observations and articles that I am posting here. 

But what do you fellows and gals post in return? Articles from an undegreed ex-TV weatherman, and articles from political sites that have the same veracity concerning scientific subjects as the old TV Looney Tunes do.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 2, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The latter should be written on the walls of the energy corperations.
> ...



I cannot imagine how empty your head must be in order to equat political shills veracity concerning science with what scientists state.


----------



## daveman (Jan 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, well, now here we have the Conservative Neanderthals flapping yap about how dumb the scientists are while posting on the internet. Just can't get anymore ironic than that.
> 
> Pseudo consensus, dumb ass? Show me a single Scientific Society from any nation that states that AGW is not a fact. How about a National Academy of Science? A major University? I have posted this challenge many times, and all you fruitcakes do is resort to mindless derision, because there are none. Yes, there is the same overwhelming consensus among scientists concerning AGW as there is concerning evolution.


At one time, the overwhelming consensus among scientists was the universe was constructed like this:







Turns out the overwhelming consensus was wrong.


----------



## daveman (Jan 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The latter should be written on the walls of the energy corperations.
> 
> Yes, there will no action on the reduction of GHGs. You people have won. And your grandchildren will suffer for your idiocy.


Your idiocy would have my grandchildren shivering in the cold and dark because no one could afford electricity.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 2, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well, well, now here we have the Conservative Neanderthals flapping yap about how dumb the scientists are while posting on the internet. Just can't get anymore ironic than that.
> ...


I believe Glenn Beck is owed a great note of thanks for outing those fascist fucks and helping get enough awareness out to the public to collapse the whole carbon market.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 2, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The latter should be written on the walls of the energy corperations.
> ...


I believe that Ole Crocks should be forced to live an ecologically correct life he preaches.

No metal.  No synthetics.  Only organic self grown foods.  No electricity.  No guns.  Stone, natural fibers and wood for him only.  We can be nice and plop his ass on a habitable tropical island in the pacific so he doesn't have to worry about freezing and can fish for abundant food, but... then he could live his perfect life and lead by example.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 2, 2011)

As Ive been stating for the last two years on here...........nobody cares about the "science" anymore.

Why?

Because the "consensus" is now seen simply as a partisan agenda, which of course, its been all along. Its just 5 years ago, most didnt realize it PLUS, the word got out on the absurd costs of going green. Once America realized that, they said, "FCUKK YOU!!!". Most of the rest are miserable anti-capitalist, hate America globalist k00ks that have had a lifetime propensity to jump on board with the most popular conventional wisdom. The others just stupid......ie: the same people who jump out of their shorts to buy the next cable offer for Shamwow's or Miracle Tummy Cream!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 2, 2011)

Hey Fitz bro........the avatar in your sig is fcukking brilliant. That is the exact reproduction of what happens all the time on this board with the angry mental meltdowns of the k00ks..........


----------



## daveman (Jan 3, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


He'd starve.  Besides, he's an idea man.  He doesn't have to do what he tells us to do.


----------



## editec (Jan 3, 2011)

polarbear said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > > What on earth is an "earth scientist". There are only 3 sciences
> ...


 


> Lets start with Astronomy...since when is that a separate science from physics?


 
Oh I see...every physicist is an astonomer then? 



> Almost but just almost, they same thing applies for Geology but that`s where it crosses the line and the method of proof starts to get wishy washy, but not quite as bad as "climatology".


 
And everybody who can do advanced math is therefore also a Geologist, biologist and so forth?

What a completely preposterous notion.

The fact that many areas of hard scientific expertise use the same mathamatic tools does not remotely mean that those diciplines don't exist or are all the same.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2011)

daveman said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



LOL. Do you have any idea of what a millwright does?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 3, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Hey Fitz bro........the avatar in your sig is fcukking brilliant. That is the exact reproduction of what happens all the time on this board with the angry mental meltdowns of the k00ks..........


Thank Daveman for introducing me to it, Skook.




> He'd starve.  Besides, he's an idea man.  He doesn't have to do what he  tells us to do.



Hence the need to FORCE him to do what is right:  live up to his own ethics.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 3, 2011)

I clicked on "quote", but canceled because what`s the sense holding  a mirror in front of people who can`t or won`t see. It`s always the same response, "most (pseudo) scientists agree"...or "You Neanderthals blah blah blah"...forget about trying to discuss science, the "climatologists" believe they  the own "science" like the fags own downtown at gay parades. 
These -most whatever they are, agree that - arguments were the same with acid rain, the phantom pesticide levels, the 50 + ppm Mercury which was found everywhere and so on and so on...and why should it be different with "global warming" caused by +.008(v/v) % CO2.

Before all this crap started not a single newspaper reporter was interested what a ppm was, and now when Mauna Loa puts out a number 388.59 ppm CO2 most people agreed to freak out. I won`t even go into how ridiculous the artificial precision of .59 behind the 388 ppm is although I really should!!!
More important is, that Chemists have analyzed CO2 in the Atmosphere long before "climatologists" ever even heard of an Infrared Spectrophotometer or a Gas Chromatograph. CO2 in air was .027 to .036 % (v/v) in air listed by the Merck Index 1967. 

That`s when science was still honest and politics and other assorted liars + NEANDERTHALS  did not interfere or usurp science.
A gas-chromatograph in 1967 was just as sensitive as a gas-chromatograph is today and that is the instrument which was used to analyze for CO2 then and still is today.
What is different are the people that think they know how to operate these instruments and that we have digitized output, while in 1967 the detector output was recorded on a strip chart recorder. The detectors, their sensitivity and stability have not changed *ONE IOTA *!!! But unfortunately they have been made more "user friendly", in fact too user friendly and are almost with no exception micro processor controlled..and that`s exactly when the problem started. Every idiot (thought)  he or she could operate one of these after that nifty innovation. And have in fact been operated exclusively by idiots ever since.
They come way cheaper than a real Chemist.
Soon after pesticides were found where there are none (*I am not saying there is no pesticide pollution!!!...that is in fact a problem and is very real!*), only that all over sudden "Experts" managed to find these where they were not!
So how does that happen? On any detector system you can crank up the scale expansion as you please but with an old fashioned strip chart recorder even the dumbest operator was able to see when he had exceeded the limit. What was a legitimate "sample peak" and what was just wild recorder pen twitching when the signal to noise ratio was < 2:1 was pretty obvious, even at max damping settings.
Instrument manufacturers then "improved" this not by making better detectors, but by adding the integral output option. So now instead of peaks You had plateaus and the whole thing looked more "quiet" even though the original detector output was at the same noise levels...It was real easy to see with an Oscilloscope how this "improvement" was cheated together. The noise was simple fed into the integrator and "disappeared", but was still integrated...and that`s when pesticides showed up were there were none and technicians started using these instrument way beyond legitimate detection limits.
After that came the micro processor controlled generation. That`s when due diligence and the need for operators that had the fundamental knowledge ended totally.
Since than cheep labor former welfare recipients were trained and started operating these after  quick 'Lab technician" training courses, Government funded of course and started injecting samples into these instruments under the supervision of may be even a Phd in "Environmental Science" (what the f@@,< is that anyway) , but who had for the most no clue how a "GC" works and what it`s limitations are.
But finally the "science" started working. Before that these "Scientists" had to submit their samples to Chemists, who had these Instruments all along..and the results "were never right"...they whined, 

*now they had their own + their technicians...astounding new discoveries were made and a whole shitload of total f@@, heads wrote a whole shitload of dissertations and got ordained with all kind of titles and awards*

If You were to inspect such a facility and would not know what to look for You will never spot the fraud:
Digitized and data logged output "digests" and "averages" all these pesty "Noise Errors" out of sight from the human eye.
Samples are injected sometimes for a whole months without any re-calibration whatsoever...I know, because I did watch "climatologists" at the international Research Station, not at Mauna Loa, but at the Polar cap. 
*They  were all from the BEST Universities.*
But they all record the same nonsense like  388.59 ppm for example.
No real Chemist would record more decimal places than actual detector accuracy allows You to see..!!! That is one of the hallmarks of what is no more than a trained chimp!
a couple of hundred results that ranged from "so what" to "oh my God" are added and averaged and some idiot actually recorded the .59 while the original data set consisted only of integers.
The F@@, head"scientist" leaves it there, because that will really impress a lot of people with how accurate and *SCIENTIFIC* his instrumentation is... 

*But thencomes the other crap...way way way worse:*
388.59 ppm what???? weight to weight, Volume to Volume?...no* again *they want to dazzle You with how "scientific" they are!...They began using Molar Ratio ....Chemists call people like that "Talking heads"...it`s a spokesperson who reads the script and has no idea what he is talking about, and the script is written for maximum impact spiked with as many impressive words as you can possibly pack into one sentence.
(the 15 post rule says)
I cant` link You so I just paste a simple right clicked mouse sweep over from the noaa.gov web site:


> "Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm). Example: 0.000400 is expressed as 400 ppm."



*F@@< has nobody noticed how ridiculous that is?  * *and how much spin there is in the results with this method?
*

There is really nothing wrong with the Science, especially not with the science how to bloat up a number as much as possible!
First off nobody would consider molar ratio, because the only time you need that is for ex. if You want to calculate melting or boiling point depressions of mixtures, or do latent heat calculations,* but NEVER when You report a trace analysis finding.* In percent the levels look pretty insignificant and yes in ppm 400  ppm sure looks scary to the public...but that is still scientifically correct and I can`t argue against that.
Where the real spin is and the glossing over gets out of hand are these innocent words:


> *Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction *


That a lawyer may argue crossed the line into fraud!
I just chuckle when I read "air mole fraction"..*they have just invented a new molecule, it`s called an air molecule*!..but that aside. This branch of "science" makes up it`s own rules how results are reported and have become masters in cloaking how they cheat.
Does anybody of these self declared climate saviours   have any idea how many ways you can skin this cat :
The sample is drawn from the air by* volume!* It is injected into the GC by *volume. *And the GC was calibrated with known *Volume/volume* CO2 gas samples!...because there simply is no other way you can calibrate it.
Any half intelligent person I`m  sure smells the rat already.. why would you now
want to calculate the number of g-Moles of Oxygen in the air + You also need now to know the number or Nitrogen g-Moles and that of every gas that exists in our atmosphere and know EXACTLY at what pressure, and the EXACT temperature You gas sample was so that You can express the CO2 the GC gave you in ppm (Volume per Volume) at the output in ppm Molar?
Why would anyone  use a method like that,....??? 
Well that makes it impossible for somebody else to draw a sample of the same air, do the analysis the same way but get a *vastly different result from yours and to confront You with that result.*
Because now You can argue till the cows go home about the Volume to molar conversion BIG TIME!
You know how...noticed the BIGGEST part that vanished in this fancy calculation?
I`m sure You did*....all the moisture that was present and always is in air!!*



> "Data are reported as a *dry air mole* fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, ."



Not only cloaks that how the clever cheating and inflating was done, but it gives the numbers a real boost...way more than if you just doubled the number of cars on this planet!
And hey they were right "Neanderthals" won`t notice, and that`s why Neanderthals still believe these assholes.
I`m pretty certain there will be some Neanderthal rebuttal, about the extent of this fraud, with the "molar" air minus all the moisture sucked out, won`t make much difference from Volume/Volume reporting....
Ever watched what happens to a mass of moist air when the moisture gets "sucked" out by condensation....does it shrink VIOLENTLY...?
Or are Tornadoes lately  caused by CO2 as well?
O.K. now think what just happened:
How large "mini David CO2" would appear  after You shrunk Goliath H2O down to *NOTHING!
*
And above all, let`s not forget that CO2 at these levels absorbs and contributes about as much heat absorbed from solar Infrared  as a single cigarette lighter would contribute heat to a Chicago ice hockey rink in January.

And while we are at that, H2O (as humidity) in the air is also the Goliath who absorbs the solar infrared in the Atmosphere, mini CO2 is just a Gnat at that scale.

If You could peek into a lab book at the polar station, you`d crack up laughing...why should Mauna Loa be different...its the same crowd.
I should have done the same as that guy who stole their e-mails and Xeroxed how many logged results that did not fit the Agenda are crossed out, even blatantly altered EACH DAY!!! ON EVERY PAGE!!!!


----------



## rdean (Jan 3, 2011)

Any time right wingers don't like what they hear, they say the information goes through "careful screening".

They always think there is this "secret government cabal" that wants to "control your life".  Legions of men in shadows wearing dark overcoats ----> listening.

I'm glad I don't live in such constant fear.  No wonder they're not rational.  Being that scared all the time.

There is no "secret government cabal" and even if there were, listening to fools is boring.  They have better things to do.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 3, 2011)

rdean said:


> Any time right wingers don't like what they hear, they say the information goes through "careful screening".
> 
> They always think there is this "secret government cabal" that wants to "control your life".  Legions of men in shadows wearing dark overcoats ----> listening.
> 
> ...


I`ll quote that cute one...it`s one of the typical rat  emergency  exits...the old conspiracy theory nut defense...
Thanks now I need just 1 more post, to get past the 15 postings rule


----------



## polarbear (Jan 3, 2011)

So after this one I should be able to take the gloves off and have my #15
I`ll quote another typical "scientific" counter Argument...was in my PN`s:



> 01-02-2011 07:22 PM 	 Old Rocks  	God, you are fucking dumb!



Wow, he thinks I`m God!


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

rdean said:


> Any time right wingers don't like what they hear, they say the information goes through "careful screening".
> 
> They always think there is this "secret government cabal" that wants to "control your life".  Legions of men in shadows wearing dark overcoats ----> listening.
> 
> ...


keep proving you are a fucking moron with every post


----------



## polarbear (Jan 3, 2011)

> 01-02-2011 07:22 PM Old Rocks God, you are fucking dumb!


Under which Old Rock have you been all Your life? Most people believe they should go to church if they want to talk to God.
So, on St. Patrick  day, go to a catholic Church in Chicago, hey You`ld like it, *all Chicago goes GREEN on that day*
wait till the flock has assembled  and say that out loud..either he`ll hear You, or You`ll soon meet him.
After that we`ll vote who is fucking dumb.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 4, 2011)

rdean said:


> Any time right wingers don't like what they hear, they say the information goes through "careful screening".
> 
> They always think there is this "secret government cabal" that wants to "control your life".  Legions of men in shadows wearing dark overcoats ----> listening.
> 
> ...



"conspiracy theory".
That`s how  we get dumb cows into cattle trucks. And after that we stop at MacDonalds.

Some tried telling a bunch of suckers about Wall Street and got the same answer.

