Home (Post) Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Sunday, March 04, 2007

‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ -new documentary

This should be interesting!

In ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ Al Gore is shown claiming this proves the theory, but palaeontologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it actually shows the opposite.

He has evidence showing that warmer spells in the Earth’s history actually came an average of 800 years before the rise in CO2 levels.

Prof Clark believes increased levels of CO2 are because the Earth is heating up and not the cause. He says most CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans, which dissolve the gas.

When the temperature increases, more gas is released into the atmosphere and when global temperatures cool, more CO2 is taken in. Because of the immense size of the oceans, he said they take time to catch up with climate trends, and this ‘memory effect’ is responsible for the lag.

Scientists in the programme also raise another discrepancy with the official line, showing that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, when global temperatures then fell for four decades.

It was only in the late 1970s that the current trend of rising temperatures began.

This, claim the sceptics, is a flaw in the CO2 theory, because the post-war economic boom produced more CO2 and should, according to the consensus, have meant a rise in global temperatures.


‘Global Warming Is Lies’ Claims Documentary

Comments

Rob
Rob
18552 comments
Send a private message

I’m sure this one will win an Oscar too.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on March 4, 2007 at 12:56 pm

How does this movie advance the cause of global socialism?


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on March 4, 2007 at 02:51 pm

I have read some of Clark’s work, one point he puts forward is that a temp climb precedes a substantial period of cooling. He points to deep ice core samples as evidence, kind of like tree rings showing periods of drought or heavy rains.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 4, 2007 at 03:50 pm
Proof
Proof
12237 comments
Send a private message

How does this movie advance the cause of global socialism?

By reassuring them that the planet will be around long enough for them to find another phony crisis!



Trolls. It’s what’s for breakfast!
And then I eat their lunch.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Proof on March 4, 2007 at 04:02 pm

I love it!

When the post-Columbine gun scare push was on, the Left pushed out an avalanche of propaganda dressed up as ‘studies’ by the likes of Kellerman and Bellesiles—only to be debunked as extremely sloppy work or complete fabrications.

When the Wife Battering Emergency was at its height, again the Left spewed out a stream of lies: Domestic Violence Spiked During Superbowl; 12 Women were Battered Every (add time interval here), subsequently proven to be a complete fabrication and a vast overstatement respectively.

Philosophy professor Christina Sommers has exposed a disturbing development: how a group of zealots, claiming to speak for all women, are promoting a dangerous new agenda that threatens our most cherished ideals and sets women against men in all spheres of life. In case after case, Sommers shows how these extremists have propped up their arguments with highly questionable but well-funded research, presenting inflammatory and often inaccurate information and stifling any semblance of free and open scrutiny. Trumpeted as orthodoxy, the resulting “findings” on everything from rape to domestic abuse to economic bias to the supposed crisis in girls’ self-esteem perpetuate a view of women as victims of the “patriarchy.” Moreover, these arguments and the supposed facts on which they are based have had enormous influence beyond the academy, where they have shaken the foundations of our educational, scientific, and legal institutions and have fostered resentment and alienation in our private lives.

Sound familiar?

Whether trying to outlaw guns, skew laws against the normal concepts of self-defense, outlawing un-PC speech, telling us what we can and cannot eat, even down to the size of toilets we can flush, the Left routinely uses lies, creates an alarm, because there is yet another new crisis and demands that sweeping new powers must be granted to Left.

This has happened many times in the past, because there was no New Media to Swiftboat the lies of the Left.

Looks like the Global Warming BS is going to be Swiftboated bit by bit.


...for great justice

egpzpj.jpg

Move_Zig on March 4, 2007 at 11:58 pm

There is consensus on climate change. The politicians are of the consensus that climate change puts a great deal of power and money under their control. And that is all the consensus there is on climate change.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 5, 2007 at 05:00 am
Avatar for ManofFireandLight

What everyone seems to have missed, is that climate change scientists accept that the earths climate changes, they just say that we are accelerating the process. Of course alternative theories need to be heard, but to discount global warming as a “phony” crisis or BS, yes I mean you Proof, Move_Zig and 2Hotel9,is just more narrow minded bigotry. We know that our planet IS going to become a more hostile place to live, whether we are doing it or whether it is a natural process, is arbitrary.

