# Global cooling or global warming?



## Ame®icano (Nov 1, 2009)

In 1970s, there was "global cooling" consensus among scientists that triggered governments to do something about it or we'll live in the new ice age. One of those alarmist predicted that 1 billion people will die in a coming new ice age by 2020. Today, there is consensus among scientists about "global warming", and the same guy who predicted "then global cooling", urges immediate passage of the Obama administration's proposed cap-and-trade legislation to control carbon emissions before it is too late to save the planet from "global warming".

Today, that guy, John Holdren, is working in the White House as Obama's science czar.

Well, OK... 40 years ago was global cooling, then 10 years ago it changed to global warming. But, its getting bit confusing, since all those "global warming" screamers, are really looking very stupid these days.



> This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
> 
> But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
> 
> ...



*What happened to global warming?*


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 1, 2009)

Climate change is the new global warming . . . er cooling . . . . er, global climate fluctuation.  Oh hell, it's all bunk.  Excellent article.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 1, 2009)

Another liberal/marxist nut from Obama, how does Obama know so many radical nuts?

Obama's science czar suggested compulsory abortion, sterilization | Washington Examiner



> Obama's science czar suggested compulsory abortion, sterilization
> By: David Freddoso
> Commentary Staff Writer
> 07/14/09 4:55 PM EDT
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2009)

*Newsweek had an article about global cooling in the '70s. By then, the majority of scientists were already worried about global warming.*

What 1970s science said about global cooling

ABSTRACT
Climate science as we know it today did
not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated
enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prize winning
work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change existed then as separate threads of
research pursued by independent groups of
scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers
grappled with the measurement and
understanding of carbon dioxide and other
atmospheric gases while geologists and
paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when
Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why.
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the
1970s the climate science community was
predicting &#8220;global cooling&#8221; and an &#8220;imminent&#8221; ice
age, an observation frequently used by those who
would undermine what climate scientists say today
about the prospect of global warming.
A review of the literature suggests that, to the
contrary, greenhouse warming even then
dominated scientists&#8217; thinking about the most
important forces shaping Earth&#8217;s climate on
human time scales. More importantly than
showing the falsehood of the myth, this review
shows the important way scientists of the time built
the foundation on which the cohesiv


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2009)

Mdn2000, ol' fruitcake, stick to the subject. Save your other trash for a suitable thread.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 1, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> Climate change is the new global warming . . . er cooling . . . . er, global climate fluctuation.  Oh hell, it's all bunk.  Excellent article.



Since none of scientist's prediction couldn't hold a water, they came up with the term "climate change" so they can basically make headlines playing both sides of the debate. If it warms is our fault, if it cools it's our fault. The only "fast" they stick with is that either cooling or warming is caused by CO2. 

Even that carbonate balloon is slowly deflating, government is not giving up, they keep telling us that there is no tomorrow. You had to know they didn't even believe their own line of CO2 bull, otherwise we would have the "scientists" giving us a more definitive answer than "very likely" after decades of research. No one that I know of was willing to attach their reputation to a "definitely".

In both cases, government is stepping in with intention to save us, and we know as well as they know, that only way they can save us from ourselves is to take money from us. This scheme is nothing more than another money grab by the UN and the greenies by painting the earth as a victim and man as the villain.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 1, 2009)

GlobalClimateCoolerWarmering.

Gotta cover all the bases.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2009)

*I remember reading this report not long after it came out. Yet there are still fruitcakes out there that seem to read a predicted cooling into it. LOL*

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

The 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report
UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE: A program for action
Review by W M Connolley
This little-read report appears to serve as a useful summary of the state of opinion at the time (aside: I was prompted to read this by someone who thought the report supported the ice-age-was-predicted threoy [1]: as all too often happens, the report when actually read does no such thing...), which opinion was (my summary) "we can't predict climate yet, we need more research". 
I know of only two places where this report is referred to in "current" debate (you know others? good: mail me: wmconnolley@gmail.com): the page from the Cato Institute (discussed on the main page, the main quote from which is "There was even a report by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reaching its usual ambiguous conclusions"), and in a page from sepp [remember, children, a link from this page does not imply endorsement of the contents...], an excerpt from which is below:


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 1, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> *I remember reading this report not long after it came out. Yet there are still fruitcakes out there that seem to read a predicted cooling into it. LOL*
> 
> http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html
> 
> ...



1975 = not long ago?


----------



## Fatality (Nov 1, 2009)

mdn2000 said:


> Another liberal/marxist nut from Obama, how does Obama know so many radical nuts?
> 
> Obama's science czar suggested compulsory abortion, sterilization | Washington Examiner
> 
> ...



yes, how does he know so many nuts, and better yet why does he like them so much?


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 1, 2009)

It seems that scientist consensus change every decade or two. Or every time that data doesn't support their predictions. I wonder how many real scientists are on concensus.

So tell us Old Rocks... is it global warming or global cooling?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2009)

Both the Greenland and Antarctic Caps melting at accelerating rates. North Polar sea ice gone before midcentury. Clatrate outgassing already starting in the Arctic Ocean. Outgassing of CO2 and CH4 far greater than predicted in the permafrost.

But not to worry, scientifically illiterate doofeses on an internet message board know that it is all a "Lib' 
b
BU'ral" conspiracy


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *I remember reading this report not long after it came out. Yet there are still fruitcakes out there that seem to read a predicted cooling into it. LOL*
> ...



I was one year less than half as old then as I am today. No, not that long ago at all.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 1, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Both the Greenland and Antarctic Caps melting at accelerating rates. North Polar sea ice gone before midcentury. Clatrate outgassing already starting in the Arctic Ocean. Outgassing of CO2 and CH4 far greater than predicted in the permafrost.
> 
> But not to worry, scientifically illiterate doofeses on an internet message board know that it is all a "Lib'
> b
> BU'ral" conspiracy



Really?  Are you this dense in real life to?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2009)

Fatality said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Another liberal/marxist nut from Obama, how does Obama know so many radical nuts?
> ...



He knows and likes you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2009)

Ame®icano;1671795 said:
			
		

> It seems that scientist consensus change every decade or two. Or every time that data doesn't support their predictions. I wonder how many real scientists are on concensus.
> 
> So tell us Old Rocks... is it global warming or global cooling?



Well lets see, the scientific consensus in the seventies, for those scientists that were looking at the subject, was that global warming was going to be a problem. The scientific consensus today is that global warming is a problem. I guess you could say the consensus has changed


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 1, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> *I remember reading this report not long after it came out. Yet there are still fruitcakes out there that seem to read a predicted cooling into it. LOL*
> 
> http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html



If you remember THAT, you sure remember experts predictions that "global cooling" will create so much ice at the earth poles, and once ice breaks it will create wave big enough to wipe out coastal cities. Since cooling didn't really happen, the same scientists came up with the warming theory, where if we do nothing, will reach a fever pitch and well have flooding of all the coastal cities, the American heartland will turn into a desert, and most of the earths species will become extinct.

Since it wasn't cooling, then it wasn't warming, it gotta be cooling again... And all that was planted by "scientists" that are not able to predict tomorrow's weather accurately, much less decades in advance. Meanwhile, some wannabe scientists are cashing in... Hello Al.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 1, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *I remember reading this report not long after it came out. Yet there are still fruitcakes out there that seem to read a predicted cooling into it. LOL*
> ...



not to change the subject,but i read in the paper today that an old fart escaped from some nursing home in Portland Oregon clutching a Globe yelling something about it getting hotter by the minute and ill show those basterds.....had soiled diapers too....anyone hear about that?......


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2009)

Ame®icano;1671817 said:
			
		

> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *I remember reading this report not long after it came out. Yet there are still fruitcakes out there that seem to read a predicted cooling into it. LOL*
> ...



Experts as in Von Daniken? Man, are you full of shit. No scientists predicted that at all. The PNAS article says it all.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 1, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Meh ... believable ... there are nuts everywhere really.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Can't debate the subject, old boy? Too ignorant and dishonest?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 1, 2009)

Fatality said:


> yes, how does he know so many nuts, and better yet why does he like them so much?



the successor to Ewell Gibbons?.......


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 1, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Both the Greenland and Antarctic Caps melting at accelerating rates. North Polar sea ice gone before midcentury. Clatrate outgassing already starting in the Arctic Ocean. Outgassing of CO2 and CH4 far greater than predicted in the permafrost.
> 
> But not to worry, scientifically illiterate doofeses on an internet message board know that it is all a "Lib'
> b
> BU'ral" conspiracy



did Nancy change your depends before you left?.....just askin....


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Both the Greenland and Antarctic Caps melting at accelerating rates. North Polar sea ice gone before midcentury. Clatrate outgassing already starting in the Arctic Ocean. Outgassing of CO2 and CH4 far greater than predicted in the permafrost.
> ...



Have you ever said anything that could be considered intelligent? Just asking.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 1, 2009)

I don't pretend to be any type of expert on Global warming or global cooling. But I do have to ask.......

How did we get the last Ice age? Or the one before that?


How did all that Ice melt? I know it couldn't have been dinosaur farts. And no one was driving around in any SUV's.

Climate change I can live with. We adjust to it. Mans fault? I doubt it.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 1, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Ame®icano;1671817 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't say it was in your article. I reffered to climate experts from that era.

Check out what scientists predicted back in 1970s era.

The Cooling World - Newsweek


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> I don't pretend to be any type of expert on Global warming or global cooling. But I do have to ask.......
> 
> How did we get the last Ice age? Or the one before that?
> 
> ...



*OK, Ollie, here are some sites where you can find some answers. Ice ages.*

Milankovitch Cycles

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

The episodic nature of the Earth's glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth's circumnavigation of the Sun. Variations in the Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude. Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface. These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth's climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth's glaciers. 

*Here is where you can read about the study of Greenhouse Gases. It is an American Institute of Physics site;*

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

*If you will go scientific sites and read carefully what the real scientists are predicting, you might find that the adaptation to what is coming is going to rather painful.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2009)

Ame®icano;1671936 said:
			
		

> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1671817 said:
> ...



Are you shitting me!!!!!!!!!!  I quoted from a peer reviewed scientific article and you throw out Newsweek? Come on, I didn't even think you were that ignorant. Go to the scientific journals of that period and show me where a significant number of articles were predicting a quick and imminent ice age.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 1, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Ame®icano;1671936 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Newsweek's sources are the same as yours.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 1, 2009)

Dontcha hate when that happens?


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 1, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1671936 said:
> ...



He didn't read it. It's easier to say "are you shitting me?"

He probably believe in everything stated in Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth.

Here is what's behind it...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbLK4RZDdzI]YouTube - Al Gore once again exposed as disingenuous fraud[/ame]


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 2, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



yea i called you a fucking idiot...just sayin...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 2, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



you cant debate someone who will not give someone who disagrees with them any credit at all.....you dipshit believe what Al Gore says.....and thats it...end of story......


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 2, 2009)

I gave you the sites where you could find the number of scientific articles on global warming and cooling in the 70s. There were even links to some of the articles. You give back articles from a weekly magazine that is hardly considered a reputable scientific source, Newsweek. And political statements concerning your disdain for Al Gore.

I really don't give a damn what you think, you are determined to ignore reality. However, when you post bullshit concerning the what the scientists were saying in the past and present, I will present the data to set the record straight.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 2, 2009)

There is no consensus.

No scientific consensus about global warming « An Honest Climate Debate


Going on 20 years.  BS then, BS now.

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus


Man made?  Nah.

Climate Change: Breaking the "Political Consensus"


There is no consensus.



> "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology  and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."
> 
> Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
> 
> ...



Scientists abandon global warming 'lie'


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 2, 2009)

Check out this creep...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo7rmajxxnc]YouTube - AL GORE: Global Warming Testimony @ Congress 3.21.07[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 2, 2009)

Zoom, you claim that there is no consensus. Yet every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that global warming is occuring, and that the primary cause is anthropogenic GHGs.

Monkton has a degree in education, not in the sciences. And most of what he states reflects a basic ignorance of science, and what scientists are stating today.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 2, 2009)

Americano, whatever you think of Al Gore is immaterial to the debate. The Earth is warming, and we are the principle cause of that warming.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 2, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Zoom, you claim that there is no consensus. Yet every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that global warming is occuring, and that the primary cause is anthropogenic GHGs.
> 
> Monkton has a degree in education, not in the sciences. And most of what he states reflects a basic ignorance of science, and what scientists are stating today.



Um ... there's that lie again ... we already went over this, no "every" ... not by a long shot, just the ones you agree with.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 2, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom, you claim that there is no consensus. Yet every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that global warming is occuring, and that the primary cause is anthropogenic GHGs.
> ...



*Name those that do not.*
Scientific societies warn Senate: climate change is real - Ars Technica

Next week, the Environment and Public Works committee is scheduled to begin debate on the Senate's version of a bill intended to begin limiting US greenhouse gas emissions, with a vote scheduled for early November. In advance of that hearing, a collection of 18 US scientific organizations has sent an open letter to members of the Senate, reminding them that climate change is a real phenomenon, and the best available evidence indicates it's being driven by human activities. The unusually blunt language is coupled with an offer: the US scientific community stands ready to provide assistance to anyone who is looking for further information in advance of taking legislative action. 

The organizations that have signed the letter cover a wide range of interests and expertise, from the Crop Science Society of America to the American Statistical Society and the American Geophysical Union. The letter starts by saying that the group hopes to remind the Senators of the current consensus of the scientific community, then gets right down to business. "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver," the letter reads. "These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 2, 2009)

*This is a statement by the largest scientific society on earth, and it lists organizations that agree with it's position. Now, anybody out there have any scientific societies that say otherwise?*


Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
In the past few years, scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and whether it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.  

Intergovernmental Panel


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 2, 2009)

Ame®icano;1671503 said:
			
		

> In 1970s, there was "global cooling"* consensus among scientists* that triggered governments to do something about it or we'll live in the new ice age.


So typical of CON$, they can't even go one sentence without lying!
7 scientific articles supporting cooling out of 71 is a "consensus" to CON$ and 44 supporting warming out of 71 is a minority opinion. 
Hell, there were 3 times as many neutral articles as cooling!!! 
Don't you CON$ ever get tired of lying or even embarrassed?????

Global Warming Myths - EcoHuddle Community
Recent studies of the scientific literature at the time have concluded that* the supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists during the 1970s is indeed a myth.*

"Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only *seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming.* Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends."


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 2, 2009)

OldRocks:

I haven't had a chance to look at the article you linked yet.  Too busy at work, but I'll get to it.  

Let me just say from a scientific standpoint if anyone says, like I think you're saying, that it is definite that we're the primary cause of warming, I think they're off base.  I'm sure you understand the distinction between causation and correlation.  Even if those who support the idea of anthropogenic warming are correct, the best they can really provide is correlation, and then we have to extrapolate from there. Whether the correlation evidence is strong or weak is the issue.  I have plenty of scientific training, and I think anyone who is honest in the area will admit that we do not know the answer to this question with absolute certainty.  That is, we haven't established causation beyond any doubt.  We can't, in my opinion.  I don't think it is scientifically possible to do so at this point.

To that end I'll relate this - I sat down with a guy who was on the IPCC and asked him that very question.  And, of course, since he's a scientist and quite a bright man, he admitted that yes, in fact we don't know the answer with absolute certainty.  But his view was that the correlative evidence was extremely strong.  Ok.  That's fine.  Say that, then.  He said unless it is expressed in more absolute terms the public won't act.

Also, just to illustrate how dogmatic people are on this (and I may have mentioned this above)...I posted 40 or so article links from the primary scientific literature showing evidence of other causes of warming, both current and present.  PNAS, which I think you'll agree is a good source.  Nature. Science. Geophys. Res. Letters.  Not a single person in that particular internet forum even bothered to look at one of the links. They just posted their own links.  Which of course supports the idea that it isn't entirely settled.

I'm not going to put the time in to duplicate that research, but let me ask you this: if it is as settled as you say, why would I even be able to find articles in the primary scientific literature directed to other causes?  

The problem is, this has become politicized and people want to generate political action.  So they have to pretend anthropogenic warming is 100% certain, causation is proven, and the idea is as immutable as the second law of thermodynamics.  It's just not the case.  And I think if you look at it from a scientific perspective, look at the limited data we have and the geological timescales we're talking about, you have to admit that it probably isn't even possible for us to answer this question with absolute certainty.  We have to simply do the best with what information we have.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 2, 2009)

A consensus that exists because skeptics are silenced?  There is no consensus.



> In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."
> 
> Except, that is, when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.
> 
> ...



The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic - WSJ.com


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 3, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Americano, whatever you think of Al Gore is immaterial to the debate. The Earth is warming, and we are the principle cause of that warming.



You remember Gore&#8217;s movie Inconvenient truth? He show two charts that follow each other and stated that &#8220;relation in between temperature and CO2 is complicated and whenever there is more CO2, the temperature gets warmer&#8221;. 

That link is in fact the opposite, temperature is the factor that is leading the quantity of CO2, therefore whenever temperature is warmer, there is more CO2. Warmer or colder temperatures are caused by solar cycles, and these cycles are causing CO2 quantity to rise and fall, naturally. 

You and Gore are saying that we are principle cause of global warming and you&#8217;re probably linking it to CO2 we produce. Does that mean that everything that produce CO2 cause the global warming? 

We are indeed producers of the CO2, but not a principle one. Far from it, we are not even a single digit of the total percentage CO2 producers. Volcanos produce more CO2 then all man made CO2 produced together including all factories, cars, planes etc. Animals and bacteria&#8217;s produce twenty five times more CO2 then all man made producers put together. Fallen leaves from trees in the autumn cause more CO2 then all animals and bacteria. Yet, all those put together still produce far less CO2 then one single CO2 producer &#8211; oceans. And how much CO2 is produced by oceans depends on&#8230; solar cycle.

Now tell me, do you think that quantity of CO2 is a cause of warming/cooling or the result from the same?