On Campus Wacko Tobacco sells real easy too, fact its prime drug dealer territory 
and right after that "global warming", all in the same place...LOCATION is everything, any marketing expert will tell You! 
.....and  hyper taxed gas to the rest of us later.
Most "people believe..." is an easy way to exploit the fact that there is no such thing as collective intelligence. Because the sum is always less than the element.
Herd instinct, same thing, Wall Street, no difference, we now know.
That is no longer a theory, so why would we need a conspiracy theory and 


> Legions of men in shadows wearing dark overcoats ----> listening.


 to explain how this sucker scam works?
Hey while we are Your favorite method of proof...
There are even on campus a shitload of people who do in fact think the "butterfly effect" is not just Chaos theory but could spawn tornadoes...and outside Campus *MOST PEOPLE DO believe just that*...is not much different from the CO2 disaster theory!


----------



## daveman (Jan 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Yes.  He doesn't have anything to do with climatology.  He works with metals the production of which have massive negative environmental impacts.  And when he tells the rest of us we should live simply and be kind to Mother Nature, he's a flaming hypocrite.


----------



## daveman (Jan 4, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > He'd starve.  Besides, he's an idea man.  He doesn't have to do what he  tells us to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Hence the need to FORCE him to do what is right:  live up to his own ethics.


Ethics are for the little people -- at least, according to Democrat leaders.


----------



## daveman (Jan 4, 2011)

rdean said:


> Any time right wingers don't like what they hear, they say the information goes through "careful screening".
> 
> They always think there is this "secret government cabal" that wants to "control your life".  Legions of men in shadows wearing dark overcoats ----> listening.
> 
> ...


Oh, there's no secret cabal...they're very open and upfront about wanting to control your life.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2011)

Hey DaveBoy, love $5 gas? Bet you will love $6 gas even more. Of course that has no control on your life. You silly people are puckering up and kissing the asses that are shitting on you. We cannot be energy independent on fossil fuels, we have to go to alternatives, including nuclear, to do that. 

And then there is the little matter of the effect of fossil fuels, not only on the climate, but the destruction of the country, just fly over West Virginia. And the poisoning of the environment, not just mercury, but consider the recent fly ash spill. 

Yes, we need to get off of fossil fuels,  we need to address the climate change that we are already experiancing. The scientists are telling you that, and you are refusing to listen. And when the inevitable happens, you will be the first to be screaming, "Why didn't someone tell us?!!!!!". What a sad bunch of willfully ignorant fools you people are.


----------



## konradv (Jan 4, 2011)

*So who are those climate scientists? *
---------------------------


People smarter than you!


----------



## polarbear (Jan 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Hey DaveBoy, love $5 gas? Bet you will love $6 gas even more. Of course that has no control on your life. You silly people are puckering up and kissing the asses that are shitting on you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*On that point almost all of us do agree:
*


> We cannot be energy independent on fossil fuels, we have to go to alternatives,...
> Yes, we need to get off of fossil fuels....


And You may apply the consensus principle, because on that subject we are in the realm of economics, not science.
*Were we do not agree are what methods are being used to get there:*


> Hey DaveBoy, love $5 gas? Bet you will love $6 gas even more
> You silly people are puckering up ...



And You showed Your cards how You and almost every "progressive liberal" agrees it should be done!
Deny and denial..
Deny a resource and the mother of all inventions, the need will kick in...
and denials when You get caught with Your lies...
That`s the whole idea behind the global warming farce,...make CO2 a punishable crime  against nature...which justifies fossil fuel hyper taxation which in turn should stimulate the need for alternate fuel research...
And after real science comes up with an alternate fuel, every asshole who preached global warming takes the credit that we moved away from fossil fuels!

But what comes out of Your corner in reply to that...the same lame "conspiracy theory" or other Tibetan prayer mill organ grinding over and over again.

It would take something almost resembling a conspiracy to shut this f..ing crap up for good. Example, Yes, there was and still is Mercury pollution, but nowhere near the extent "Environmental Scientists" have claimed there was.
That stopped when Chemists discovered that these dumb f@@<$ had no idea how to operate an Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer, and use near spectral line background correction and Government stepped in FINALLY...!
After that the U.S. F.D.A. started a check-sample program and if any Lab could not find the right Mercury results in the spiked samples + the blind tests t*hey were out of the loop for good!*
After that Mercury disappeared so fast it would have made Your head spin!
Chemists should have an association or is that a CONSPIRACY???....like lawyers or the medical profession...try fu<#ing around in these fields without proper accreditation and see what happens then!

In the final analysis...that day will come, it will be You jerks eating Your own words:


> you will be the first to be screaming, "Why didn't someone tell us?!!!!!". What a sad bunch of willfully ignorant fools you people



Because if You would have listened to real science You should have known that these alternate fuels do not have to be re-invented....they existed ever since WW2. 
And it`s not the "bio-ethanol" from Potatoes that Werner von Braun used for V2 Rocket fuel!...We did not grow corn in Germany then.

All You guys know about Auschwitz is what Soviet Propaganda fed You..
Before You even start calling me a Nazi, no I don`t hate Jews!
Why don`t You educate Yourself a little what happened in Auschwitz, especially what concerns Project "Blechhammer" and the Buna Complex
The same "Blechhammer" method to make synthetic fuel on a large scale  re-appeared in South Africa when there was a world wide fuel embargo imposed.
But You a$$#0le& can`t use the "Blechhammer" because of You idiotic "greenhouse gas science" .
That process uses coal and limestone to make Calciumcarbide, which is then reacted to Acetylene...hey which works already better in a Gas engine than Propane...but from Acetylene You can now make Benzene by cyclizing Acetylene...and from the Benzene by ring cracking You can make any Hydrocarbon Fuel including Octane for cars or Cetane for Jet fuel. Your input is coal and elctrical energy...the coal does not have to be from mines, any charred substance will do, and the Calcium form the limestone...You get that back every time you added water to the Calciumcarbide to make the Acetylene.
So, there is a limitless supply of "alternate fuel"...the only problem is, it`s the same as what comes out of a crude oil refinery and makes "greenhouse gas"...
*FU@< are You assholes a bunch of pathetic whiners!
*

But go ahead and stay with this f2ckead "science" and make moonshine for cars, use ~ 6 times the energy to make it , than you get from + bulldoze more forest to make more room for cornfields...


----------



## daveman (Jan 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Hey DaveBoy, love $5 gas? Bet you will love $6 gas even more. Of course that has no control on your life. You silly people are puckering up and kissing the asses that are shitting on you. We cannot be energy independent on fossil fuels, we have to go to alternatives, including nuclear, to do that.
> 
> And then there is the little matter of the effect of fossil fuels, not only on the climate, but the destruction of the country, just fly over West Virginia. And the poisoning of the environment, not just mercury, but consider the recent fly ash spill.
> 
> Yes, we need to get off of fossil fuels,  we need to address the climate change that we are already experiancing. The scientists are telling you that, and you are refusing to listen. And when the inevitable happens, you will be the first to be screaming, "Why didn't someone tell us?!!!!!". What a sad bunch of willfully ignorant fools you people are.


I agree we need to get off fossil fuels.  The difference between us, though, is I believe we can't legislate against fossil fuels until the alternatives are ready to scale up and in place.

To insist that we hamstring the fossil fuel industry before viable alternatives are in place and ready to take the place of coal and oil is irresponsible, unrealistic, and stupid.

Meanwhile, yes, the climate is changing.  No, the AGW cult has not proven that mankind is responsible to any degree.  Yes, the goal of the AGW cult is not "saving the planet", but government control over individual lives.  

All this has been pointed out to you before.  You refuse to listen.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 4, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hey DaveBoy, love $5 gas? Bet you will love $6 gas even more. Of course that has no control on your life. You silly people are puckering up and kissing the asses that are shitting on you. We cannot be energy independent on fossil fuels, we have to go to alternatives, including nuclear, to do that.
> ...



And they will never listen!...because the whole thing has proven to be one of the best Propaganda weapon in politics...
Themselves, these CO2 freaks will NOT put their own money where their mouth is...just your`s and mine, cause they get funded and fed from the hyper taxation feeding troth.

The "Blechhammer" fuel is well proven and tested CHEAP synthetic fuel...but they will have none of it...because that would be the Gravy Train End station.
Yet You`ld have thee most useful way to store e-energy from Windmill and solar cell farms that way....instead of trying to outdo Lithium Battery storage capability...which is as good as it can possibly get..
You could make mountains of Calcium Carbide with all these Mega Watt hours and then Octane, Cetane even Plastics if You so choose...
But hey, that`s forbidden "greenhouse gas" territory.
And assholes like this one preach it:




 Has no idea how a GC works either but is from one of the most renowned Institutes world wide, and rides the coat tails of Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry + Physics from that institute who will have nothing to do with his "science". But *uses them* to lend credibility* to his tales.*

You know how he drives to work?....:





Makes out of Denis Leary`s 1 mile per Gallon Caddy in the "asshole song" an enviro-friendly car in comparison. Like I said we burn 14 Gallons in the Herc to bring him 1 Gallon for his truck.

And that`s the fuel tank just for the "climatologists" up by the Pole:





They use most of it to burn it off so they don`t freeze, the rest in their truck and their Diesel Generator. The rest of us use heat exchangers on the Diesel exhaust stacks + the *hot coolant to heat all our buildings*

The pond is their sewage pond for their shit + piss, the rest of us do not use sewage ponds, we recycle and use the methane!

None of these bastards do what they preach!!...
I got my solar cells and my wind mill on my roof!...how many of them do that?
Hell, almost none of them, they wait till fuel hypertax pays them to buy one.






I made a real nice looking turbine meanwhile, just wanted to prove a point how easy it is to make one using nothing but recycled junk and crank out >1.2 KVA 3 days after You started hammering and nailing.

And fuck you liberal assholes when you want $6 a gallon from me...I already started making my own!...and make a shitload of "greenhouse gas" in the process..hope You freak right out...not You Dave...I meant the other asshole there


----------



## polarbear (Jan 4, 2011)

> Old Rocks  	God, you are fucking dumb!



I guess when one of us ultra right wing dumb fucks as You asshole wanna be experts like to call us have something to show for, You`d call it "boasting".

Anyway, that`s what I do for a living...what do You do, aside from shooting Your mouth off?
At least I can say, that since then we burn only 1/3 rd as much flown in JP8 (=our "Diesel")
near the North Pole. Instead of 30 tonnes CO2 per day its now down to ~ 10 tonnes.






But guess what, the international "climatologist" fucks right next door to us still do it the same old way...actually they did not like at all what WE did, *cause after that they could not find enough from Your car exhaust up at the Pole!*
Even worse...maybe I should scan in a report what happened there.
After one of their pot smoking parties they woke up with a hangover, went into the Station main entrance, forgot to shut the door....at >-30 --40 deg C, went upstairs and did their crap CO2 analysis cheating. 
A storm kicked up winds >150 klicks and the lower part of their Complex had in no time 4 to 5 feet of snow inside...then their power went out, cause their Diesel Gen was buried...
and after that our beepers came on and we had to go over there and sort out the mess!
But to these days fuckheads like these with all kinds of degrees in "climatology" preach on CNN etc how to conserve energy.
May be I am posting my stuff at the wrong place and should be feeding it to Wikileaks instead...Hey any of You guys who had enough of this "cliamte" shit and "renowned experts" feel free to do it...I just don`t have the time.






Were these guys Canadians, no it was a whole international  cluster-fuck of "climatologists"....that know everything better than You or I, *but are too f....en stupid to close the door or  to fix a Diesel generator.*

Why doesn`t CNN a story on something like this instead of "Eskimos eat grease burgers because the Polar ice is too thin"...???
I`m too busy in my shop making a new 8 foot 4 blader Turbine with a grid Tie which feeds back into the power grid...and after that I`ll suck back fat Checks, thanks to this fuckhead climate "science" and jacked up energy prices!


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2011)

I havent read most of this thread so this may have been posted already. from Roy Spencer's article comparing concensus to an 'urban legend'. Spencer: AGW has most of the characteristics of an &#8220;urban legend&#8221; | Watts Up With That?



> ....
> If the consensus is that the presence of humans on Earth has some influence on the climate system, then I would have to even include myself in that consensus. After all, the same thing can be said of the presence of trees on Earth, and hopefully we have at least the same rights as trees do. But too often the consensus is some vague, fill-in-the-blank, implied assumption where the definition of &#8220;climate change&#8221; includes the phrase &#8220;humans are evil&#8221;.
> 
> It is a peculiar development that scientific truth is now decided through voting. A relatively recent survey of climate scientists who do climate research found that 97.4% agreed that humans have a &#8220;significant&#8221; effect on climate. But the way the survey question was phrased borders on meaninglessness. To a scientist, &#8220;significant&#8221; often means non-zero. The survey results would have been quite different if the question was, &#8220;Do you believe that natural cycles in the climate system have been sufficiently researched to exclude them as a potential cause of most of our recent warming?&#8221;
> ...








albino aligator----cool!


----------



## polarbear (Jan 4, 2011)

IanC said:


> What are you, some kind of Holocaust-denying, Neanderthal flat-Earther?
> ....








albino aligator----cool![/QUOTE]

Don`t give any more ideas what they can call us next, They`ll suck that up right now and spit it in our faces...because they will not confine their arguments within established and proven science. There they don`t have a leg to stand on. So it`s down to mob tactics and name calling. I think it won`t go beyond that here either.
So I`ll just drop one more well known and proven fact about energy absorption, that none of these f...head experts want to consider not even remotely.
No matter in what spectral range You measure energy absorption and without hitting You over the head with un-necessary buzzwords this is how Spectroscopy/Absorption really works:

You irradiate a sample in an optical path with radiation from an energy source. To do it right You "split" the beam and compare the energy level from the "split" beam with the beam that went through the sample at very precise wavelength which are specifically tuned to what You want to measure.
 First You have to calibrate Your Spectrophotometer, and You do that with known amounts of concentration of the substance You want to measure...these are called standards.
Some jerks today use only 2 standards, in earlier years You`d get crucified if You use less than 4 standards.
First thing you`l notice that say You have 10 % ABSORPTION (NOT ABSORBANCE !!) say with a 10 ppm standard you * WILL NOT GET 20% or double the amount that a 20 ppm sample will absorb!* 
As You increase the concentration it will rapidly "slope off" and You will rather soon reach a point where absorption WILL NO LONGER INCREASE no matter how much you increase the standard concentration!
It is totally irrelevant if You do Lead, Mercury, Strontium...etc by Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy in the UV to visible range, or bond specific absorption with Infrared or UV...
it applies at all wavelength and for CO2 as well, if You want to see how much Infrared energy this Molecule can possibly "park"...
"Absorbance" is an artificial value, which is the log function of Absorption, which you can easily modify by electronic means to make the instrument output more "user friendly".
We used to do it with a circuit, that used forward biased diodes and a "discriminator"...
that way You can quasi "falsify" the instrument response into a linear function...later we used CPU software of course...so now You see for 10 ppm say 12 "instrument Units" for 20 ppm --->24, for 30 --->36 and so on...
*BUT IN NO WAY DOES DOUBLE THE CO2 ABSORB DOUBLE THE HEAT ENERGY from incident solar radiation! That is just a programmed  instrument response to so that even idiots can use one.*
But they use GC, nit IR spec-methods, You know why?
Because if You want to see how much "heat" Energy CO2 absorbs from solar infrared , You don`t have a hope in hell to do it with IR Spec, and normal air.
Even at low humidity levels of normal air, *You would not be able to measure an IR absorption increase from today`s CO2 levels and increased those to a lethal 10% CO2 content.*..*because the H2O in humid air absorbs way to much in order to still "see" CO2 with infrared!*
And with that I`m out of here, cause this will just stay at the Neanderthal Propaganda tactics "global warming" peddlers operate best.
Best Greetings & a happy New year from Canada


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2011)

Well, for sure you like to yap, Polar. And state that scientists are a bunch of dumb asses. 