ManofFireandLight on March 5, 2007 at 05:03 pm

...but to discount global warming as a “phony” crisis or BS, yes I mean you Proof, Move_Zig and 2Hotel9,is just more narrow minded bigotry.

How is it “bigotry”?

We know that our planet IS going to become a more hostile place to live, whether we are doing it or whether it is a natural process, is arbitrary.

How do we know that and how do we measure it?

likwidshoe on March 5, 2007 at 05:13 pm

We know that our planet IS going to become a more hostile place to live, whether we are doing it or whether it is a natural process, is arbitrary.

Well if history is any proof the Earth is more benign when it’s warm and less so when it’s colder such as the little ice age.

So you got it wrong there.

Since the Earth warms up and cools down by itself what makes you think that we could change that. It’s just as likely that if we did affect the process that we’d do more harm than good.

just more narrow minded bigotry.

You’re projecting again.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on March 5, 2007 at 05:20 pm

Well if history is any proof the Earth is more benign when it’s warm and less so when it’s colder such as the little ice age.

That’s exactly why I asked the second question.

likwidshoe on March 5, 2007 at 05:21 pm

we’re thinking along the same lines again.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on March 5, 2007 at 05:24 pm

Bigot (n) A person who is intolerant Ref: Collins Concise dictionary. That is how it is bigotry. These guys are intolerant of the theory of man-made global warming. You note, I say theory, well man-made global warming is only a theory. Climate change however is not a theory, but fact and one thing that Martin Durkin and climate change scientists agree on is that the climate IS changing. Whether it gets hotter or colder, is arbitrary, out planet will become a more hostile place to live, for many it may mean it is much nicer, but for others there will be drought, flooding, increased stormy weather. To be honest, I’d prefer it if i didn’t have to suffer through cold winters, how about you?


Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

ManofFireandLight on March 5, 2007 at 05:29 pm

At no point of this discussion have I suggested we can prevent climate change, so I think it is you is projecting. I suppose in temperate climes the earth is more benign when it is warm and less so when it cold, but we (humanity) don’t all live in temperate climes, do we?


Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

ManofFireandLight on March 5, 2007 at 05:35 pm

ManofFireandLight said, Whether it gets hotter or colder, is arbitrary, out planet will become a more hostile place to live...

Again: How do we know that and how do we measure it?

likwidshoe on March 5, 2007 at 05:43 pm

MOFAL.  Not all change is bad.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on March 5, 2007 at 05:47 pm

Since it’s coming we may as well embrace it.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on March 5, 2007 at 05:48 pm
Proof
Proof
12237 comments
Send a private message

These guys are intolerant of the theory of man-made global warming.

According to that definition, Al Gore & Co. are bigots, too, being intolerant to any theory other than man-made global warming.

Let’s leave the “b” word out of the discussion. It adds nothing but fuel to the fire!



Trolls. It’s what’s for breakfast!
And then I eat their lunch.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Proof on March 5, 2007 at 05:52 pm

I agree Gore is pretty bigotted in his approach to global warming, but the guy’s on his horse now and he’s going to ride it for a while.

Again: How do we know that and how do we measure it?

We know because ice-core samples show that there are often sudden changes in the earths’ climate and they occur at the same time as changes in atmospheric CO2 levels. Ice-core samples go back at least 500,000 years. That’s how we know and measure it.

Let’s leave the “b” word out of the discussion. It adds nothing but fuel to the fire!

What’s wrong with a bit of fuel on the fire? Makes a change from you lot agreeing with each other all the time.


Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

ManofFireandLight on March 5, 2007 at 06:00 pm

We know because ice-core samples show that there are often sudden changes in the earths’ climate and they occur at the same time as changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.

When the oceans warm up the expel CO2 but that’s besides the point.

Speaking of points, what is yours?  Do you have one?


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on March 5, 2007 at 06:41 pm

That climate change exists.


Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

ManofFireandLight on March 5, 2007 at 06:49 pm

ManofFireandLight said, We know because ice-core samples show that there are often sudden changes in the earths’ climate and they occur at the same time as changes in atmospheric CO2 levels. Ice-core samples go back at least 500,000 years. That’s how we know and measure it.

Oh, good grief. How did you miss it? Once again: How do we know that ["our planet IS going to become a more hostile place to live"] and how do we measure it?

There’s more than one reason I quote what I am referring to.

What’s wrong with a bit of fuel on the fire? Makes a change from you lot agreeing with each other all the time.