If you really think that CO2 is killing the earth, then you should consider your very own existence, because, you&#8217;re made of it. If you want to believe politicians when they are telling you that you should pay more (to them) just because you&#8217;re breeding and therefore polluting the planet, go ahead, knock yourself out. I posted link on Al Gore&#8217;s testimony before Senate where he said: &#8220;Put the price on the carbon, tax is the best way, cap & trade will also do it.&#8221; In other words, he wants you to pay for having children, he wants you to pay for breeding. My only questions are: Pay to whom? THEM?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 3, 2009)

Steerpike said:


> OldRocks:
> 
> I haven't had a chance to look at the article you linked yet.  Too busy at work, but I'll get to it.
> 
> ...




Geological timescale I understand very well. The last class I took in college was Eng. Geo. 470/570. 

The first that I heard of global warming was in a geology class in the mid-60s. I have followed the growing evidence of the warming since then. And I have followed, first the denial that there was any warming, then the denial that we have anything to do with it.

The denial of the fact of the warming was continued right up until the turn of this century when there was too much in your face evidence that even the ordinery citizens of this nation were aware of. Then it switched to the "Well, sure it's warming, but we have nothing to do with it". 

The fact of GHGs was noted first by Foirier of France in the 1820's. Tyndale of England isolated CO2 as the primary GHG in 1860. Svante Arrnhenius of Sweden quantifed the research and made some predictions concerning the warming of the atmosphere by CO2 in 1896.

We can look back on geological history and see a very strong corelation between CO2 and temperature. In fact, we can point out times in the geological record where the GHG increase was similiar in rate of the increase at present, and see rapid warming of the earth and resultant extinctions. The P-T extinction and the PETM 55 million years ago are both examples of this.

If you have followed the literature on the present warming, then you should be aware of the fact of the positive feedbacks that we are seeing right now in the Arctic. One of which is the outgassing of methane clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. This was predicted to happen at higher tempertures than we are seeing right now. The fact that it is happening now means that our understanding of the tipping points of climate change are badly flawed. Flawed, unfortunately in the wrong direction.

You really need to read that article. It shows definatively that we have known for half a century that we cannot add significant GHGs and not warm the atmosphere and oceans.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 3, 2009)

The other thing to keep in mind is that blindly following 'scientific consensus' can be dangerous, especially with politics and careers are on the line.  You HAVE to look at the evidence yourself and evaluate it.  You can't simply accept it because this or that scientific organization does so.

A perfect example is the Clovis-First theory in anthropology.  If we were having this argument on that topic, in its heyday, then a supporter of Clovis-First, just like current supporters of anthropogenic warming, would be able to post innumerable links to scientific consensus for Clovis-First. The preeminent names in the scientific field endorsed it. The Smithsonian threw its full weight behind it.

In fact, scientists who dissented had careers ruined and were virtually blacklisted out of the profession.  One anthropologist, when uncovering some pre-Clovis find, said "Oh, shit!"  His first instinct was the cover the find up again.  He knew his career could possibly be ruined because the find went against the strong dogma on which so many preeminent scientific careers were founded.

BUT - if you really looked into the literature at the time, anyone would have seen the evidence for pre-Clovis finds.  Evidence put into the literature by scientists who were ridiculed and marginalized for doing it.  Of course, all of these pre-Clovis scientists later turned out to be absolutely right.  Even though the Clovis-First theory was supported by virtually every science of any reknown in Anthropology, and enjoyed almost complete consensus, it was entirely wrong.

The Clovis-First example is an extreme one, but it does underscore the dangers of blindly adhering to consensus, especially when politics and careers (and funding) are on the line.  The ONLY way to adequately look into the issue is to look into the primary literature for oneself.  And if you do that with respect to anthropogenic warming you'll find the truth - which is that we don't actually know for certain what is going on. We're just trying to make the best educated guesses we can.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 3, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> If you have followed the literature on the present warming, then you should be aware of the fact of the positive feedbacks that we are seeing right now in the Arctic. One of which is the outgassing of methane clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. This was predicted to happen at higher tempertures than we are seeing right now. The fact that it is happening now means that our understanding of the tipping points of climate change are badly flawed. Flawed, unfortunately in the wrong direction.
> 
> You really need to read that article. It shows definatively that we have known for half a century that we cannot add significant GHGs and not warm the atmosphere and oceans.



Yes, I have read about the outgassing, and I intend to read the article you posted.  I also know that when you are dealing with positive feedback and systems like climate, a small shift in variables can produce large effects.

My personal opinion is that it is very likely humans are a contributing factor to the warming that trended over the past decades.  I don't know that we're the primary factor, because I've seen a lot of evidence of other factors (radiative forcing for one) that I think have an impact.

I agree that we have a lot of correlative data, but the issue isn't being presented that way.  It's being presented in much the same way you've presented it in this thread, with categorical assertions that go beyond what the scientific evidence can support.  THAT is where my quarrel lies.  I don't like seeing science used in that way to support political agendas. 

Ironically, I think people like Gore and others who have made categorical assertions are the main people responsible for the fact that the public is losing interest in climate change issues.  Like the boy who cried wolf, they overstated the case one too many times, we started to level out on climate, and even if our leveling out is temporary people have lost interest and the politicos who want to advance climate change as an issue have lost credibility.  If they'd been honest with people in the first place it might not have happened that way.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 4, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Geological timescale I understand very well. The last class I took in college was Eng. Geo. 470/570.
> 
> The first that I heard of global warming was in a geology class in the mid-60s. *[1] I have followed the growing evidence of the warming since then.* And I have followed, first the denial that there was any warming, then the denial that we have anything to do with it.
> 
> ...



[1] There is a warming. Now, If you red my previous post, you would find that I wrote what cause the warming. Increase of CO2 is caused by the warming, and not the other way around. If not so, how do you explain "global cooling" even when there was increased emission of CO2?

[2] I am not denying there is a warming. I am denying your statement that humans are principle cause of the warming. We are not. 

Here is another question for you, and everyone else: Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?


----------



## cbi0090 (Nov 4, 2009)

Steerpike said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > If you have followed the literature on the present warming, then you should be aware of the fact of the positive feedbacks that we are seeing right now in the Arctic. One of which is the outgassing of methane clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. This was predicted to happen at higher tempertures than we are seeing right now. The fact that it is happening now means that our understanding of the tipping points of climate change are badly flawed. Flawed, unfortunately in the wrong direction.
> ...



Gosh, do you really think a politician would overstate an issue just to get attention?  The real question is not whether the world is warming; it is and has been since the last ice age, and it's not the question of whether we're accelerating it; we may be.  The real question is do we want bankrupt ourselves to finance some new world order to combat a something that's going to happen no matter what we do anyway?  Wouldn't it be better to prepare for the inevitable and work on discovering better ways to pull fresh water out of salt water or generate energy from renewable resources?  That's where we should be putting our money.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 4, 2009)

Ame®icano;1682263 said:
			
		

> Here is another question for you, and everyone else: Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?




Ooo, ooo . . . I know the answers.

1.  Al Gorical will collect lots of money if Cap & Tax passes (via his holding interest in 'green' companies).
2.  The money will be used to make him rich.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 4, 2009)

Steerpike said:


> The other thing to keep in mind is that blindly following 'scientific consensus' can be dangerous, especially with politics and careers are on the line.  You HAVE to look at the evidence yourself and evaluate it.  You can't simply accept it because this or that scientific organization does so.
> 
> A perfect example is the Clovis-First theory in anthropology.  If we were having this argument on that topic, in its heyday, then a supporter of Clovis-First, just like current supporters of anthropogenic warming, would be able to post innumerable links to scientific consensus for Clovis-First. The preeminent names in the scientific field endorsed it. The Smithsonian threw its full weight behind it.
> 
> ...



First, since I am 66 years old, I remember that idiocy very well. But it is hardly revelant to the present controversy. It involved minimal evidence on both sides.

We know from the physics of the absorbtion spectrum of CO2, first established by Tyndale in 1860, the CO2 is the primary GHG. We know from those same studies that water vapor traps far more heat than does CO2, but that it is a feedback effect of CO2.

From geological evidence, we know that correlation of episodes of high CO2 and high temperatures, low CO2 and low temperatures, to the extent of a near snowball Earth.

We are presently observing the effects of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere in everything from increased periods of drought and flooding, to the accelerating diminishment of glaciers worldwide, and the loss of ice in Greenland and Antarctica.

We know from isotopal studies that the 40% increase in CO2 is the result of the burning of fossil fuels.

We also understand from periods in the geological past, that when the GHGs hit a certain point, that a positive feedback ensues that releases the CH4 in the ocean bottom clathrates, and a period of extinction on land and sea follows that release. In fact, we know a good deal about the timeline and agents of those extinction periods, as this online book explains. This book is well worth reading, if only for the explanation of the proxy methods of Paleoclimatology.

Methane catastrophe


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 4, 2009)

Ame®icano;1682263 said:
			
		

> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Geological timescale I understand very well. The last class I took in college was Eng. Geo. 470/570.
> ...



*Coming out of a glacial period, at the start, CO2 does lag temperature, for the reasons stated below. However, by adding 40% CO2, 250% CH4, and other assorted industrial GHGs, we are raising the temperature at a far faster rate than it changed during de-glaciation.*

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Joe Barton to Al Gore: "An article from Science magazine explains a rise in CO2 concentrations actually lagged temperature by 200 to 1000 years. CO2 levels went up after the temperature rose. Temperature appears to drive CO2, not vice versa." (Source: Office of Congressman Joe Barton)

What the science says...
CO2 causes temperature rise AND warming causes CO2 outgassing from oceans. This feedback system is confirmed by the CO2 record - in the past, the amplifying effect of CO2 feedback enabled warming to spread across the globe and take the planet out of the ice age.


Does temperature rise cause CO2 rise or the other way around? A common misconception is that you can only have one or the other. In actuality, the answer is both.


Milankovitch cycles - how increased temperature causes CO2 rise

Looking over past climate change, scientists have observed a cycle of ice ages separated by brief warm periods called interglacials. This pattern is due to Milankovitch cycles - gradual, regular changes in the earth's orbit and axis. While there are several different cycles, the dominant climate signal is the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle as the Earth's orbit changes from a more circular to a more elliptical orbit (Petit 1999, Shackleton 2000).


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 5, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Ame®icano;1682263 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You again... 

Watch the *whole* video, plenty of scientist's in there.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY]YouTube - Global Warming Hoax[/ame]


And, you still haven't answered my question: *Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?*


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 5, 2009)

Glenn Beck, on a scientific issue? You are shitting me! I didn't think anyone was that stupid.


----------



## elvis (Nov 5, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Glenn Beck, on a scientific issue? You are shitting me! I didn't think anyone was that stupid.



  and you're no scientist yourself, so  I guess you AND Beck should shut the fuck up.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 5, 2009)

Elvis, unlike you and Beck, I am reasonably sane, and not inhabiting a transparent closet.


----------



## elvis (Nov 5, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Elvis, unlike you and Beck, I am reasonably sane, and not inhabiting a transparent closet.



that's why you play the role of Lewinsky with nearly every post and engage in gay male chivalry every time someone attacks your boyfriend, chris.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 5, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Glenn Beck, on a scientific issue? You are shitting me! I didn't think anyone was that stupid.



Few clips from him calling on an issue. What about scientists that were talking about the same issue? Oh, wait, they don't support your statement, so you ignore it. Anyways, who care what GB thinks, I am debating you... and if you do not respect my opinion, tell me why should I respect yours?

OK, here is on the same subject, and guess what... not from Glenn Beck. There are 8 parts, knock yourself out.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME]YouTube - The Man-made Global Warming Hoax (Part 1)[/ame]

Still waiting on answer:

*Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for?*


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 5, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Mdn2000, ol' fruitcake, stick to the subject. Save your other trash for a suitable thread.




Oh my GOD, *I can not believe you said something*, this is rare, what happened, you could not find a link or you got tired of me using old crocks links to show old crock is just a crock.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Nov 6, 2009)

ame®icano;1671503 said:
			
		

> in 1970s, there was "global cooling" consensus among scientists



*wrong*


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 6, 2009)

Ame®icano;1686673 said:
			
		

> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Glenn Beck, on a scientific issue? You are shitting me! I didn't think anyone was that stupid.
> ...



Lindzen was paid $2500 a day by the energy companies to testify before Congress. He also is quite willing to tell you that tobacco is not harmful to your health. And MIT disavows his position, period.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 6, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> A consensus that exists because skeptics are silenced?  There is no consensus.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Carlin is not a scientist, he is an economist. The EPA did not request a report from him on this subject, as he is not a scientist in this feild. They did look at and reveiw that paper and found it wanting. They gave him permission to publish it wherever he wished to. 

In short, Carlin is just another huckster.*

Denialist attack on EPA handling of Carlin global warming contrarian documentâ Pt 1: The document (posting from Climate Science Watch)

The reporthas been posted on the websites of the Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and several other think tanks with a record of using any excuse to deny climate change science.

The person listed as the author of the report, Alan Carlin, is not a scientist, but an economist who works for National Center for Environmental Economics. But Carlin also had some help. 

Several years ago, Ken Gregory of the Astroturf group Friends of Science compiled an eye-glazing compendium of pseudo science questioning climate change. Real Climate points out that Carlin has imported sections of this verbatim, crediting Gregory 20 times in the report. 

Carlin also referenced Christopher Monckton and S. Fred Singer, a politician and a lapsed scientist, both of them darlings of the denial industry.

But what about un-referenced sources? Plugging Carlins report into Plagiarism Checker.com revealed a whole series of unreferenced sections lifted verbatim from one of the deans of the denial industry, Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. 

Plagiarism is a serious academic offence, particularly if it involves obviously biased sources. It is therefore ironic that Carlins unsolicited 85 page report, on a subject well outside his area of expertise, is devoted to criticizing the scientific community for their shoddy work.

This week an indignant Senator James Inhofe demanded an inquiry into this strange report. Maybe thats not such a bad idea.


----------



## elvis (Nov 6, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > A consensus that exists because skeptics are silenced?  There is no consensus.
> ...


If he comes from the "denial industry", I guess we could say people like you and that fat tub of shit al whore come from the terror industry.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 6, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Ame®icano;1686673 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sooo... you keep avoiding to answer my question.

But let's compare Lindzen with Gore. You say Lindzen is paid $2500 by the energy companies to testify before Congress. You did not say that Gore was paid half a billion by the Congress after he testified for "global warming".

Which one of those two got more reason to lie?

Second, if you watch the movie, you would find plenty of PhD's, professors and scientist explaining all this scam on American people. You picked one name to accuse of bribe without posting any link of it as a proof.

*Who is going to get money collected by Cap & Trade and what that money is going to be used for? *


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 6, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> ame®icano;1671503 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



UNESCO simposium on "a reversal of the preceding (warming) climatic trend", where scientists from 36 countries were &#8220;physically&#8221; sure but &#8220;statistically&#8221; less certain about "global warming".

Rome Symposium organized by Unesco and the World Meteorological Organization.



> January 30, 1961, Monday
> After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.



NY Times - Archives


----------



## FactFinder (Nov 6, 2009)

*Global cooling or global warming?*

World's climate could cool first, warm later - environment - 04 September 2009 - New Scientist

Why it is cooling of course....

*Cold Atlantic*
Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. "But how much? The jury is still out," he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase.

Latif said NAO cycles also explained the recent recovery of the Sahel region of Africa from the droughts of the 1970s and 1980s. James Murphy, head of climate prediction at the Met Office, agreed and linked the NAO to Indian monsoons, Atlantic hurricanes and sea ice in the Arctic. "The oceans are key to decadal natural variability," he said.

Another favourite climate nostrum was upturned when Pope warned that the dramatic Arctic ice loss in recent summers was partly a product of natural cycles rather than global warming. Preliminary reports suggest there has been much less melting this year than in 2007 or 2008.

In candid mood, climate scientists avoided blaming nature for their faltering predictions, however. *"Model biases are also still a serious problem. We have a long way to go to get them right. They are hurting our forecasts," *said Tim Stockdale of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 6, 2009)

Ame®icano;1690066 said:
			
		

> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1686673 said:
> ...



Just what the hell are you talking about here, asshole? Post proof of such a ridiculous accusation.


----------



## elvis (Nov 6, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Ame®icano;1690066 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Aw, is someone being mean to Al, Rockhead?  How dare anyone accuse the god of man-made global warming of anything?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 6, 2009)

Oh yeah, it has really cooled this year. 

Monitoring the Global Climate


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 6, 2009)

I would make Old Crock look like an idiot in this thread but this activity has already taken up too much of my _posting time_.

Follow the links, follow the links, a wild goose chase for fools.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 6, 2009)

mdn2000 said:


> I would make Old Crock look like an idiot in this thread but this activity has already taken up too much of my _posting time_.
> 
> Follow the links, follow the links, a wild goose chase for fools.



You don't like goose?


----------



## JW Frogen (Nov 6, 2009)

Believe in global warming or not I do not believe there is a political-treaty solution to this problem; you can not bureaucrat your way out of this.

If we are determined to lower carbon emissions then no cap and trade agreement where the big boys (US, China, India) nod there heads but keep increasing carbon emissions while buying up the small players rights to increase theirs will work.

People will not be poor to be good. They will not do it writ large.

Best to do what humans have always done to survive, develop technology to adapt to or slow the warming.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 6, 2009)

JW Frogen said:


> Believe in global warming or not I do not believe there is a political-treaty solution to this problem; you can not bureaucrat your way out of this.
> 
> If we are determined to lower carbon emissions then no cap and trade agreement where the big boys (US, China, India) nod there heads but keep increasing carbon emissions while buying up the small players rights to increase theirs will work.
> 
> ...



Exactly. 

We can't stop the planet from turning ...


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 6, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Ame®icano;1690066 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Look, old fart, I was being polite and patient with you throughout the whole thread. I asked you several times the same question and you always refused to answer. Then when I asked you for proof on Lindzen, you ignore all that and now I am an asshole?

Well, until you apologize first and then answer what I asked you number of times, you won't get anything from me. How about that?!


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 6, 2009)

Ame®icano;1690614 said:
			
		

> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1690066 said:
> ...



Give up being nice to him.  Though I am amazed at how long you lasted.