Now when you can post some real scientists that state the things that you do, then you might have some credibility. Otherwise, I most others that understand real science will just put you down as another Kookybill, or mdn.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2011)

By the way, you have made so many fucking dumb statements concerning CO2, perhaps you should review what real physicists state;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## polarbear (Jan 5, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> By the way, you have made so many fucking dumb statements concerning CO2, perhaps you should review what real physicists state;
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



I do have other things to do than sit in front of a PC all day every day.
So, I did not even look here till just now and found your "counter argument".



> you have made so many fucking dumb statements concerning CO2, perhaps you should review what real physicists state;



I am almost certain Your attention span has been exceeded way up top and You stopped
reading that idiotic  web page where it said  at Line #1:


> In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature



*Had You read further You`ld have realized just how stupid YOU are:*



> Guy Stewart Callendar,apparently took up meteorology as a hobby to fill his spare time





> The greenhouse warming theory found a lone advocate. In 1938 an English engineer, Guy Stewart Callendar, tried to revive the old idea.
> An expert on steam technology,





> For he understood (perhaps from Hulburt's calculation) that even if the CO2 in the atmosphere
> did already absorb all the heat radiation passing through, adding more of the gas would raise the height
> in the atmosphere where the crucial absorption took place. That, he calculated, would make for warming.


And every stupid fuck there is on this planet seized on this idea, forwarded by someone who boiled water for a
living in England.
*Even he was not that stupid and saw that MORE CO2 does NOT ABSORB MORE HEAT!*
*He came up with a brand new concept...and that is that the laws of Physics change if You go up a few hundred thousand feet!*
And "calculated, that".......and the rest ist history just how stupid mankind can be!

And when I told You what even the water boiler-man in England managed to comprehend You say to me :


> My God, you are fucking dumb



I did tell You right from the start:
That anyone who has ever operated a state of the art Infrared Spectro Photometer knows that double the CO2 does* NOT DOUBLE the absorption, FUCK IT STAYS THE SAME!!!
Don`t You understand any English???
*
*Why the fuck do You think EVERYBODY GAVE UP trying to measure the Infrared Absorption of CO2..????????????????*

Look at the fucking instruments where I did show you the "climate research station" Lab.
If You don`t even know what an Infrared Spectrophotometer LOOKS LIKE ....and noticed these instruments are all GASCHROMATHOGRAPHS that can detect *YOUR FARTS *at the North-pole then shut the F... up!


----------



## polarbear (Jan 5, 2011)

This whole forum is full of fuckheads like You!...In every thread here about Environment.
And You all have the same in common, You shoot you f..ing mouths off and shout down every sane thinking person...and none of your opponents here try to bloat themselves up like you wannabe "scientists"...and none of You even know what the instruments look like or how they work how all this shit is measured.
It`s about time somebody shouts back!....I thought, and that`s why I registered here!

This is what an Infraredspectrophotometer looks like:





That`s how it works:





And because people* like You are total retards* I have to show which end "the bullet comes out"






*But NO ONE and I repeat NO ONe has ever managed to show with INFRARED ABSORPTION that we absorb more heat from Solar IR because of CO2*

So, they all use Gaschromathography, that can detect a New York Fart at the North Pole and talk about Eskimos eating grease-burgers "because the ice is too thin"..

*And THAT`s what we do use, to see these ridiculous small CO2 levels:*






And that`s how these work:





And NO, they don`t use Infrared sensors...this is an FID (Flame Ionisation Detectror)
bur we also have DTC and EC (Electron capture detectors, that use radio active Ni):






And that`s what it takes if You want to show that there EVEN IS *ANY CO2* in the air...
For a GC 1 ppm sometimes* even 1 part per BILLION of ANYTHING is a MAMMOTH Amount*..*.so yeah .0035% CO2 will make this thing
almost go "tilt"...if there was no GC, there would be no "global warming" propaganda POSSIBLE
*


like I said You can detect a New York Garlic sausage Fart at the Pole with these also.
And that`s "where the bullets come out":





I also said it used to be that only qualified Chemists used to operate these, then they were made "user friendly" with CPU`s that do "the thinking for You"...and now every fuckhead trained Monkey thinks they "know how to operate" these properly:






So shut the f. up trying to pass yourself off as some sort of expert here.
*Nobody that has any common sense believes any of this dope inspired crap that an asshole consensus  like You and Your fag crowd  want to force down America`s throat.*


----------



## polarbear (Jan 5, 2011)

This is also worth mentioning.
The ordinary average American is a no nonsense no bullshit guy!
But look again at this "what real scientists say" web page Old Rocks in the head has pointed at me :
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm


> In 1938 an English engineer, Guy Stewart Callendar, tried to revive the old idea.
> An expert on steam technology,



When someone installs a high pressure boiler in the U.S. of A, the company say "Cleaverbrooks Boilers INC"...will give a 2 or 3 week training course to a designated employee, most of the time it`s the janitor...so he doesn`t blow his head off when he lights the burner chamber.

*Well in England he gets a title of course,...and he is now an "Engineer"..*...or at the least "*an Expert in Steam Technology*"
and any ordinary Jo, the Plumber in the U.S.  now has o shut up and has no "qualifications" to argue with him or anyone like him...

*There is not a single global warming web page, that gives You the straight truth, and nothing but the truth...only over-bloated crap,* just like that !
....which impressed the hell out of "Old Rocks"..I think I know now where he came from !
The same place where the Head Global Warming Fag is, that almost committed Suicide when the "Hockey-stick" Temperature swindle showed up in the e-mail hacks!


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 5, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Dumb ass. There are no facts in science.


You are a fucking dumbass. 

Don't let facts get in the way of science. 

I believe that it should be legal to shoot stupid dumb fucking assholes like you.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 5, 2011)

Muhammed said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dumb ass. There are no facts in science.
> ...



That`s why he doesn`t just want Your Money, these F@ckers want your gun too.
There once was a country, (which especially) I am not allowed to mention by name, which did just that...so rumor has it!
After that technology and science took leaps and bounds...hey and shortly after when U.S. industrial might + even more ingenuity was added brought us all the way to the moon!...
Of course then, there were no gay parades either.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2011)

So you have many prejudices that you want to spit out on this board. Have you any knowledge of history? Do you know who Von Stueben was?


----------



## daveman (Jan 5, 2011)

daveman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Old Rocks, I'm interested in hearing your justification for your insistence that we change our lifestyles to lessen our environmental impact while you make your living from an industry that has a horrific impact on the environment.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 5, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> So you have many prejudices that you want to spit out on this board. Have you any knowledge of history? Do you know who Von Stueben was?


Yes You are absolutely right I hate fags and I would shoot any one of them in a New York second, the moment he `ld try accosting one of my grandchildren....using* extreme prejudice *...it`s a military term, didn`t you know?
It still doesn`t dawn on You what I did for a living?
Did You mean von Steuben or with eu or with the Umlaut U with 2 dots on top?
What`s he got to do with any of this?...and now You want to discuss prejudice...
I do reserve the right to *exercise my own judgment*, something You are apparently not even capable of. 
You `ld still buy buy a "K" car or a Gremlin if enough people tell You, You should?
Of course you would!
 "Climatologists" have also sold you on the idea that if you hold a thermometer in 1 hand and it peaks out at +32C, that holding it with 2 hands it`ll go up to +72C!

Because that`s exactly the crap they are telling you with the CO2 IR (heat)  absorption.
Can`t You read?...Go back to that URL reference YOU stuck in my face and READ IT!

By now a "prejudiced" 5 Year old, using his* own judgement*  would have comprehended that!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2011)

Hmmm....   But if the pedophile was heterosexual, you wouldn't do the same? If you would, why the silliness? Just another excuse.

OK, so you are so fucking dumb that you believe all the scientists in the world are in on some grand conspiracy concerning the real effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. A conspiracy that began with Joseph Fourier in 1820.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 6, 2011)

daveman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Sorry I did not wait for his answer before posting this, but he won`t answer that one anyway....no more than he would respond to the "climatologist" sewage pond and their "green car" 





And if he does I`m curious to see it.

There is pseudo logic and pseudo science.
pseudo logic:
All ravens are black. If it`s not black it`s not a raven.
Valid Biology so far..
"Advanced" Biology  concludes:
everything that`s black is therefore  a raven.

CO2  absorbs more Infrared  than pure Nitrogen and pure Oxygen.
Valid Physics so far.
A black body absorbs Infrared faster than a white body
Also valid.
*But gets rid of it a lot faster than a light one too.*...not exactly "common knowledge"!
From Infrared Spectroscopy we know that CO2....as far  as infrared light is concerned it can only be so "black".
Infrared irradiated CO2 can park only very little energy with the O=C=O  molecular bond  stretching symmetric and a-symmetric vibrations, plus the scissoring  and bond torsion vibrations....*and that`s all she rode with how much energy CO2 can store. *
It is confined to these few very weak little Absorption bands.

The CO2 we always had in our air,  made this air  already a "black body" as much as CO2 can possibly "blacken" it to Infrared long before we had cars.

Soot is also only so "black" more soot can`t make a soot covered body any blacker!

But there is something as far as infrared is concerned, *that`s a lot "darker"* than CO2, and that`s water.
If You`d assign black to water then CO2 would  be in infrared a *Yellow so pale* You`ld *only notice the color if You hold it next to snow white!*

Water molecules have a* huge   infrared Energy storage capability* in comparison. 
Water  also in the vapor phase is not confined to a few weak absorption bands,_* it absorbs almost all the infrared that it is irradiated with over a huge IR spectral region.*_
And water vapor in the air that gets below the dew point and forms a cloud it blocks out almost all the infrared and "parks" it.
Everybody knows clouds do that with visible and UV, why is there any confusion about the infrared.???...that radiation behaves exactly like any other!
Pseudo science tries telling You it is different....and furthermore behaves differently again at higher altitudes "where Infrared absorption is a critical factor"...so they say, but choose not to elaborate further.

Just look at Satellite pictures in the infrared range.
Compare it with the visible, *then the water vapor* and check with* infrared where all the heat is stored!*
No matter when and where, the water* vapor* and the *Infrared *images are almost* IDENTICAL!*

*The heat stored in the atmosphere is not over New York or L.A.* where the cars are and the "greenhouse gas" is, even when New York or L.A. are  under a smog dome!

GEOSTATIONARY SATELLITE SERVER


----------



## IanC (Jan 6, 2011)

polarbear said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



polarbear- you do realize that you are just spouting gibberish and non sequiturs, right? there is nothing particularly wrong with that, lord knows we have lots of people here that love to prattle on, but your harsh attitude ruins the whole effect of amusingly bemused pontificator. entertain us with your childish strings of 'scientific' phrases, or flame at posters that you don't like, but just don't do them in the same post because it ruins the entertainment value.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 6, 2011)

Typical "scientific counterargument"..:


> you do realize that you are just spouting gibberish


straight from "green thinking  brains" full of green mold like a rotten tree stump in the swamp, glowing dimly in the dark. Operational status : S.N.A.F.U
I think trolling is just as stupid as spam, but I really don`t care what You have to say.
Lucky for You the American public has a thick skin and did not yet opt like the army for reactive armor which would blow the head off anything trying to penetrate it, like the bloodsucking parasites you semi-communist "liberals"really are!
Who I am and what I think of homosexuals does not alter the facts, that CO2 absorbs as much Infrared like a rock absorbs water and water vapor absorbs Infrared like a sponge absorbs water!

*GOES Eastern US SECTOR IR Image
*





That`s where the "heat is parked"
And below is where the water vapor is:
*GOES Eastern US SECTOR Water Vapor Image
*





It`s not hard at all to get a much better average temperature snapshot from that.
But "climatologists" do it with thermometers at city airports and stick as many into New York and L.A. so they look like  hedgehogs and one in Martha`s vineyard to represent the Atlantic Ocean, + another at Bodega Bay to represent the Pacific.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 6, 2011)

Polar, you are as full of shit as mdn. Next you will be telling us that CO2 cannot be a GHG because it is dry ice.


----------



## IanC (Jan 7, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Typical "scientific counterargument"..:
> 
> 
> > you do realize that you are just spouting gibberish
> ...



now that was a very entertaining post. equal parts of scientific mumbo-jumbo, conspiracy theory, and irrelevant pics, with just a dash of ad hominem is the perfect recipe for a environment forum rant. I look forward to your next one.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 8, 2011)

IanC said:


> now that was a very entertaining post. equal parts of scientific mumbo-jumbo, conspiracy theory, and irrelevant pics, with just a dash of ad hominem is the perfect recipe for a environment forum rant. I look forward to your next one.



Well I do come here for entertainment, especially when I want a laugh just how fucking dumb people actually can can be. Here is another one, who has no idea what the difference between a spectral line and a spectrum is!

Again, no "climatologist" ever succeeded showing an increase of CO2 using infrared absorption, but tell You it`s so serious, that the globe heats up and ocean currents change direction...*and idiots just like you  believe it..*

So there is really no hope in hell you could wrap your dope head around that..but here are the spectral LINES where CO2 can absorb more infrared than you could absorb the concept of infrared absorption...and CO2 can absorb only a iddybiddy infrared in a few iddy biddy *spectral lines*...see?...of course* You can`t*





 and that`s it there is no more! I have done a lot of IR Analysis and know that You have to *crank up the Diff-Amp gain* between the cuvette beam and the reference beam into hi-gain mode, *before you can even "see" the absorption lines between 3700 and 3500 cm^(-1)!*, and if You don`t then the asymetric O=C=Obond stretching absorption is *only about 1/4  of what you see here*
EVERYTHING outside these* SPECTRAL LINES* is COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT to infrared! *No matter how much CO2 there is!
*
Water vapor, looks to infrared like this...over the *WHOLE infrared SPECTRUM:
* and for that there is NO NEED to up the gain...*else EVERYTHING IS OFF THE SCALE!*




and keeps on going the rest of the way on the left and the right side of this spectral range!