First of all, you’re not the only one disagreeing. Second of all, you can disagree without calling people bigots. Bigotry has a heavy negative connotation that’s not called for in a debate about the climate. Unless, of course, you want to be an asshole about the subject simply for the sake of stirring up fighting. (How’s that for fuel on the fire? You happy now?)

That climate change exists.

No kidding. That’s not really a stunning insight. Without climate change, we’d essentially be living on a dead planet. Thank goodness for climate change.

likwidshoe on March 5, 2007 at 07:11 pm

Despite answering your question several times, I will endeavour to clarify. We know because there have been dramatic climate changes in the past that have made conditions hostile for the populace. From flood myths (which almost every society has) to the little ice age, from the droughts which (from recent archeological and climatological studies) caused the downfall of successive central and south american civilizations to the the last major ice-age which caused dramatic bottle necks in the human gene pool. The evidence (from both Martin Durkin et al and man-made global warming scientists) suggests that there have been sudden changes in climate (when I say sudden, in geological terms one hundred years is sudden) in the past.  Sudden changes in climate will make conditions hostile for some. The Inuit are losing their hunting grounds as the arctic sea ice melts during the summer months, for them, conditions are already hostile. People living in northern Africa and eastern Australia have lived with drought for six years, flooding in Indonesia recently killed thousands. This is how we are able to measure rapid climate change, by drawing a correlation between past events of rapi changing and current conditions. You agree that the climate changes, so therefore, surely you can accept sometimes it is sudden and so therefore conditions will be hostile for many people.

There’s more than one reason I quote what I am referring to

I don’t see anywhere in these postings, where you have quoted anyone but me, or yourself.

First of all, you’re not the only one disagreeing. Second of all, you can disagree without calling people bigots. Bigotry has a heavy negative connotation that’s not called for in a debate about the climate. Unless, of course, you want to be an asshole about the subject simply for the sake of stirring up fighting. (How’s that for fuel on the fire? You happy now?)

I’m sorry if you think I’m disagreeing. All I’m trying to get across is that, because new studies debunk (man-made) rapid climate change, it doesn’t mean that rapid climate change is not taking place. My comments are backed up by the article we are discussing.
At no point, have I resorted to name calling. One can make bigotted comments without being a bigot. I understand that the word has negative connations, but sticks and stones, it’s just a word. We could use zealot, if you prefer. I’m not trying to be an arsehole (English spelling), I’m just trying to stimulate debate. I thought that was what these forums were about. I’ve really enjoyed this little chat we’ve all had - haven’t you?


Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

ManofFireandLight on March 5, 2007 at 07:55 pm

That climate change exists.

Who in the world has disputed that?  Do you think that you’re some kind of prophet telling us that.

In general the good guys on this blog.

a.  acknowledge that Earth is warming.

b.  doubt that the change is caused by man.  (although we may have caused a small amount of it.

c.  We doubt that climate change is necessarily bad.

d.  We doubt we can stop it.

e.  We doubt the fixes that the Socialists are proposing have anything to do with climate change but instead are about redistributing our money to the undeserving.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on March 5, 2007 at 08:13 pm
Proof
Proof
12237 comments
Send a private message

acknowledge that Earth is warming.

...but not necessarily to the same magnitude as the alarmists.



Trolls. It’s what’s for breakfast!
And then I eat their lunch.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Proof on March 5, 2007 at 08:30 pm

Who in the world has disputed that?
Proof said: By reassuring them that the planet will be around long enough for them to find another phony crisis!
Move_Zig said:Looks like the Global Warming BS is going to be Swiftboated bit by bit.

I don’t think of myself as a prophet, I’m just another Joe, trying to stimulate a little debate. Because it’s fun to have topical discussions. No?
I agree that climate change isn’t necessarily bad, Mr Whistler, for me at any rate, but it will be bad for some. Can you agree that some people might, possibly, at some point in the future, be a little put-out by the effects of global warming?


Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

ManofFireandLight on March 5, 2007 at 08:30 pm

Do you guys get Channel 4 in the US?


Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

ManofFireandLight on March 5, 2007 at 08:31 pm

Well some of these alarmists would have us believe that it spells the end for humanity. It’s not just the scientists, check out http://www.redsky.uk.net , if history has proven anything, it is that humanity is one of the most versatile and adaptive species ever to walkthe earth.


Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

ManofFireandLight on March 5, 2007 at 08:42 pm

The climate is changing, has been changing, and will always be changing. The “Global Climate Change” crowd told us 30 years ago that the sea level would rise 10 meters by the year 2000. How is that working out?


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 6, 2007 at 04:55 am

Please cite your quote.


Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

ManofFireandLight on March 6, 2007 at 06:37 am
Avatar for Monofilament

e.  We doubt the fixes that the Socialists are proposing have anything to do with climate change but instead are about redistributing our money to the undeserving.

Well said, right on the marxist, oh I mean mark. Or do I? Well thats what Marxist do: they highlight a problem real or not. Then they propose a solution so we all won’t die or starv, etc. Then they say they need more power to solve it. Hugo Chavez come to mind?

Monofilament on March 6, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Avatar for AlGoreDebunked

30 years ago...(1970’s) The big scare was Global Cooling, and of course, we actually went through a mild cooling period.  Of course this occured during the modern age - an age where accurate temperature record keeping was occurring both on land and at sea (what’s that ratio again?)

Anyhow, Ice cores give some information regarding historical temperatures in the location in which they are harvested, but somehow, I’m not quite seeing how that information is being inferred to show “Global” temperature.

We may indeed be warming, the history of the planet shows that climate is constantly changing over geological time periods. To postulate that humans are the source of climate change through CO2 emissions is ludicrous. Of all gasses involved in the greenhouse effect, CO2 only contributes 0.25% (that is one quarter of one percent folks!)

The current scare is exactly the “socialist” tactic referenced by several posters on this forum. It is a means to redistribute wealth - with developed, western nations being the donors and all third-world nations being the recipients.

IPCC report?!  Follow the money people. They were funded by the United (Socialist) Nations to study Global Warming. hmmm, If my job depends upon my studying something that my sponsor accepts as a given, I’m going to want to continue to feed my children so I’m going to look at anything that supports my sponsor’s notions and ignore anything that disagrees with it.  Politics mixing with Science leads to bad Science. Plain and simple.

Our current Global Warming Crisis is a prime example.  If you really want a different perspective from what we’re being force-fed in the media, pick up a copy of Michael Crighton’s “State of Fear”.  I’ve never read a novel with so many footnotes and an entire chapter of bibliography.  It may be fiction, but it is soundly based in fact. Much more based in fact than that piece of socialist propaganda that the inventor of the internet won his oscar for.

AlGoreDebunked on March 6, 2007 at 12:55 pm

Time magazine, National Geographic, Newsweek, Nature, Geophysical Union Newsletter, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC. Try any or all of those if you wish.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 6, 2007 at 02:51 pm

Anyhow, Ice cores give some information regarding historical temperatures in the location in which they are harvested, but somehow, I’m not quite seeing how that information is being inferred to show “Global” temperature.

Air bubbles get trapped in ice layers and these bubbles contain particular isotopes of gases. The concentration of these isotopes gives an indication of (average) temperatures at the time.


Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

ManofFireandLight on March 6, 2007 at 03:04 pm

The concentration of these isotopes gives an indication of (average) temperatures at the time.

Well that’s interesting but I have my doubts that it’s as accurate as my taylor thermometer.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on March 6, 2007 at 03:15 pm
Proof
Proof
12237 comments
Send a private message

The concentration of these isotopes gives an indication of (average) temperatures at the time.

...subject to the interpretation as to whether the CO2 caused or was caused by the warming!


Trolls. It’s what’s for breakfast!
And then I eat their lunch.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Proof on March 6, 2007 at 05:18 pm

THAT, sir, is the crux of the matter. A veritable chicken and egg conundrum. Indeed.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 6, 2007 at 05:29 pm
Avatar for Andrew Inns

Thanks for the plug ManofFireandLight. I certainly don’t want to appear alarmist but forewarned is forearmed as they say and it certainly isn’t the end, though some people will think it is. The US Government, Military and dept of Science are taking particular interest in our web site at the moment.
Check out this out…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrPdl3SVKSY

Thanks.
Andrew Inns
Director Redsky.uk.net

Andrew Inns on March 9, 2007 at 03:52 am

Department of Science? I just ran through the register of US Government Departments and Agencies and I do not find a Department of Science.