----------



## elvis (Nov 6, 2009)

Ame®icano;1690614 said:
			
		

> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1690066 said:
> ...



you insulted the Prophet.  That's an unpardonable sin to socialists like Rockhead.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 6, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Ame®icano;1690614 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Telling the truth cannot be an insult. And you're right, enviro*mental*ism became like religion. Big fat books with no solid proof, no consensus, hypocritical prophet that is getting richer by the hour, hard core followers and believers that won't even consider looking at anything that contradict their way... what's next? A tax on everyone who believe and more tax on those who doesnt?

And irony is, that argument isn't whether the planet is in a warming trend, the argument is what exactly is the primary cause and to what degree each cause is responsible for. Idiots like Al Gore and alike, blame all of it on humans and don't take into account other variables. I said it several times above, humans do contribute to emissions but it's drop in a sea comparing to everything else. 

If you look at the charts you can see the planet has been much warmer and colder than it is today. Trying to say it's the end of mankind if it warms one or two degrees is unfounded and downright disingenuous. If global warming is a problem, then why the need to make money off it? Look who is making money, and who is paying for it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2009)

Richard S. Lindzen - SourceWatch

 This article is part of the Climate change portal on SourceWatch. 

This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on SourceWatch, a project of CoalSwarm and the Center for Media and Democracy. 
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen ( b. February 8, 1940) is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1] 
He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center[1], a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil.[2] Writing in the Washington Post, Joel Achenbach wrote that "of all the skeptics, MIT's Richard Lindzen probably has the most credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he's doing serious research on the subject."[3] 

Lindzen has been a keynote speaker at media events and conferences of a range of think tanks disputing climate change including the Heartland Institute[4] and the Cooler Heads Coalition.
Fossil Fuel Interests Funding
In a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies." (Emphasis added).[10] 

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[11] 

A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that "he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since."[


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 7, 2009)

RealClearPolitics - Articles - A Convenient Lie



> The scary claims about heat waves and droughts are based on computer models. But computer models are lousy at predicting climate because water vapor and cloud effects cause changes that computers fail to predict. They were unable to anticipate the massive amounts of heat energy that escaped the tropics over the past 15 years, forcing modelers back to the drawing board. In the mid-1970s, computer models told us we should prepare for global cooling.
> 
> The fundamentalist doom-mongers ignore scientists who say the effects of global warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas says added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season.
> 
> ...



In a nutshell.


----------



## FactFinder (Nov 7, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> RealClearPolitics - Articles - A Convenient Lie
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When real science is applied a much different picture emeges than the uhhumm computer models. A case of GIGO?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 7, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Richard S. Lindzen - SourceWatch
> 
> This article is part of the Climate change portal on SourceWatch.
> 
> ...



_*Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person)*_. This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.


----------



## FactFinder (Nov 7, 2009)

Americano, you wanted to know where the money trail is in this global warmier coolier scam. Here is a start at the trail...and wouldn't ya know who is starting off as the biggest player.

Goldman Sachs Sells $12M in Carbon Offsets in Largest Such U.S. Deal So Far

Goldman Sachs Sells $12M in Carbon Offsets in Largest Such U.S. Deal So Far · Environmental Leader · Green Business, Sustainable Business, and Green Strategy News for Corporate Sustainability Executives

and:

Street Cred: Goldman Sachs Buys Into Carbon-Credit Developer
By Jeffrey Ball
Jonathan Shieber, of Dow Jones&#8217; Clean Technology Insight, reports:

It looks like the financial wizards at Goldman Sachs are betting that the U.S. government is going to impose a cap-and-trade system for global-warming emissions sooner rather than later, despite the financial crisis shaking up the corridors of power from Wall Street to Washington

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/27/street-cred-goldman-sachs-buys-into-carbon-credit-developer/

There is more. Just google carbon credits Goldman Sachs
They have so many plants in government positions it is no wonder we have beem getting terrorized with hype.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> _*Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person)*_. This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.



Exactly.

So when Lindzen say "if you want me to give you my opinion, you have to pay my expenses of $2500 a day" that is wrong, plus he's a liar and cheat.

When Al Gore charge $1 million per speech about something that he has no academic background nor knowledge, he's a hero, Nobel prize winer and successful businessman. The $1 million is small price to pay, considering that Al has to start his private jet and put all that makeup on his plastic face.

So, who has valid argument here, Lindzen or Gore?


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 7, 2009)

FactFinder said:


> Americano, you wanted to know where the money trail is in this global warmier coolier scam. Here is a start at the trail...and wouldn't ya know who is starting off as the biggest player.
> 
> Goldman Sachs Sells $12M in Carbon Offsets in Largest Such U.S. Deal So Far
> 
> ...



I understand that Goldman Sachs made money on selling carbon offsets, but where those  carbon offsets came from to begin with, who gave it to them? If i talk out my neighbor from cutting his trees in backyard, do I get carbon offsets and can I sell them?

So question still is, where those carbon credits are coming from and who is making money from it? 

BTW, thanks for the answer.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 7, 2009)

I got to say, I do respond to Old Crock, so I must be a moron, Old Crock does not read anything Old Crock links to. 

The global warming scientists have not proved anything other than they must go to great lengths  and use billions of dollars to get the result they want.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Nov 11, 2009)

Ame®icano;1690170 said:
			
		

> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > ame®icano;1671503 said:
> ...







"In this symposium we have not be able to treat the controversial question of man's possibilities to foresee the future development of or to influence the climate by *artificial means.*"


Your link, pg. 473


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 12, 2009)

The more I read the more amazed I am at how little the scientist admit they know. If you read the studies the scientist admit they need more data and that its impossible to crunch all the numbers. The scientist must program into the computers assumptions to make up for the inabiltiy to attain all the data and facts as well as the must make assumptions in their calculations in order to make up for the lack of being able to have a computer powerful enough to crunch all the data.

Even if scientist could acquire every detail of the earths climate it would take forever just to input the data into a computer, and again if such a computer even exsisted. 

The earth is way to big and complex. The scientists admit this.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 12, 2009)

Ame®icano;1692168 said:
			
		

> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > _*Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person)*_. This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.
> ...



No links to this charge? Show the proof or stand a liar.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Ame®icano;1692168 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 No, when called on it he has the chance to either defend or call it opinion, if he defends without a link, then you can call him a lair, until then he's just posting what could be opinion, in which case it cannot be a lie no matter how you spin it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 12, 2009)

He can show proof, or he can stand a liar. I am betting that he is a liar.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 12, 2009)

Ame®icano;1690614 said:
			
		

> Look, old fart, I was being polite and patient with you throughout the whole thread. I asked you several times the same question and you always refused to answer. Then when I asked you for proof on Lindzen, you ignore all that and now I am an asshole?
> 
> Well, *until you apologize first and then answer what I asked you number of times, you won't get anything from me.* How about that?!



Until then, you're on ignore.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 12, 2009)

Boohoo


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 15, 2009)

> Less than a month before the Copenhagen summit on climate change, the International Energy Agency says that governments must act now to avoid catastrophic results.
> 
> Governments must act now to ward off catastrophic climate change or face additional costs of $500 billion per year of delay, according to a report released Tuesday by the International Energy Agency.



No time to waste on climate change, report declares




The question is, how do you stop something that is naturally occurring on the planet?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 15, 2009)

Naturally occuring does not mean that there are no recognizable causes. The PT extinction event, as well as the PETM, were caused by natural events that put a great deal of CO2 into the atmosphere, and created a feedback effect that put huge amounts of CH4 into the atmosphere. 

We know the sequence of events from the research in paleo-climatology, and the present increase in CO2 is happening at a faster rate than it did in either of the time periods posted. Not only that, we know that we have enough CH4 in the ocean clathrates to create a very fast and major climate change. What we do not know is at what level is the point of no return.

Just because the cause today of the dramatic increase in GHGs is anthropogenic in origin is not going to change the result.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 16, 2009)




----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 17, 2009)

OK, dumb ass, you answered a post with a nonsensicle cartoon. That is pretty much the limits of your intellect.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 17, 2009)

By the way, Amero, you do stand a liar.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, dumb ass, you answered a post with a nonsensicle cartoon. That is pretty much the limits of your intellect.



And to show how smart Old Crock is read Old Crocks comment at the bottom of the quote and read the paragraph Old Crock went back to and highlighted in bold print. Old Crock misunderstood his own source even after I pointed this out to Old Crock.

Old Crock's typical response:


> Stupid ass, the steel is smelted with electricy, Doooodeeee.......



The relevant fact from Old Crock's source:



> This energy, supplemented by
> natural gas/oxygen burners, is used to smelt the scrap




It is obvious now that Old Crock is much more than a mental midget, Old Crock has suffered irrepairable drug induced brain damage, pass the dutchie dooooooude.



Old Rocks said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Nov 19, 2009)

The consensus is that we are having global cooling.


----------



## elvis (Nov 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, dumb ass, you answered a post with a nonsensicle cartoon. That is pretty much the limits of your intellect.



at least americano knows how to spell.


----------



## elvis (Nov 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> He can show proof, or he can stand a liar. I am betting that he is a liar.



Since you haven't proven anything since you started posting on the board, I guess you're a liar, too.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 19, 2009)

But..but....but he links to blogs and press releases from enviroloon sites!!

If that's not proof, what is?!???


----------



## elvis (Nov 19, 2009)

Dude said:


> But..but....but he links to blogs and press releases from enviroloon sites!!
> 
> If that's not proof, what is?!???



yeah maybe Terral should be given more credence.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 19, 2009)

> Global cooling or global warming?



Depends on what Mother Nature is up to at any given time.

Either way, man isn't the cause.  In the vast scheme of climate change man is but a speck.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 19, 2009)

Screaming Eagle said:


> The consensus is that we are having global cooling.



Actually, we are in warming cycle. And that's nothing else but cycle, caused by solar activities. There is no proof that global warming is caused by humans exclusively. If anyone could prove opposite, then why the Earths temperature has varied so much through its history when humans were not around.

Better yet seeing that it's a fact that the planet has been warmer on it's own, what is it that those "global warmongers" are fighting for? Are they somehow arrogant enough to believe they can stop something that is naturally occurring on the planet? If so then what temperature is it that they and politicians have set for a controlled temperature and why? Other than that they're spreading BS that is nothing more than a money grab by creating a unneeded carbon credits scheme that will cause rate payers 20-40%+ more for their energy. 

It's becoming more and more clear that the UN's "IPCC" jokers recommended "climate fix" is nothing more than a scam designed to enrich third world dictators, as is the case with nearly every UN "solution", sweeping "climate change" proposals are becoming a very hard sell, indeed.

While many nations leaders obviously enjoy meeting with the UN's IPCC in the midst of their non-stop, globetrotting, luxury hotel, moveable feast party, to see who can "outpromise" each other on what they "will do in 2050...or whatever", implementing the actual income redistirbution is meeting with a lot of "cold feet". Check this out...



> The Bush administration has been posting hundreds of highly confidential U.N. audits and investigation reports on a U.S. government Web site, opening the United Nations' inner workings and some of its more colorful scandals to unusual public scrutiny.
> 
> Together, there are nearly 500 documents and thousands of pages constitute a trove of U.N. secrets stretching back over five years, including allegations of bribes paid for tsunami relief projects in Indonesia, of sexual harassment in Gaza and a revelation that a U.N. anti-drug official ran a presidential campaign while receiving a U.N. paycheck. The pages also document a spree of alleged criminal activities, including a bribery scheme at the airport in Pristina, Kosovo, gold trading by U.N. peacekeepers in Congo, and the theft and resale of food rations by Ukrainian pilots serving the United Nations in Liberia.



U.S. Officials Divulge Reports On Confidential U.N. Audits

Who in their right minds would listen to the U.N.? They got a heck of a track record there.

Soon, world politicians are going to meet in Copenhagen to discuss global wa... sorry, climate change and how humans are main cause of it. Of course, they're going to ignore pollution levels which is counteracted by evidence of global warming on other planets and previous trends in CO2 on our own planet. Nobody is going to mention that there was 5 times as much CO2 when the dinosaurs were around, because dinosaurs were not driving their SUV's to work like we do.

All that global wa... climate change is just a bunch of political garbage that has made Al Gore from a tiny millionaire to having more than a hundred million dollars and a plan where bunch of companies are getting rich selling you bunch of bullshit that saves 10% of the emissions from a bunch of miscellaneous technologies that total less than 1% of our total emissions for a gas that makes up .038% of our atmosphere. Do the freaking math!!!

Then, where will be another crapfest legislation that won't help anyone but them and those who support that crap are gonna enjoy moronic conclusion jumping just like when Eugenics was "the undisputed scientific consensus without any debate" back in the 1930s and served as a great excuse to rally behind power hungry dirtbags that killed tens of millions of people.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 19, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > OK, dumb ass, you answered a post with a nonsensicle cartoon. That is pretty much the limits of your intellect.
> ...





elvis3577 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > He can show proof, or he can stand a liar. I am betting that he is a liar.
> ...



I see Old Rocks is still talking to me. I don't know how he can ask me for anything before he reply to questions I asked him first and apologize for his insults. I told him, until then he's completely ignored. 

Old Rocks, here is one for you:



> I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence. - William F. Buckley


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 19, 2009)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 19, 2009)

No, Americano, I am not talking to you, I am talking past you. You post misinformation, I correct that missinformation.

The temperature of the Earth has varied greatly in the last 4 1/2 billion years. As has the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, and the Total Solar Irradiance that the Earth recieves from the sun. And there have been periods when the atmosphere was rapidly depleted of CO2, and there were continental glaciers nearly to the Equator. At other times, there were sudden increases in CO2, then CH4, and periods of extinction. 

The speed of sudden climate change has often exceeded the pace at which the ecological system of the time can adjust to it. Today, we have nearly 7 billion people on the planet, dependent on agriculture. A very rapid climate change would seriously affect that agriculture in a very negative way.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 19, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> > Global cooling or global warming?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Even we all know...

... that cap and trade will shovel astronomical amounts of unearned wealth into undeserving pockets,
... that it will not result in any significant reduction in CO2 emissions,
... that even if it did reduce emissions, it would not measurably reduce global warming, 
... that following two or three decades of the current cooling phase, global warming will continue for the next few centuries,
... that it will be, on balance, beneficial...

All that is not a reason for governments not to try to cash on it.


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Nov 19, 2009)

NO, the Earth has been cooling for a decade now, sorry. I know that is shitty news that no one wants to hear. Global warming would be good news, I think if there is anything we can do to foster global warming we should do it, for our children's sake.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 19, 2009)

Well, Screamy, 2010 is another year, and we will see what happens then, and in 2011, 2012, and 2013. You area saying that there will be a continued cooling. Unless there is a major volcanic eruption, I am saying that one of those years will exceed 1998.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 20, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> No, Americano, I am not talking to you, I am talking past you. You post misinformation, I correct that missinformation.
> .



You mean like this information?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/92812-lol-7.html



> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Not a pipe dream, either. Already being done successfully.*
> ...



I corrected this misinformation that Old Crock posted with the following



> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a link to one source  showing that Old Crock posted an old article that is irrelevant.
> ...



I have more examples of your misinformation Old Crock.


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Nov 20, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, Screamy, 2010 is another year, and we will see what happens then, and in 2011, 2012, and 2013. You area saying that there will be a continued cooling. Unless there is a major volcanic eruption, I am saying that one of those years will exceed 1998.



Thank you for admitting that the Earth is not in fact warming at this time.


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 20, 2009)

Screaming Eagle said:


> NO, the Earth has been *cooling for a decade* now, sorry. I know that is shitty news that no one wants to hear. Global warming would be good news, I think if there is anything we can do to foster global warming we should do it, for our children's sake.


How is that possible since the decade of 1999 to 2008 was the WARMEST decade in the history of direct instrument measurement????? And that decade does not include the outlier year of 1998!!!!! 
I know that is shitty news that lying deniers do not want to hear. If we have been cooling for a DECADE, this decade would HAVE to be cooler than the last decade!

Don't you CON$ ever get tired of parroting that lie????


----------



## frazzledgear (Nov 20, 2009)

mdn2000 said:


> Another liberal/marxist nut from Obama, how does Obama know so many radical nuts?


[/QUOTE]

You didn't read his book?  He said he specifically sought them out as friends and associates because he was attracted to and admired their views.  In other words, he sought out those who were like-minded.  Still true now -remember, this is the same guy who said he thinks our Constitution is a flawed document.  He clearly admires the totalitarian state.  You can't believe in the redistribution of wealth unless you do because it cannot happen without one and Obama is on record in many places discussing his belief in the "proper" role of government to redistribute the wealth and "social justice" which is just code for redistribution of wealth.   

Our founding principles and Constitution was written on the premise that the people have the inalienable right to be free from government coercion and the right to control their own lives for better or worse.  While Obama and his extremist cohorts believe in the use of government coercion so those in power can determine the winners and losers in both the economy and among groups in society.   Views held by every tinpot dictator frankly.

The reason he appointed so many to czars instead of cabinet members is none of them would have passed the FBI background checks or been confirmed by Congress.  Not even this one.   In fact, if Obama had tried to get a job with any of our intelligence agencies it is a fact he would have been rejected and never given security clearance because of his known association with radicals, extremists and Marxists.   Our intelligence agencies tend to take those kind of known associates very seriously -far more seriously than ignorant voters who didn't bother to find out anything more about him except he could read from a teleprompter quite eloquently.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 20, 2009)

Screaming Eagle said:


> NO, the Earth has been cooling for a decade now, sorry. I know that is shitty news that no one wants to hear. Global warming would be good news, I think if there is anything we can do to foster global warming we should do it, for our children's sake.



True, we are cooling , even thought we are in warming cycle as shown in post #94.



> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that October in the US was marked by 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest-ever temperatures.
> 
> Over the past few years, similar signs of colder than usual weather have been recorded all over the world, causing many people to question the still fashionable, but now long outdated, global warming alarmism. Yet individual weather events or spells, whether warmings or coolings, tell us nothing necessarily about true climate change.



Facts debunk global warming alarmism 

Since the overall CO2 levels have risen, how then is this cooling possible? Unless there are forces that are expotentially more powerful that has vastly more effect on the climate. Even the one IPCC's climate modelers and Lead Author's is starting to about face rather than shipwreck his reputation.



> The latest international scientist to advocate caution is German academic Mojib Latif, a climate modeller and a lead author to the last two reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He told a recent UN World Climate Conference that some of the warming in the last three decades was probably due to factors other than CO2 emissions and that, in the absence of any warming for a decade, it is now likely here will be one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.



Treasury call signals time to cool off on ETS

It's obvious the dominos are starting to fall. Over the next year or couple of years, you'll see the IPCC scientists fleeing as the tide rises on their cockamamie theories. If they ever want to find work again, they will have to tell the truth.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 20, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > NO, the Earth has been *cooling for a decade* now, sorry. I know that is shitty news that no one wants to hear. Global warming would be good news, I think if there is anything we can do to foster global warming we should do it, for our children's sake.
> ...



I am a con and I agree with you.

How, simple, you environuts supported green energy, the production of green energy power such as a windmill needs extreme amounts of fossil fuels, the increase in fossil fuel usage in order to produce the fiberglass to make windmills in dumping a 100,000x's more CO2 into the atmosphere. Pretty clever, claim global warming is man made than increase the usage of fossil fuels a 100,000x's to make a windmill and than you environuts can state, "look, we are right".

Yep, your right and your the cause of CO2, the last ten years is directly related to the increase in windmill production.

Sure my numbers seem easily dismissed but compared to using fossil fuel to produce electricity versus using fossil fuels to produce a windmill that produces next to no energy is a 100,000% difference.

Easy to prove me wrong, all one need do is show how much energy and what types of energy it takes to make one ton of fiberglass.

that is the only way to prove me wrong, by posting the figure.

Not one of you over educated green-nuts have yet to show your superior education by answering just one simple question.


----------



## Chris (Nov 20, 2009)

mdn2000 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Screaming Eagle said:
> ...



One simple question....

Why is the artic ice melting when the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

Why should anyone answer that insipid brain dead question when you refuse to accept any answer, save for the one you want to get?


----------



## Chris (Nov 20, 2009)

Why is the artic ice melting when the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

Fuck you, asshole.

*Petitio principii (begging the question)*. This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying prove. For all practical purposes, this fallacy is indistinguishable from circular argumentation.

The main thing to remember about this fallacy is that the term "begging the question" has a very specific meaning. It is common to hear debaters saying things like, "They say pornography should be legal because it is a form of free expression. But this begs the question of what free expression means." This is a misuse of terminology. Something may inspire or motivate us to ask a particular question without begging the question. A question has been begged only if the question has been asked before in the same discussion, and then a conclusion is reached on a related matter without the question having been answered. If somebody said, "The fact that we believe pornography should be legal means that it is a valid form of free expression. And since it's free expression, it shouldn't be banned," that would be begging the question.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 20, 2009)

Dude said:


> Why should anyone answer that insipid brain dead question when you refuse to accept any answer, save for the one you want to get?



For those that believe, or simply trust to our trigger ready politicians, no proof is good enough. Simply none! They believe with the fervor of the looniest religious evangelist. Even after the Earth cools for the next 20 years as the CO2 rises, they will have excuse after excuse. There was a PBS special about Arctic Dinosaurs. They found fossil proof that plant eating dinosaurs were eating and living on Alaska's north slope thousands of years ago. If they were plant eaters and cold blooded lizards, how did they survive? I believe the "warmists" are folks that have invested their life savings in "green chip stocks" that depend on a global warming treaty like Kyoto. The scam might have worked if everyone signed on in 1998, when the earth started cooling again. Then they could claim victory over nature and reap the harvest from their carbon trading investment with the successful cooling. But... the government and the climate didn't cooperate in the proper time frame to make their scheme work. Now they are left with their pants down, scrambling for cheap excuses.

Arctic Dinosaurs


----------



## Chris (Nov 20, 2009)

Why is the artic ice melting when the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years?


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 20, 2009)

Chris said:


> Why is the artic ice melting when the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years?



Do you know for a fact that "the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

Chris said:


> Why is the artic ice melting when the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years?


Because water releases its heat more slowly than does air.

Not that anyone would expect you to accept a clear, unambiguous and scientific answer that contravenes your communist politics, though.


----------



## The T (Nov 20, 2009)

Dude said:


> Fuck you, asshole.
> 
> *Petitio principii (begging the question)*. This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying prove. For all practical purposes, this fallacy is indistinguishable from circular argumentation.
> 
> The main thing to remember about this fallacy is that the term "begging the question" has a very specific meaning. It is common to hear debaters saying things like, "They say pornography should be legal because it is a form of free expression. But this begs the question of what free expression means." This is a misuse of terminology. Something may inspire or motivate us to ask a particular question without begging the question. A question has been begged only if the question has been asked before in the same discussion, and then a conclusion is reached on a related matter without the question having been answered. If somebody said, "The fact that we believe pornography should be legal means that it is a valid form of free expression. And since it's free expression, it shouldn't be banned," that would be begging the question.


 

"_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dude again..."_


----------



## Chris (Nov 20, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Why is the artic ice melting when the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years?
> ...



Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,haaa!!!!!!!!!!!

No.

Because we have almost doubled the amount of a greenhouse gas that traps heat.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

No....Because you're a stupid fuck, who won't accept a clinical scientific answer if it goes against your commie politics....Just like the envirocommie "scientists" who got outed today, for making shit up and destroying contrary evidence.


----------



## Chris (Nov 20, 2009)

Dude said:


> No....Because you're a stupid fuck, who won't accept a clinical scientific answer if it goes against your commie politics....Just like the envirocommie "scientists" who got outed today, for making shit up and destroying contrary evidence.



The arctic ice is melting and the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

That's called evidence.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

_*Argumentum ad nauseum.*_

I gave you a plausible reason...You rejected it out of hand.

You are a willingly ignorant hack.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2009)

Ame®icano;1736521 said:
			
		

> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Why should anyone answer that insipid brain dead question when you refuse to accept any answer, save for the one you want to get?
> ...



*The climate, world wide, was far warmer in the Cretecious and in ensueing 63 million years. It has only been in the last 2 million years that we have had continental glaciers on continents other than Antarctica, in the last 65 million years.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2009)

Dude said:


> No....Because you're a stupid fuck, who won't accept a clinical scientific answer if it goes against your commie politics....Just like the envirocommie "scientists" who got outed today, for making shit up and destroying contrary evidence.



I see, Dooodeee........  Tyndal in 1860 and Arrnhenius in 1896 were envirocommie scientists. 

Yesireee, Bob, that do expain it all.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

Yeah, Malthus was the same kind of "scientist"....How'd his doom-and-gloom predictions work out?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2009)

Dude said:


> _*Argumentum ad nauseum.*_
> 
> I gave you a plausible reason...You rejected it out of hand.
> 
> You are a willingly ignorant hack.



You ladled out your usual unsupported bullshit, normal for a willfully ignorant ass.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 20, 2009)

Says the dried up old twit who uses press releases and blogs as "proof".


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 20, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



still right, by increasing the rate we use fossil fuels to build green energy sources


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 20, 2009)

Chris said:


> Why is the artic ice melting when the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years?




because building sources of green energy requires the depletion of fossil fuels releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere


----------



## The T (Nov 20, 2009)

mdn2000 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Why is the artic ice melting when the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years?
> ...


 
But isn't CO2 A pollutant?


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 20, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



CO2 makes up .03% of our atmosphere. .03% = 0.0003

Lets put it into form you maybe will be able to understand - picture book.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Easy-Set-Pool-Complete-Intex/dp/B0017A8AR2"]15' x 48" Pool Complete Set by Intex[/ame]
15' Diameter x 48" Wall Height, Water Capacity: 3,736 Gallons 






Let's say the contents of the pool above is the earth's atmosphere.

3,736 Gal X 0.0003 = 1.12 Gal






Here is the approximate total CO2 in our atmosphere, *both* natural and man made.

Now, how much of CO2 is man made? Data vary anywhere from 5% to 50%.

Here is your 5%...







































And worse case of 50%






At the maximum this would be the man made CO2 in the pool above, half a gallon. If you believe it's closer to the bottom figure it would be about 12 table spoons of the pool.

Still laughing?

Thanks to Peabody.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 20, 2009)

> *Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.*
> 
> "People will say this is global warming disappearing," he told more than 1500 of the world's top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN's World Climate Conference.
> 
> ...



World's climate could cool first, warm later


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 20, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > No....Because you're a stupid fuck, who won't accept a clinical scientific answer if it goes against your commie politics....Just like the envirocommie "scientists" who got outed today, for making shit up and destroying contrary evidence.
> ...



Chris, since you believe that man is causing ice to melt, please explain how taxing countries is gonna stop that ice from melting?

Your desperation at the slow realization that you have been an overt proponent of what is a an obvious scam, is palpable. And funny...


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Nov 21, 2009)

Why does it matter if Arctic ice melts anyway?


----------



## The T (Nov 21, 2009)

Ame®icano;1737245 said:
			
		

> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


 
He cannot. Unless he cites every living creature upon the face of the Earth including himself that is suspect, but then CO_2_ is NOT proven to be a pollutant gas.

Without it? This Planet would surely DIE. (And he knows it).


----------



## The T (Nov 21, 2009)

Screaming Eagle said:


> Why does it matter if Arctic ice melts anyway?


 

It is teorized by OwlGore that seas would rise, Land would disappear, and Hurricaines would be a YEAR-Round Event in BOTH Hemispheres...larger than Katrina...


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Nov 21, 2009)

The T said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Why does it matter if Arctic ice melts anyway?
> ...



It is the unanimous opinion of all scientists worldwide that the melting of Arctic sea ice would not cause a significant rise in ocean levels. Think of it this way if you fill a glass with ice and then with water and allow it to sit until all the ice melts, does your glass run over with excess water? Of course not. Arctic ice is not on a land mass. 

If all of Greenland were to melt it could result in up to 20 feet of rise in the ocean levels. What sort of temperature increase would cause all of Greenland to melt? It would take about a 15C rise in temperature and probably several decades once it got there to melt all the ice. A 3C rise in temperature would probably lead to Greenland melting more than it snows every year. No sane person expects a 3C rise anytime in the next century or more. An 8C rise in temperature would probably cause a rise of a foot or two in ocean levels, at our current rate of temperature increase based on the last century it would take 1,600 years before we had that much increase in temperature and 600 years before we saw a 3c rise, so it isn't something to get all worked up about right now. In 200 years I think we should revisit the issue, until then who cares?


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 21, 2009)

Screaming Eagle said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Screaming Eagle said:
> ...


BALONEY!

Think of it this way, if you fill a glass to the brim with water and then heat the water a couple of degrees, does your glass run over from expanding water? Of course it does!


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Nov 21, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



You disagree with all the world's scientists? It's already in the ocean. Frozen water is already grossly expanded, thawing it makes it contract, which it continues to do until it reaches 4C and then it slowly starts to expand, but never reaches its volume as ice again. You've been terribly misinformed if you think arctic ice melting will cause an oceanic rise.

For melting ice to cause a rise in sea level it needs to be ice which is not in the sea, such as the ice on Greenland or Antarctica. Adding water to the ocean will cause it to rise, adding nothing will not cause it to rise.


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 21, 2009)

Screaming Eagle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Screaming Eagle said:
> ...


None of the worlds scientists agree with you! They know that the same temperature increase that melts the ice also warms the oceans causing them to expand.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

An warmer oceans means more evaporation which leads to a stasis.

For someone who cites so much science, you're an incredibly one-dimensional linear thinker.


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> An warmer oceans means more evaporation which leads to a stasis.
> 
> For someone who cites so much science, you're an incredibly one-dimensional linear thinker.


More water vapor means more greenhouse effect.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 21, 2009)

It also means more precipitation, which would have a cooling effect, especially in the forms of ice and snow. Likewise, more clouds would reflect more solar radiation, also having a cooling effect.

Keep going.....


----------



## frazzledgear (Nov 21, 2009)

Ame®icano;1736386 said:
			
		

> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > NO, the Earth has been cooling for a decade now, sorry. I know that is shitty news that no one wants to hear. Global warming would be good news, I think if there is anything we can do to foster global warming we should do it, for our children's sake.
> ...



No one should have ever paid any attention to anything the IPCC had to say in the first place.  There are a couple of major problems with setting up a panel like this that was formed BECAUSE the members had already come to it with a preformed conclusion and refused to consider anything contradictory or didn't conform to it.  And there has always been plenty that did.  Too bad for the global warmers, but REAL science just doesn't work that way.  To prove a theory is a scientific fact REQUIRES repeated attempts to prove it is wrong -and failing to do so under every possible condition.  Scientific truth never requires a BELIEF in it as if a religion -it has been irrefutably PROVEN true.   You can't prove it is true by ASSUMING it is true and ignoring that which contradicts it -which is exactly what global warmers demand be done.  But until then, it will never be anything but an unproven theory.  And despite what that lying ass Gore says, theories are NEVER "settled science".  Of course they used the very same excuse those who politicize science always use.  Doom-and-gloom is so imminent, we just don't have time for proper scientific testing and challenges.

Global warmers demanded that scientists STOP trying to prove it wrong -because they correctly suspected it WOULD be.  And in fact demanded that any scientist who refused to stop challenging the theory be PUNISHED, that any company, business, college or university funded any research challenging the theory be punished as well.  As a modern heretic to their demand to worship at the altar of global warming.  When science is being politicized, those doing it demand it be accepted in its entirety, completely unchallenged,  with absolutely no expression of doubt tolerated.  How many times do we allow this same stunt to occur over and over again before we get what is really going on?    Every time man has demanded that some scientific theory be treated as infallible, unchallengeable truth for either religious or political reasons -it meant our species stalled out on gaining any further significant scientific knowledge in that particular area for decades at a time. Gaining further knowledge cannot be built on a false and faulty foundation.  We can only gain further knowledge by building only on that which is scientific truth.  

The left immediately grabbed this theory and started manipulating it POLITICALLY for their purposes because it had two things they loved that made it perfect for their goals.  First off it blamed MAN for the phony impending doom and the left tends to view our species as an unnatural, lethal parasite on earth whose very existence can only result in the demise of the planet entirely and cannot possibly be a species that is also part of nature and therefore NATURAL -so that confirmed their poor opinion of our species right off the bat.   And best of all, it gave them enough leeway to claim that the only "cure" would be to impose financial ruin upon the wealthiest and most productive nations on earth and significantly lower their living standard.  They continue to do so even now even after scientists have said it will have NO impact whatsoever.   Why they find the idea of the US and others forced to hand over their wealth to those who didn't earn it is another post entirely but one we all know is true.  These are the people who NEVER stop squealing how the US consumes something like 25% of the world's energy.  A fact that taken entirely out of context can be used to bash the US and claim they are nothing but greedy bastards who must be stopped.  So they NEVER mention that we use it to produce more than 50% of all the world's goods, ones that are of highly desirable quality and easily available all over the world at the cheapest prices to millions more than the next closest.  Meaning we actually make far better, far more efficient, far less wasteful and far more productive use of that energy than any other nation on earth and billions on the planet benefit from it.  If you have 100 trees and one person buys 25 of them and he builds 50 houses with them and 215 people buy the other 75 trees and build just 50 houses between them with those -does it really make a lot of sense to complain about the guy who bought 25 trees but produced as much by himself as the other 215 people combined did inefficiently and wastefully using three times as many trees?  REALLY?  Yeah let's screw with that, put a limit on the energy the US can buy so the world over all of mankind can really start enjoying a much more "fair" world where there are far fewer choices in goods that will be largely of poorer quality -but will ALL cost a hell of a lot more.  Putting many more goods out of reach entirely for millions more people.         

Since these global warmers are the same people most likely to pretend countries like the US are only wealthy because they stole it from poorer countries, they really love the idea that as part of their "cure" for global warming - countries like the US would be required to PAY CO2 offsets.  They want to require the US to make a massive transfer of OUR wealth from those who created it here -and fork it over to other countries run by some corrupt, murdering thug so he can install some more gold-plated bathtub faucets in his newly built palace while his people continue to scratch the dirt for a living, their lack of economic and political freedoms unchanged.  That way the global warmers get to pretend it makes the world more "fair" if there are more people "equally" suffering -while THEY get to assume that phony mantle of "nobility" and pose for cameras insisting it was all necessary to "save" the planet even though it will never do a damn thing to or for the planet whatsoever!  It would only entrench power more firmly in select hands who believe in their "right" to rule over all others - and at the expense of the financial, political and economic freedoms of everyone else!  Doesn't that just sound WONDERFUL and make you get all warm and gooey inside just thinking about it?  

Politicizing science all too often has only massively increased human misery.  Politicizing science led to the Nazi rationalization for the Holocaust, it led to the near total collapse of the former USSR's agricultural sector for more than two decades causing a sharp increase in both poverty and hunger for millions in the USSR, in the US one of many examples is the forced busing of innocent children miles from their home, forced to leave and arrive back home in the dark and sacrificing both play time and family time, forbidden from attending their neighborhood school with their friends -all so they could be forced to sit among strangers at a strange school in a strange city with no idea where they even were.  All because a scientist theorized that black children could not effectively learn in school unless they were sitting next to a white kid who would then be an example to that black child how to properly learn.  (Talk about revealing the true depths of that viperous, poisonous, soul-killing paternal racism inherent in liberal thought who insisted then it actually showed how "humane and caring" they were and got that policy foisted off on the country -all while also insisting that any parent who objected to their child being bused 100 miles away was just a racist if white -and just plain stupid if black and proof of why it must be done.)  Politicizing science will never benefit mankind because it is only done when some group wants to use the power of government to FORCE people to do what they want (which by definition means they are always leftists since left wing ideology believes in using the power of the state to force people to do what they want) - and are simply using the EXCUSE of some scientific theory as justification for forcing people to forfeit more of their freedoms to the state all while they assume that phony mantle of "nobility" insisting they are only motivated by their "pure" desire to save mankind.  Always from HIMSELF of course - because these are the people who really do believe that people in general are STUPID, incompetent and cannot be trusted to make wise decisions on their own behalf - and only they, the elite, possess the wisdom and intelligence to run it all for everyone else.  And can get real pissy about it if rejected and people don't agree they should feel relief and meekly accept that no one is truly FREE until they have handed off that nasty burden of running your own life off to them with all that superior judgment.  