*Do you finally get it numb-skull?*
I left my PC parked, cause `I waiting for my wife to get back, the highway was closed because we had some "climate change"...happens a lot in Canada, especially during our winters here..then I noticed Your green online light....I don`t like green, unless its a traffic light and I can stomp it, and get going, spewing greenhouse gasses.
So I came back, because I had forgotten I talked to an imbecile and I need to explain this to You as well..
The CO2 IR scan on top was done *with pure unadulterated 100% CO2!...else You would not see anything at all!*
While the one below is just water vapor at everyday humidity levels!
But I hope I get e few more of these "anger...BUh SCREEETCH and howly points" with those "greeny points", I hate green, but with the other ones, that`s how I know you fags here go  hysterical like a stupid chicken that got lost and wandered into the fast lane.
Did You think I came here to suck ass like I`d want to run for public office or something?


----------



## westwall (Jan 8, 2011)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Typical "scientific counterargument"..:
> ...






There's actually some real science in there but you have to filter out the chaff first.


----------



## westwall (Jan 8, 2011)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > now that was a very entertaining post. equal parts of scientific mumbo-jumbo, conspiracy theory, and irrelevant pics, with just a dash of ad hominem is the perfect recipe for a environment forum rant. I look forward to your next one.
> ...






IanC is actually one of the good guys Polarbear.  He actually looks at the evidence and is not a parrot like olfraud.


----------



## westwall (Jan 8, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Polar, you are as full of shit as mdn. Next you will be telling us that CO2 cannot be a GHG because it is dry ice.






Kind of like you telling us warmer is actually colder because well because it is dammit!


----------



## IanC (Jan 8, 2011)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > now that was a very entertaining post. equal parts of scientific mumbo-jumbo, conspiracy theory, and irrelevant pics, with just a dash of ad hominem is the perfect recipe for a environment forum rant. I look forward to your next one.
> ...




You lost the recipe again. Maybe it was the 'fag' reference or something. It was just too harsh to be amusing.

And your science is too simplistic again. CO2 is a well mixed atmospheric gas, water in its various forms is not. There is no doubt that CO2 slows the escape of heat into space, the big question is how water pumps heat in response to differing conditions. 

I always liked that word 'cuvette' for some reason. Not much call for manual chemistry here anymore, all of the analyzers are of the big blue button variety.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 8, 2011)

I suspected that the instant he started talking.  He proved it by posting pictures of satellite weather imagery claiming it's temperature data when it's obviously cloud cover.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 8, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Polar, you are as full of shit as mdn. Next you will be telling us that CO2 cannot be a GHG because it is dry ice.





Ever notice how Old Rocks gets totally pissed when he's been publically pwned by members like Ian? Like Al Gore, any information different than the religious stuff is completely ignored outright. They dont want to know shit from shit about anything that doesnt conform with their selected data from their selected "scientists". Which is pretty fcukking hysterical when you think about it.......until a science has been proven, is it really a science??

*OF COURSE ITS NOT*


So........why then are these people so terrified of information?


----------



## polarbear (Jan 8, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Polar, you are as full of shit as mdn. Next you will be telling us that CO2 cannot be a GHG because it is dry ice.
> ...



You know where all this is coming from, but he won`t admit...
I had in mind to ask him "Verstehen Sie deutsch"...as if he would..
Kommunismusdebatte: Klassenlos und frei von Kohlendioxid - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Kultur


> Kommunismusdebatte
> Klassenlos und frei von Kohlendioxid
> 
> Von Sebastian Hammelehle
> ...



Even somebody that does not speak German can make it out...
"Wege zum Kommunismus"....Wege = ways, the other part You all know what that is

  CO2-neutrale Städte....Städte=cities and which crap idea horse they flog on the way to the pinnacle of power is also self explanatory (CO2-neutrale)

And with communists the truth is the first casualty...we all know that too

A picture is supposed to be able to speak a 1000 words. But can`t be applied if some are so stupid that they can`t comprehend what`s on a picture of an IR scan of 100% pure CO2 .
Maybe this will wake`m up:





She is known as "The climate Chancellor". Spends almost as much on that crap as the defense budget.
The CIA and the BGS know her as a top graduate of the Soviet Propaganda school for agitation and dis information...beats me how she got to the top, but she has been for far too long!
And she is making more friends, who sign on:





And boasts with her phony East German degree in Chemical Engineering..where she blatantly copied other people`s work for her phony dissertation, preaching "Global warming". Well that part the she is a Pastor`s daughter is true...
Interesting Pastor that was...at the time when people got shot by the Stasi trying to cross, he could cross with his entire family in a car that only KGB "Apparatschiks" had any time he wanted to. 
And she got her degree in Chemistry much like it works on campus in the U.S. today too


----------



## polarbear (Jan 8, 2011)

Only total idiots "calculate" utterly meaningless averages like "average global temperature"
on a globe where  there are a lot of places that are always warmer than other places that remain always colder.
And come up with an "average", an average of what exactly?

All You can prove with that is how stupid the average idiot who has voting rights can be !
.....and then offer to lead them.

What volume of space  does each of these individual Wallmart thermometer measurements represent?
Even if You just go straight up at the same place it gets 6.5 deg K cooler for every 1000 meters.
And that *holds true anywhere on earth from sea level up to 11 klicks Altitude.*

As if adding a set of totally meaningless numbers and dividing the sum by the number of elements would give you a true average...*but it will give you a lot of places behind the decimal point, way beyond the actual accuracy of your thermometerr...and behind the decimal place..is where all that fuzz is made.*

So what exactly is the average temperature of a column of air where the *plugged in radius was what?*
and the plugged in *height was what?..*.

These Average Temperature "calculations" * are even more stupid *than "calculating" the average area of an arbitrary bunch of pyramid cross sections...they follow the same A/H relationship as temperature versus height.

I could prove using the* same stupid average method* that parts of your car are exceeding  the speed limit while others stand perfectly still,  and if You continue driving Your car will be disintegrating and the final result will be a catastrophic failure.


----------



## westwall (Jan 8, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Only total idiots "calculate" utterly meaningless averages like "average global temperature"
> on a globe where  there are a lot of places that are always warmer than other places that remain always colder.
> And come up with an "average", an average of what exactly?
> 
> ...






The temp drop Polarbear is referring to is called the Adiabatic Lapse Rate.

DRY ADIABATIC LAPSE RATE


----------



## polarbear (Jan 8, 2011)

westwall said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > The temp drop Polarbear is referring to is called the Adiabatic Lapse Rate.
> ...


----------



## polarbear (Jan 8, 2011)

@Westwall:
I do not want to employ the same propaganda methodology, as "climate change science" and sequester facts. But I am certain these "scientists" would not have the vaguest idea how to twist this in their favor, so I`ll mention it.
With the plexi- glass dome/heat-lamp/Thermometer + some CO2 they accidentally did hit on something,* but it has absolutely nothing to do with Infrared Absorption!*

CO2 does have a higher refractive index than air or water vapor. Matter of fact it`s not hard to set up an experiment where You can see that with the "naked eye".
Refractive index of gases 2.5.7

So if You do have this gas in a convex shaped enclosure You do get a lens-effect.
I have seen kids making pop corn out of hapless insects with way less lens than that, maybe some of these kids are now "climatologists".

But in no way can You warm the globe like that. After all outside an enclosed Plexi glass dome the adiabatic laps rate will kick in as soon as the slightly warmer gas starts to rise...and then the stored thermal energy has been expended.
I did try to point this out earlier when I was talking about that people like that should take a glider ride, see what a thermal is and from what a thermal draws its *ENORMOUS *energy,
Its not from a parking lot with running cars and CO2, but from dark surfaces, especially when some moisture comes into play.
Most people never consider how much lighter water( vapor) is than air...1 G-Mole of H2O weighs only 18 gram while O2=32 and N2=28...To that add that 1 G-mole H2O (I`m quoting from memory, cause I`m too lazy to look it up) eats up >2000 Kjs/kg  to evaporate and STORES that amount, but releases the entire shebang again on condensation...
That`s called latent heat...So there is the culprit...it`s NOT CO2!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 8, 2011)

> LOL. Do you have any idea of what a millwright does?


They're over-educated and over-priced mechanics/electricians/plumbers that keep an industrial building's facilities and equipment running.

So no, daveman... nothing about climatology there... nor college degrees.  Just lots of certificates from technical colleges and ongoing education through the Union that 'counts' as college credit.

They carry only a little more prestige and sobriety than 'building maintenance'.


----------



## westwall (Jan 9, 2011)

polarbear said:


> @Westwall:
> I do not want to employ the same propaganda methodology, as "climate change science" and sequester facts. But I am certain these "scientists" would not have the vaguest idea how to twist this in their favor, so I`ll mention it.
> With the plexi- glass dome/heat-lamp/Thermometer + some CO2 they accidentally did hit on something,* but it has absolutely nothing to do with Infrared Absorption!*
> 
> ...






Yes I am a pilot as well.  The other thing their silly "experiments" measure is the Ideal Gas Laws specifically how increasing pressure will raise the temperature of the gas.  I hadn't even thought of the lensing effect you bring up but that too (now that it's pointed out to me) would certainly have an effect.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> Yes I am a pilot as well.  The other thing their silly "experiments" measure is the Ideal Gas Laws specifically how increasing pressure will raise the temperature of the gas.  I hadn't even thought of the lensing effect you bring up but that too (now that it's pointed out to me) would certainly have an effect.



I thought so! And now I know, that You would be also familiar with the lens effect which can be observed with the "naked eye", cause You surely have seen that more than once when You approach a large city at certain altitudes. "Smog domes", almost perfectly shaped. The condition that`s causing it is commonly called an inversion layer, which kind of conceals the fact that You are looking at something which has a different refractive index from the surrounding atmosphere. 

let me add this, it has nothing to do with CO2 "science" but everything with the methodology and to what extreme You can stretch credibility to make the most outlandish assertions:
http://www.dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf
Prof. Daryl Bem, Cornell University has succeeded to prove that humans do have "ESP", given the right emotional conditions, they can tell what You or I are looking at behind a curtain. With normal photos the score is only between 49.4 and 51.3  %, but with porno
they score 53.1%.  Yes statistically the difference is indeed significant, but more significant is how research is deteriorating to ever lower levels.
Hard to decide what is more retarded, calculating "average" temperature or averages like Daryl Bem @ Cornell


----------



## polarbear (Jan 9, 2011)

@westwall
As a pilot you stake your life every day, relying on the  concept that science is supposed to be
exact, else it just isn`t science and will never find it`s way into the flight deck..
But unless You  also work in R & D  , You`ld never know why the term "recent studies show"
or "a recent study showed"  has become the most popular method to state Your case
and preceds almost every sensational "scientific" announcement today.
That concept has been cooked up by lawyers and I am not kidding (!!!!) and it works like that.
Example, "recent studies showed" dietary fiber reduces  the overall "D" Cholesterol.
Although every chemist can prove, that this is total bullshit, there is nothing You can do about it.
"Recent studies showed"....means EXACTLY that...You can conduct a whole series of
experiments, none of which yielded the AVERAGES You were looking for, then as it must
eventually happen a coin toss average will  yield "statistically significant" more heads than tails.
It is entirely legal (!!!!!!) to stop your series of experiments right there, publish this result
and say nothing at all about all the other ones.
Don`t believe me?....ask a lawyer!
"Climatologists" need not ask, they know that full well and blatantly take advantage of it
every day....else it would be quite easy to nail the entire cluster fuck  for fraud.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 9, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> I suspected that the instant he started talking.  He proved it by posting pictures of satellite weather imagery claiming it's temperature data when it's obviously cloud cover.







shoots his mouth off, but has no idea about latent heat and what immense thermal energy he is looking at when You show him "a picture of a cloud"...as an infrared image.
@westwall....why don`t You take him for a ride into a towering CB with an anvil head on top.
I`ld like to see if after that, he thinks what more often than not looks on Doppler not much different than an IR "picture of cloud" was just a picture "of a cloud".
 Why don`t You:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 look at a color enhanced IR "picture of a cloud" and compare it with a Doppler image of the same "cloud" before You shoot Your stupid mouth off!

What the F@@< do You think is the energy source, that showed up  in that Infrared "picture of a cloud"?
*If the storage "capacitor" was not H2O vapor, what the f... is it then? CO2????
*
By the way, when dry hot air cools it shrinks only by 1/273 rd per degree Kelvin.
When water vapor gets below the dew point, it releases ALL the latent solar (heat) energy it took to evaporate enough water to flood an entire state and shrinks by a factor of about 22000 to 18  .....that`s what I call a *"trigger effect", not this .00x +or- blah blah CO2and +.0000shitcrapaveragetemperatureincrease*
If it were not for that "insignificant little detail" in a mere "picture of a cloud" in both IR and water vapor did show You, but You were not able to comprehend, there would not be any Tornadoes, Cyclones or Tayphoons You idiot!
Ever wrapped Your little head around how much (heat) energy you can see with "a picture of a cloud"...?....I guess not!


----------



## polarbear (Jan 9, 2011)

I was just contemplating an "ignore list" here and that`s why I looked  for garbage just like that. Here is Your typical "climate change" freak:





You can show him  Sat-images *taken at total darkness with passive infrared *and he has no idea what that should have to do with Infrared Absorption, or thermal energy.
Or what latent heat is and where it came from if  it was not  from absorbed infrared, (*absorbed by H2O not CO2*) and  has been stored, waiting to unleash it... staring right into his stupid face....and he thinks he was just was looking at  "a picture of a cloud".
Which showed in fact the equivalent energy in a dozen thermonuclear warheads as an image, that a mere drop of 1 degree below the dew point can trigger!

All You have to do is copy and paste any page from a Physics or Chemistry book into here and  You can accumulate as many "I hate You" points as You are looking for....which can prove the point I am trying to make better than Physics & Chemistry could, how they argue their case!
Under which rock did "Old Rocks" crawl?
By the way, the thermal energy pie slice in that "picture" of a cloud, that can be assigned to the 4000whocareswhatmaunaluamoisturecorrectedmolarppmCO2 in* there amounts to no more thermal energy than is in my zippo-lighter...that`s why the analogy I made with the lighter heating up the Chicago hockey arena in the Winter was at that scale absolutely correct, if You actually do the math.*
And now I`m going to light my cigar with my zippo and hope it freaks all of the "recent studies showed, 2.hand smoke causes cancer" assholes out as well!


----------



## westwall (Jan 9, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > I suspected that the instant he started talking.  He proved it by posting pictures of satellite weather imagery claiming it's temperature data when it's obviously cloud cover.
> ...






I follow that very old adage "there is never a reason to fly into a thunderstorm in peacetime!"


----------



## westwall (Jan 9, 2011)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I am a pilot as well.  The other thing their silly "experiments" measure is the Ideal Gas Laws specifically how increasing pressure will raise the temperature of the gas.  I hadn't even thought of the lensing effect you bring up but that too (now that it's pointed out to me) would certainly have an effect.
> ...







Yes it can be very pronounced.  I used to live in Ventura and would fly down to Burbank from time to time and following the route of Highway 118 dropping into the San Fernando Valley from Simi Valley the smog would form a perfect dome over the city ending about three blocks from the 118.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 10, 2011)

westwall said:


> Yes it can be very pronounced.  I used to live in Ventura and would fly down to Burbank from time to time and following the route of Highway 118 dropping into the San Fernando Valley from Simi Valley the smog would form a perfect dome over the city ending about three blocks from the 118.



