Global Warming - Page 69

TheChief · #**681** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyBob

Global warming is a hoax.

Well said!

BillyBob · #**682** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheChief

Well said!

Sometimes it only takes a few words to win an argument.

By the way, BL responded to you in the 'Trolling' thread....I'm still laughing....

TheChief · #**683** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyBob

Sometimes it only takes a few words to win an argument.

By the way, BL responded to you in the 'Trolling' thread....I'm still laughing....

yeah.. i read it...

NoSocialism.com · #**684** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

No - I don't remember the Global Cooling/New Ice Age scare in the 70's. I don't remember it because I was there and it didn't happen. I do recall one article in Time Magazine which gained some notoriety, but that was just the opinion of one journalist making assumptions about the bleeding obvious based on geological time frames - ie. yes - we are heading to a new ice-age eventually, some time in the next 10,000 or so years.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html

Please read this paper (THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
which described a literature review of climate science papers published between 1965 and 1979.

What was found was that in that time there were:

- 7 articles predicting cooling
- 44 predicting warming
- 20 that were neutral

That hardly looks like there was a Global Cooling/New Ice Age scare in the 70's, does it.

Please stop repeating this nonsense.

7 Articles??? Are you freakin kidding me!! I remember between the ages of 13 through 16 we were fed this horse poop, I remember it because I was scared to death, we moved to Florida when I was 15 and I remember thinking to myself that all of this would be underwater. We used to do School projects on this stuff, they used to talk about it in the news all the time. Just keep in mind, back then we didn't have the 24 hour news, we didn't have the internet, we didn't have as many ways as we do today that the enviro-wacko's could spread their lies, so it wasn't quite as widespread back then, but it was still an ever-present reminder. I remember Especially during the Blizzard of '77, how they went ape $hit over this whole Ice Age thing.
You can read your little documents about it, I was there, I remember it all.

Oh, and by the way, if you take the time to get informed, you'll find that the number one supporting piece that you have about CO2 driving Climate, it's ALREADY BEEN PROVEN, that it's the other way around, in a little documentary called the Great Global Warming Swindle. You want to talk about science? THAT is real science, and to top it off, most of the information came from ... Wait for it .... Wait for it .... Lead Author of the IPCC report, John Christy!

TheChief · #**685** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoSocialism.com

7 Articles??? Are you freakin kidding me!! I remember between the ages of 13 through 16 we were fed this horse poop, I remember it because I was scared to death, we moved to Florida when I was 15 and I remember thinking to myself that all of this would be underwater. We used to do School projects on this stuff, they used to talk about it in the news all the time. Just keep in mind, back then we didn't have the 24 hour news, we didn't have the internet, we didn't have as many ways as we do today that the enviro-wacko's could spread their lies, so it wasn't quite as widespread back then, but it was still an ever-present reminder. I remember Especially during the Blizzard of '77, how they went ape over this whole Ice Age thing.
You can read your little documentations on it, I was there, I remember it all.

Oh, and by the way, if you take the time to get informed, you'll find that the number one supporting piece that you have about CO2 driving Climate, it's ALREADY BEEN PROVEN, that it's the other way around, in a little documentary called the Great Global Warming Swindle. You want to talk about science? THAT is real science, and to top it off, most of the information came from ... Wait for it .... Wait for it .... One of the lead authors of the IPCC report!

True i remember back in high school both human biology, chemistry and geology books all had chapters on global warming (wtf??) and my little brother sais that every since al gores movie the inconvenient truth came out the year 9 class has to watch it.. EVERY YEAR. Were being brain washed and it's sickening. The whole basis of that crappy movie was WRONG yet were still feeding it to our children!?!

MannieD · #**686** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

Do we know how many of the groups you cited are qualified to review the research? No.

Answering me with a question is no answer. I'll ask it again:
Do we know how many of the 19,000 are qualified to review the research?

Quote:

Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC’s, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small– perhaps undetectable– effect on global climate.

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

My Bold. That statement is incorrect. So the conclusion wrong is because it is based on incorrect facts.

MannieD · #**687** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rino

Really?

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com...al-of-man.html

Your correct. I was wrong.
I'll have to amend my statement to "The scientific debate over AGW is all but over"
I would comment on the mistakes on that page but my time is limited. I recommend you research some of that information yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

I think you own Rino $200 for his research mannie. Thanks Rino. I do believe it's time to end any debate with these two. They have proven themselves unarmed.

You can send him the check you owe me for my research correcting you on your claim that the weather station data in inaccurate by posting the satellite data.

NoSocialism.com · #**688** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MannieD

Answering me with a question is no answer. I'll ask it again:
Do we know how many of the 19,000 are qualified to review the research?

My Bold. That statement is incorrect. So the conclusion wrong is because it is based on incorrect facts.

Here are some people that ARE qualified to review the research on this video.

Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology, University of Winnipeg; "It's not that we don't believe there is no global warming, it's that we don't believe that it's man made".
Professor Nir Shaviv, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem; "There were periods when the earth had 3X and 10X CO2 as we have today, if CO2 drives climate, we should see it in the Temperature reconstructions".
Professor Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottowa; "We can't say that CO2 will drive Climate, it certainly never did in the past"
Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T.; "To build the number up to 2500, they had to include a number of Non-Scientists on the list, like reviewers and government people and so on - And none are asked to agree, many of them disagree"
Professor Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris; "Those people who are specialist, but don't agree, and resign, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this 2500 scientist"
Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of Greenpeace; "I don't even like to call it an environmental movement anymore, because it's become a political movement, and they've become hugely influential at a global level"
Dr. Roy Spencer, Weather satellite Team Leader; NASA"Climate Scientist need there to be a problem in order to get funding"

That's just the first 4 Min. of this 1Hr. and 13Min Documentary!

TheChief · #**689** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoSocialism.com

Here are some people that ARE qualified to review the research on this video.

Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology, University of Winnipeg; "It's not that we don't believe there is no global warming, it's that we don't believe that it's man made".
Professor Nir Shaviv, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem; "There were periods when the earth had 3X and 10X CO2 as we have today, if CO2 drives climate, we should see it in the Temperature reconstructions".
Professor Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottowa; "We can't say that CO2 will drive Climate, it certainly never did in the past"
Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T.; "To build the number up to 2500, they had to include a number of Non-Scientists on the list, like reviewers and government people and so on - And none are asked to agree, many of them disagree"
Professor Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris; "Those people who are specialist, but don't agree, and resign, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this 2500 scientist"
Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of Greenpeace; "I don't even like to call it an environmental movement anymore, because it's become a political movement, and they've become hugely influential at a global level"
Dr. Roy Spencer, Weather satellite Team Leader; NASA"Climate Scientist need there to be a problem in order to get funding"

That's just the first 4 Min. of this 1Hr. and 13Min Documentary!

oow do the rest pretty please? i've watched this movie like a dozen times!