Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Of course it's taking place. But one tenth of one degree per decade is nothing to worry about. Or is it one twentieth of one degree per decade? Maybe if we use Scenario No. 36, we can agree that it is one fifteenth of one degree per decade. The IPCC has set up forty possible scenarios!

Dr Lomborg said--"We should NOT spend vast amounts of moneyto cut a TINY SLICE OF THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE WHEN THIS CONSTITUTES A POOR USE OF RESOURCES"

Now, when Kuvasz can PROVE, AND I MEAN PROVE BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT GLOBAL WARMING FROM CO2( not from any other natural sources) IS RAISING THE TEMPERATURE ONE DEGREE PER DECADE, OR EVEN ONE HALF DEGREE PER DECADE, I WILL PAY ATTENTION.

There are so many problems involved in reaching a statement which CAN BE PROVEN BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT THE EARTH WILL WARM AT A CERTAIN LEVEL PER EACH DECADE, THAT ANY DISCUSSION IS USELESS.

We have already seen how an Idiot from Stanford, Paul Ehrlich was so utterly wrong in his prediction of continued population growth at a fast rate. Does Kuvasz know whether a pandemic might not kill millions in Africa, Europe or the USA? Does Kuvasz know whether we might have nuclear war? Does Kuvasz know whether the drive for lowering the birth rate in Africa and other countries might not surprise everyone as it surprised Ehrlich.

Would that then make the factor fed into the Models incorrect?

The truth of the matter is that neither the IPCC nor Kuvasz can accurately predict the future.

0 Replies

I was accused of being dishonest, proved I was lied about, and the person who called me dishonest doesn't even have the manhood to admit his error and apologize for the slander and instead attempts to hide from his mendacious behavior.

What a pu$$y.

No wonder the US lost in Viet Nam with such cowards in our armed forces.

0 Replies

Well, You may say so, Mr. Kuvasz but I am sure that you were not awarded a Purple Heart for wounds sustained in action!

Did you serve, Kuvasz? When? I doubt they would let doctrinaire socialists into the service.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Of course I summed it up. I am capable of cutting through your bull$hit. But, no "my" side doesn't "believe," it has established data to back up its positions for the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and concomitent rise world-wide in temperatures on land, sea, and air. The disease can not be accounted for by traditional natural causes. Even the infamous Dr. Lomborg agrees with this assessment.

The disease is the climate change and the assessment, the diagnosis is correct. And I would point out to you and others that you have not ever been able to show any evidence where I (and Parados) personally prescribed any of the medicines you claimed we did. My brook here has been solely to counter the mouth breathers who deny the science of climate change for purely personal political reasons.

If you are the honest man you presume to be, and have any moral, ethical, or intellectual integrity then when you post in response to me here, quote me where I have listed the medicine to alleviate the disease. If not, here as elsewhere you are showing yourself as simply a liar or whacko like massegetto and you are just making up $hit about me so as to win an imaginary argument you have made with yourself.

I have asked a dozen times for proof to claims you and massegetto have made about me seeking or promoting the destruction of the US economy by placing severe restrictions on CO2 emissons. Instead of validating your position by positng any facts to support your claims, all you and massegetto have done is hide your face and engage in a hoary tap dance away from admitting you are both bold-faced liars.

So kuvasz, you now agree with me, or do you? I think we need some clarification of your obfuscated opinions here. To accomplish that, kuvasz, I wonder if you can answer the following 2 questions as what your opinion truly is?

1. Is global warming occurring and is it definitely man-caused, linked with CO2 production by man?

2. Is global warming a significant enough of a problem, warranting significant political action, such as should we sign on to Kyoto? Is Kyoto a reasonable treatment for the above problem? This question is especially perntinent if your answer to #1 is yes, but can still be answered regardless of your answer to #1.

0 Replies

okie -- You should know that people do not wish to censor Bernie/Massa but absolutely hate his style and his disrespect for everyone here, manifested in his use of the honorific prior to the names of men with whom he disagrees. It's a control measure. Transparently childish.

Bernie/Massa has been kicked off -- not censored for his viewpoint -- because he repeatedly breaks the rules. I suspect post-traumatic stress syndrome has something to do with his inability to control his behavior.

More than anything else, we wish he would be less boring and more succinct.