Perfect "lens effect" Exampe! 
And at the same time if the sun is still up they ALWAYS record higher temperatures under the smog dome
than just outside of it. Meteorologists think nothing of it, to them that`s common knowledge.
In aviation, it`s common knowledge as well.Except for most people inside the "smog dome" on the ground it is not. They just sweat it out.

These "dome bubbles" behave remarkably similar to a water vapor bubble when You put a
bunsen burner under a glass beaker filled with water.
They sit there and grow then "tear loose" and rise, and so do these smog domes.
Same thing, that "tearing loose" happens also without smog out in the open country.
You know it as "CAT"...clear air turbulence, and how violent it can be...
seems to come out of nowhere!...But it was one of these "bubbles" that tore loose.

I just wanted to go into something else here about CO2, that has yet not been researched which is a shame. But with Nitrogen it has been and is in every Physics book what solar radiation does with it. 
Again "environmentalists" want to know none of it, because it debunks the entire 
Ozone hole dooms day theory.
Alpha particles do score direct hits on Nitrogen Atoms, which yields at first a Fluorene Atom with a rather short half life time. That undergoes fission and leaves us with Oxygen as
an Oxygen radical, which in turn reacts with molecular Oxygen to form Ozone.
Happens all over the atmosphere except much less frequent over the Poles,
because charged particles can`t continue in a magnetic field, like over the poles
and spiral around it instead...so, You get an Ozon hole, the size depends on the
current field strentgh the earth`s magnetic field and solar activity.

But "environmentalists" have sold the public on the idea that the Ozone hole is
man made....and ever since I have never seen the Nitrogen Oxygen cycle
on any exam question in Physics any more.
Used to be almost a standard question.

The research I wanted to do, was to see what alpha radiation does to Carbon Dioxide.
I know from Mass Spectrometers how little Energy it takes to smash the Molecule.

No way would any Campus set resources aside...but hey if You want to
research if a guy watching porno behind a curtain sends out brainwaves
for that,....hey how much do You want and what do You need...NO PROBLEM!


I also want to comment on the Aristotle quote, You selected. Somehow over the last 2 decades that got twisted to if enough people believe me I can assert whatever I want.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 10, 2011)

@Westwall
Sir, I did mention earlier, that all You have to do, is copy and paste a Physics book page and publish it on the internet and You get all the hate mail You want.
Here is an example which You will have no problem to understand, because as a pilot You do know the difference between myth and science, else You would no longer be alive.
I took in purpose the oldest Physics book I have on my shelf and scanned this in and uploaded it in my forum album:





Allow me to translate, and I assure You I shall not twist any words:


> Illustration #197 shows a nuclear process which CAN also happen with the bombardment of Nitrogen Atoms with alpha particles



*CAN HAPPEN*...not could happen or might be happening...German is a very precise language, the word *CAN *is in this Sentence, because You are implying You scored a direct hit on a Nitrogen Atom! Which happens all the time with the alpha fraction of solar radiation and atmospherical Nitrogen...as Dr.Danilov did prove...I`ll get to him later.


> ...and where instead of a Proton initially only a Neutron is emitted, which yields the radioactive Fluorene Isotope 9-F-17, which later decays into the Oxygen 8-O-17 Isotope



And I`ll take it from there, because even "environmentalists" "agree" that atomar Oxygen a.k.a. an Oxygen Radical immediately combines with molecular Oxygen to form Ozone (O3).

Dr.Danilov proved that this is indeed happening at the outer atmosphere layer and some of us suggested him for the Nobel Prize later when his assertion successfully passed all scrutiny.
By then it was too late. The "environment science" started to use the bullhorn and news media method and no way would a guy like this ever get a nobel prize.

The last few publications You can find from Dr.Danilov is one of these:


> NATURE| VOL 415| 14 FEBRUARY 2002|Nature Publishing Group : science journals, jobs, and information
> 717
> Faced with continuing attacks and threats from radical environmental and animal-rights groups, scientists increasingly find themselves lumped in with an odd assortment of societal targets  from fast-food restaurants to mink ranchers to second- hand car dealers  branded as agents of global capitalism and eco- destruction.. They have reduced the worlds complexity to a few simple manifestos, and have traded debate for intimidation.
> Precautions need to be taken to protect researchers threatened by violent pressure groups. But open access to information
> ...



And neither "climatologists" nor "climatologists" need worry any longer about Dr.Danilov, because that`s where he is now:

NEAR: Russian scientist Danilov, jailed for espionage, appeals to European Court



> Russian scientist Danilov, jailed for espionage, appeals to European Court
> 
> Valentin Danilov, the Russian scientist sentenced to 14 years for espionage, has filed an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. His lawyer stated: We have turned to the European Court to protect Danilovs rights. The claim concerns the violation of four provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.
> 
> ...



@Westwall, Sir would You be so kind?
Email this Alert to a Friend
Thank You in advance from a fellow pilot
Punch a hole into the sky!


----------



## polarbear (Jan 10, 2011)

Yes one might argue, that a lot of previously "well behaved" scientists have turned into "science whores" and some call the likes of Dr.Danilov just that.
Well a guy does have to make a living. And if You cut his budget because he found out that the Ozone holes are not man made, or "climate change" that is precisely what will happen.

*Keep it up and then the best job opportunities for high caliper scientists will be in Iran!*
Not because they like their ideology, but You get paid almost as much as researching brainwaves while watching porno or reading rectal thermometers at Mauna Lua.

And that`s the only "scientists" You will be left with!
You know what`s going to happen to this country`s technology then?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdxdLjbgCPs&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdxdLjbgCPs&feature=related[/ame]

I`m pretty sure he : 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 knows where that was, he probably did a tour of duty there!

Well You :
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 can keep Your flashlight battery powered "green cars"...won`t matter to You they slow down if You push the cigarette lighter, cause You`d not even smoke a cigar if You wife gave birth to a boy...cause in a gay marriage there`s no chance of that either!


----------



## westwall (Jan 10, 2011)

polarbear said:


> @Westwall
> Sir, I did mention earlier, that all You have to do, is copy and paste a Physics book page and publish it on the internet and You get all the hate mail You want.
> Here is an example which You will have no problem to understand, because as a pilot You do know the difference between myth and science, else You would no longer be alive.
> I took in purpose the oldest Physics book I have on my shelf and scanned this in and uploaded it in my forum album:
> ...






Yes no problem.  I have been following the case for awhile.  My favourite physics textbook is from 1927 (also Deutsch) so I agree with you on that too!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 10, 2011)

polarbear said:


> I was just contemplating an "ignore list" here and that`s why I looked  for garbage just like that. Here is Your typical "climate change" freak:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please, go ahead and ignore me.  I really don't give a fuck.  But figured you should at least feel I noted your ravings and cared enough to send the very least.  Cute touch putting my avatar in the message, pointless but cute.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 11, 2011)

The man made Ozone hole was exactly the same swindle as the man made "climate change".
But the ozone hole  has fallen with "environmentalists"  out of favor, 'cause it went back to
small aperture over a long time period.
I should have perhaps mentioned, that UV radiation is responsible for the chief  production
of  Ozone. It`s just that the N-->F---<O>--->O3  adds to it.
With the spectral fraction of the UV that  produces Ozone, that is also vastly reduced
at the shallow angle of incidence and the resulting path length by the time the poles
are irradiated...so You will always have less Ozone there as anywhere else.

But that`s how this junk science works! As soon as the results diverge from
the outlandish assertions there is total silence.
Was so with Mercury pollution, Ozone, acid rain etc etc.

And it was as soon as this kind of "science" was acceptable, that a lot of
other swindles that really do pose a risk to the public have been buried
with the "recent studies" showed method...now margarine is healthier than butter
and there are alledgedly no free radicals in irradiated food, and so on and  on.

...While You can show with ESR that these still exist a year later after food has been
irradiated.

But the Midway Magicians have the public`s eyes looking at  "average temperatures"
and  CO2 levels reported in a way that is totally ridiculous...while this "magic statistical average science" makes "better than butter margarine"  and "chocolate" out of pig grease.
 and  convinced the public that eating pretty well the same stuff that comes out
of a paper mill reduces cholesterol.....as also "most scientists agree".

And  now exactly the same way as  "butter will kill You"  the public is brainwashed  to
opt for electric toy cars because a few wiffs of CO2 will doom the planet .
....and continue to pay a premium for  pig grease "chocolate"!


----------



## konradv (Jan 11, 2011)

Total silence over the CFC-ozone problem?!?!  What are we supposed to do, gloat?  The problem was identified; a solution was crafted; the results were positive; scientists were proven right.  Problem solved!  We're not living in the past.  There's more work to be done, like debunking the Global Cooling hoaxers.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 11, 2011)

konradv said:


> Total silence over the CFC-ozone problem?!?!  What are we supposed to do, gloat?  The problem was identified; a solution was crafted; the results were positive; scientists were proven right.  Problem solved!  We're not living in the past.  There's more work to be done, like debunking the Global Cooling hoaxers.








O.K. then pay the witch doctor for the rain dance!
*Because the Fluorohydrocarbons are still there!*

You just fell for the oldest trick in the chemical industry. Dupont`s Patent protection ran out ~ 1980 and they had to come up with a "new" refrigerant...better?...no!, in fact inferior....who do You think helped fund the  Ozone hole "research" ?....Al Gore?
And now anyone can make Freon derivatives...and they do!* But You HAVE to buy a fridge that`s using Dupont`s new refrigerant!*
*There are more CFC`s made worldwide today than ever before!*

The pharmaceutical industry pulls the same sack over Your head shortly before the patent expires and the new one has been approved, they report side effects in the old one.

People like You fall for the same b.s. over and over again...we know that since the DDT patents expired and everybody fell for the thin bird egg shell panic...

And now You have your inferior, more expensive Thio and Oxo-Amine derrivatives Pesti/Insecticides + You got Malaria back as the #2 WHO health problem.
*Stupidity does indeed have a high price! *

Grant You though, when Weyerhouser and cohorts wanted to push their new PATENTED bleaching Process which now produces Dioxins instead of " planetary Mercury contamination", as used to be from the Mercury Chlorine  Electrodes...Idiots just like You said exactly the same thing as with the CFC`s and continue smiling while the dentist plugs Your cavities with Mercury Amalgam same as ever!

How naive can You be?....You just showed me!
Do You have any fillings like that in Your mouth?
Mercury & Lead + some other heavy metals  do have a retardation effect on brains...look it up in the Merck index....but guess what...there is indeed "a recent study that showed"...that only Grignard type Hg compounds like Methylmercurychloride has that effect on You...and You believed that too!
So I`m not surprised about You at all.
All it takes is to go on TV and spit into a beer glass till it`s full then drink it, and remind You, that You are doing exactly the same disgusting thing every few seconds...
After that I can sell all the spittoons I want !
That` how easy it is to manipulate people like You!
Go choke on that You @$$hole!


----------



## konradv (Jan 11, 2011)

What does that rant have to do with CFCs?   They were banned from aerosols and their continued use under new formulations in refrigerators presents a lowered threat to atmospheric ozone.  I don't think you have a clue about the science.  You mentioned Gore, which immediately turns your complaint to the political rather than scientific.  Like in the AGW debate, those who know the subject, discuss it.  Those who don't, mention Gore.  I'm afraid you've put yourself in the class of those with an agenda, rather than than those who care about open debate, son.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 12, 2011)

konradv said:


> What does that rant have to do with CFCs?   They were banned from aerosols and their continued use under new formulations in refrigerators presents a lowered threat to atmospheric ozone.  I don't think you have a clue about the science.  You mentioned Gore, which immediately turns your complaint to the political rather than scientific.  Like in the AGW debate, those who know the subject, discuss it.  Those who don't, mention Gore.  I'm afraid you've put yourself in the class of those with an agenda, rather than than those who care about open debate, son.







Finally someone who has a counterargument that at least partially has one leg on a tiny patch of established science, but for the rest he takes a liberty for granted which he denies me...the political aspect of the whole thing.
And if I list what "scientific" bungles "environmentalists" have committed so far it`s called "ranting". Although this has really nothing to do with "man made climate change" I shall humor You and do this "assignment", just don`t think I would let You assign how I spend my time. In this case it`s really no bother, because I can deal with the technical part of Your counter argument straight from memory.
That B.S. that You hint to, started with I think Herr Holleman who re-invented a well known chemical reaction and turned it into yet another doomsday scenario. Of course that worked and he flogged that horse to fame. He was for Years thee most quoted "scientist".
Instead of wasting more time than need be I`ll just paste a picture of this outlandish claim in here:




Does not matter which web page You pick, they are all the sames as this one:
The Ozone Hole-Ozone Destruction
With the word OZONE DESTRUCTION embedded in the URL, so that it has Google priority.
What they are selling is that a chain reaction proceeds like that:


> one chlorine atom in the stratosphere can destroy up to 100,000 ozone molecules.


I am too lazy to write the word "Chlorine radical" and will use instead the accepted symbols <Cl> for the radical and Cl(2) for the Molecule.
They assert that 1 single <Cl> can seek out the needle in a hay stack an Ozone Molecule
which are present at a conc. of 2 ~ 8 parts per Million, therefore against 999 992 to 1 odds at best and destroy it, then go on and score another encounter against the same odds and do this 100 000 times in a row, before the <Cl> encounters another <Cl> and the alleged chain reaction stops...while all the while there was another <Cl> right next to it..and so they say Ozone is depleted with this doomsday chain reaction...all the while all around it UV light generates Ozone using the same radical reaction, between a freshly smashed in 2 Oxygen Molecules into 2 Radicals that reacts with Oxygen that it all around it and forms fresh Ozone. Well if chain reactions like the Holleman doomsday chain reaction were possible, then there would be no need to enrich Uranium.
Because in this "science" the reaction partners seek each other like 2 fruit flies trying to mate.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Except that between the upper and lower fly crawling around Your screen there should have been 999 9992 ascii characters.
But back to the "man made global warming" and putting in perspective with how little Infrared CO2 can absorb and how much goes right by it and is absorbed by water vapor and the stored as heat energy.
It`s like claiming that after a snowfall there is less snow under a cross country power-line, because of the snow the thin wires above absorbed.
Now can I please have some more "I hate You" points for all that work I just did?
I do have other things to do too, You know!
Ooops in my haste to get on with more important things I almost forgot to address the last part of Your counter argument method:


> put yourself in the class of those with an agenda, rather than than those who care about open debate, son


In know for a fact that my mother did not associate with carpetbaggers, and no no way carnal. They did not even get passed the hired help which answered the door.
So there is no way You could be my dad and I Your son, sport!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 12, 2011)

Whoopie, all this board needed. Another, and even wordier, Kooky. With the scientific knowledge of mdn. Lordy, lordy, this board is a magnet for kooks and charlatans. Gotta love all of you, though. Provide humor every day.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 12, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Whoopie, all this board needed. Another, and even wordier, Kooky. With the scientific knowledge of mdn. Lordy, lordy, this board is a magnet for kooks and charlatans. Gotta love all of you, though. Provide humor every day.


you should know, old kook


----------



## polarbear (Jan 13, 2011)

This "scientist" propaganda has managed to trash the most fundamental laws and that every action has an equal reaction was no exception.
So now a few weak Infrared Spectral Absorption lines of a few parts per million can warm the globe, which is no different from claiming no rain would hit You if You stand under a hydro line.
A single Chlorine Atom with an uncoupled electron in the outer shell can take out 100 000 Ozone Molecules and score 100 000 times against ~ 1 million to 1 odds in a row.

