Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 7401 - 7420 of total 27299 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:30am PT
Al Gore. He is a fool.

No he's not. The sheep that took on his BS and paid money to see his propaganda flick are the fools. Gore has taken well over a 100 Million to the bank. Guaranteed that each and everyone of the AGWers here contributed to his financial scamming success. Including HEALJOK above.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAAAAA.


Gore and Hansen are indeed laughing all the way to the bank. Nope. They aren't the fools.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:32am PT
Reporting back Professor Hartouni. Are you referring to catch-CO2? Obviously CO2 is not a blackbody or we would have had a runaway greenhouse effect long ago.But why do we have to go deep into physics to disprove this farce, other than it's educational value?I ask again, is this thread a giant troll for entertainment value?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:35am PT
Healyje, I know Ed is smart at physics, but adherence to what I see as clearly flawed AGW science is questionable from what I've seen.

I lose respect at that point. Again, maybe I'm the fool, but logic and history tell me otherwise.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:46am PT
logic and history favor fat rich white bastards

I never said that un-truth, only a racist/bigot like you would introduce that into this discussion. Says a lot about your mindset.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:48am PT
Maybe I'm just stupid and Al Gore And Ed are smarter than me
Do you know what an order of magnitude is?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:53am PT
Do you know what an order of magnitude is?


Yes I do. Do you know what bedding with the wrong company means?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Jun 14, 2013 - 01:02am PT
our conservative foil gets testy at our rifle scope getting tuned properly


Be careful. that rhetoric can get you in trouble.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Jun 14, 2013 - 01:54am PT
Now of that 115ppm increase the portion attributable to anthropogenic causes is 3% of 115ppm or 4.45ppm.

I'd like to know where Rick found that. I'm not going to go back in this thread to find it if it was mentioned before. It's bullsh#t.
raymond phule

climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 03:45am PT
I believe that he has mixed up the human contribution to the carbon cycle and the human contribution to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

I doubt that he can find a single source from people like Spencer, Cristy, Lindzen, Svensmark, etc that back him up on that claim.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 14, 2013 - 10:25am PT
I think Raymond is on to something.

I believe this post is where Sumner got confused.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221&msg=2159440#msg2159440

More on our contribution to the carbon cycle:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm



You can see about 40% of human initiated emissions are not being absorbed by land or sea, hence the incredible jump in CO2 atmospheric concentrations.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 14, 2013 - 11:06am PT
a newer study from the University of Waterloo..



Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.
CFCs are already known to deplete ozone, but in-depth statistical analysis now shows that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.”Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong,” said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo’s Faculty of Science. “In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming.”

Read the rest at phys.org
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 14, 2013 - 11:07am PT
Maybe I'm just stupid and Al Gore And Ed are smarter than me.


A very short scientific study could establish where Blue lands on the scale of stupidity, buy why waste the time when a quick look at his posts will get us 99% of the way there.

Insane people don't think they're abnormal. In the same way, obstinate people don't bother to view the scene from a high-enough perspective to understand the issues from both sides, they prefer to stand solid with their viewpoints no matter how silly it makes them look.

Not one person here is able to show that the science that points to AWG is wrong, try as they may. When the science is unquestionable, those in denial say that science itself is bull-putty.

Go for it Blue, show us you're as smart as Ed by responding with something of substance. And take your time composing it, cause that's gonna be one large task.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 14, 2013 - 11:12am PT
So a study now indicates CFCs being a culprit. Far more believable than CO2 wouldnt one think? As CO2 is a needed ingredient in our atmosphere. I alluded to this earlier in a black carbon statement. What say you GWers?
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 14, 2013 - 11:15am PT
Ron, nice cut-n-paste job. Did you read the paper?


Here's what I quickly found:

In response to Lu’s most recent publication, several different scientists interviewed by the Vancouver Sun each said that Lu’s conclusions “[go] against 150 years of very fundamental physics.”

And:

A new paper by Qing-Bin Lu in the International Journal of Modern Physics B is gaining coverage for its claim that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), not CO2, is causing global warming. This sensationalist headline is often repeated with little mention that Lu’s claims are not new, and have not held up to scientific scrutiny in the past. In fact, Lu has been promoting his theories about CFCs for years, and mainstream scientists have found no merit in them. Critics have said Lu makes a fundamental scientific error by confusing correlation with causation, and does not effectively challenge the physical evidence of the warming effects of CO2, a body of knowledge built up over 150 years.


Read more here: Qing-Bin Lu Revives Long-Debunked Claims About Cosmic Rays And CFCs


In other words, try again...
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jun 14, 2013 - 11:19am PT
Mchale- below is one of the sources for 3% anthropogenic contribution.From Dr. Fred Singer.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 14, 2013 - 11:33am PT
This graph comes from an article by David Rose in the online March 16 Daily Mail (U.K.) As Rose pointed out, "The orange and red bands on the graph show the computer predictions of world temperatures used by the official United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

But you see that black line? THAT line tells the tale. Short version: You got scammed by Al Gore and the global warming salesmen. The big code-blue planetary emergency was a sham, and scientists who didn't play along got punished and/or marginalized as "science deniers." But now, Gore's famous global-warming "Hockey Stick" is clearly broken.