And that is a cutsey little vid and webpage. To reiterate, what a load of bullshit.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 9, 2007 at 04:35 am
Avatar for Andrew Inns

2Hotel9

Sorry, having checked the web stats it’s the department of education not science.

I wouldn,t be so quick to judge either. If in the timescale given, these events don’t happen then your opinion will be justified and proven to be true.
In the mean time I would be tempted to be a little more reserved.

Andrew Inns on March 9, 2007 at 05:44 am

Andy, do something for me. Make a quick perusal of recorded human history and get a rough count of how many times the general consensus was that the “world is ending”, then get back to us.

Just 30 years ago doomcryers such as your self told us all that the world was going to end because of “Global Cooling”. What happened to all that?


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 9, 2007 at 06:17 am
Avatar for Andrew Inns

Hi 2Hotel9,

I agree with you. There is one cult who shall be nameless, who last century predicted wrongly the end of the world so many times I lost count and then you have Christians who have been living in “the end times” for the last 2,000 years.

I wasn’t aware that Global Cooling 30 years ago was seen as a sign of the end. I assume you mean global dimming. This changed when we started burning cleaner fuels but one side effect of global dimming was the drought in the Sehel region of Africa after the monsoon rains failed.

My web site doesn’t actually predict the end of the world mainly because the world isn’t going to end. It gives a God given revelation of events coming which are supported by both science and scripture. If that means I am to be put in a certain category of people and labelled “Fruitcake” then so be it.
As I said before, time will tell.

Andrew Inns on March 9, 2007 at 07:09 am

"Global Dimming”? That alone makes you a fruitcake.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 9, 2007 at 03:11 pm

Should that be “Global Dhimming” instead?


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on March 9, 2007 at 03:40 pm

Bravo1, go checkout this cat’s webpage! It is a hoot.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 9, 2007 at 03:42 pm

To postulate that humans are the source of climate change through CO2 emissions is ludicrous. Of all gasses involved in the greenhouse effect, CO2 only contributes 0.25% (that is one quarter of one percent folks!)

You suggest that CO2 only contributes 0.25% to the greenhouse effect, however, I think you meant the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere in relation to other gases.

Almost all of the Earth’s atmosphere (99%) is made up of nitrogen (about 78%) and oxygen (about 21%). While both of these gases play important roles in the vast number of processes that support life on Earth, they play almost no direct role in regulating the climate. This is carried out by some of the trace gases in the remaining 1% of the atmosphere which occur in relatively small amounts:

* Carbon dioxide
* Methane
* Nitrous oxide
* Ozone
* Water vapour
* Halocarbons

(Source:http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/greenhouse_gases.shtml)

The Earth’s atmosphere is made up mostly of nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), with a small amount of “trace gases” (1%) mixed in. But, that tiny percentage of trace gases - such as carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, and carbon monoxide - contribute in a big way to changes in the Earth’s climate.
(Source:http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/t_greenhouse.html)

If we consider that most figures, including Berkeley University (http://ds9.ssl.berkeley.edu/LWS_GEMS/3/atmos2.htm), suggest that argon makes up 0.93% of this remaining 1% trace gases, then all other trace gases in the atmosphere make up only 0.7%. After argon, carbon dioxide has the next highest concentrations.

Quoting unreferenced statistics as you have done is pure junk science.


Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

ManofFireandLight on March 10, 2007 at 01:34 pm

Limey, you need to follow the example of England’s great military leader, Cornwallis, and quit while you are behind, you have not a shagging clue what the Hell you are babbling about. Water Vapor is the #1 “greenhouse gas”. CO2 is #29. Sulphur Dioxide and Methane(produced in far vaster quantity by salt marshes and wetlands than from domestic livestock) far outstrip CO2, also.

And in an aside, how do you propose to stop CO2 release by oceanic evaporation and seasonal snow melt in temperate latitudes. We are awaiting that answer with bated breath!


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 10, 2007 at 02:18 pm
Avatar for Tam

One might have at least a *little* trust in the general consensus of environmental scientists. Yes, even the “socialisticaly” inclined ones.

You do not ask an astrophysicist for advice on blood pressure, nor a paleontologist (polymaths aside) for market advice.

The science is all there and it’s pretty unambigious when viewed on the proper - geological - timescales. Too many “coincidences” are happening here and now in our brief occupancy, to discount as heavily as some are advocating.