After these "scientists" finally discovered that water absorbs CO2 they turn around and tell You that this is how the oceans contributed to the last ice-age.

And it has all been proven with the silliest average and %-age with grade 1 elementary school.

You don`t even have to take the trouble to double check this "math", all it takes is confront it with their own statements:

Math! How much CO2 is emitted by human on earth annually?  small-m


> I use the standard chemistry textbook theory (standard molar volume) to check this claim, 450L for 900 grams of CO2, and it is tallied.
> 
> Thus, the amount of CO2 released by human per day is 0.9 kg/day
> In the average adult, tidal volume is about 0.5 liters.
> ...



And then look at the Mauna Lua dooms day news, take their worst case scenario:



> December 2010:     389.69 ppm
> and their rate of increase:
> for the year 2008   +1.66 ppm
> and for 2010         + 2.32 ppm



And now go ahead and apply the same milk maid math as these "scientists" do.

So Mauna Lua tells You that 2008 we had ~ +0.43 %
and in 2010 a whooping +.6 %


The "human breath math" was done on March 27, 2007  and at that time the world population clock was, so she says 6 600 000 000
If You check that today it is: 
World Population Clock
 > 6 867 280 750 and gathering speed + mass like an avalanche...
That`s how they would describe it were we talking about cars instead of people!
So what is their CO2 contribution increase slice using their numbers? 
I get + 4%  more CO2 from humans since 2007. Imagine if Mauna Lua had a number like that, football games on TV would be interrupted !

But no way do these f##<heads want to consider solar activity in their man made global warming fantasy. They play that down and say  that "only" varies by 0.1%.

I guess that`s because the numbers are a little too big for their childish little minds and their childish  Windows spread sheet "calculations" and "Power point" presentations, because + 0.1% of *174 PETA WATTS* comes out to *174 trillion watts * more Energy the sun dumps on us every second.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 13, 2011)

And this is the reason why "global warming" was re-christened to "climate change"
If You plug the "insignificant +.1%" power out put of this gigantic nuclear reactor a.k.a. the sun in and do a little math with real numbers, not that spin doctor average % crap then everybody can see what`s really happening:
Air at standard conditions = 0 Celsius and 1 atm pressure has a specific heat value of 0.2403 Kcal/kg.
*Which means that it only takes  .984 kw to  raise the temperature of 1 cubic meter air by 1 C per SECOND!!!!
*
All the air around our planet amounts to 5140 trillion tonnes .
So using the LOWEST solar output fluctuation of "just 0.1%" as "climatologists" like to call it You will see that inside one single solar cycle (=30 years) the entire 5140 trillion tonnes of air gets *heated by an extra +.3 degrees Celsius.*

And that`s the exact same panic figure these assholes paraded in the media and try tell You that what came out of Your SUV exhaust pipe  can do all that!

*And if You use actual solar data not just "average" You can see that these 5140 trillion tonnes of air can climb inside 1 decade by .3 Celsius, You don`t have to wait 30 years!*
Of course the solar output drops again...it does not just go up, or else all the corn in the farmers fields would pop...and then that happens:
Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International


> Stagnating Temperatures
> Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out
> Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.



But the spin doctors had the best answer to "explain" all that to the public which was beginning to wonder about this "science"....It`s now called "climate change" instead of "global warming"
F@#< and now these assholes even tell you the Ozone hole is smaller because the "Freon Problem was solved"...and  "there is more work to be done" and after gas is > $6.00 per Gallon the "job" is done. Then after the next solar cycle they claim that they were right all along.
By the way, You don`t have to rely on Mauna Lua "scientists" with a 7 digit budget to tell You what`s up with CO2. They will never show You how fast that can go down inside a single day!...They just report the highest peak values and hype these even more by reporting these not as ppm weight per volume, but "moisture corrected Molar ratio".
All You have to do is get some distilled water and some Barium Chloride. If You can`t get that then Calcium Chloride will do (=the same stuff that is used to salt icy roads).
Then go to Radio Shack and buy a light sensitive Diode and a 100 K-Ohm resistor and a half decent Volt meter. Then go to a pet store and buy an aquarium pump.
Connect the resistor and the "LSD"-iode in series and connect any DC power supply...Your cell phone charger will do across and connect Your meter to the R/LSD junction with one terminal and the other one to the - of your power supply.
Now note the reading and bubble air with the aquarium pump through the BaCl salt solution. When it gets "milky" shine a flashlight which You rigged up and leave in the EXACT same Position there through the solution,note the Voltage, record it and note the time it took to get To the reading when You stopped the pump after You noticed how much light was blocked by the 'milky" Barium or Calcium Carbonate.
*Repeat this procedure on a rainy day and You can see how the CO2 goes way down after You had just a couple of hours of rain!*
In other words how much longer You had to run the bubbles through the solution to make it as "milky" as on a sunny cloudless day.

"climatologist scientists" will never tell You that "little" secret..*.that they  NEVER measure and record CO2 levels  after it`s been raining for a while*
They gloss that out with their "average moisture corrected Molar CO2 content" till there is no trace of it left!


----------



## polarbear (Jan 13, 2011)

Maybe I should not have mentioned how easy it is to measure CO2 with a well proven lo-tech Method...the way it`s been done before we had Gas Chromathographs.
Next thing I`m not just an anti-gay redneck with a political agenda, but also responsible for every "climatologist" that happens to get shot by irate Radio Shack customers when it rains


----------



## westwall (Jan 13, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Whoopie, all this board needed. Another, and even wordier, Kooky. With the scientific knowledge of mdn. Lordy, lordy, this board is a magnet for kooks and charlatans. Gotta love all of you, though. Provide humor every day.






Actually, polarbears science is good.  You wouldn't know that because you are a college dropout but it is good.  I think your big problem is you have failed to understand that English is not polarbears native language I think.  My guess is German but it could also be Russian.

So which is it PB?


----------



## westwall (Jan 13, 2011)

polarbear said:


> This "scientist" propaganda has managed to trash the most fundamental laws and that every action has an equal reaction was no exception.
> So now a few weak Infrared Spectral Absorption lines of a few parts per million can warm the globe, which is no different from claiming no rain would hit You if You stand under a hydro line.
> A single Chlorine Atom with an uncoupled electron in the outer shell can take out 100 000 Ozone Molecules and score 100 000 times against ~ 1 million to 1 odds in a row.
> 
> ...






Well done post.  Simple enough a moron could understand it...if they chose too that is!


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Whoopie, all this board needed. Another, and even wordier, Kooky. With the scientific knowledge of mdn. Lordy, lordy, this board is a magnet for kooks and charlatans. Gotta love all of you, though. Provide humor every day.
> ...


well, PB is in Canada, so it might be  FRENCH




lol


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 13, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Maybe I should not have mentioned how easy it is to measure CO2 with a well proven lo-tech Method...the way it`s been done before we had Gas Chromathographs.
> Next thing I`m not just an anti-gay redneck with a political agenda, but also responsible for every "climatologist" that happens to get shot by irate Radio Shack customers when it rains



Mostly you are an idiot that likes verbage.


----------



## westwall (Jan 13, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






Now that's a scary thought!  Certainly possible though!


----------



## westwall (Jan 13, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I should not have mentioned how easy it is to measure CO2 with a well proven lo-tech Method...the way it`s been done before we had Gas Chromathographs.
> ...







And you're an idiot who can't spell.  It's *VERBIAGE* nimrod!


----------



## polarbear (Jan 14, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You & Westwall almost scored a direct hit. I am a native German but was transferred to the U.S.A. & Canada in the line of duty, sort of speak. But I also speak French, Swedish and a few other languages and sometimes that plays havoc with my sentence structure, so please forgive me. Add to that that my brother in law and college is chinese, but he taught @ McGill Montreal PQ and later Cornwall Ontario, also Chemistry. My nieces and nephews speak fluent Mandarin, French, English @ German. What compounds the problem is that my wife for >40 Years is a native American Lakota Sioux and that`s all I hear around me while I am at home....
Russian, I wish I could speak it but I can`t...no matter because my other brother in Law is Russian and I ask him if I want something translated correctly.
My typing skills are terrible mainly because these keyboards are so tiny and more often than not I strike 2 keys at once.
I wish I had more time, but maybe later tomorrow, because this Article which appeared in the German "Der Spiegel" is noteworthy.
Its 3 pages long and for a change reports some honest research results a team of European Geologists have published.
Klimaforschung: Wetterdaten erklären Geheimnisse der Geschichte - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Wissenschaft
Klimaforschung: Wetterdaten erklären Geheimnisse der Geschichte - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Wissenschaft
Klimaforschung: Wetterdaten erklären Geheimnisse der Geschichte - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Wissenschaft

This Group went well beyond tree growth rings and pollen analysis and dug up a lot of hard data to choke a horse, and it does not look good for "man made climate change".


> Als es 300 vor Christus allmählich wärmer wurde und gleichzeitig relativ viel Regen fiel......
> Allein aus dieser Zeit haben die Forscher um Esper und Büntgen nun bis zu 550 Wetter-Beweisstücke analysiert.....
> Daten gelten aber für weite Teile Mitteleuropas, Italiens, Frankreichs und des Balkans - das zeigen Vergleiche mit Temperaturmessungen aus dem 20. Jahrhundert.....
> vierten Jahrhundert nach Christus eine gravierende Klimaverschlechterung: Es wurde kalt und trocken in Mittel- und Südeuropa. Historiker sprechen vom "Klimapessimum der Völkerwanderung".....
> ...


I `ll translate this one right now:
 Birds fell dead from the sky...and later on written records mention, they were frozen clumps and  the same reports appear about massive amount of fish perishing due to low water temperature...
sound a lot like the news headlines from last week?



> Gegen die Hungersnot Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts - ausgelöst von einem kurzzeitigen Klimarückfall - freilich halfen auch diese Verbesserungen nichts....
> sagt der Mainzer Klimaforscher Jan Esper, "aber Klimaumschwünge können historische Entwicklungen verstärken."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Seit langem streiten Experten über die künftigen Auswirkungen des Klimawandels: Führen die Veränderungen erneut in eine Katastrophe, oder bringt eine weitere Erwärmung Gutes? "Kurzfristige Klimaänderungen hatten oft gravierende Auswirkungen auf die Gesellschaft", resümiert Ulf Büntgen. Die neuen Daten bieten Historikern noch reichlich Stoff, solche Zusammenhänge aufzuspüren.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



And a quick, not "verbatum" translation, just the gist of the statement:
This new Data offers a lot more material to study historical correlations...and the statement begins that Experts have been at odds amongst themselves over the ramifications of climate change...
which really is an understatement, because when You read the entire article it becomes abundantly clear that we have not been fed the truth by climatologists.
The article also mentions how the Vikings traveled to North America via a quite temperate Greenland....
And I did post links to pictures here of what my co-workers and I have found on the ground at the northern most tip of Greenland...but could not post these due to the 15 post rule.
However "divecon" was so kind and took the trouble to copy the links and then post a few of these in this thread, for which I wish to thank him again.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 14, 2011)

With the previous reply very little snooping is required to establish my identity. 
So it does`nt really matter much after this if I post a picture which eliminates a lot of other suspects who I might be. Is Okay,....sort of because I am used for Years to be confronted
with "scientific counter arguments" just like this one:



> 01-08-2011 09:24 PM 	 Old Rocks  	Nein, Du arschgefiecter Hurensohn.



Pityful German, but it does convey his "counter argument" "Hurensohn" means my mother is a whore and the other word describes how fags confuse the purpose of body orifices.

Never mind that, here are a few pictures I just uploaded into my album here.

"divecon" did already post this one for me, but I`ld like to show it again, grouped with these other ones.





You can find these tree stumps all over Ellesmere Island and Greenland, especially around Fort Conger and north of S.A.C. Thule

Not just that, but here is a little something the Vikings left behind...all over northern Greenland and the northern part of Ellesmere Island:





And no, the nicely shaped rocks are not bricks, there are entire mountainsides with "bricks" and "shingles" in many colors, but mostly red.

Sometimes the rings are large and more like mounds, but with bones inside:





Our best guess is, that this was a good method to stash food in a region full of predators.
Toady we don`t stash food, but we do have to make similar "stashes" for the Helicopter fuel all the way up to the North Pole.

I wish CNN would show something like that, instead of publishing crap, that Eskimos have to eat grease burgers, because the ice is too thin to go seal hunting.
But that just won`t happen, and the fact that most of this area is off limits to all but military personnel very likely facilitates the status quo for further decades of dis-information.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 14, 2011)

There is no need to throw impressive sounding science buss words to the press to bolster credibility. Because the facts on the ground in the arctic speak a language that everyone who is not a cement head can understand.

Only problem is, that the press rather opts for sensational statements bristling with buzzwords uttered by idiots who dress in white lab-coats.
I guess that`s a much better stage prop than the Military olive we have to wear to work.
On top of that we are not allowed to say a whole lot about what we are doing up there.

So I`ll let a few more pictures do the talking for me which tell a story, regardless what language You speak best.






HMS Discovery *was not an ice breaker!*






But they had no problem to reach this shore 135 Years ago and the conditions then were no different than what You see in this picture.






They did NOT have to dig through snow and ice to build these cabins on solid ground!
The evidence (plenty of it) is all around that* the landing party was sitting on bare ground when they arrived.*.....just like Fort Conger looks today in the summer time...NO DIFFERENCE!

This idiotic Eskimos "have to eat"  MacDonald`s grease-burgers is still on the CNN web page! But why  MacDonald`s could not stay away from Iqaluit...is a question they would never ask.


----------



## westwall (Jan 14, 2011)

polarbear said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...






Very interesting articles.  I have been following their work for a few years now.  I am not surprised at the German  I figured that as the highest possiblity because of how you juxtaposed words.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 14, 2011)

Maybe one of the dope heads from the Berkley "climatologist" team, which was up there in the Summer of 02, will show up here in this forum..
None of them would have any trouble figuring out who I am.

They called us and  demanded a new G.P.R. unit because their`s was not functioning properly, they said. They almost got us killed when we arrived, because one of the idiots stalled a skidoo in the middle of the make shift strip just when we arrived with a twin Otter.