Those guilty of constantly politicizing science NEVER do it for the purpose of increasing freedom, democracy and human rights.  And NEVER WILL.  It is only done in order to use the power of government to strip people of their political or economic freedoms while entrenching and solidifying their own power.  The false religion of global warming is just one more example of how science is politicized in order to further a political goal -in this case, the massive redistribution of wealth on the global level while using the pretext of phony, politicized science to try and pull it off.


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> It also means more precipitation, which would have a cooling effect, especially in the forms of ice and snow. Likewise, more clouds would reflect more solar radiation, also having a cooling effect.
> 
> Keep going.....


"If the Earth had no atmosphere, a surface temperature far below freezing would produce enough emitted radiation to balance the absorbed solar energy. But the atmosphere warms the planet and makes Earth more livable. Clear air is largely transparent to incoming shortwave solar radiation and, hence, transmits it to the Earth's surface. However, *a significant fraction of the longwave radiation emitted by the surface is absorbed by trace gases in the air. This heats the air and causes it to radiate energy both out to space and back toward the Earth's surface. The energy emitted back to the surface causes it to heat up more, which then results in greater emission from the surface. This heating effect of air on the surface, called the atmospheric greenhouse effect, is due mainly to water vapor in the air,* but also is enhanced by carbon dioxide, methane, and other infrared-absorbing trace gases."


----------



## Oddball (Nov 22, 2009)

You cut class the day they taught that white reflects heat and radiation, didn't you?


----------



## Chris (Nov 22, 2009)

Why is the arctic ice is melting even though the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 22, 2009)

Because you're boring the ice to the point of suicide.


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 22, 2009)

Dude said:


> You cut class the day they taught that white reflects heat and radiation, didn't you?


And you cut class the day they taught that whether radiation passing through clouds warms or cools depends on its wavelength.





Longwave rays emitted by the Earth are absorbed and reemitted by a cloud, with some rays going to the surface. Thicker arrows indicate more energy. The resulting "cloud greenhouse forcing," taken by itself, tends to cause a warming of the Earth.





The shortwave rays from the Sun are scattered in a cloud. Many of the rays return to space. The resulting "cloud albedo forcing," taken by itself, tends to cause a cooling of the Earth.


----------



## frazzledgear (Nov 22, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > It also means more precipitation, which would have a cooling effect, especially in the forms of ice and snow. Likewise, more clouds would reflect more solar radiation, also having a cooling effect.
> ...



Have you really never researched the quotes you use in your signature to make sure you fully understand the context in which they were said?  ROFL  Because it sure makes you look like a real dufus.

For example, the ones from Limbaugh.  What a hoot that you use those as part of your signature as if some kind of "proof" of how evil conservatives are.  

But the one about "accuse your opponents of what you yourself are doing" is something Limbaugh said (and still says) DEMOCRATS do who have taken the play from the leftist radical Saul Alinski about how to get one up on your opponent.  He said the Democrats DO THIS.  It was not a statement advising conservatives what to do.  ROFLMAO.  But hey -why let a little thing like CONTEXT get in your way now, right?  Just like the one you have quoting Limbaugh saying  "Don't doubt me".  Want to take a guess what he was actually talking about with that one?  Prior to the recent elections, Limbaugh predicted that Democrats would lose both governor races -which they did -while claiming a moral victory.  Which they also did.  Limbaugh responded by saying "Don't doubt me WHEN I SAY THEY WILL CLAIM MORAL VICTORY EVEN IN THE FACE OF UTTER DEFEAT.  But hey, leaving out the rest of what he said doesn't work out for you so well, does it?  LOL  Now want to take a shot about who Limbaugh was actually referring to about having a Messianic complex?   Oops

And the really funny thing is I don't listen to Limbaugh -but just reading those bs quotes in your signature I knew something had to be missing from them.  It took all of 45 seconds to find out what it was.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 22, 2009)

Gee...You'd think all the millinea of the sun shining othe Earf like that and trapping all that heat, we'd be, like, a kiln by now.

But we're not because the ecosystem isn't linear, it's dynamic.


----------



## Chris (Nov 22, 2009)

Dude said:


> Gee...You'd think all the millinea of the sun shining othe Earf like that and trapping all that heat, we'd be, like, a kiln by now.
> 
> But we're not because the ecosystem isn't linear, it's dynamic.



And when you double the amount of a greenhouse gas like CO2, it causes the earth to retain more heat.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 22, 2009)

Ame®icano;1737219 said:
			
		

> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



More than 24 hours and no disagreement.

Not all of that CO2 is man-made, less than 1% of the 0.0003. So what does that take the figure down to.


----------



## Chris (Nov 22, 2009)

mdn2000 said:


> Ame®icano;1737219 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bullshit.

Lying as usual.

Over loading the system with CO2 is cumulative, it stays in the atmosphere for decades.


----------



## frazzledgear (Nov 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Gee...You'd think all the millinea of the sun shining othe Earf like that and trapping all that heat, we'd be, like, a kiln by now.
> ...



Mmm -how?  The problem with this part is that CO2 only exists in the atmosphere as a gas -and as a tiny fraction of the whole, representing just a few parts per billion of all atmospheric molecules.  Which means that CO2 molecules aren't clumped together but widely dispersed.   Compounds with the capability of trapping heat beneath it exists in the form of solid or vapor in the atmosphere which happens when molecules are grouped together, not dispersed.  Like water has that property.  It exists as both vapor and ice in significant amounts and is a MAJOR player in regulating surface temperatures.    Actually FAR more important in that equation than any gas that only exists as a tiny, minuscule portion of the whole.   Here is the real problem with claiming that tiny, totally dispersed amounts of ANY gas can actually cause a major rise in surface temperatures -you must first assume a dispersed gas can have those properties.  Problem is -gas by its very nature doesn't possess those properties.  No matter who is trying to fudge the numbers on it.  In addition, CO2 -even in the minuscule amounts that exist -are critically and vitally necessary for the very existence of life on this planet.   Yet the levels that exist today aren't even as high as they have been known to occur in the past -but without precipitating any disastrous climate change.  Yet according to the drama queen hysteric global warmers -that is impossible without it resulting in either frying the earth or causing a major ice age.  Depending on who is doing the drama queen act at the time.  

Do you really think we now know all the variables that play a role in causing the earth to enter or leave an ice age?  Because so far we haven't a clue and still haven't figured out  what caused earth to enter or leave ANY previous ice age.  Not one.   You know, all those pesky ones where you can't blame the existence of man for them?  But NOW we are going to pretend that we know it all and that a minuscule rise in the minuscule level of a vitally necessary gas in our atmosphere is going to bring about the doom of the entire planet?  

The first faulty assumption that CO2 has the properties to raise earth's temperature came from the fact that in real greenhouses with real plants in them -levels of CO2 were significantly higher than in the outside air.  And then the incredibly stupid leap that the fact that the temperature inside that greenhouse was also higher than outside had to mean higher levels of CO2 played a role in that.  WRONG.  CO2 levels are higher inside a real greenhouse because of the natural respiratory cycle of plants whose emissions of CO2 were no longer being exchanged with the outside atmosphere and CO2 remained trapped inside the greenhouse causing the levels to rise.  

This one has been so easily proven to be true over and over again that you global warmers convinced that the minuscule rise of CO2 in the minuscule levels of CO2 that exists in our atmosphere will result in the torching (or freezing) of earth -should be embarrassed.  

Pay attention.  If you take a greenhouse built of glass and fill it entirely with oxygen and an identical greenhouse and fill it with CO2 and let them both bake in the sun side by side for however long you like -want to take a guess which greenhouse will have a higher temperature inside?  I won't keep you in suspense.  The temperature will be IDENTICAL.   That is because it isn't the gas inside a greenhouse that causes the temperature to rise - but the GLASS which is the only variable in this equation with the properties to trap heat beneath it.   How about if we remove the glass variable and make them both metal boxes instead?  THEN will the internal temperatures be higher for the one with CO2 inside it?  Again -both will have identical internal temperatures.  If CO2 had the properties to trap heat and cause a surface temperature rise -then it sure as hell would do it when it represents 100% of the atmosphere inside a glass or metal box, wouldn't it?  So insisting it can only do it when it represents 0.03% of the atmosphere is ridiculous on its face.

Sorry, but the big dirty secret in the phony global warming bs is that CO2 as it exists in our atmosphere, in the form of minuscule levels of a widely dispersed gas -just doesn't have the correct chemical properties to trap heat beneath it.  Only if CO2 could exist as a vapor or solid in our atmosphere could it do that -and it never ever exists in our atmosphere in those forms.   All of this SPECULATION assumes that no other variables known for a fact to play a role in surface temperatures will ever change.  To say nothing of the ones we still don't know about that play a role in regulating surface temperatures will also never change.  You really buy that?  Think we will never in the next 50, 100 or even 1000 years ever again have another volcanic eruption on the planet?  Never get hit with a solar flare again?  Never be hit by solar winds again?  And on and on through the more than 100 known variables we know are involved in regulating surface temperatures -all while still completely ignorant about the completely unknown but obviously critical variables since we still don't know what causes major climate shifts on this planet!  LOL  Just a change in one of those makes all the drama queen crap a worthless exercise.

So the REAL question is - what would motivate people to insist a minuscule rise in a minuscule level of CO2 is the sole or at least primary culprit and THE cause of the earth getting baked (or frozen) while ignoring any and all other variables both known and unknown -when that REQUIRES that we all pretend we know ALL the variables involved in any kind of major climate change when we know for a fact we don't.  And we know that we don't -or we would know what caused the earth to enter and leave all other ice ages.  But we don't know why it did for even ONE of them.  Now THAT is a question worth getting the answer to, isn't it?

Don't bother with repeating any of the global warming bs and CO2 levels.  The oft repeated experiment of glass boxes filled with O2 and CO2 have disproved this one -if CO2 at 100% of the atmosphere cannot cause the temperature to rise -it sure as hell can't do it when its only 0.03% and I don't care which scientist wants to argue it has more magical properties at 0.03% somehow.


----------



## frazzledgear (Nov 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Why is the arctic ice is melting even though the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years?



??  Arctic ice is ALWAYS melting and refreezing.  And maybe you missed out on this part -but overall, arctic ice has been GROWING even while in other parts it has been shrinking.  ICECAP
ICECAP
Intellicast - This Week in Weather
Arctic Ice Increasing Rapidly | Climate Realists (Mobile Edition)
West Antarctic ice comes and goes, rapidly

That actually means there is more of it now, not less.  The fact some phony "documentary" shows a chunk of ice breaking away and falling into the ocean and wants you to believe that kind of thing has never happened before until the levels of CO2 rose from some 3 parts per billion of all atmospheric molecules to 4 parts per billion doesn't mean you HAVE to play the chump.  Only if you are really comfortable with that role, ok?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Gee...You'd think all the millinea of the sun shining othe Earf like that and trapping all that heat, we'd be, like, a kiln by now.
> ...


The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has doubled?  On what point in time to you base this doubling?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Nov 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > No....Because you're a stupid fuck, who won't accept a clinical scientific answer if it goes against your commie politics....Just like the envirocommie "scientists" who got outed today, for making shit up and destroying contrary evidence.
> ...


No its called underwater volcanoes 

Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Nov 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1737219 said:
> ...



Co2 is not a cause oceans warming  Mr Gore.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1737219 said:
> ...



Holy shit batman! 



This Joker is just stupid.


----------



## FactFinder (Nov 22, 2009)

Here is a contradicting study:

*Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere 5-15 Years Only*

Jennifer Marohasy » Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere 5-15 Years Only

With the short (5-15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently-based) conclusion that the long-term (~100-year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most probably the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as outcome of combustion.  The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 22, 2009)

Screaming Eagle said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Screaming Eagle said:
> ...



I like your post. Here is the addition to it.

Oceans contain 97.25% of all water on earth. Icecaps and glaciers contain 2.05%, and remaining 0.7% is in lakes 0.01%, ground 0.68%, soil moisture 0.005%, atmosphere 0.001%, rivers 0.0001% and biosphere 0.00004%.

The key work in your post is *could*. There is no data we could rely on, since every study suggests something could or may happen, but without firm cause. Politicians are using that word to scare people and justify measures they taking, which are always taxing people in order to finance their pet projects and line up their pockets.

Does anyone remember Al Gore's movie and famous IPCC "hockey stick"? Well, that "hockey stick is based on a "scientific" computer model. If we are to believe the "scientific" theory consensus that man is driving the current warming and it's not just another of the Earth's natural warming periods, the theory needs to be based on an accurate computer model. Do we really know that model is accurate? 

The only way we can prove it is capable of any accuracy at all is to run it backward and let it predict the past. We already know what has happened and determine it's measure of accuracy by known results. The wise thing to do is to have our government ask IPCC to see the results of their computer model with backward accuracy check. Would they do it? Of course not. Since global warming theory is falling apart, they changed terminology to suit their needs, so now we are in "climate change", and that is still taxable.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 22, 2009)

edthecynic said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Water highest density is at the 4 deg C. From 4 degrees to the boiling point of 100 C water expands nearly 3%. Therefore, couple of degrees wont expand water enough to run it over.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 22, 2009)

Dude said:


> An warmer oceans means more evaporation which leads to a stasis.
> 
> For someone who cites so much science, you're an incredibly one-dimensional linear thinker.



I don't see a reason why are you arguing with someone what has no knowledge about the matter. For GW supporters everything that mention greenhouse gas must be bad for us. Water vapor is greenhouse gas, but you can't say anything positive about it. You can't just say that clouds increase the earth's albedo.  

Its too bad that people have to exhale, and by doing that we release another greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Oops, it's time to tax us for breathing...


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > More than 24 hours and no disagreement.
> ...



There it is. Pure "scientific" response.


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 22, 2009)

frazzledgear said:


> Have you really never researched the quotes you use in your signature to make sure you fully understand the context in which they were said?  ROFL  Because it sure makes you look like a real dufus.
> 
> For example, the ones from Limbaugh.  What a hoot that you use those as part of your signature as if some kind of "proof" of how evil conservatives are.
> 
> ...


Those quotes went completely over your head!!!

 Those quotes are not there because he was talking about CON$, but to show his HYPOCRISY!!!!!
He defines a messianic attitude and then fulfills his own definition, "Don't doubt me," therefore exposing HIMSELF as someone who accuses others of what he does himself.
Understanding that, CON$ervative Alinskyites will accuse others of using Alinsky's tactics.
Get it???

January 24, 2007
RUSH: *One of the techniques that Alinsky has advocated be used against people you need to destroy is ridicule*, *[Rule 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. Its hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.]* because there's no response to it.  When you get ridiculed and made fun of, that's the toughest thing to have a response because everybody's laughing at you... *In order to execute the strategeries and the policies of Saul Alinsky, you cannot have a soul, you cannot have a conscience*, because your sole objective is to destroy people and ruin them. 

Algore
    Former Vice President Al Gore. 

Breck Girl
    John Edwards.

Dingy Harry
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Dung Heap Harkin
    Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)

Environmentalist wacko

Feminazi

Frenchurian Candidate, the
    2004 Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA)

NAGs (National Association of Gals)
    National Organization for Women (NOW)

Nikita Dean
    Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.

Nostrilitis, Nostrildamus
    Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)

Senator Dick Turban
    Senator Richard Durbin, (D-IL).

Senator Helmet Head
    Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2009)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



No, the energy content in the volcanos is just too miniscule compared to the heat needed to melt the Arctic Ocean ice.

Volcanos in Gakkel Ridge NOT responsible melting the Arctic ice « Climate Sanity

I am not only a global warming skeptic, but a skeptic in general.  I call em as I see em.

There have been some attempts to link the arctic sea ice loss of the last several years to reports of volcanoes under thousands of feet of water in the Gakkel Ridge,

The truth is that all the energy from a volcano the size of Mount St. Helens could only melt 100 square kilometers of three meter thick ice.  This is a trivial amount of ice for the arctic region, which typically oscillates between about 4 million and 14 million square kilometers every year.  100 square kilometers is only one hundred thousandth of the yearly change in Arctic sea ice extent


----------



## Oddball (Nov 22, 2009)

Old Rocksinthehead said:
			
		

> I am not only a global warming skeptic, but a skeptic in general. I call em as I see em.


You're no skeptic...You're a lemming.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1365280-post54.html


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 22, 2009)

FactFinder said:


> Here is a contradicting study:
> 
> *Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere 5-15 Years Only*
> 
> ...



Of course there is that nagging little question, if this is the case, why has there been a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last 150 years? And why has the CO2 increased in the ocean to the extent of creating a measureable increase in acidity?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 22, 2009)

Begging the question doesn't answer the question, doofus.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 22, 2009)

Here is funny one...



> *Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a reference to a plan to "hide the decline" in temperatures.*
> 
> The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the theft of 61MB of confidential data.
> 
> Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The authors of some of the e-mails, however, accuse the skeptics of taking the messages out of context, adding that the evidence still clearly shows a warming trend.



Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 22, 2009)

And follow up... with some e-mails published.



> If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia&#8217;s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
> 
> When you read some of those files &#8211; including 1079 emails and 72 documents &#8211; you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be &#8220;the greatest in modern science&#8221;. These alleged emails &#8211; supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory &#8211; suggest: *Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.*



Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

These emails just show that too many people make money off of lies, and they like the cash cow, and they will lie, cheat and steal to keep milking from it. I'm hoping this all proves to be authentic and true. It will be much easier then to stop Obama's next plan to thwart havoc on America.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 22, 2009)

I did not reply to this post earlier because I was looking for the video that supports it.



frazzledgear said:


> *No one should have ever paid any attention to anything the IPCC had to say in the first place.* There are a couple of major problems with setting up a panel like this that was formed BECAUSE the members had already come to it with a preformed conclusion and refused to consider anything contradictory or didn't conform to it. And there has always been plenty that did. Too bad for the global warmers, but REAL science just doesn't work that way. To prove a theory is a scientific fact REQUIRES repeated attempts to prove it is wrong -and failing to do so under every possible condition. Scientific truth never requires a BELIEF in it as if a religion -it has been irrefutably PROVEN true. You can't prove it is true by ASSUMING it is true and ignoring that which contradicts it -which is exactly what global warmers demand be done. But until then, it will never be anything but an unproven theory. And despite what that lying ass Gore says, theories are NEVER "settled science". Of course they used the very same excuse those who politicize science always use. Doom-and-gloom is so imminent, we just don't have time for proper scientific testing and challenges.