It’s not that hard now, given our pretty good personal computing power and information availability, to actually ignore all opinions and **look at the raw data personally** before deciding which side of the fence to drop off.

Personally, I’d pack that backup parachute.

Tam on March 10, 2007 at 05:13 pm
Proof
Proof
12237 comments
Send a private message

One might have at least a *little* trust in the general consensus of environmental scientists.

Perhaps if there were a consensus to have trust in, it might be a different story!
Unfortunately, politicians publish “summaries” of the science which often disagree with the scientists.
Unless you’re talking about a consensus of chicken little environmental scientists with their hands out to fund their pet global warming study because if they don’t get their money We Are All Going To Die! Those scientists?



Trolls. It’s what’s for breakfast!
And then I eat their lunch.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Proof on March 10, 2007 at 06:06 pm

Tam, you are absolutely right! Political consensus and scientific data do not belong together. Anyone with the ability to read and think can clearly see that climatologists KEEP TELLING EVERYONE ON THE PLANET THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW!!!!!!!

Get it?

If you insist I will throw you a stack of links to so much climatological data you will wish you had stuck to the American Idle webpage.

Long story short, every object that we are monitoring within the inner Solar System is getting warmer. Venus. Mars. Luna. Asteroids. Jovian satellites and debris. And Terra.

Here,an elementary level starting point. Please don’t let your head explode. And if you feel it coming on give these folks a call. Wrap your skull tight, so when you get to the emergency room they will have all the pieces.

Good luck.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 10, 2007 at 06:29 pm

Oh, and your “proper geological timescale”? Overlay it with Solar Output Scale. Then tell me how humans are the cause of climate change.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 10, 2007 at 06:31 pm

2H9: Where do you guys get your figures from? I cite official government and scientific studies, but it seems you get yours from elsewhere? I wouldn’t like to speculate. Perhaps you can produce the full list, showing CO2 at #29, otherwise I’ll know what it is your facts smell of.
Sulphur dioxide is not a greenhouse gas - it causes air pollution and acid rain.
According to the IPCC there are only 13 greenhouse gasses, 14 if you include water vapour. These gasses’ Global Warming Potential (GWP) may be what’s confusing you. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gwp.html for the GWP of all known greenhouse gasses. Perhaps if one were to work out CO2s GWP at the lifetime of the longest lived atmospheric greenhouse gas, then it might rank bottom, but that would definetly be junk.
Iowa state University have calculated the impact of various greenhouse gasses over a 100 year period and in summary say:

Figure 3 gives the relative contribution to global warming caused by different chemical species, with an assumed 100-year time horizon and 1990 emissions estimates.

Carbon dioxide, with its enormous annual increase in concentration, contributes most, at 61%. Methane is second in importance, at 15%, CFC-12 is third, contributing 7%, and nitrous oxide fourth with 4% of the warming under these assumptions. If we took the 500-year horizon, the percentages would change, with longer-lived species contributing larger percentages.

(Source:http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/gwpotential/warming.html)
Understandably, many studies do not mention water vapour as a greenhouse gas, because it is not a gas and its’ concentrations fluctuate dramatically depending on the location and the season. Given, water vapour does have a large impact on radiating heat energy back to earth, but even with water vapour being #1, CO2 is #2. (Source:http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html#wv)

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

ManofFireandLight on March 10, 2007 at 07:09 pm

You can tell yourself whatever lies you need to in order to sleep at night. The data does not support any of the shit you spew, Limey. I have been following this from a meteorlogical perspective for 24 years and you are full of shit. Climatological models cannot accurately predict weather events beyond 120 hours, how can you realistically expect the entire human race to grind to a halt and kill off 5 billion people simply because you think you know what you are talking about?

We only have 140 years worth of accurate records for a tiny portion of the entire planet, and yet you want to bring a halt to all industry,agriculture, and human activity because you think you know what you are talking about. Hubris, thy name is Limey.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 10, 2007 at 07:10 pm

Oh, and the data is everywhere. You cannot swing a dead cat by the tail without smacking into the data that makes you a fucking liar.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 10, 2007 at 07:12 pm