We gave them a new GPR and took theirs and landed on an ice field 50 miles from the coastline and tried it out. We got an echo from the rock layer below the ice and told them their GPR works just fine, except where they chose to camp the ice was too thick for that particular GPR unit.

After that we had to relocate the entire zoo and help them find an ice field which was "thin" enough for their "average Greenland ice thickness" data collection.
....which was promptly  published right after, in January 03 by the international  press! 

I had a URL to that once, but to me that was not what I call a "keeper" and I try not to clutter my hard drive with useless junk like that.

*Pressure and temperature are inter-changeable.*
Anyone can see what happens to ice, no matter how cold if the pressure per area exceeds the critical level.

Set your freezer to maximum and suspend an ice "2 X 4" between 2 boxes.
In the middle sling a wire from which You suspend a 5kg weight.

In less than a week the wire will have cut-melted its way through the ice "2 X 4",no problem. And that`s exactly what`s happening  where the ice layer is thick and heavy enough to exceed the critical pressure threshold.

They don`t really melt as much from the top down with the warm "greenhouse gas air",
as they  "melt" at the bottom where the ice meets the rock.
That`s why You can see these "water tunnels" coming out at the base of thick ice layers Some of these "Ice caves" go way in and under and have been carved through the ice by the melt water from UNDERNEATH the ice!






That  "ice cave" goes way up* and under this  glacier* at the rock/ice boundary layer.






Were it not because of  this constant temperature/pressure interplay at the bottom where the ice layer rock face boundary is glaciers would not even be able to move downhill!

If this no nonsense "Jo the plumber" guy, to whom every politician wanted to cuddle up to, when they wanted to demonstrate that are are not full of bullshit, would read this he would have no trouble understanding this, because in his job he  can`t afford to be as stupid as a "climatologist" or as dishonest as politicians who milk mileage  out of crap like "man made climate change"


----------



## westwall (Jan 14, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Maybe one of the dope heads from the Berkley "climatologist" team, which was up there in the Summer of 02, will show up here in this forum..
> None of them would have any trouble figuring out who I am.
> 
> They called us and  demanded a new G.P.R. unit because their`s was not functioning properly, they said. They almost got us killed when we arrived, because one of the idiots stalled a skidoo in the middle of the make shift strip just when we arrived with a twin Otter.
> ...






Yes there are similar ice caves at teh terminus of the Tasman glacier as well.  I am very well aquainted with them.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> Yes there are similar ice caves at teh terminus of the Tasman glacier as well.  I am very well aquainted with them.



I knew, *YOU knew*, and I can also see that You have man sized fingers too...watch out somebody surely will focus all the attention to 


> teh terminus


and disregard everything else You said!
Allow me to elaborate on Your reply:

"climatology" does not go beyond the buzz words  or  concept  names  of well known physics & chemistry. This "science" quotes books & publications without  even going a few pages into the depth of it  and then make the most outlandish  cause and effect statements in the news media.
It`s been done with the DDT bird shell effect, mercury pollution, "acid rain", CFC`s where one <Cl>
radical can score 100 000 collisions in a row against  .99 Million to 1 odds...and now with Carbon Dioxide on which the entire new "science" is based.
Yet water is the most common substance on this planet and without it life would not exist.
This "science" uses methods adults use when they want to put on a scary show for their kids using their hands in front of a candle behind a curtain to project  2 dimensional larger than life monsters on a screen.
Every scary over sized shadow they  project for the frightened audience can be explained
with the properties of  the most common substance on earth, water.

Both "Acid rain " was ...., but the CO2 boogerman could also be dealt with one single sentence which is in any chemistry book:

Water left exposed to air for any length of time will dissolve carbon dioxide, forming a dilute solution of carbonic acid, with a limiting pH of about 5.7. As cloud droplets form in the atmosphere and as raindrops fall through the air minor amounts of CO2 are absorbed and thus most rain is slightly acidic

And the "global warming" scare with these 2 statements:

Water has the second highest specific heat capacity of all known substances, after ammonia, as well as a high heat of vaporization (40.65 kJ·mol^&#8722;1)
The specific enthalpy of fusion of water is 333.55 kJ·kg^&#8722;1 at 0 °C. Of common substances, only that of ammonia is higher


These two unusual properties allow water to moderate Earth's climate by buffering large fluctuations in temperature. Per Josh Willis, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory *the oceans absorb one thousand times more heat than the atmosphere (air)* and is holding 80 to 90% of the stored heat.

Of course in the Internet/Wikipedia that is spin-phrased as "...*.and is holding 80 to 90% of the stored "global warming" heat.*

And then there is the water vapor Infrared absorption spectrum:






*Now Compare that with the narrow CO2 spectral line:*







Where they tell You that this spectral line can "catch" enough Infrared to heat the planet...
Right, then You could also find shelter from the rain by standing under a hydro line.

So that leaves us with the "Melting glaciers"
Well that`s where this propaganda science has the advantage, that it does get a little bit more complicated and
You do need  to have some physics semesters under Your belt to spot this fraud.
But that can also be boiled down to the key facts which are at play here:

*Triple point*
The temperature and pressure at which solid, liquid, and gaseous water coexist in  equilibrium is called the triple point of water.






They partially explain that to high school kids why skates glide so easy on ice!
You don`t even have to get that complicated to understand that Steam, liquid Water and Ice can happily co-exist
given the pressure is large enought...which it certainly is under a thick layer of ice.

And that happens to the glacier, which slide off mountain sides "because of global warming":

Science Links Japan | Anisotropy of ice plasticity and dislocations in ice: anomalous properties of hexagonal ice Ih associated with cubic structure Ic



> Anisotropy of ice plasticity and dislocations in ice: anomalous properties of hexagonal ice Ih associated with cubic structure Ic
> Accession number;06A0418360
> Pub. Country;Japan
> Language;Japanese
> Abstract;The plasticity of ice, which demonstrates the strongest anisotropy among the various properties of ice, is reviewed in terms of the characteristic nature of dislocations in ice. Ice is deformed as if all possible sliding systems except for basal sliding are forbidden; like a deck of cards in which the surface is parallel to a basal plane. This peculiar nature of ice plasticity is explained by the characteristic structures of dislocations in ice, or by the fact that it originates with cubic structure Ic embedded in hexagonal ice Ih. The dislocation in ice extends over the basal plane because there is a very small energy difference between Ih and Ic that restricts its movement on the basal plane. Even though only the basal system is active in ice plasticity, it is apparent in the text that non-basal systems are also important in the deformation mechanism



And Tourists are watching and filming "global warming evidence"  at the Alaska pan handle coast where huge chunks of ice crash every other minute into the Pacific Ocean.

*"Climatologists" plant Laser Targets higher up and  "collect correlation data" between "average ice motion" and "average temperature".
*
And after that the astonished public gets a "science lesson" on Cable TV, both on the "Discovery Channel" and  the "National Geographic" which conclude Your SUV is destroying the planet.
TV works even better than the shadow puppet theater, because with that one exaggeration is limited to the size of the canvas and the distance to the candle.


----------



## westwall (Jan 15, 2011)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes there are similar ice caves at teh terminus of the Tasman glacier as well.  I am very well aquainted with them.
> ...






When I was getting my geology degree in the 1960's and 70's all was well with the world, then in the 1970's when I was getting my PhD we first heard of GW.  And on its face the theory was sound and so we pretty much ignored it.  

However as time went on myself and a bunch of other geologists started looking at the historical record and concluded that the hysterical doom mongering was ridiculous and started asking ourselves why they were getting so silly with their predictions, that is what caused us to start looking at their science.  That's when we realised they really didn't have any.

It was quite a revelation I assure you.  Back in the 90's we still didn't really care because we had no idea what their goal was.  We figured they were twits and had figured out a wonderful gravy train and while we didn't like it we also realised that it allways happens in academia so once again pretty much ignored it.  Then when I was actually teaching for a year between projects I had a student come up and fill me in on what they had been doing and what he thought was their goal.  Needless to say at first I thought he was mad but I did the proper thing and actually looked at what he presented and after about a month of real serious work between the two of us I was astounded to find that he was correct.

Since that time I have been working against these bastards, and bastards is what they are.

And yes my fingers _do_ frequently get in the way!  All those years of swinging a rock hammer has made them pretty callused!


----------



## elvis (Jan 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The smell of bovine feces is truly strong in the air.



Then shovel out your house.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> Since that time I have been working against these bastards, and bastards is what they are.
> 
> And yes my fingers _do_ frequently get in the way!  All those years of swinging a rock hammer has made them pretty callused!



I read You 4 X 4...But You know what I may well be that You and I met once!
After all it is a small world! Have You been doing some research by any chance up top the Muncho Lake climb @ the Alaska highway? 
There is a glacier field with all kinds of interesting minerals.
You are telling me here and now almost the* same thing as the Geologist I met there once*, quite by accident!
He was stuck for several hours and had a Mexican standoff with a very aggressive ram, that just lost one horn after a viscous fight with another ram.
This Geologist had his rock hammer as the only weapon in his fist and managed to hold off that ram with it. Every time he wanted to move, the ram reared up and began a charge, then the rock hammer was raised over the head and the ram broke off his attack.
He...may very well be YOU... came down the mountain after that to my van (which was also a Dodge RAM,red with a gray top ) and we had coffee and sandwiches...and the story he told me sounded EXACTLY what You have been telling me here just now!!!!

Maybe I should not be doing this, but what the hell...I came back to edit this to upload some pictures for this.






That`s the van. 
Does that ring a bell?

I just finished another tour of duty and my wife and daughter picked me up at Edmonton airport, and we drove back home into the Yukon.
Then up top at the Muncho Lake climb, there was a Jeep with the top down just sitting there, so I stopped to see if somebody needs some Help...and there was the Geologist with a Rock hammer, holding off a killer ram, pretty tired he was when I showed up, but cool as a cucumber!
I`ll never forget it!

That other glacier top right is not far from where I lived then...it`s doing just fine!

Here is  another "ice cave" better close up picture, same cave, going way up and under a Greenland  glacier  above it.
No way would I crawl in there and see how far....*You are the Geologist, That`s YOUR JOB!*
Just kidding! But there are many of these caves, this one was the easiest to get to.








These glaciers, especially the massive ones in the arctic can be an extremely dangerous
place to snoop around. Sometimes a huge water reservoir deep under the ice breaks
through and water roars down the mountain slope...Once I stood in a turbine outlet of
a power plant being built on the Nelson river up in Northern Manitoba which was built almost
exclusively to feed into the U.S. power grid.
This "ice cave" looks exactly like one of the turbine outlets, which were computer designed
to have the optimum shape for a torrent of water to exit with the
least resistance...well if water has it`s way it does that all by itself. A falling drop of water
takes on the  optimal shape of least drag..
why would water use a different principle when it  carves a shape as these "ice caves" when it wants to blast through the ice?

Well I guess as a pilot and a Geologist You took Your share of risks!
But not too many "climatologists" beg for security clearance to come to S.A.C. Thule or Alert. If the winds start howling and the snow blows that visibility is not just below IFR minimum but absolute Zero...they close Chicago O`Hare or divert to an alternate.
Here it`s do or die!..*.There is no alternate* and You won`t have much more than the mandatory 45 minutes worth of fuel on board when You are on approach!
In the summer it`s not bad and just when the captain says, O.K. guys strap in, 2 minutes from touchdown and You look out the window You see wrecks of many makes below, that had to go for it, despite 150+ crosswinds gusting even higher and ZERO visibility.






So now I can ask a full fledged Geologist what he thinks of the answers we got from the "climatologists" about these ice caves.
They claim these caves are formed when a glacier slides downhill and can`t follow the contour, then simply bridges the gap...
totally disregarding the direction and Orientation of these caves...because for most, the glacier would have had to move sideways instead of downhill.
Then You were not around for a second* qualified *opinion,* but now You are!*
*They could use a guy like You up there..*.check with USAF Strategic Air Command for security clearance, then You can have Your pick between Greenland and Ellesmere Island...or check with A.F.B. Trenton, they can issue clearance as well.
*SAC Thule is far less hairy to land* as Alert, and we visit each other all the time using Twin Otters.


----------



## westwall (Jan 15, 2011)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Since that time I have been working against these bastards, and bastards is what they are.
> ...






No the geologist in Alaska was not me but I know who it was!  I would never wander around that area without a rifle or a shotgun!  He and I had drinks one time in Fairbanks and he told me the story!  I can't remember the buggers name right now but it gave me a hell of a laugh at the time!  He was working on his dissertation at the time I believe and was quite annoyed at the critter  I was working on a project for a mining outfit just out of Minto and had gone into town for a bit of R&R.


Very small world indeed!


----------



## polarbear (Jan 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > No the geologist in Alaska was not me but I know who it was!  I would never wander around that area without a rifle or a shotgun!  He and I had drinks one time in Fairbanks and he told me the story!  I can't remember the buggers name right now but it gave me a hell of a laugh at the time!  He was working on his dissertation at the time I believe and was quite annoyed at the critter  I was working on a project for a mining outfit just out of Minto and had gone into town for a bit of R&R.
> ...


----------



## westwall (Jan 15, 2011)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


----------



## polarbear (Jan 17, 2011)

westwall said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## polarbear (Jan 18, 2011)

*@ Annie :
This one for You: *


> 01-02-2011 07:07 AM 	 Annie  	Thanks for posting all that, the 15 rule sucks, but glad D was able to help!



I got nosy and read Your profile:


> When one becomes a liberal, he or she pretends to advocate tolerance, equality and peace, but hilariously, they're doing so for purely selfish reasons. It's the human equivalent of a puppy dog's face: an evolutionary tool designed to enhance survival, reproductive value and status. In short, liberalism is based on one central desire: to look cool in front of others in order to get love. Preaching tolerance makes you look cooler, than saying something like, please lower my taxes



So I risked a wild guess and figure You are a level headed (mom?)...could be a teacher?...which would be nice, because this post here would by right up your alley!
Use anything You want, pictures etc as if they were Yours and blog!

You don`t  have to get into Infrared Spectroscopy, Thermodynamics, Entalphy of water
vapor, triple point and ice plasticity under huge pressure, wind eddies on the lee side of
mountains, the geology of cracked rocks that have undergone countless freeze thaw cycles
to show how outlandish these "climatologist" statements are.
You just can let the animals that are up close to the pole there speak for themselves.
They are very easily observed, because they do not fear man. since they have not encountered any.
They are curious and You can get on Your belly next to an arctic Rabbit summer or winter and watch what they eat. Foxes and arctic wolves, same thing.
They only animal I did not join for dinner were polar bears, because with them You never know if You are next!




This stupid film that Al Gore produced  tugs heart strings with starving and drowning polar bears as a result of "global warming" and he got the Nobel Prize for that!
Sure polar bears do eat  seal and so did grease-burger eating Eskimos before the ever
so properly concerned about environment issues  MacDonalds showed up in Iqaluit.
But seal do not just live on "ice that is too thin" for Eskimos to hunt on, as one "scientist" of
some weird kind of science explained it to CNN. They like dry land too and if they
can sunbathe in the sand they  use any opportunity to do just that!...:




But what the f.ck does Al Gore think a Muskox eats?....Meat?