I did not reply to this post earlier because I was looking for the video that supports it.

This is what I wrote earlier:



			
				Ame®icano;1740571 said:
			
		

> Does anyone remember Al Gore's movie and famous IPCC "hockey stick"? Well, that "hockey stick is based on a "scientific" computer model. If we are to believe the "scientific" theory consensus that man is driving the current warming and it's not just another of the Earth's natural warming periods, the theory needs to be based on an accurate computer model. Do we really know that model is accurate?
> 
> The only way we can prove it is capable of any accuracy at all is to run it backward and let it predict the past. We already know what has happened and determine it's measure of accuracy by known results. The wise thing to do is to have our government ask IPCC to see the results of their computer model with backward accuracy check. Would they do it? Of course not. Since global warming theory is falling apart, they changed terminology to suit their needs, so now we are in "climate change", and that is still taxable.



The John Locke Foundation and Lenoir-Rhyne University's Reese Institute for the Conservation of Natural Resources hosted A Forum on Climate Change: Opposing Views, Feb. 11. 2009.

Check the question and answer on some *3 minute mark*.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08hd141-Hac"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08hd141-Hac[/ame]

To find out what joke IPCC really is, check Q&A at the 4 minute mark:



> Q: Dr Schlesinger how many of the IPCC's 2500 scientists are Climate Scientists.
> 
> A: I'm going to have to give you a guess, but it's something on the order of 20% have some dealing with climate.



What? That's 500 Scientist that have* some dealing with Climate*. Does anyone wonder just how many have direct dealing with climate. The more facts that come out about the IPCC and their "scientists" the more it looks like pure Quackery. Anyone care to defend the IPCC with the number of Scientists that have direct dealing with climate?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 22, 2009)

Ame®icano;1742139 said:
			
		

> What? That's 500 Scientist that have* some dealing with Climate*. Does anyone wonder just how many have direct dealing with climate. The more facts that come out about the IPCC and their "scientists" the more it looks like pure Quackery. Anyone care to defend the IPCC with the number of Scientists that have direct dealing with climate?


I'd like to see a link to the list.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 22, 2009)

Dude said:


> Ame®icano;1742139 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd like to see the list too. I'll try to find and post it here.

Meanwhile, there are some interesting names from hacked e-mails. I think there is a possibility those names are in IPCC list too.

The Death Blow to Climate Science


----------



## Oddball (Nov 22, 2009)

I don't know for sure...But I did post that list on the other thread that none of the usual suspects will touch with a 10-foot laptop.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 22, 2009)

Dude said:


> I don't know for sure...But I did post that list on the other thread that none of the usual suspects will touch with a 10-foot laptop.



Could you link that list here?

At the IPCC website you could click at Meeting Documentation > Sessions and see all the exotic places of their meetings and who participated. Here is also Calendar of Meetings. I wanna go there too...


----------



## FactFinder (Nov 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Interesting that you could claim this when science does not know the answer to how much volcanoes contribute to oceanwarming. They are currently studying this.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/091027-volcano-ice-age.html
*Volcanic Eruptions Caused Ancient Warming And Cooling*

The new findings mesh well with what scientists know about these ancient proto-Atlantic volcanoes, which are thought to have produced the largest eruptions in Earth's history. They issued enough lava to form the Appalachians, enough ash to cover the far ends of the earth, and enough carbon to heat the globe. Atmospheric carbon levels grew to levels 20 times higher than they are today.


----------



## FactFinder (Nov 23, 2009)

Boiling Hot Water Found in Frigid Arctic Sea | LiveScience

*Boiling Hot Water Found in Frigid Arctic Sea*

The cluster of five hydrothermal vents, also called black smokers, were discovered farther north than any others previously identified. The vents, one of which towers four stories high, are located on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge between Greenland and Norway, more than 120 miles farther north than other known vents.


----------



## FactFinder (Nov 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a contradicting study:
> ...



Why of course it is all the underwater volcanic activity.


----------



## jodylee (Nov 23, 2009)

doen't matter the earth has been cooling for the last four years, as proven by hacked emails from the univercity of east anglia, showing corespondence discussing how to hide this data. as well as other scientific fraud, as Al Gore said 'the science is over'


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 23, 2009)

No, the earth has not been cooling for the last four years, and the figures by the Hadly group have been confirmed the those from other groups, NOAA, NASA, and RSS.


----------



## jodylee (Nov 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> No, the earth has not been cooling for the last four years, and the figures by the Hadly group have been confirmed the those from other groups, NOAA, NASA, and RSS.



more maniplulated data! Chosing to ignor ocean temperatures when they make up 75% of the earth surface.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 23, 2009)

Ame®icano;1742139 said:
			
		

> I did not reply to this post earlier because I was looking for the video that supports it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





The IPCC has been a world-government shake down organization from the start.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> No, the earth has not been cooling for the last four years, and the figures by the Hadly group have been confirmed the those from other groups, NOAA, NASA, and RSS.


NOAA, NASA and RSS have been using faked Hadley numbers to confirm their numbers, you myopic stooge.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 23, 2009)

It's interesting how fraudulent scientists need to enact a coverup. This is exactly what on the fence skeptics (if sceptic is called someone who live in the real world) like me refer to when we say scientists and the pro-global warming crowd will do anything to move their theory forward including silencing the opposition. Now we have a bunch of scientists and "scientists" trying to skew data to make it say what they want. Making it look even more like a complete fraud on the part of the global warming crowd. That they have to completely lie and commit fraud (which is what this is) says a lot about the actuality of their theory. If it were true the facts would speak for themselves. Apparently they don't so they make crap up.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 23, 2009)

Just saving this link...

US Senate Minority Report


----------



## JeremyNight (Nov 24, 2009)

jodylee said:


> doen't matter the earth has been cooling for the last four years, as proven by hacked emails from the univercity of east anglia, showing corespondence discussing how to hide this data. as well as other scientific fraud, as Al Gore said 'the science is over'



Have you got any documents/links to confirm that?


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 24, 2009)

In the wake of illegaly obtained emails here is little reminder what global warming and cap and trade did in Europe.



> Meanwhile, *energy prices for end users have risen sharply. From 2004 to 2007, household energy costs rose by 16% on average in the 25 EU countries and industrial rates rose by 32%*, according to the European Commission.
> 
> Those prices have meant windfalls for some companies. CEI's Ebell cites as an example how the German utilities used their influence to wrangle more allowances than the automakers.
> 
> ...



Europe's Cap-And-Trade Scheme A Cautionary Tale For The U.S.

Are we going to make the same mistake that Europe did? And since we really can't rely on "scientists" data, is it time to revise our thinking? Results of cap and trade when implemented across the EU are speaking for itself. There is nothing in the cap and trade bill to prevent the exact same thing from happening in the US. Does anyone think that House Energy Committee will pull the plug on this bill and start over? Well, considering the donations made to the House Energy committee for the 2008 elections by the electricity industry, I there would be any change.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 24, 2009)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > No, the earth has not been cooling for the last four years, and the figures by the Hadly group have been confirmed the those from other groups, NOAA, NASA, and RSS.
> ...




No kidding - is Old Rocks actually putting us on with his rampant stupidity on this subject?

These figures were all shared - rebooted, and shared again.  It was scientific incest on a global scale...


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 24, 2009)

Here is the Framework of the Convention on Climate Change. This piece of garbage should be discussed in Copenhagen and signed into the treaty. Based on this document and the unregulated and biased global commodities market they are trying to create, the United Nations should be ejected from the United States and our country withdrawn from the organization. 

Framework Convention on Climate Change


----------



## Oddball (Nov 24, 2009)

Hell, half of that dreck is parenthetic qualifications, with enough semantic fudging to claim that they can regulate virtually everything that moves.

And I bet there's not even a pony anywhere to be found in that heap of horseshit.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 24, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Sadly no ... the original environmental movement was taken over by these Goreans ... they are too stupid to think and just want to "feel good" ... so they force others through laws and other bullshit.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 24, 2009)

Just like every other religion, AGW religion has it's own fanatics.



> It sure seems that America is out of touch with the rest of the world regarding global warming, and that the world is slapping us in the face to awaken us from our stupor.
> 
> Delegates at last week's Barcelona climate talks were frustrated that U.S. negotiators came to the table unable to commit to concrete steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions due to our seized legislative engine. Since we only have a month until the U.N. global climate summit that starts December 7 in Copenhagen, Barcelona negotiators vented their frustration by setting high expectations that the U.S. would come to Copenhagen with a plan in hand.



Of course, beside that EU countries introduced cap & trade taxes to their population, they are still falling short to their commintments signed under Kyoto Protocol. Regardless...



> "*We expect the United States to be able to deliver on one of the major challenges of our century*," said Connie Hedegaard, Denmark's minister for Climate and Energy.



Is the U.S. News Media Failing to Do Its Job on Climate Change?

European socialists expect from Unisted States to deliver, and they have perfect player for it. Are you guessing who that player is? Of course you are...



> "The time for delay is over; the time for denial is over, Obama said on Tuesday after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. &#8220;We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way."



Matter of urgency, before some incriminating emails pop out? And those emails perfectly explain their liberal credo: "*If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts*." - Albert Einstein.

We've seen the urgency in stimulus bill, cap & trade bill, health care bill... we've seen it all, and all at the burden of taxpayers. Just watch what's going to happen in Copenhagen. Obama is going to bow to the gods and kings of the AGW religion and do whatever they ask him to do.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 24, 2009)

> *I am a skepticGlobal warming has become a new religion*.  Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.





> *Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.As a scientist I remain skeptical*.  Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.





> *Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the historyWhen people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists*.  UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.





> *The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesnt listen to others. It doesnt have open minds I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists*,  Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.





> *The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.*  Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico





> *For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on*?  Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.





> *Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic campClimate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.* - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.





> *Many scientists are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined*.  Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.





> *Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsenseThe present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning*.  Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.





> *CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another.Every scientist knows this, but it doesnt pay to say soGlobal warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the drivers seat and developing nations walking barefoot*.  Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.





> *The global warming scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds*.  Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.



Beside these quotes, I would suggest you take the time and watch paleoclimatologist Robert Carter's recent scientific presentation to the Australian Environmental Foundation. There are four parts, I am posting first, you can navigate to other three. Dr. Carter eviscerates the AGW hypothesis in that presentation, and it might help you understand why the U.S. news media isn't so quick to jump on the very fashionable and politically correct , but scientific inane, theory of anthropogenic global warming.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 24, 2009)

So basically those of us who first said that Gore was a nut case are right. Still.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 24, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> So basically those of us who first said that Gore was a nut case are right. Still.



No, wrong and willfully ignorant still. 

All of this flap does not change the fact that both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice, even East Antarctica. The vast majority of the world's glaciers are in an accellerating retreat. And, overall, the globe is warming. As measured both by US and European satellites.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 24, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > So basically those of us who first said that Gore was a nut case are right. Still.
> ...




And were we not just told that the reports of ice melt in the Himalayas was more BS?


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 24, 2009)

jodylee said:


> doen't matter the earth has been cooling for the last four years, as proven by hacked emails from the univercity of east anglia, showing corespondence discussing how to hide this data. as well as other scientific fraud, as Al Gore said 'the science is over'


Gee, only a few days ago the Earth was cooling for the last 11 years, now it's down to 4. At this rate in a few more days even you deniers will be saying the Earth has been warming for 3 years. 
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1736227-post70.html

And are those the hacked emails where a "trick" of using "real temps" was exposed???


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 25, 2009)

See all three parts...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnF7ilVzeo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnF7ilVzeo[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2009)

*Ah yes, Ian Plimer.*

Plimer the plagiarist : Deltoid


Plimer the plagiarist
Category: Plimer
Posted on: October 25, 2009 2:48 PM, by Tim Lambert

Eli Rabett has been investigating Ian Plimer's claim that climate scientists were cooking the books on the CO2 record. Plimer wrote:

The raw data from Mauna Loa is 'edited' by an operator who deletes what is considered poor data. Some 82% of the raw data is "edited" leaving just 18% of the raw data measurements for statistical analysis [2902,2903]. With such savage editing of raw data, whatever trend one wants can be shown. [p 416 of Heaven and Earth]

The raw data is an average of 4 samples from hour to hour. In 2004 there were a possible 8784 measurements. Due to instrumental error 1102 samples had no data, 1085 were not used due to up slope winds, 655 had large variability within 1 hour but were used in the official figures and 866 had large hour by hour variability and were not used.[2102] [p 418]

This drew a correction from NOAA's Pieter Tans:

To illustrate how misleading Plimer is I made a plot of 3 years of all hourly data, with 2004 in the middle because Plimer discussed 2004. ... In the plot, "selected" data means that we have used it in constructing the published monthly mean because those hours satisfy the conditions for "background" measurements. The red stripes are extremely close to the published monthly means. ... Also plotted in purple-blue are all non-background data. If one constructs monthly means from ALL data, incl. non-background, one obtains the purple-blue stripes. The differences are only slight, with the seasonal cycle becoming a bit larger due to upslope winds, esp. during the summer.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 25, 2009)

Ah yes,  NOAA...Some of the people who have verified the cooked data from CRU as valid, and further built upon that shaky ground.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2009)

*This fellow has some very interesting and eccentric views on many subjects.*

Ian Plimer - SourceWatch

Book: Heaven and Earth
Plimer's denialist book on global warming was published in 2009 and sold about 20,000 copies in Australia and a similar amount in the USA. The book was universally panned by scientists as full of errors and even accused of plagiarism.[1]


Argument with George Monbiot
After the publication of his book met with harsh criticism from The Guardian's George Monbiot, who derided the book, saying that "Since its publication in Australia it has been ridiculed for a hilarious series of schoolboy errors, and its fudging and manipulation of the data",[1] Plimer challenged Monbiot to a public debate on the issues covered in the book. Monbiot responded by insisting that Plimer, who is known for his "Gish Gallop"[1] approach to debates (a rapid-fire presentation of arguments and changing topics very quickly),[1] first answer a series of written questions for publication on the Guardian's website.[1] Plimer refused and Monbiot labeled Plimer a "grandstander" with a "broad yellow streak" who has never answered the accusations of serious errors in his Heaven and Earth book, and accused him of trying to "drown out the precise refutations published by his book's reviewers".[1] Plimer then reversed his decision, and agreed to answer written questions in return for a live debate.[1] However, instead of the expected answers, he sent a series of questions to Monbiot.[1][1][1] Negotiations with Plimer for a face-to-face debate eventually broke down and no debate was held.[1][1]


Weather theories
Plimer holds some unusual views on a variety of weather-related topics. He believes that El Niño is caused by earthquakes and volcanic activity at the mid-ocean ridges.[1] This contrasts with the view held by the meteorological and oceanographic communities, which is that El Niño arises from dynamical interactions between the atmosphere and ocean.[1] Plimer told Radio Australia that Pacific island nations are seeing changes in sea level not because of global warming, but due to "vibration consolidating the coral island sands", extraction of water, and extraction of sand for road and air strip making.[1]


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2009)

Dude said:


> Ah yes,  NOAA...Some of the people who have verified the cooked data from CRU as valid, and further built upon that shaky ground.



Oh Dear God!!!!!!!!!!    Grab your tin hats. Find big beds to hide under.

Everybodys in on this conspiracy!!!!!!

No one to trust but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee!


----------



## Oddball (Nov 25, 2009)

Sorry, asswipe.

The incestuous nature of your worshiped "peer review" has cast into doubt everyone who has either verified or used CRU's numbers. It's not our fault that the Goebbles warming crowd is a bunch of whores passing the clap around.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2009)

Only 6% of scientists are Republicans. That number will be considerably smaller after November.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 25, 2009)

Here we go folks!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2009)

I am sure General Gordon finds them very humorous


----------



## JD_2B (Nov 25, 2009)

I do know that we seem to have an ice age every 10,000 years - give or take a few. 

I also know that the ozone layer is depleting because of the use of CFCs and all that other shit we put in the air. 

I would also journey a wild guess that this would probably be the first time in history that humans have actually buried tons and tons of waste that takes thousands of years to decompose..  and has polluted the water with our own fecal matter, along with chemical pesticides and fertilizers, not to mention the choice to use, exclusively, a fuel which we knew nothing about the source from which it came. (That would be oil and natural gas- fossil fuels)

We have absolutely done far more damage in the past 100 years, than in the entire history of the world. 

So regardless of whether we are cooling right now, or warming up- I have all systems glowing green for GO for 100% sustainable energy, and waste reduction.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 25, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> I also know that the ozone layer is depleting because of the use of CFCs and all that other shit we put in the air.


Actually, that's a myth too. The dreaded ozone hole comes and goes. BTW...the sun interacting with the atmosphere creates ozone.



JD_2B said:


> So regardless of whether we are cooling right now, or warming up- I have all systems glowing green for GO for 100% sustainable energy, and waste reduction.


First, you'll have to define down what "sustainable" means.

Secondly, most people are for waste reduction, as it positively affects their bottom lines. However, they're against things called "waste reduction" that end up causing more waste than they reduce (i.e. glass recycling).


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 25, 2009)

I stated earlier, that based on data, we are in warming solar cycle, even thought there is current cooling trend. I am not denying solar cycles and warming as a result from it. I am denying that humans are principle cause of the warming. 

First time I started following climate was when I started reading articled from Claude Allegre, scientist from France. He's one of the early stage high end scientists to whom other "warmers" turned to for their argument. Honestly, that long ago I wasn't paying much attention to the whole thing, until he reversed his course upon reviewing new data on glaciers, what resulted in being castigated and roundly attacked by his former supporters. It became clear to me then, that warming became more of a religion then a science and that whole thing was primarily driven by a desire to control, then to do what is right for the environment. 