0 Replies

So is Bernard gone? For breaking what rule?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

Of course I summed it up. I am capable of cutting through your bull$hit. But, no "my" side doesn't "believe," it has established data to back up its positions for the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and concomitent rise world-wide in temperatures on land, sea, and air. The disease can not be accounted for by traditional natural causes. Even the infamous Dr. Lomborg agrees with this assessment.

The disease is the climate change and the assessment, the diagnosis is correct. And I would point out to you and others that you have not ever been able to show any evidence where I (and Parados) personally prescribed any of the medicines you claimed we did. My brook here has been solely to counter the mouth breathers who deny the science of climate change for purely personal political reasons.

If you are the honest man you presume to be, and have any moral, ethical, or intellectual integrity then when you post in response to me here, quote me where I have listed the medicine to alleviate the disease. If not, here as elsewhere you are showing yourself as simply a liar or whacko like massegetto and you are just making up $hit about me so as to win an imaginary argument you have made with yourself.

I have asked a dozen times for proof to claims you and massegetto have made about me seeking or promoting the destruction of the US economy by placing severe restrictions on CO2 emissons. Instead of validating your position by positng any facts to support your claims, all you and massegetto have done is hide your face and engage in a hoary tap dance away from admitting you are both bold-faced liars.

So kuvasz, you now agree with me, or do you? I think we need some clarification of your obfuscated opinions here. To accomplish that, kuvasz, I wonder if you can answer the following 2 questions as what your opinion truly is?

1. Is global warming occurring and is it definitely man-caused, linked with CO2 production by man?

2. Is global warming a significant enough of a problem, warranting significant political action, such as should we sign on to Kyoto? Is Kyoto a reasonable treatment for the above problem? This question is especially perntinent if your answer to #1 is yes, but can still be answered regardless of your answer to #1.

From what passage of my remarks have you come to the conclusion that I agree with you?

I have asked you and your marginally sane colleague on several occasions to state where I have called for the destruction of the US economy. Rather than answer that simple question and supply me with documentation for your accusation you two have embarked on a concerted campaign of denial and obfustication.

I must remark that since I have posted now for months on the facts climate change is occurring that at minimum you must have reading difficulties if you do not know now the facts on global warming and upon where I stand on the issue. And it is you who have finally agreed with the experts on this topic that the earth warming is occurring. I know that because instead of denying the reported data that records that the earth is warming, you have attacked the manner by which such data is collected by declaring for the opinions of Vincent Gray and his debunked theories on heat islands in populated areas. Since you agree that warming is documented, yet Gray's heat island theories have been assessed and found without merit by the IPCC report, one should be an adult and admit that global warming is occurring, and due to man-made causes.

as to your remark:

okie wrote:

Is global warming a significant enough of a problem, warranting significant political action, such as should we sign on to Kyoto?

Are you sufficiently mentally flexible to understand that one can agree with the first clause of your interrogative and yet question the validity of the assumption from which the second clause arises?

so yes, "global warming is a significant enough of a problem, warranting significant political action."

And maybe yes, maybe no should we sign on to Kyoto.

After all, only a dummy would think that what we knew in the mid 1990's in the infancy of the understanding on global warming should drive the actions now nearly a decade later. However what we knew then and know better today is that the problem is real is perhaps a lot worse then we knew in the mid 1990's and it will not go away if we ignore it.

as to this remark:

okie wrote:

Is Kyoto a reasonable treatment for the above problem?

Before one answers are you referring to the problem of global warming as it was perceived to have existed in the mid 1990's when the Kyoto Accords were being developed, or now ten years hence? These things matter. For if actions set out in Kyoto were base upon a 70% probability of global warming occurring from our understanding of the problem in 1996 and now ten years later they have a 99% chance of happening, what course would you take today that would be different than the actions you would have taken then? You can reverse the probabilities if you want a mental excerise and also come to the same conclusion on the mental process by which an opinion is made on action, viz., it depends on the data as to how one acts.

Now, since I have once again answered yet another of your silly questions either you or your nutbag bag ally show me where I stated any desire to wreck the US economy.

btw: and for you marginally sane colleague: I was a proud member of the US Army Corps of Engineers, 1974-76.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

so yes, "global warming is a significant enough of a problem, warranting significant political action."

And maybe yes, maybe no should we sign on to Kyoto.

Maybe yes, maybe no? What is it. What should we do, kuvasz? What exactly is your political action recommended? I'm trying to get you to quit dancing around the issue and get to the point.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

so yes, "global warming is a significant enough of a problem, warranting significant political action."