It`s pretty easy to figure out and watch what the Wolves eat, they let You come up close and watch just don`t think You can just grab Your share for nothing like liberals do it!




Same thing with the foxes....:




I never did see any mice on Ellesmere or Greenland, but may be they do exist.
But I did see foxes eat rabbits...:




We have 2 kinds of arctic "bunnies" some do eat steak, I have seen them do it on many occasions..:





But the wilder bunnies up there eat vegetation, and so do the Muskox.
I am running a little low on storage space here and have hundreds of  pictures of plants that grow there, but this one is very common....:





This vegetation + the muskox and the bunnies + the predators that eat bunnies and muskox did not just show up there after we started burning fossil fuel!
And if that area were a thick sheet of ice instead a region with sparse snow precipitation the entire arctic eco-system would* COLLAPSE*

Neither the muskox nor the bunnies have to dig deep to get to the roots of plants in the midst of long the arctic winters. The rabbits eat on the windward side of slopes where there hardly ever is any snow cover worth mentioning, and the wolves and foxes pick them off from there!
It`s as simple as that and anyone who has spent some time there can tell You the same thing. And after You have spent some time there You realize what kind of garbage is fed to the public and to schoolchildren.
Boy I wish someone who is a school teacher with common sense finds these pictures here.
I`m just about done here, but what need I add?...if that does not do it, nothing will!
So for the time being my best wishes to You all
I like the logo of the Yukon`s Whitehorse Star, and I`ll borrow it to conclude here:
Whitehorsestar.com - Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada
*Roll Your mouse pointer up to the logo, top left and keep Your eye on their motto..:*

_*"Illegitimus Non Carborundum"*_

It will change to:
*"Don`t Let The Bastards Grind You Down"*

And that is my message to all You "guys"....(not gays!)  male or female further south of where polarbears like myself live.
*We are all in this together!*

I just wanted to add this. First I was bitching about the 15 post rule before links & pics were allowed, that was explained to me and I do understand.
But I do have this request to the Moderator of this forum.
All the pictures in my album which I used in my posts can only be seen by registered users, and that does suck. I want to make these public property, so that ANYBODY can see this.
It`s not just "my arctic" up there it belongs to ALL OF US...and so do the pictures.
Sure I could have put them into "photobucket" or such, but it`s not rocket science how an "OldRock" would have countered that...these pics were from a mainstream "climatologist" and I "stole them"...so I posted them here. I did upload 3 or 4 once to "photobucket" and around 2 dozen to a German newspaper, but that`s all.
If sysop or the Moderator  could please edit my posts so that these pictures are visible to all, that would make me and a lot of other Northerners very happy.
*Or if that can`t be done, please copy my album, upload the pictures anywhere You like and go public!...It`s more than fine by me!*


----------



## polarbear (Jan 19, 2011)

Came back here to add just one more thing. The pictures below can be found by anyone with Google. Arctic "experts" like Al Gore yap about starving and drowning Polar bears. This animal and many others rely on the fact that the Lincoln Sea ice breaks wide open in the summer time else they would perish.
Most of the Animals which migrate further North don`t do that to get away from the "high average temperature".
*They do so because the arctic ice breaks up in the summer and has always done so!*
This area is a  feeding ground vital for their survival.* Whales and seals have to come up and breathe air.They can`t punch a hole through the ice!*
And even in the Summer when it`s a lot warmer in Churchill Manitoba @ only 58-46 than at 82-29 North the Polar bears are doing just fine!
There are probably *more polar bears there than on Greenland & Ellesmere Island in the high arctic.* There is a good reason why Churchill MB is called Canada`s polar bear capital!




*They don`t just live off seal!!! Unlike Eskimos, that now like "fast food"  to a polar bear around Churchill, anything that was not fast enough is food!*










*And all the other Animals that rely on the ice breaking up each summer in the high arctic would be wiped out, if  Al Gore & "Climatologists" were in charge of the climate!
*


















In Canada kids at the elementary school level are fully aware of that, and their teachers do not feed them a pack of lies as European "climatologists" + Al Gore & Hollywood, CNN , National Geographic and the "Discovery Channel"  try to!
*What they consider "normal" arctic climate would be a dome of death for all the animals that call that place their home!*


----------



## westwall (Jan 19, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Came back here to add just one more thing. The pictures below can be found by anyone with Google. Arctic "experts" like Al Gore yap about starving and drowning Polar bears. This animal and many others rely on the fact that the Lincoln Sea ice breaks wide open in the summer time else they would perish.
> Most of the Animals which migrate further North don`t do that to get away from the "high average temperature".
> *They do so because the arctic ice breaks up in the summer and has always done so!*
> This area is a  feeding ground vital for their survival.* Whales and seals have to come up and breathe air.They can`t punch a hole through the ice!*
> ...





What a lot of people don't understand as well, is a polar bear, if given a choice between eating a seal or a human will choose the human.  The polar bear is one of the very few if not the only creature that actively hunts people.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 19, 2011)

westwall said:


> What a lot of people don't understand as well, is a polar bear, if given a choice between eating a seal or a human will choose the human.  The polar bear is one of the very few if not the only creature that actively hunts people.


Exactly right! Seals are no easy prey for a polar bear, although they are after as much fat as they can get,...but more often than nor they would not lack that with humans either.
Next You will see an article in CNN "Thin ice causes polar bears to eat obese Eskimos, because these poor buggers have to eat at MacDonald`s"
But You are right! Polar bears even take down the occasional muskox, and the time of year when they stroll right through downtown Churchill Manitoba, shortly after that city has no more stray dog problems!


----------



## polarbear (Jan 20, 2011)

konradv said:


> Total silence over the CFC-ozone problem?!?!  What are we supposed to do, gloat?  The problem was identified; a solution was crafted; the results were positive; scientists were proven right.  Problem solved!  We're not living in the past.  There's more work to be done, like debunking the Global Cooling hoaxers.



This "climate change" subject would not be complete unless one last little "minor detail" is pointed out.
I did not want to go into it at that time, but it`s a perfect item to draw a line under it and start adding up the data.

Here we have a typical "expert" in Chemistry who believed that Chlorine Radicals from CFC`s which are at the parts per billion level can collide 100 000 times with Ozone Molecules which are at the Parts per Million level in a cubic meter before encountering any other molecule with an un-paired spin Electron and terminate the chain reaction!!!
And if that was not stupid enough he thinks that the Ozone layer returned to normal because CFC`s were banned....after Dupont whose Patent expired wanted these banned.

Idiots like that can`t even see the elephant which is right in their face but point out a lone gnat on a gigantic billboard. 

And here is the elephant:
*Its called SO2, not  "global warming" CO2. (...and forget about CFC`s)*
Sulfur in SO2 has a valency of +4 and does not like it...it has an energy valley at + six and wants to roll down there like a soccer ball down the hill.
It will react with any Ozone molecule it encounters and do so.

Does SO2 absorb Infrared?....Of course it does and way better than CO2 can do it..so well that even for a short path length You have to dilute the Gas and set You Spectrophotometer to minimum sensitivity, else it goes tilt!

Sulfur dioxide



> GAS (100 mmHg DILUTED TO A TOTAL PRESSURE OF 600 mmHg WITH N2); PERKIN-ELMER 180; DIGITIZED BY NIST FROM HARD COPY (FROM TWO SEGMENTS); 4 cm-1 resolution








Too bad the scan does not show what is beyond the 400 cm^(-1) wavelength...but strictly speaking we are beginning to leave Infrared there...but it is an eye opener!

Of course if You Google "sulfur dioxide +ozone -php"...I put the -php there else You get a clutter of forum postings...but all You will get is "environment science" crap like this:
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) - Air quality fact sheet



> About 99% of the sulfur dioxide in air comes from human sources. The main source of sulfur dioxide in the air is industrial activity that processes materials that contain sulfur, eg the generation of electricity from coal, oil or gas that contains sulfur. Some mineral ores also contain sulfur, and sulfur dioxide is released when they are processed. In addition, industrial activities that burn fossil fuels containing sulfur can be important sources of sulfur dioxide.



Throwing sand in Your eyes, because You added the "climatoligist" buzzword OZONE!
Now try it with just "Sulfur dioxide -php"...and the #1 hit, no surpize is in this case Wikipedia...not that the spin doctors haven`t mentioned to shit all over that one either, but at least You will be able to find this:


> Sulfur dioxide (also sulphur dioxide) is the chemical compound with the formula SO2. *It is produced by volcanoes and in various industrial processes.* Since coal and petroleum often contain sulfur compounds, their combustion generates sulfur dioxide unless the sulfur compounds are removed before burning the fuel. Further oxidation of SO2, usually in the presence of a catalyst such as NO2, forms H2SO4, and thus acid rain.[2] Sulfur dioxide emissions are also a precursor to particulates in the atmosphere



*And now we are getting somewhere:
*






 Photograph by R. Clucas, April 21, 1990. 



> plume 9 miles high
> Mount Redoubt erupts 5 times overnight; Alaska Air cancels 19 flights
> 
> 
> ...













> Fine ash deposited on a windshield of the car during the 3/23/2009 ash fall in Healy, AK approximately 300 miles from Mount Redoubt. Image by Pavel Izbekov, Alaska Volcano Observatory / University of Alaska Fairbanks, Geophysical Institute.













> (i.e. a common image format) data from the ozone monitor on the Aura satellite (which can track SO2 emissions as well).  and it looks like at least one plume is over the contiguous 48 states, and Chicago in particular:



So here is the elephant, but we are supposed to watch the gnat!

*And the sun is by far a bigger elephant than all volcanoes combined on earth:*

Spectacular Aurora displays across Northern Hemisphere on 1st August 2010 due to SOLAR Storms. | NO BUNS NO LIFE



> On 1 August, almost the entire side of the Sun that faces the Earth erupted in a blaze of activity known as a coronal mass ejection. These storms throw up to 10 billion tons of plasma  superheated gas  off the surface of the star and hurtling into space at around a million miles an hour. It covered the 93 million mile journey from the Sun to the Earth in just three and a half days.
> The flare which caused the eruption was relatively small, described as a class C3 by astronomers. Other flares, known as X or M class, are much larger, and capable of doing damage on Earth. C-class flares rarely have much effect on Earth beyond auroras
> In 1859, *one huge flare burned out telegraph wires across Europe and the USA.* The so-called Carrington flare, named after its discoverer, smothered two-thirds of the Earths skies in a blood-red aurora a night later, and crippled all global navigation and global communication, such as it was at that time. Compasses spun uselessly and the telegraph network went down as phantom electricity surged through the wire,
> More recently, in 1989, a smaller but still enormous storm caused the power grids in Quebec to go down for nine hours, causing hundreds of millions worth of dollars in lost revenue.



*So now take a wild guess if outbursts like these are totally silent in the infrared region...as if!...
*
That portion arrived at light speed 3+1/2 days earlier and no one cared to monitor it...that`s all.
*So now let`s add up the data*...first check the number of sunspots recorded, You can get the data for several decades here:
SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids 



"climatologists" assert that an increase of very weak IR absorbing CO2 3 places behind the decimal place can "heat the planet" and tell You at the same time that an *increase 1 place behind the decimal place in solar activity  of something this HUGE can[not amount to anything.*

*And after that call in the jury, as long as they are not comprised of 97% "climatologists"*
I wonder what the jury verdict would be if the man "made global warming" Scheisster advocates would have to state their  case in a court of law


*But so far They are in fact right!...if we are talking about the effects on gasoline hyper-taxation increases instead of "average global temperature"*


----------



## polarbear (Jan 20, 2011)

*What scares me the most about President Obama is his shrewd intelligence.*

And how skillfully he exploits social engineering +his choice of current buss words like "change" that conjure up subconscious fears like climate change, and is smart enough not to mention that in the same sentence...else everybody would realize* he is suggesting* a connection.
He waits* exactly the right delay time, *till these thoughts have crystallized in the audience, which deludes his audience *they have made their own logical connection *and only then does he meander gradually into fossil fuel burning, climate change and "green energy"

*After all, Gasoline hyper taxed at $6.00 would easily finance the Health care plan + Social Insurance. 
*


He and his staff know also how gullible well meaning people can be, and that a huge number of people read papers like the "Inquirer" and Elvis Presley sightings and watch CNN "Eskimos have to trade raw seal for MacDonald`s Hamburgers, because the ice is too thin to go seal hunting"...

He watched Al Gore win the Nobel Prize, because he "discovered drowning and starving polar bears, as a result of our SUV driving"

And totally even more idiotic "correlations" between CO2, CFC`s, Ozone, acid rain etc and the environment...which are actually funnier than the "Conspiracy Theory" Movie with the correlation of earth quakes and the space shuttle launches.

I`m surprised Al Gore has not yet thought of that one!...
*He might get back to back Nobel Prizes!
*
making yet another fantastic correlation, almost as good an the space shuttle and the earth quakes:


> Solar Superstorm - NASA Science
> *5 Apr 2010 ... What happened in 1859* was a combination of several events ...
> science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/.../23oct_superstorm/ - Cached



and then Google for earthquakes that followed right after that:



> Showing results for 1859 earthquakes. Search instead for 1859 earth quakes
> Search Results
> 
> 1.
> ...


With Statistics You can sell just about any hoax as "science"
He would have no trouble winning a Nobel Prize in Geo Physics with it, if he managed to pull it off with his "man made global warming"...!!!!

And the earthquake/solar out burst pseudo science would have a much better stats-weight in favor of the assertion, as the ESP Porno Professor could muster and yet...
just as long as You manage to find enough idiots who agree, then you qualify today as a "scientist" and as an "expert"...
Like the asshole who grandfathered this entire CO2 "global warming" crackpot idea...
the British "expert in steam technology" who shoveled coal into a boiler in a basement in England for a living...

....and later  turned to amateur "Chemist/Astronomer"  and then  managed to pass himself off as being smarter about Spectroscopy and Carbon Dioxide than Professor Angstro(e)m, the *grandfather of Spectroscopy!*
*....even though he did not know an Infrared Spectrometer if it bit him in the ass....exactly as our modern day "climatologists!*

Nothing could be easier than that, no matter how idiotic the hoax is, especially when the media gets on the bandwagon:

*Just look at how many gullible people there are:
Google for "esp porno experiment"*

And You get :* About 211,000 results (0.23 seconds) *
With a relatively* few dissenting opinions* who agree that that was Science!




> #
> How's Your Porn ESP? | The Awl
> 4 Jan 2011 ... Do human beings have ESP? When porn is involved, Science says yes! ... great statistics teacher who did an experiment with us to demonstrate ...
> How's Your Porn ESP? | The Awl - Cached
> ...


----------