Let me be clear: I'm all for wind, solar, hydro, hydrogen and geothermal energy sources, but more then any of these, I am for modern and clean nuclear energy. If "warmists" were truly about the environment then they would be pushing for nuclear power along with everything else. But no, "warmists" reject it and that's telling me they are not completely honest to us. I was thinking what they could be hiding and it hits me... Nuclear power plants cannot be built by the "common people" with no money, experience and knowledge. But if enough money is redistributed (taken then given) to those all those special interest groups who support this government under "green job" umbrella, many will become instantly rich without even showing results of their work or producing anything, since they have to do the research in the field that is still not much known. No guaranties they will succeed, but if they do, they will become even richer.

I am all for solar improvements and other alternative energies. But, if you are going to scream and cry that we have to change right now, then you better support shovel ready nuclear power or you are nothing but an ideological hack.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 25, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> I do know that we seem to have an ice age every 10,000 years - give or take a few.
> 
> I also know that the ozone layer is depleting because of the use of CFCs and all that other shit we put in the air.
> 
> ...




Such blissful ignorance...


----------



## The T (Nov 26, 2009)

Dude said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > I also know that the ozone layer is depleting because of the use of CFCs and all that other shit we put in the air.
> ...


 
And everytime there is a lightning strike ozone is created.


----------



## The T (Nov 26, 2009)

Ame®icano;1752286 said:
			
		

> I stated earlier, that based on data, we are in warming solar cycle, even thought there is current cooling trend. I am not denying solar cycles and warming as a result from it. I am denying that humans are principle cause of the warming.
> 
> First time I started following climate was when I started reading articled from Claude Allegre, scientist from France. He's one of the early stage high end scientists to whom other "warmers" turned to for their argument. Honestly, that long ago I wasn't paying much attention to the whole thing, until he reversed his course upon reviewing new data on glaciers, what resulted in being castigated and roundly attacked by his former supporters. It became clear to me then, that warming became more of a religion then a science and that whole thing was primarily driven by a desire to control, then to do what is right for the environment.
> 
> ...


 
This is a fair view. And it highlights what is being done to our economies as a result. And of course the _elites _will get richer, and it's to that end they push this. (Ends justifies the means) Good post.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 26, 2009)

> I stated earlier, that based on data, we are in warming solar cycle, even thought there is current cooling trend.


Ok, I give.  Was 2008 the entire cooling trend?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 26, 2009)

Nuclear energy is great, most folks view it like they view strip clubs though.

They want them close enough to get their lights turned on by them but not in their back yard.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 26, 2009)

This is the hole in 2006.  Let's talk about CFC's if you want to move to Argentina and enjoy this soon.  DDT also had some good points if you don't care about some side effects.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2009)

Dude said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > I also know that the ozone layer is depleting because of the use of CFCs and all that other shit we put in the air.
> ...



Lordy, lordy, ol' fuckin' dumb Dooodeee....... is at it again.

Realizing that this is considerably above your grade level of understanding, but here is a concise and easily understood explanation of how CFC interact with stratospheric ozone.

CFC's and Ozone Depletion


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2009)

Toronado3800 said:


> > I stated earlier, that based on data, we are in warming solar cycle, even thought there is current cooling trend.
> 
> 
> Ok, I give.  Was 2008 the entire cooling trend?



And what a cooling trend it was. Eighth warmest in the last 150 years. A regular avalanche of a cooling trend.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 26, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Lordy, lordy, ol' fuckin' dumb Dooodeee....... is at it again.
> 
> Realizing that this is considerably above your grade level of understanding, but here is a concise and easily understood explanation of how CFC interact with stratospheric ozone.
> 
> CFC's and Ozone Depletion


So what?...That still doesn't refute the facts that the much feared and loathed ozone hole comes and goes like the tide, nor that sunlight interacting with the atmosphere creates ozone.

Besides that, I never said anything about CFCs.

Speaking of not being able to read to grade level....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 26, 2009)

While I will agree that we do need to find and perfect the next great energy that we will be using, to produce electricity, heat, transportation etc. I will fight every politician that tries to ram some program down my throat. We have the time and the energy available for now that we can afford to allow our scientists to come up with what is needed. Without the Government forcing anything on us.

Last time I checked politicians weren't normally scientists.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 26, 2009)

> We have the time and the energy available for now that we can afford to allow our scientists to come up with what is needed. Without the Government forcing anything on us.



I dunno.  My pessimistic view of human nature overtakes me.  Seems if you put someone on a corporate board they make different decisions than HOPEFULLY they would in their personal life.  Leave corporations alone they'll still spray DDT all over creation


Can you believe this?


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Nov 27, 2009)

Toronado3800 said:


> This is the hole in 2006.  Let's talk about CFC's if you want to move to Argentina and enjoy this soon.  DDT also had some good points if you don't care about some side effects.



DDT had side effects? Please enlighten us.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 27, 2009)

I'm still trying to figure out how the CFCs know to migrate to  Antarctica.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 27, 2009)

> DDT had side effects? Please enlighten us.


Really?
DDT Effects


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 27, 2009)

Dude said:


> I'm still trying to figure out how the CFCs know to migrate to  Antarctica.



I'm still trying to figure out how someone as stupid as you learned to use a keyboard.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 27, 2009)

Screaming Eagle said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > This is the hole in 2006.  Let's talk about CFC's if you want to move to Argentina and enjoy this soon.  DDT also had some good points if you don't care about some side effects.
> ...



*Consider yourself enlightened.*

Research Summaries - Alavanja et al.

The investigators combined published data from North American studies on preterm delivery or duration of lactation and DDE exposure with African data on DDT spraying and the effect of preterm birth or lactation duration on infant deaths to estimate infant mortality rates (IMR). Specifically, Chen and Rogan wanted to compare malaria-specific IMR with DDT-induced IMR. The increase in infant mortality due to maternal DDT exposure was calculated based on the following findings from the scientific literature: (I) The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the US Centers for Disease Control reported an increase in the rate of preterm birth with increasing levels of DDE in maternal serum; (ii) Two birth cohort studies reported a negative relationship between lactation duration and DDE levels. Specifically, mothers with higher concentrations of serum DDE breastfed their infants 40%-50% less than those mothers with low or undetectable levels of DDE. African data was then used to correlate the IMR with preterm birth (RR=2.0; preterm births accounted for 17% infant deaths in sub-Saharan Africa) and WHO-Africa data was used to correlate the IMR with shortened lactation duration (Senegal, estimated that DDT-induced shorted lactation from 19 months to 11 months would result in RR=2.0). The North American data was used to further estimate the proportion of preterm births due to DDT exposure. Using the assumption that DDT spraying increased the preterm delivery rate from approximately 15% in Africa before DDT spraying to 25% after spraying (RR=1.7 for preterm birth, RR=2.0 preterm birth leading to infant death), DDT-induced preterm births increase the IMR by 9%


----------



## Big Fitz (Nov 27, 2009)

So since one climatological hoax has been foiled, we're going to go back to an even older one?

Face it, you got a skip in your record.

It's mankind's fault.  It's capitalism's fault.  Only socialism can save us now. >skip<  It's mankind's fault.  It's capitalism's fault.  Only socialism can save us now. >skip<  It's mankind's fault.  It's capitalism's fault.  Only socialism can save us now. >skip<  It's mankind's fault.  It's capitalism's fault.  Only socialism can save us now. >skip<  It's mankind's fault.  It's capitalism's fault.  Only socialism can save us now. >skip<  It's mankind's fault.  It's capitalism's fault.  Only socialism can save us now. >skip<  It's mankind's fault.  It's capitalism's fault.  Only socialism can save us now. >skip<


----------



## Oddball (Nov 27, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still trying to figure out how the CFCs know to migrate to  Antarctica.
> ...


IOW, you have no explanation, asshole.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 27, 2009)

Big Fitz said:


> So since one climatological hoax has been foiled, we're going to go back to an even older one?
> 
> Face it, you got a skip in your record.
> 
> It's mankind's fault.  It's capitalism's fault.  Only socialism can save us now. >skip<  It's mankind's fault.  It's capitalism's fault.  Only socialism can save us now. >skip<  It's mankind's fault.  It's capitalism's fault.  Only socialism can save us now. >skip<  It's mankind's fault.  It's capitalism's fault.  Only socialism can save us now. >skip<  It's mankind's fault.  It's capitalism's fault.  Only socialism can save us now. >skip<  It's mankind's fault.  It's capitalism's fault.  Only socialism can save us now. >skip<  It's mankind's fault.  It's capitalism's fault.  Only socialism can save us now. >skip<



And you have a stick up your ass. 

Why don't you send the Aussies some of the stolen e-mails, they need a bit of help with the current heat wave. Surely that would cool that, correct?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 27, 2009)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



The explanation is simple. The CFCs spread through out the atmosphere and stratosphere, where, due to the cold, the their effects are magnified many orders of magnitude over Antarctica.

Chapter 11 Section 1
Measurements over Antarctica have shown that the heterogeneous chemistry theory is correct. Antarctic ozone loss was caused by the heterogeneous reactions of chlorine compounds on the surfaces of polar stratospheric clouds. Once the chlorine is freed by these heterogeneous reactions, the weak levels of sunlight initiate and maintain the catalytic ozone loss photochemistry. The chlorine compounds are principally of manmade origin: the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) we discussed in Chapter 1. These were the safe, inert compounds developed in the late 1920s for refrigeration and aerosol propellants. CFCs gained enormous usage worldwide since their creation. Measurement of extremely high levels of chlorine monoxide over Antarctica was the "smoking gun" that provided clear evidence that the CFCs were the culprit behind these ozone losses.

The answer to the question of why do temperatures get so cold inside the stratosphere above Antartica, as opposed to elsewhere, and allow PSCs to form involves the unique circulation pattern there. First, you need sunshine (actually UV light) to heat the stratosphere. Since the Antarctic stratosphere is dark during polar night, there isn't any heating of the polar stratosphere by the Sun. The Antarctic stratosphere cools off by emitting IR radiation to space, just like an electric stove element that cools from red hot after you turn off the stove. Second, the weather systems in the stratosphere warm the polar regions. During the southern winter these stratospheric weather systems are very weak, and there is nothing to heat the Antarctic stratosphere. Hence, because of the IR cooling and weak weather systems, the polar stratosphere gets very, very cold.

A second aspect of these very cold temperatures is something we've discussed in previous chapters, the polar night jet stream (see Chapter 6). The polar night jet is a ribbon of fast moving winds that develops near the edge of the polar night and the cold temperatures. Wind speeds reach 100 mph or greater at 70,000 feet. This jet results from the same two processes that give us the very cold polar region, weak weather systems and infrared cooling. We also tend to think of this jet as a "vortex" of air that swirls west to east around the South Pole. The jet also acts as a barrier to transport of air between the south polar region and the southern midlatitudes.

The reactions required for ozone loss ultimately also involve sunlight, so it is necessary for there to be sunlight, as well as extremely cold temperatures with polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) Such conditions exist for a few weeks of the year in September and early October, at the start of the southern spring. By December, conditions are too warm for PSCs and also the strong polar vortex breaks down as temperature differences become less. The warming temperatures in spring, and the breakup of the polar vortex shuts down the rapid ozone-destroying reactions that occur via heterogeneous chemistry.

*Now Doooodeeee....., I answered your question. Now answer mine. How come you are to fucking stupid to look up simple stuff like this yourself?*


----------



## Oddball (Nov 27, 2009)

Here's another one, genius...Since uses of CFCs have largely been banned, and the dynamic of solar radiation interacting with the atmosphere does in fact create more ozone, why is there still an ozone hole?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 27, 2009)

Dude said:


> Here's another one, genius...Since uses of CFCs have largely been banned, and the dynamic of solar radiation interacting with the atmosphere does in fact create more ozone, why is there still an ozone hole?



Too easy. CFCs have a long residence time in the atmosphere, and when they degrade to Cl radicals, they last even longer. The affect is catalytic, not straight chemical.

http://www.geology.wmich.edu/haas/envs2150/12s.pdf


----------



## Si modo (Nov 27, 2009)

Dude said:


> Here's another one, genius...Since uses of CFCs have largely been banned, and the dynamic of solar radiation interacting with the atmosphere does in fact create more ozone, why is there still an ozone hole?


CFCs are heavier than air.  So, they tend to hang out in the lower atmospheric layers (forget what they are called).  However the radical chain reaction in in which a halogenated hydrocarbon needs to be is in the very upper levels of the atmosphere where the energy from the sun's radiation to initiate the radical chain reaction leading to ozone destruction exists.  And, it is in these upper layers where the ozone is.

Anyway, the CFCs that have been released into the atmosphere prior to the Montreal Protocol (sometime in the 80s, I believe), are still hanging out in the lower levels of the atmosphere, unreacted.  But, gaseous mixing of the lower levels and levels above them will ensure that the upper levels of the atmosphere, where the ozone is, will have CFCs present for reaction with the sun's radiation which initiates the radical chain reactions causing ozone depletion.

Over time, the CFCs present in these lower levels of the atmosphere will also eventually be removed by moisture (not for the water insoluble CFCs, though), other reactions, etc.  But, until they are removed, they will persist in depletion.

Yes, ozone is regenerated, as you have pointed out.  Yes, as a result of the Montreal Protocol, CFCs have been reduced in the atmosphere.  What is unclear, though, is if the negative effects of the CFCs that still persist in the atmosphere are greater than the positive effects of the natural process of ozone generation.


----------



## Big Fitz (Nov 27, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > So since one climatological hoax has been foiled, we're going to go back to an even older one?
> ...



That your best shot, sonny boy?

You're the kinda guy that even if Dr. Mann came and personally showed you how he lied and faked the whole thing, you wouldn't believe him... would you?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 27, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another one, genius...Since uses of CFCs have largely been banned, and the dynamic of solar radiation interacting with the atmosphere does in fact create more ozone, why is there still an ozone hole?
> ...


Interesting, if you stand by the claim that the ecosystem isn't self cleaning and regenerating at a higher rate than the doom-and-gloomers like to claim.

When I was a kid, the story was that Lake Erie was going to be "dead" for, by some claims, up to a century. Yet, today, less than half of that period of time, the lake is clean vital and is producing some of the consistently biggest walleyes in the nation....And they're all edible too.

So, it would seem that there's something else at play here.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 27, 2009)

Dude said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


But it is self-cleaning with respect to CFCs, as I mentioned above.  But, the rate of that self-cleaning is unknown right now with even speculation to any rate being just that.



> ....  When I was a kid, the story was that Lake Erie was going to be "dead" for, by some claims, up to a century. Yet, today, less than half of that period of time, the lake is clean vital and is producing some of the consistently biggest walleyes in the nation....And they're all edible too.  ....


I recall that, too.  There are several examples of such stories of doom and gloom that have never come to pass.

This may well be another case.  I make no such predictions one way or the other as the solidity of the science for making such predictions is dubious.  The science of the mechanisms is not dubious at all, though.



> ....  So, it would seem that there's something else at play here.


These are the mechanisms at play.  What one can predict based on these is close to a crap shoot, though.  As I said, it is unclear if the rate of generation of ozone is greater than or less than the depletion caused by the persisting CFCs.  I don't think anyone can make a solid prediction one way or the other.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 27, 2009)

Fair enough.


----------



## Big Fitz (Nov 27, 2009)

> When I was a kid, the story was that Lake Erie was going to be "dead" for, by some claims, up to a century. Yet, today, less than half of that period of time, the lake is clean vital and is producing some of the consistently biggest walleyes in the nation....And they're all edible too.



It's been amazing how much my study of the Great Lakes and it's history has come into play as of late.  The reason Lake Erie is recovering is because of two things: Depth and shape.

The nature of the great lakes is that each lake has a 'water cycle' in which you can calculate it takes how long for an individual drop to leave the lake on average.  Lake Superior for instance being the largest, deepest, and having a very narrow passage of exit through the St. Mary's River is measured in hundreds of years.  Lake Michigan and Lake Huron also have long cycles measured in dozens of years due to their larger outlets and northern/southern flow.

Lake Erie on the other hand, being the shallowest of the lakes and 2nd smallest, is therefore quickly cycled.  It takes less than 3 years for all the water in the lake to go out Niagara Falls.  The wind helps push it out as well thanks to it's east/west orientation and short length as well.

So, when the eco-maniacs were touting that Lake Erie is dead forever (or what other insanity they believed) they did not take into account that small fact that all the pollution, once stopped at it's source quickly filtered out of the water, and then began to leech out of the sentiment.  This process would have taken a lot longer... except for one other minor silver lining to large ecological disaster: Zebra Muscles.

Zebra Muscles have been discovered to be ravenous filter feeders that do quite well in polluted waters.  They have been expanding throughout the great lakes to the detriment of other native species These little buggers have been helping leech the toxins out of the soil, as well as purify the water to CLEANER than it has been before man plied the waters of the great lakes.  Bad for the native species in many cases, but awesome for the water quality.

The one thing that this has to do regarding the whoooole BS Climate Change debate and now the attempt to flip back to previous chapters of the rulebook, is nothing more than the law of unintended consequence and the limits of mankind's knowledge.  

Of course, we must not forget the boundless depths of his arrogance and hubris.  We are the species that tries to build towers to God, and have at times believed ourselves supreme even to His creation.  We so look for anything to support our presuppositions and desired outcomes, that we will rationalize away anything that does not meet them and cling to our bosom anything that agrees with us.

Boncher's Maxim of Belief:  "To a believer, no proof is necessary.  To a skeptic, no proof is enough."

But I shall also include Boncher's Truism on Hypocrisy.

"Everyone's a hypocrite.  After that, it's a question of subject and scale."

Good post, Dude.  Hope you like the color commentary too.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 27, 2009)

> I'm still trying to figure out how the CFCs know to migrate to Antarctica.