And maybe yes, maybe no should we sign on to Kyoto.

Maybe yes, maybe no? What is it. What should we do, kuvasz? What exactly is your political action recommended? I'm trying to get you to quit dancing around the issue and get to the point.

dear okie, why avoid my original question put to you and your marginally sane colleague to please offer up where I stated that I have called for the destruction of the US economy.

on to your stupidity.... can you read English? Seriously, can you actually read and form complete thoughts? I have to wonder if you have an upper brain stem at all when you ask what I mean by my remark:

Quote:

And maybe yes, maybe no should we sign on to Kyoto.

which was followed by:

Quote:

Before one answers are you referring to the problem of global warming as it was perceived to have existed in the mid 1990's when the Kyoto Accords were being developed, or now ten years hence? These things matter. For if actions set out in Kyoto were base upon a 70% probability of global warming occurring from our understanding of the problem in 1996 and now ten years later they have a 99% chance of happening, what course would you take today that would be different than the actions you would have taken then? You can reverse the probabilities if you want a mental excerise and also come to the same conclusion on the mental process by which an opinion is made on action, viz., it depends on the data as to how one acts.

ugh....Let me make simple, simple even okie understand.

Me want know from okie, is data from 1996 or today to make decision to support Kyoto protocol?

Comprende'?

Do you understand what a false syllogism is? I ask because you are apparently a natural at presenting them.

0 Replies

Study: Antarctic snowfall remains static[/url

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Aug. 10 (UPI) -- U.S. researchers say the most precise record of Antarctic snowfall ever generated shows no real increase in precipitation during the past 50 years.

The study's results from the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University show the snowfall was nearly static, although most computer models assessing global climate change call for an increase in Antarctic precipitation as atmospheric temperatures rise.

"The year-to-year and decadal variability of the snowfall is so large that it makes it nearly impossible to distinguish trends that might be related to climate change from even a 50-year record," said Andrew Monaghan, a center research associate and lead author of the study.

"There were no statistically significant trends in snowfall accumulation over the past five decades, including recent years for which global mean temperatures have been warmest," Monaghan said.

The findings also suggest thickening of Antarctica's massive ice sheets haven't reduced the slow, but steady, rise in global sea levels, as some climate-change critics have argued.

The research is published in Science magazine.

0 Replies

Okie_ I am very much afraid that Kuivasz can't read. He either cannot read or refuses to respond to a statement that blows his thesis out of the water.

I have posted it often. I will post it again:

Dr Lomborg said--"We should NOT spend vast amounts of moneyto cut a TINY SLICE OF THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE WHEN THIS CONSTITUTES A POOR USE OF RESOURCES"

Now, Okie, I will prove to you that Kuvasz and Parados are frauds.

I will rework my previous points( as you may recall, I listed them as l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc.

I will post the first five to see whether Kuvasz dares to answer the questions implicit in those posts. If he does, I will post the next five.

He did not respond the first time. Neither did Parados.

Why,Okie?

They are so sure of their positions that they could easily rebut anything I write--Is that not so? They could easily rebut the following---

quote

"One such IPCC loyal study finds that the solar hypothesis explains about 57 percent of the temperature deviations and that the data suggest a climate sensitivity of 1.7C, a 333 percent reduction of the IPCC best estimate"

Again, Kuvasz and Parados are frauds, Okie. In almost every one of my posts, I referenced Scientific peer approved studies.
KUVASZ AND PARADOS NEVER EVER QUESTIONED THOSE STUDIES.

What is the study above that found that 57 % of the temperature deviations came from the solar hypothesis?

It is Laut and Guderman-"Solar cycle length hypothesis" Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestial Physics 60(18):1-719-28

NOW, Okie, it well may be that Kuvasz or Parados have a rejoinder to that article. I welcome the rejoinder. I await the rejoinder. But they do not DIRECTLY respond to each article but rather blah-blah about other unrelated topics.

As I said, they are frauds otherwise they would have been able to answer each and every question I posed.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote: (Thank you , McGentrix--another nail in the coffin of the frauds)

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Aug. 10 (UPI) -- U.S. researchers say the most precise record of Antarctic snowfall ever generated shows no real increase in precipitation during the past 50 years.

The study's results from the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University show the snowfall was nearly static, although most computer models assessing global climate change call for an increase in Antarctic precipitation as atmospheric temperatures rise.

COMPUTER MODELS, YES,COMPUTER MODELS.

DID YOU KNOW, MCGENTRIX THAT THE IPCC HAD 40, YES 40 Scenarios devised? Did you know, McGentrix that because the data fed into the MODELS which ASSUMED AN INCREASE IN ARCTIC PRECIPITATION was wrong, the R E S T O F T H E O U T C O M E O F T H E
S C E N A R I O W O U L D A L S O B E F L A W E D.

Do not expect any answer from Kuvasz or Parados on this, McGentrix. they dont know how to handle evidence which rains on their parade!!!

0 Replies

I find it fascinating, well fascinating as a train wreck that I am unable to get either party responsible for hurling accusations that I advocate the destruction of the US economy to respond with proof that I have made such statements. Instead, I have watched retarded efforts to obfusticate and misdirect to other topics which either I or Parodos have answered repeatedly.

I note again that the repeated failure to respond with direct proof to these allegations place both parties beyond the pale of common deceny and unworthy of future reponses. Perhaps others wish to respond to the insanity of a brace lying jerk offs, but not me.

And I repeat, why is someone who has been banished from this site several times posting here under another name in direct violation of the terms of membership?

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

dear okie, why avoid my original question put to you and your marginally sane colleague to please offer up where I stated that I have called for the destruction of the US economy.

on to your stupidity.... can you read English? Seriously, can you actually read and form complete thoughts? I have to wonder if you have an upper brain stem at all when you ask what I mean by my remark:

Quote:
And maybe yes, maybe no should we sign on to Kyoto.

which was followed by:

Quote:
Before one answers are you referring to the problem of global warming as it was perceived to have existed in the mid 1990's when the Kyoto Accords were being developed, or now ten years hence? These things matter. For if actions set out in Kyoto were base upon a 70% probability of global warming occurring from our understanding of the problem in 1996 and now ten years later they have a 99% chance of happening, what course would you take today that would be different than the actions you would have taken then? You can reverse the probabilities if you want a mental excerise and also come to the same conclusion on the mental process by which an opinion is made on action, viz., it depends on the data as to how one acts.

ugh....Let me make simple, simple even okie understand.

Me want know from okie, is data from 1996 or today to make decision to support Kyoto protocol?

Comprende'?

Do you understand what a false syllogism is? I ask because you are apparently a natural at presenting them.

Pick the one you want, kuvasz, from 1996 or today, whichever you think is most pertinent or accurate. Instead of tirading about my brain stem, can you answer a simple question? What is your solution to the problem?

Bernard, have patience and maybe the white dog will answer a simple question. I don't think he wants to, but I've put it in as simple terms as possible. Let us see if he will. After all, it is only a question of clarification as to what his opinion really is. I hope he knows.

0 Replies

He is pitiful,Okie. Now, he has descended to the level of trying to have me banned from these threads. He can't do that because I do not call people names like "as." or "moro."!! He and others like Frank Apisa and Cicerone Imposter( who, incidentally has bragged that he has been suspended three times) are name callers.

Again, if we go back through these threads, we will find question after question after question that has not been answered.

If some those questions were answered, then, Okie, focus could be put on the point about the destruction of the American Economy. But since neither Kuvasz or Parados have been able to answer the questions posed, that question concerning the destruction of the American Economy cannot be answered.

You see, Okie, if, as I suspect, Kuvasz and Parados, want to impose Draconian( I will be the judge of what Draconian is) measures on the American Economy, the Economy will indeed be hurt badly. Since Kuvasz and Parados are left wingers and probably Socialists, they are adamantly opposed to President Bush and wish to remove him from office.
Adoption of the entire package promoted by the extremists among the Global Warmists would indeed cause millions to vote against President Bush and others in the GOP.

You will note, Okie, that Parados does not have a great deal to say anymore and Kuvasz just flails around with meaningless blah-blah.

They have assiduously avoided,Okie( I am sure you have noticed) saying something like---If we don't cut x % of our coal emissions and y% of our oil usage in a year, our surface temperature will rise to z.

They don't say that because they cant.

They don' t have the INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD PASS MUSTER IN A COURT ROOM WHERE EVIDENCE IS USED WHEN IT IS TRUE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!!!!

0 Replies

okie,

Where is my statement that we need to destroy the economy? It doesn't exist. I never said it. No matter how you try to add up my statements you can't find anywhere I implied it or said it.