Recent reconstructions of northern hemisphere temperatures and climate
forcing over the last 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century
to be placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of
climate change to be tested. Comparison of observations with
simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much
as 41-64% of pre-anthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature
variations were due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism.
Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time
series yields residuals that show similar variability to control runs
of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models’ value as
estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal
of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ~1000 year time series
results in a residual with a very large late 20th century warming that
closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas
forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in
the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural
variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has
already established itself above the level of natural variability in
the climate system. A 21st century global warming projection far
exceeds the natural variability of the last 1000 years and is greater
than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last
interglacial.
Found at 2H9s NASA Goddard link.(http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/KeywordSearch/Metadata.do?Portal=GCMD&KeywordPath=Parameters|PALEOCLIMATE|PALEOCLIMATE+RECONSTRUCTIONS|SOLAR+FORCING/INSOLATION+RECONSTRUCTION&OrigMetadataNode=GCMD&EntryId=NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2000-045&MetadataView=Brief&MetadataType=0&lbnode=gcmd3)


Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

ManofFireandLight on March 10, 2007 at 07:34 pm

Limey, you can continue to lie to yourself and anyone else, that does not make your shit true. Change any set of data you wish, that does not make your shit true. Pretend that only CO2 has any effect upon the atmosphere, that does not make your shit true. You give a cursory glance to vast amounts of data, cherrypick 2 or 3 lines from fantastical propaganda in a news article and attempt to tell us that all life on Earth will be dead tomorrow. Get a life, and a brain, twit.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 10, 2007 at 07:49 pm
Proof
Proof
12237 comments
Send a private message

Association of Concerned Environmental Scientists

_885461_chicks300.jpg



Trolls. It’s what’s for breakfast!
And then I eat their lunch.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Proof on March 10, 2007 at 07:51 pm

Obviously you cannot provide data to back up your position, so you must resort to mindless insults and coarse language. Such a shame.


Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

ManofFireandLight on March 10, 2007 at 07:51 pm
Avatar for geez ppl

Phew!!! You guys sure are heated… (no pun intended).
At the risk of contradicting you all or even starting another tiff, have any of you approached this from a physical point of view.
The law’s of thermal dynamics state that all energy is converted, never destroyed.
With the sun enjoying a particullarly active time combined with the mass extinction brought about by mankind, surely the world is reacting to high photon bombardement from the sun by creating destructive wheather. We all deserve a pat on the back (sarcasm) coz we’ve managed to wipe out enough species to upset the delicate natural balance on this planet. Is it any suprise that the earth cannot cope!
There’s no doubt that global warming exists and that mankind is accelerating the change but i agree with those scientists who say that CO2 is not responsible, just a symptom.

geez ppl on March 11, 2007 at 10:20 am

geez, your oh, so polite assertion that human activity is the cause of climate change falls into the “your shit ain’t true” category. Please to explain how burning of petroleum is raising the surface mean temps of Venus, Mars, and the observable face of asteroidal material.

This ought to be good!


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 11, 2007 at 03:34 pm
Avatar for geez ppl

*sigh* you’re kinding missing the point. I’ll talk slowly.
I’m not banging on about the planet’s allignment and other such crap causing mayhem here!!!!
As i stated all energy is converted never destroyed. Man’s destruction of plants, animals etc has caused a population drop in all species.
With me so far?
Plants trap the sun’s energy by photosynthesis and organisms within the animal and bacterial kingdom eat these plants.
Is evryone following so far?
ok now imagine that those plants and animals are sponges, soaking up the electomagnetic spectra (the sun’s rays for those of you who nead clarification).
With fewer sponges there is more free energy floating around so the atmosphere is converting this energy into warmth, rain and wind.
Now was that so hard to understand?

geez ppl on March 12, 2007 at 06:49 am
Proof
Proof
12237 comments
Send a private message

With fewer sponges there is more free energy floating around…

Are you advocating elimination of the welfare state to save the planet?



Trolls. It’s what’s for breakfast!
And then I eat their lunch.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Proof on March 12, 2007 at 07:33 am

Man’s destruction of plants, animals etc has caused a population drop in all species.
With me so far?

Not true

ok now imagine that those plants and animals are sponges, soaking up the electomagnetic spectra

You’re missing something, there is more animal mass than ever before. 

There is also more activity in the plant world than ever before.

You should go to the teacher that’s feeding you this garbage and demand your money back.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on March 12, 2007 at 07:40 am

I love it!

Are you advocating elimination of the welfare state to save the planet?