Myth: CFCs Are Heavier Than Air, So They Can't Reach the Ozone Layer | The Science of Ozone Layer Depletion | US EPA
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are heavier than air, so how do scientists suppose that these chemicals reach the altitude of the ozone layer to adversely affect it? : Scientific American


> HOW CAN CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CFCs) GET TO THE STRATOSPHERE IF THEY'RE HEAVIER THAN AIR?
> Although the CFC molecules are indeed several times heavier than air, thousands of measurements have been made from balloons, aircraft and satellites demonstrating that the CFCs are actually present in the stratosphere.


I really can't see there being an anti-CFC conspiracy either.  Could the fellas in the balloons all be "in on it" even if its only a group think problem?  I would doubt so.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 27, 2009)

Well, thanks for the straight answer.

Doesn't answer the question as to why they're still relevant viz. the ozone hole, when they likely should have degraded and decayed by now, but I'll take it.


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 27, 2009)

Big Fitz said:


> > When I was a kid, the story was that Lake Erie was going to be "dead" for, by some claims, up to a century. Yet, today, less than half of that period of time, the lake is clean vital and is producing some of the consistently biggest walleyes in the nation....And they're all edible too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Cool post...


----------



## Si modo (Nov 30, 2009)

Si modo said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


And, to be thorough and present other possibilities of the ozone situation, one cannot disregard the influence of cosmic ray cycles on the rates of ozone depletion, either, based in this work:


Q.-B. Lu and L. Sanche
Group of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada, J1H 5N4

Received 27 February 2001; published 30 July 2001

Data from satellite, balloon, and ground-station measurements show that ozone loss is strongly correlated with cosmic-ray ionization-rate variations with altitude, latitude, and time. Moreover, our laboratory data indicate that the dissociation induced by cosmic rays for CF2Cl2 and CFCl3 on ice surfaces in the polar stratosphere at an altitude of &#8764;15 km is quite efficient, with estimated rates of 4.3×10-5 and 3.6×10-4 s-1, respectively. These findings suggest that dissociation of chlorofluorocarbons by capture of electrons produced by cosmic rays and localized in polar stratospheric cloud ice may play a significant role in causing the ozone hole.​Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 078501 (2001) 



> Ozone Layer Burned by Cosmic Rays
> 
> Cosmic conspiracy. Cosmic rays could be a major contributor to ozone destruction over Antarctica.
> 
> ...


Physical Review Focus


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 30, 2009)

Good article and another piece to try to fit into the puzzle.  

Still though what are we going to do?  Nothing and HOPE its cosmic rays just so we don't have to tell our grandchildren it's our fault?

Any calculations on what the CFC ban has cost me?  I found a few articles about inhaler prices going up a fair amount in the short term.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 30, 2009)

Toronado3800 said:


> Good article and another piece to try to fit into the puzzle.
> 
> Still though what are we going to do?  Nothing and HOPE its cosmic rays just so we don't have to tell our grandchildren it's our fault?
> 
> Any calculations on what the CFC ban has cost me?  I found a few articles about inhaler prices going up a fair amount in the short term.


No offense, but your grandchildren have nothing to do with the science right now.  Just make sure they have good sunscreen on them when out.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 30, 2009)




----------



## immto (Dec 2, 2009)

I remember 6th grade and Earth Day, the first Earthday that was held in our school maybe the first one ever.  Our Science teacher did a speech that the entire school has to listen to and we had a presentation done by some group I don't remember who, but the entire thing was geared up to teach us, to teach our parents and family to follow the 3 r's or by the time we were their age it would be another Ice age.  

I remembe that same teacher going on and on about how or environment was changing and it was all our fault.  Now back then I let most of it go in one ear and out the other but I also started recyling.  It wasn't until I was much older that I began to read about how little overall impact that recycling really had on a global scale.  It was only a few years later when all of sudden we were struck with GLOBAL WARMING, and then Al gore wrote his rag.  

By then I was allready questioning how much Science really understood.  After Al Gore wrote his book is when I started researching the topic myself and what I found was shocking.  It turns out the science is not clear, at all.  Many scientists in fact dispute the validity of Gore's book entirely.  When Al Gore said the censensus was in, he must have forgotten the panel of scientists that were split almost 50/50 over whether or not Green House gasses were likely due to human influence or whether they were part of the normal global pattern.  

Now I'm not a scientist or even a researcher, but I found enough online from to feel confident that I have NO IDEA what's going on.  The UN global warming conference in Poland faced a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC.  400 scientists spoke out at the very same event in 2007.  so it grew by 250 + in one years time.  UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist said this, "Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the historyWhen people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists."  Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever is also a skeptic.  

You can find alot of information on this topic including links to other mostly reputiable sites .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Welcome :.

Here is link to the PDF File for the Complete U.S. Senate Report. Here


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 7, 2009)

How convenient. 



> The Environmental Protection Agency took a major step Monday toward regulating greenhouses gases, concluding that climate changing pollution threatens the public health and the environment.
> 
> The announcement came as the Obama administration looked to boost its arguments at an international climate conference that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation. The conference opened Monday in Copenhagen.



EPA says greenhouse gases endanger human health

If the EPA can regulate all this crap, why do we even need a congress at all? We can just have a King and his nobles to order us what to do without any debate.


----------



## immto (Dec 8, 2009)

ame®icano;1788227 said:
			
		

> how convenient.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



please don"t give them any ideas!


----------



## Shorebreak (Dec 8, 2009)

immto said:


> I remember 6th grade and Earth Day, the first Earthday that was held in our school maybe the first one ever.  Our Science teacher did a speech that the entire school has to listen to and we had a presentation done by some group I don't remember who, but the entire thing was geared up to teach us, to teach our parents and family to follow the 3 r's or by the time we were their age it would be another Ice age.
> 
> I remembe that same teacher going on and on about how or environment was changing and it was all our fault.  Now back then I let most of it go in one ear and out the other but I also started recyling.  It wasn't until I was much older that I began to read about how little overall impact that recycling really had on a global scale.  It was only a few years later when all of sudden we were struck with GLOBAL WARMING, and then Al gore wrote his rag.
> 
> ...



Your lack of findings is representative of a very accurate picture regarding man-made climate change. Reality is that there is no concensus. 

So far, there are two predominant camps. The first camp are those who strongly claim that climate change is heavily impacted by man, who are promoted by corporate media and in alignment with the policy makers and globalist corporations who want to impose taxes and strict manufacturing controls at a global level, under their authority. 

The second camp is the scientists, leaders, and manufacturers who are not aligned with corporate media or globalists. They are very much larger than the first camp, but they are cast as a dissenting view by media rather than the predominant view. For example, there is a document that is signed by 30,000 scientists who have stated unequivocably that they find no evidence suggesting that human activity has a significant impact on climate change.

When you wade through all of the muck, there are a few key items that stand out:

1. The most indepth support for global action on climate change is coming from globalist entities, such as the UN. 
2. All efforts surrounding control of emmissions are centered around generating tax revenue and establishing manufacturing controls and limits - to be decided by globalist entities.
3. Support for these efforts comes primarily from corporate sponsorships (e.g. research funding at prominant universities and research facilities), from governments who are aligned with socialist global unification (the US, UK, France, China, etc), and from corporate sponsored media.
4. Opposed to man-made climate change is briefly highlighted by media but not focused upon. For example, corporate globalist media networks such as the Discovery Channel and National Geographic have been airing programming for many years that treats man-made climate change as a fact without ever presenting a challenging opinion. In addition, many of the programs that are not focused on climate change will include script that adds climate change comments into the narration, as though it is a reality.

My comment for those who believe that man-made climate change is a reality is to be certain that you are entering into this thing with your eyes wide open. There is no cost or Kw equivalent alternative to coal energy today. Neither is there an equivalent to most of the other fossil-fuel driven manufacturing processes that are used to sustain our societal infrastructure, ranging from food production, electricity production, household goods, electronics, and transportation infrastructure. 

What you are demanding, without scientific concensus, is global legislation (with authority over domestic laws granted to a corporate controlled global entity) that will not only decimate the US capacity to support our current population, but will also add a significant levy to those operations that remain in production. On top of that, you are demanding that domestic manufacturers who can afford to relocate overseas close up shop and head to other nations with minimal restriction on manufacturing. 

And I'm only scratching the surface with the impact. Is that what we really want?

And here's my comment for those who DON'T believe in man-made climate change: Go back and read my last two full paragraphs. That's what we're facing. This WILL be crammed down our throats, whether we want it or not. The White House has already ordered the EPA to send out the CO2 directive. My advice is to prepare now for a worst-case scenario (it's better to be prepared and have nothing happen than to not be prepared at all) as manufacturing is turned down and the economy is minimized. My wife and I are studying the lessons learned by the Argentinian collapse, whose lead-up almost fits the profile for our current circumstances in the US.


----------



## Sinatra (Dec 8, 2009)

Shorebreak said:


> immto said:
> 
> 
> > I remember 6th grade and Earth Day, the first Earthday that was held in our school maybe the first one ever.  Our Science teacher did a speech that the entire school has to listen to and we had a presentation done by some group I don't remember who, but the entire thing was geared up to teach us, to teach our parents and family to follow the 3 r's or by the time we were their age it would be another Ice age.
> ...




I found your post both interesting and informative - thank you.


----------



## Shorebreak (Dec 8, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> Shorebreak said:
> 
> 
> > Your lack of findings is representative of a very accurate picture regarding man-made climate change. Reality is that there is no concensus.
> ...



I'm a huge advocate for a rational and cogent response to the challenges that corporate globalism places in front of us as a nation. For example, I was a keynote speaker last month at an event in my State capital that was attended by leaders in both industry and government. My presentation was essentially a call to action to both prepare to meet the expected challenges by preparing on the manufacturing floor and in the business office, but also to prepare to use science and technology to challenge legislative activity that negatively impacts local economies.

This week I'm attending two similar events - one to promote regional manufacturing, and one to explore a collaborative manufacturing opportunity with a potential regional partner. A mutual relationship will enable both of us to expand our services and capabalities without requiring organic growth - and the overhead that often comes along with it.

My approach is very simple. The science is not "in" on climate change, yet we're facing potentially insurmountable obstacles if legeslative activity - including Cap and Trade - is moved forward. My message is that we need to be prepared for this. At the same time, we need to be aligned in our response that the legislation is NOT supported by scientific concensus, and that the negative economic and societal impact of the proposed legislation will be catostrophic over the next 20 years, with the potential to devastate the economic foundation of the entire country.

I had a discussion last week with the COO of a nearby corporation who was in 100% agreement with me. the outcome of the conversation was a decision to explore a regional round-table for local businesses who need to actively communicate with government over the potential impact of forthcoming legislation. Not a lobby group, but a group of concenred businesses who recognize the potential for a complete loss of our economic foundation.


----------



## frazzledgear (Dec 14, 2009)

Chris said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1737219 said:
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 14, 2009)

frazzledgear said:


> Earth's climate has never been static but is cyclical in nature.  Earth has actually existed in ice ages the vast majority of the time and the kind of climate we have now for just a teeny fraction of that time -*none lasting much more than 10,000 years or so* before falling into another major ice age.  *The planet is actually a couple of thousand years overdue for another major ice age.*  Ice ages are earth's NORM.


Actually, that natural cycle of a new ice age seems to have tried to begin with "The Little Ice Age" which began around 1300 but mysteriously, and possibly unnaturally, ended around 1850, coincidentally also around the time of "The Industrial Revolution."
Whether it was man's doing or not, this post industrial revolution warming period seems to be outside the natural cycle of Ice Ages and Interglacial Warm periods.

To me, the real debate should be whether this undeniable warming trend is bad or not. Certainly a runaway, out of control, Global Warming has the potential for disastrous consequences, but maintaining the present temp or slightly cooler can be potentially beneficial, IMHO.

The Little Ice Age: how climate made ... - Google Books


----------



## Oddball (Dec 14, 2009)

A better line of questioning and/or debate would be over what temperature should be considered ideal and who gets to claim control over the "thermostat".


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 14, 2009)

Shorebreak said:


> immto said:
> 
> 
> > I remember 6th grade and Earth Day, the first Earthday that was held in our school maybe the first one ever.  Our Science teacher did a speech that the entire school has to listen to and we had a presentation done by some group I don't remember who, but the entire thing was geared up to teach us, to teach our parents and family to follow the 3 r's or by the time we were their age it would be another Ice age.
> ...



What a batch of lies. 

So name one scientific society that declares that AGW is false. Come on, asshole, name one. How about one National Academy of Science? Come on, fellow, name one. OK, just one little major university in any nation? You cannot, because there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists on AGW.

I am not a scientist, although I do have considerable training, at university level, in geology. And I have observed the changes in the snow fields and glaciers of the mountains that I love to walk, the Blues, the Cascades, the Rockies, and the Sierras, for more than a half of a century.

The type of drivel that you have posted does make me angry. I see no chance of avoiding a PETM type of event. And the legacy that you have created for the children of this nation and the world leaves me with nothing but contempt for the intellect you display in flaunting your ignorance.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 14, 2009)

Dude said:


> A better line of questioning and/or debate would be over what temperature should be considered ideal and who gets to claim control over the "thermostat".



Come on, asshole, the thermostat has been set for the next 30 to 50 years. That is the time line for the inertia in the system to respond by to the present level of GHGs. 

However, considering that we will do nothing to address this, it is not possible that we will avoid at least a repeat of the PETM. But we have much more clathrates than were available for that period of rapid warming, so we may see an event that move toward the P-t event in severity.

God, I find idiots like you contemptable. Have you ever really looked at what is happening worldwide?


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > A better line of questioning and/or debate would be over what temperature should be considered ideal and who gets to claim control over the "thermostat".
> ...


 
Set by WHOM?


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 15, 2009)

The T said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


God.

at last check, He also has the remote, too.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 15, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > A better line of questioning and/or debate would be over what temperature should be considered ideal and who gets to claim control over the "thermostat".
> ...


Y'know...That's _*exactly*_ the kind of manic dystopian freakazoid ranting that led me to question the enviro-moonbat movement, back when I still threw in with them.

And y'all are the same Gomers who shriek about dudes like Glenn Beck being nutty.


----------



## Shorebreak (Dec 16, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Shorebreak said:
> 
> 
> > Your lack of findings is representative of a very accurate picture regarding man-made climate change. Reality is that there is no concensus.
> ...



So what now? Does your rant suddenly mean that the globalist finance elites are correct, and that we need to grant them control of global manufacturing so that they can redistribute global wealth under their control? 

For what it's worth, I consider myself environmentally conservative. If you're wasting things, you piss me off. If you're polluting the environment, you piss me off. And if you're doing something that has a negative impact on ecosystems and environmental balances, you piss me off.

I'm not trying to win friends and influence people here, so I'll just tell it to you straight on how I feel. Take it or leave it.

I grew up camping in the northern woods and swimming on southern beaches. I've hiked, skied, swam, fished, camped, canoed, snowshoed, climbed, and explored everywhere from northeastern Canada to southwestern California, from British Columbia to South Florida, from the Pennines to the Appennines, and from the Balkans to the Obako Mountains. And Many, many places in between.

I think I'm as equally qualified as anyone else to say that I love the world that we live in and that I want it to remain as beautiful and fruitful for my children as it has been for me. I have five children under my roof whom I am personally responsible for taking every possible step to assuring their growth, development, and security. It is a personal goal of mine to transfer my love and passion for our world to them so that they may take as much pride as I do in maintaining it as a place for their own children as the chain of life moves forward.

That being said, it is also well documented that climate change is a real and present condition. The question becomes "What is driving climate change and what should we do to respond to it, if anything". For example, today is one of the coldest days that my area has experienced in decades on this date. That trend began a couple of months ago and is continuing. Without trying to be facetious, my response is to wear a warmer jacket. 

One of the things that I become exposed to as part of my job is temperature trends. Understanding these trends is critical when specifying and verifying the performance of temperature control systems in certain regulated environments. The standard source for this data is the NOAA website where data can be pulled for just about any part of the country. Take a look at the data and you'll see that the trend over the last decade has been cooling. The decade prior was warming.

The interesting part of that is that when the UN and the globalist propagandists (like FOX, CNN, the US White House, PBS, Chase Manhattan etc) began their global warming hysteria in the 90's, they had to swith gears in a hurry when they saw the trends changing to cooling, so they re-labeled the hystria "climate change". 

So now the focus is on how to create a tax on all manufacturing, how to create a supra-national governing body with aurthority to direct location and budgets for manufacturing, and how to assure that those companies who don't fall into the control program are taxed and tarrifed out of business. And it's all driven through the funding and organization of global finance elements who are chomping at the bit to take away private industry ownership, and to use their control to implement a global re-development scheme that assures that they can place their puppets into control and that they can use economic control as a tool to orchestrate a global system of trade under their authority.

In my opinion, I've seen too much of this beautiful world and experienced too much individual liberty to sit back silently while such a deception of humanity is occuring. Have you read the actual proposal provided by the UN as the guidance for a gloabl treaty? Among other things, it creates a global body that supercedes national governments of signing countries in managing induatry and manufacturing - including transfer of industry AND funds between signing nations. It is NOT an environmental agreement. It's an economic agreement for a single global economic control.

Is there pollution? Yes. Is it harmful and a concern? Absolutely. But is climate change and a global economic control the solution to the problem? No. Absolutely not. It's nothing more than a bait and switch power grab. If you don't believe it, you've probably been paying attention to media and not paying attention to the goals of those who are pulling the pieces together for their own benefit - the ones whom media ignores so that their agenda is not common knowledge.


----------



## Big Fitz (Dec 17, 2009)

> So what now? Does your rant suddenly mean that the globalist finance elites are correct, and that we need to grant them control of global manufacturing so that they can redistribute global wealth under their control?



Means that regardless of the reason this is the goal.  You could say it's because kumquats grown in clay soil are a threat to the world, so we must loot the first world 'for the poor children of the world'.  

Ayn Rand was so on the mark with these looting sacks of shit, it's terrifying.

They believe themselves entitled to global control over everything because they are them and they are more enlightened than the rest of we dumbasses.  Of course... the key component is always that THEY will be the ones on top, not subjected to their own insanity.

We suffer from their insanity.  They love every moment of it.


----------