Where is your statement that we should destroy the earth and kill all the humans? If we take your argument to the extreme and add 2+2 and get to 10,000 as you do for my statements perhaps you can tell us why you are proposing to kill off 6 billion people.

Bernard,
Perhaps you are incapable of understanding plain English. You promised to answer my question. You have not done so. I see no reason to talk to you until you show some level of decency and honor.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

okie,

Where is my statement that we need to destroy the economy? It doesn't exist. I never said it. No matter how you try to add up my statements you can't find anywhere I implied it or said it.

Where is your statement that we should destroy the earth and kill all the humans? If we take your argument to the extreme and add 2+2 and get to 10,000 as you do for my statements perhaps you can tell us why you are proposing to kill off 6 billion people.

Parados, where did I say that you said we need to destroy the economy?

As to your second question, I don't know what statement you are referring to about killing all humans or getting 10,000, or killing 6 billion people? Are you okay, Parados?

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

He is pitiful,Okie. Now, he has descended to the level of trying to have me banned from these threads.

kuvasz is trying to get you banned after telling you to go kill yourself? How do you get people banned anyway, I've never tried, but maybe we need to turn the tables on a guy that goes around telling people to go kill themselves?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

kuvasz wrote:
You know Parados, I cannot seem to find any comment I made about supporting the destruction of the US economy In fact, I cannot seem to find anywhere where I promoted any such envirornmental actions. I certainly asked for any such proof to be presented on repeated occasions yet it wasn't.

Have you?

Then what is this argument about? You global warmers have argued for the 2 and 2. Bernard simply added them together for you to get 4, since you don't seem to grasp the result of your own arguments.

If global warming is at the tipping point as Al Gore has asserted, and man produced CO2 is the culprit as has been asserted here, then fairly drastic action to reduce CO2 production almost completely would be required to reverse the trend before wholesale climatic destruction descends upon us all. Since no viable alternative means exists of producing the energy required to fuel the economy at approximately current levels, simple math tells us the only way to solve the problem is to park our cars and let the economy go south in a big way.

Did you not agree with Bernard in this statement okie?

You added 2 to 2 and come up with 10,000.

What is your argument okie? Please explain if you can.

0 Replies

You know how to read, Parados( I hope). You missed the following---

If some those questions were answered, then, Okie, focus could be put on the point about the destruction of the American Economy. But since neither Kuvasz or Parados have been able to answer the questions posed, that question concerning the destruction of the American Economy cannot be answered.

You see, Okie, if, as I suspect, Kuvasz and Parados, want to impose Draconian( I will be the judge of what Draconian is) measures on the American Economy, the Economy will indeed be hurt badly. Since Kuvasz and Parados are left wingers and probably Socialists, they are adamantly opposed to President Bush and wish to remove him from office.
Adoption of the entire package promoted by the extremists among the Global Warmists would indeed cause millions to vote against President Bush and others in the GOP.

They have assiduously avoided,Okie( I am sure you have noticed) saying something like---If we don't cut x % of our coal emissions and y% of our oil usage in a year, our surface temperature will rise to z.

They don't say that because they cant.

They don' t have the INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD PASS MUSTER IN A COURT ROOM WHERE EVIDENCE IS USED WHEN IT IS TRUE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!!!!

If Global Warming due to CO2 is going to raise our surface temperatures 4C degrees by 2100( HadleyCentreGCM temperature simulations)
JUST EXACTLY WHAT HAS TO BE DONE TO PREVENT THIS?

You see, Okie, they will NOT tell us. They will not tell us because if they believe the outrageous scenarios proposed by the Global Warmists such as the one above, the changes that they would propose would be horrendous!

The reason that they have NEVER said specifically that the surface temperature will rise X degrees C by 2025 or 2050 or 2075 so we must DO THE FOLLOWING TO SEE TO IT THAT DOES NOT OCCUR,. IS THAT
NOONE EXCEPT THE MOST EXTREMIST LEFT WING SCIENTISTS WOULD GO ALONG WITH THE PRESCRIPTION!

So, Okie- Do you think that the have either the information or the moral courage to present the scenario that faces us because "the sky is falling"?

They do not and they will not tell us that we have to close x number of coal fired power plants or remove y number of autos and trucks from the road which pollute or slash cement production by z percent.

They wont do it because if they did they would be laughed at!!!!

0 Replies

Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know