New bumper sticker: “Save the Planet, End WELFARE”

Question for the Global Warming zealots:

We know that the Sun is in a warming cycle.  We know that ice caps are melting on Mars.  We know that the ice caps is expanding in Antarctica.  We know that the Earth has been warmer.

1. Exacly what percentage of global climate change is man’s fault? 
2. Exactly what global climate change is “normal” (Eg. if man wasn’t around what would be happening to the planet?)
3. Exactly how much reduction of our use of energy would be required to return to a natural climate change?

Seth Yantiss on March 12, 2007 at 09:07 am

Seth has successfully ended this thread.  There will be no more GW alarmists posting here.


“Hope is not a method.” - Common Military Saying

The above is a statement of pro activity.  If any Soldier were to tell me that he hoped what he was briefing was going to come to fruition, that would be unacceptable.  We in the Army do not have the luxury to ‘hope’ that things will end well.  Hope will get us killed.  Instead, we must plan and take action.  Hope is not a method.

As a leader I can never ‘hope’ that my Soldiers have the proper training.  I can never ‘hope’ that my Soldiers have the proper logistical supplies.  I can never ‘hope’ that my Soldiers will survive the next mission.  Hope is not a method; I live in the real world.

Paulie B on March 12, 2007 at 09:23 am

Now was that so hard to understand?

Not at all; in fact, it’s rather easy to identify junk science.  One question for you: What is the increase in global mean temperature that is caused by each 0.1% increase in atmospheric CO2?

Here’s another one: During the Medieval Warming Period, which took place before the Industrial Revolution, what human activity caused that warming?


Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

robert108 on March 12, 2007 at 09:25 am

R108 -

During the Medieval Warming Period, which took place before the Industrial Revolution, what human activity caused that warming?

I hear the Romans liked to smoke a lot of pot!??!  Could that be it?

Paulie B -

Seth has successfully ended this thread.  There will be no more GW alarmists posting here.

Well, they won’t answer my questions, to be sure… wink

Seth Yantiss on March 12, 2007 at 09:30 am
Proof
Proof
12237 comments
Send a private message

During the Medieval Warming Period, which took place before the Industrial Revolution, what human activity caused that warming?

Dragon farts.



Trolls. It’s what’s for breakfast!
And then I eat their lunch.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Proof on March 12, 2007 at 09:39 am

I notice that there have been no answers from Alarmists to my questions, either.


Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

robert108 on March 12, 2007 at 10:15 am
Avatar for geez ppl

You’re missing something, there is more animal mass than ever before.

Yeah human’s
Are you denying the FACT that we’re in the middle of a mass extinction? ...hmm interesting perspective…
Though i must say that banning welfare sponges might catch on… shh in case the big bruva hears you!
You really should try reading more before you start criticising rather then being one of the many media fed f***wits out there.

geez ppl on March 12, 2007 at 10:34 am
Avatar for geez ppl

And as for the 1% CO2 rise thing you tried to astound me with.... get your calculator out and work it out for yourself using the following:
A 0.2% increase causes 0.6 degrees celcius rise… it’s not rocket science guys just simple maths!!
GEEZ

geez ppl on March 12, 2007 at 10:43 am

A 0.2% increase causes 0.6 degrees celcius rise…

Is this a proven fact? Can I find it in a scientific journal?  If this is true, why is there a need for a “consensus”?  BTW, it’s “Celsius”.


Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

robert108 on March 12, 2007 at 11:07 am

gp: What caused the Medieval Warming Period?  The world today isn’t as warm as it was then, and they had no motor vehicles or airplanes.


Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

robert108 on March 12, 2007 at 11:10 am
Avatar for FlyOnTheWall

Dragon farts.

Green tea on the keyboard again.

FlyOnTheWall on March 12, 2007 at 12:19 pm

And as for the 1% CO2 rise thing you tried to astound me with.... get your calculator out and work it out for yourself using the following:
A 0.2% increase causes 0.6 degrees celcius rise… it’s not rocket science guys just simple maths!!
GEEZ

Oh, please, I have GOT to hear the explanation of this one!!!

How is this “Simple” math? 

You’re trying to infer that the daily photon bombardment is static?  You’re suggesting that worldwide pressure is constant?  Perhaps you think that CO2 holds and releases more or less energy than O2?  Than Argon? 

Oh, PLEASE!!!!  Show me the simple math!!!!

Seth Yantiss on March 12, 2007 at 12:33 pm