You'll definitely want to check out the full details of the Daily Mail story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html

Nor is the Daily Mail the only media outlet reporting this situation. Christopher Baker of the Telegraph (March 9) pointed out the same new information, as well as the high costs to Great Britain because of their Climate Change Act, and he effectively labeled global warming as "the greatest and most expensive scare in history...with all the terrifying political and economic consequences we see around us today."

The Economist (U.K.), also ran a story on March 30, pointing to the same graph data and admitting that "climate change has plateaued", although it still tried to argue for global warming (heh!), and saying "the world still needs to deal with it."



So, what do you think about this information? Remember, this new stuff comes from the same United Nations gang that Al Gore's famous global warming movie relied on. (The new stuff was apparently leaked, according to FoxNews online.) Anyway, it's on the table now, and it's not going away.

Meanwhile, President Obama has already called for spending several billion of your tax dollars on various global warming efforts in fiscal year 2014. In fact, in his recent Inauguration Day speech, he even hurled the same infamous "science denier" accusation that was, and still is, being used to browbeat scientists and others into accepting the global warming sham/scam: ("Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science..."). But now you see that Obama spoke way too soon.

In light of this new IPCC scientific information, Congress will hopefully tell Obama a sincere "No Thanks", and thereby cut your piggybank a bit of well-deserved slack.

And by the way, the next time the House Education Committee offers a bill that asks Kansas science classes to "provide information to students of scientific evidence which both supports and counters a scientific theory or hypothesis" with reference to global warming, let's go ahead and send a very clear message for the State Board of Education to take that House bill seriously, yes?

Comment
Share on print
Share on email
More Sharing Services





What IS the real driver for all of this GW --government and their planned GW TAXATIONS. Yes when ever our gubbmint sees an opportunity to further line their pockets, they are onboard 100%...

raymond phule

climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 11:46am PT
Mchale- below is one of the sources for 3% anthropogenic contribution.From Dr. Fred Singer.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

So Singer is the author of that page?

Not that it really matters. I just find it strange that you and most other "skeptics" have no problem with ignoring everything from thousands of scientist but buy without questioning what a single persons say if you like what he says.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 14, 2013 - 11:53am PT
even the number of scientists in agreement have been fraudulent..Like Obama and his 97% figures.


If this were such a cut and dried thing, WHY is the debate going on? Why is there AS MANY sites debunking GW as there are in favor of current "theories"? As many of you that think the whole "terrorsim" angle here is just a government scam to take away rights, youd think you would give more of a look to this GW scamming as well.


But i do have a question. When i burn a piece of plastic, i can see the effects, the smoke and the particulate matter. When i exhale i see nothing.
Which is worse for our atmosphere? The black particulates floating in the breeze, or my breath? (yeah i know,,, and a buffalos fart)...
raymond phule

climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:03pm PT

If this were such a cut and dried thing, WHY is the debate going on?

Because people like you want another answer.


Why is there AS MANY sites debunking GW as there are in favor of current "theories"?
Because some people want another answer. There are webpages about almost all views about everything.

If you and the other "skeptics" on this site and many of the other skeptics would at least show a little understanding of the science and the tools used in the science (statistics, math, reading graphs, logic etc) it would be possibly to take the "skeptics" a little more serious.

Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:17pm PT
well, in consideration ive even heard of "super fires" being blamed on GW ( there ARE NO super fires)


Ive heard politicians get up and make speeches about the "increased tornado" activities. ( they are actually LESS)


Ive heard them blame the polar bear decline on GW. ( It has actually been proven just the opposite.


Science also thought the reef fish would flounder under GW , they have not and in fact just the opposite.


Ive even heard theories that our forests decline due to a paltry degree or two of "warming".. HOG WASH all of it.


Ive seen the articles warning of "drastic sea level changes.. ( all 17 to 22 inches of it in the next 80 some years. (at worst)


Ive seen the propaganda poster of the poor polar bear adrift in the melted ice seas. Knowing all the while polar bears commonly travel on ice chunks like we do in taxis.

When a cause uses FAKED propaganda repeatedly, it smells to me much like the car salesman that says the ride is CHERRY and never crashed before.



In regards to Forestry and silviculture :



Many ECO causes have all but shut down actual treatments of our Forests. Those now linger in stagnation and the insect and diseases have become the standard. Yes the USFS hands are tied due to many causes such as GW. And in that tying of the hands, we watch as billions of stems go dry - dead standing. Those stems act like sponges to draft moisture from the air and ground. The soils in those stands then dry out as well. Hotter, drier micro climates are the results. Are we doing anything to combat this obvious factor? NO, due to the causes that have shut them down. In my opinion the eco groups involved in these angles have cut their nose to spite their faces. Have there even been any studies of large scale forested areas that are now dead standing dry wood? Not only do we loose natural scrubbers and users of CO2 but we loose the cooler temps of thick lush green canopies that shade and keep moisture in the ground. Yet the local districts must fight for a tiny amount of force account regeneration- ie tree planting.

Instead of contributing to polar bears that are doing just fine, one should buy some seedlings to plant. Youd be doing far better for GW causes that way.

Messages 7401 - 7420 of total 27299 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews