71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 08:01 am
@okie,
By the way okie..

This picture doesn't explain why the average date for freezing and ice out on northern lakes has changed.
Nor does it explain why migratory birds are moving south almost 2 weeks later in the year then they did 50 years ago.
Nor does it explain the increase in the satellite readings.
Nor does it explain the number of glaciers that are retreating.

Hell, it doesn't even explain why most of the "skeptics" on Inhofe's list admit that the globe is warming and just have differences with why it is warming or how catastrophic the warming will be.

Arguing that the globe isn't warming shows an inability to see the totality of the science. Even Soon and Lindzner aren't willing to make such a stupid argument.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 08:02 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Can you post evidence that this monitor is included in the data that shows warming?

Can you post evidence that you exist, or that you have graduated from high school? Or better yet, post evidence that the weather station is not included in the data that shows warming?
parados
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 08:02 am
@H2O MAN,
You avoiding hanging out with tea baggers squirt? Or do you still watch Beck and Hannity?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 08:04 am
@okie,
I see you can't post any evidence. OK..

Fact - not all temperature sites are used in the data for GISS or HADCRUT.
Fact - Posting pictures of sites doesn't provide any argument about warming data in GISS and HADCRUT unless you also provide evidence that the site is included in the data.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 08:27 am
@parados,
I knew you participated in that sort of activity... don't bother sharing pictures of you
and your comrades tea bagging each other., we really don't want to see that here.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 03:34 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

I see you can't post any evidence. OK..

Fact - not all temperature sites are used in the data for GISS or HADCRUT.
Fact - Posting pictures of sites doesn't provide any argument about warming data in GISS and HADCRUT unless you also provide evidence that the site is included in the data.

Are all of the orange weather stations not used, Parados? At least all of those have questionable or very very poor siting standards and are probably delivering bogus temperature data.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/files/2009/07/ushcn-surveyed-7-14-09.jpg
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 05:26 pm
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
339
Former New Zealand Science Ministry analyst Don Stewart, a UK-based researcher in geological and biological history, said, "The residual ice caps and glaciers we see today have shrunk considerably since 2450 BC. Furthermore, British reports from navigators and explorers since Elizabethan times show that there has been a significant retreat since those first empirical observations available to us from their logs written up to 200 years before the Industrial Revolution that is often falsely blamed for global warming." "Although the pollution of 200 years of carbon-based industrial activity may have contributed a miniscule factor, either reducing or increasing the already-rising atmospheric temperatures, the globe's own natural heat from molten lava and iron at its core, in addition to the sun's rays heating the atmosphere, means that the ice caps could not exist forever anyway and in fact now look like disappearing altogether within 4500 years (2450 BC - 2050 AD) of their formation." Stewart dismissed claims that UK floods were evidence of man-made global warming. "At the moment, we really have insufficient empirical evidence to conclude that is true," he added. (LINK)

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
340
Chemist Frank Britton rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. "CO2 makes a very small contribution to the Earth's temperature. It is only 0.039 percent of the atmosphere. Nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor and argon comprise more than 99 percent of the atmosphere. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is not a particularly effective greenhouse gas. Out of the wide spectrum of radiation received from the sun, CO2 only absorbs energy from three very narrow levels," Britton wrote in a July 28, 2007 article in the Pasadena Star titled "Global Warming is Nature's Doing." "Many people believe there is a difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2. There is no difference. Carbon dioxide is comprised of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. CO2 is a natural, vital part of biological life. Ants, termites and decaying foliage account for the formation of most of the CO2. There are more than a quadrillion ants and termites," Britton explained. "Global-warming activists believe mankind is altering the Earth's temperature. Although many know that man's contribution is negligible, it is not to their political advantage to reveal this fact. Climate scientists receive funding from the government to research causes of and solutions to man-made global warming. If the current warming were demonstrated to be the natural cycle, this funding would be cut," he added. "Carbon dioxide's contribution to global warming is minimal; water vapor is the great buffer for the Earth's temperature; the oceans control this process. Human beings have no measurable control over global temperatures," he concluded. (LINK)

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 06:33 pm
Have you heard about Prince Charles and Gordon Brown flying to Copenhagen is separate aeroplanes in order to tell us all to take public transport more often.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 06:52 pm
@spendius,
Have you heard about this?
Quote:
-WHAT FINANCIAL CRISIS? (Wash.DC says)!
While we're still trying to digest the out-of-control spending of Congress and their going abroad like royalty this year,
and all their living "high on the hog", most recently to the so-called "Climate Conference"...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126092430041092995.html?mod=article-outset-box

...we see that Pres.0 has now decided Air Force One isn't good enough for he & Michelle....
Bet many of you have not read anything about this either? The Government is seeking appropriations to replace existing Air Force One Aircraft! I guess that 747-200 isn't big or expensive enough for them? Attached is link to Government Notification Soliciting Responses From Industry on their willingness and ability to participate in the acquisition. Haven't ferreted it out yet but I'll bet their money was in both the Stimulus and 2010 Defense Budget for this, as well as the Marine One Presidential Replacement Program!
SEE THE DOCUMENTATION AT:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?tab=core&s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e35e259abc36437e8e7665d42bdac9b2

0 Replies
 
Always Eleven to him
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 08:39 pm
@kuvasz,
Okay, so I'm one of those who stumbled on to this thread . . . . Kuvasz, you've done some amazing research here. In going back and reading some of the thread, I haven't seen anything nearly as well documented. Thank you for what you've done to collect the sources and to refute the junk science.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 08:54 pm
@okie,
LOL...

So you only have a map with a bunch of colors on it and no evidence of what is used and what isn't? But you don't want that to stop you from ignoring other evidence and making claims that aren't supported I see.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 09:03 pm
@parados,
It is not incumbent upon me to prove the data, that is the responsiblility of the global warmer hoaxers, and so far they have failed miserably. There is no evidence, and they have so much as admitted to cherrypicking data, and throwing away the original data but keeping the numbers that were boilerhoused. Huff and puff, Parados, but your whole house of cards is well, just a house of cards. You guys are going to have to provide more evidence than you have so far. Prove your weather stations are sited properly, and prove the data is real. Then, you are going to have to do some valid science besides some worthless modeling. You have nothing so far. Besides, the global warmers are some of the most energy wasteful bunch of people known, examples Al Gore and all of the jetsetters gathering in Copenhagen. The entire thing is frankly a joke.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 09:19 pm
@okie,
Right.. You don't have to prove that your claim the data is false. You don't even have to prove that the sites you point out are in the data. You just have to throw **** in the air and expect us to accept your **** is perfume.

So..
You still haven't explained the other 5 things I pointed out that have nothing to do with the weather stations but clearly point to a warming globe.

You are a one trick pony okie. Point out what you think is one flaw and think that it causes everything to collapse. Sorry okie, it doesn't work that way. You have to deal with ALL the data if you want to refute it.
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 09:43 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Have you heard about Prince Charles and Gordon Brown flying to Copenhagen in separate aeroplanes in order to tell us all to take public transport more often.
You know if there wasnt so much at stake that sort of hypocracy would be funny. Makes you wonder how many of our glorious leaders really believe in this Global Warming rubbish.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 09:46 pm
@parados,
It is you guys that are throwing crap in the air and expecting the world to swallow your crap. It is you that need to prove something, and you don't even have the original data in some cases, nor can you prove your weather stations are even credible, let alone your computer models.
0 Replies
 
Always Eleven to him
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 08:11 am
@okie,
Oakie wrote:
Quote:
It is not incumbent upon me to prove the data,


Good science involves proofs. Citation to data and sources makes a statement more credible. Remember Aristotle's rhetoric -- logos, ethos, pathos. You'd gain more in each category with proofs.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 08:29 am
All good socialist / communists in the Democrat party believe in man made global warming.
Global warming is an anti-capitalist movement and nothing more.
ican711nm
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 03:12 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN, I claim the "socialist / communists in the Democrat party" are better described as Coveters->-alias->-Democrats->-alias->- Liberals->-alias->-Progressives, or more simply described as thieving coveters.

Regarless of whether these thieving coveters are correct that the globe is warming, they do not have even the simplist evidence to show how much any global warming is caused by human emissions of CO2. They cannot provide any credible evidence that tells us what percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is put there by human activities versus evaporation from oceans, lakes, rivers, and streams. Furthermore, they cannot provide any credible evidence about what percentage of global temperature increases are caused by increased CO2 emitted into the atmosphere versus caused by increased solar irradiance into the atmosphere.

The best they can do is claim there is a scientic consensus that the CO2 caused to be emitted by humans--whatever the hell the percentage of total CO2 emissions that really is--is the major cause of global warming.

I'd like to see the names, backgrounds, and opinions of each of those allegedly making up the alleged scientific consensus they claim exists. But this they do not provide.

Here's what I can and do provide!

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
341
Dr. John Brignell is a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton and was awarded the Callendar Silver Medal by InstMC. He also served on a committee of the Institute of Physics and currently publishes the website http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/ with the mission to expose "scares, scams, junk, panics and flummery cooked up by the media, politicians, bureaucrats and so-called scientists and others that try to confuse the public with wrong numbers." His motto is "Working to Combat Math Hysteria." "Global warming is a new phenomenon in human affairs. Not only is it now a major religion, but it has an associated industrial complex of a wealth sufficient to give it unheard of political power throughout the world. It presides over a virtual monopoly of research funding," Brignell wrote in July 2007. (LINK) "Clearly, global warming is anthropogenic (man-made). It exists mainly in the human mind and is manufactured from two sources - careless data acquisition and dubious data processing," Brignell wrote. In November 2007, Brignell, who wrote a book entitled Sorry, Wrong Number: The Abuse of Measurement, compiled a list of over 600 things allegedly caused by global warming. To see the full list with weblinks to the source, see here: (LINK)

0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:39 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
All good socialist / communists in the Democrat party believe in man made global warming. Global warming is an anti-capitalist movement and nothing more.
For years I have tried to work out how so many scientists could be fooled and in the end I had to conclude that they are not fooled. They know Global Warming is rubbish.

The next step was to conclude what about this was there that made them at best amoral. Certainly their direction is anti-capitalist but why ? Are they greenies or anti-nationalists ??
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 06:41 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Are they greenies or anti-nationalists ??


Interesting question...
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/19/2024 at 07:21:57