Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Paaskynen wrote:

Well Mr R. I have looked through this entire thread and I think I will pass. I counted that you have posted 161 entries out of 635 in this thread (which means roughly one in four messages is yours). Out of those, 65 mention one or more sources, but 4 of those are not about the subject of global warming and climate change and 36 repeat an earlier source in part, or in its entirety, which leaves 25 messages that list new sources. So I guess this implies you cannot "accept" between 60% and 85% of your own messages.

Furthermore, I have noticed that you are not in this to create knowledge, but to create discord. You are patronising and arrogant to users who do not agree with you.

You have in the course of this thread already received many sources that demonstrate the existence of climate change and global warming, which is a fact accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists. The disagreement is only about the details and the modelling, but that is normal in science. I have come to the conclusion that no matter how many sources I cite to support the existence of climate change and global warming it won't make one iota difference in your comportment, it will only fuel your polemic nature.

I don't know about you, but I have a life outside of A2K. With a full time job, family and hobbies, I do not have the time or energy to spare to engage in a pointless back and forth debate with you.

Note that I do not concede any point here, I mere plead no contest because I cannot be bothered (and I kick myself, for actually having started compiling a list of scientific sources ).

Have a nice life, Mr. R.

Pasa, you shouldn't even waste your time with an idiot and liar like massegetto. He can't even post to the proper threads usually, and even when he does post to the right thread he lies through teeth. You should know that he has recently boasted of having a background in the sciences yet has none, and is as usual just blowing $hit out of his mouth again about illusory victories over imaginary foes to pump up his cyber ego.

Regardless of what you would post he would deny its relevance and misquote you to build a strawman argument.

He has been banished several times from the A2K site for erratic personal behavior that most on A2K think borders on mental illness and he has returned against the terms he agreed upon when he first signed on to the website. In this he has shown his dishonest nature and utter contempt for common deceny. He posts crazy things dozens of times per day here because he has no other life.

Such a lonely man is to be pitied, but you should not feed trolls like him.

And dear gungasnake, your remarks about the non-anthroprogenic nature of GW are so ignorant of factual matter that I wonder how you can even breath. You ought to take the time to check out things before you continually make yourself look stupid to the world at large. But, you do it so often I wonder, is it your hobby?

Pretty soon you will start to post crazy things like masegetto does while he barks at the moon.

0 Replies

Kuvasz- Flattery will get you nowhere!!!

0 Replies

Gungasnake wrote:

quote
Global warming is probably real, but humans have less than nothing to do with it. Stars like our sun simply go through hotter and colder periods and, in fact, global warming appears to be taking place on Mars and one or two other planets as well, on which humans do not live.

6000 - 8000 years ago by standard reckoning, there was an age called the hypsothermal or late holocene climate optimum which was much hotter than our own age and there was a so-called "mini ice age" in the 1600s, neither of which had anything to do with human activities any more than present climate changes do.

end of quote

You make some good points,Gungasnake, but here is some recent evidence that also supports you---

quote
Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming

N. Scafetta

Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA

B. J. West

Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Mathematical and Information Science Directorate, U.S. Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA

Abstract

We study the role of solar forcing on global surface temperature during four periods of the industrial era (1900-2000, 1900-1950, 1950-2000 and 1980-2000) by using a sun-climate coupling model based on four scale-dependent empirical climate sensitive parameters to solar variations. We use two alternative total solar irradiance satellite composites, ACRIM and PMOD, and a total solar irradiance proxy reconstruction. We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45-50% of the 1900-2000 global warming, and 25-35% of the 1980-2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted.

Received 19 December 2005; accepted 30 January 2006; published 9 March 2006.

Index Terms: 1616 Global Change: Climate variability (1635, 3305, 3309, 4215, 4513); 1626 Global Change: Global climate models (3337, 4928); 1650 Global Change: Solar variability (7537); 1699 Global Change: General or miscellaneous; 1739 History of Geophysics: Solar/planetary relationships.
************************************************************* Of course, Gungasnake- People like Mr. P. or Parados or even Username never try to rebut such evidence..They can't!!!!

0 Replies

<yawn> Geeze, more ignorant cackling from the untrained mind, I see. Were such a mind a palate, I half expect the dear fellow to smile with brown-stained teeth while munching a dog turd and declaring it sweet Belgian chocolate.

The Scafetta/West paper reviewed, defended by Scafetta, and the paper's conclusions debunked here: read for oneself the debate and breakdown of the paper's calculations and erronrous conclusions.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/solar-variability-statistics-vs-physics-2nd-round/

Even the debunked conclusions reported by Scafetta/West of a 25-35% solar forcing of GW for the last two decades, and increasing as the century procedes lend credence to the fact that anthroprogenic causes account for an ever increasing factor of GW. The paper does not debunk any of the major themes current in GW analysis.

The phrase in the Scafetta/West abstract of "some theoretical models" does not imply that "all theoretical models" of climate change predictions are questioned by the authors.

So, like the bogus claims from the works of Balunius, Soon, and Gray, yet another dog turd is offered up as sweet chocolate by one who can not descriminate one from the other.

0 Replies

Another way of looking at the thing is to note that if WWII did not cause the great man-made ecological disaster, it simply is not going to happen.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Bernard, have you read Page 62, wherein I related to Parados the scenario about the environmentalists causing the hauling of garbage from Kansas to Oklahoma as an example of a total waste of energy, wear and tear on highways, and an unnecessary loss of life? I think Parados has been rendered speechless, as he has no answer to the logical conclusion of that situation, wherein the tree huggers are totally documented as a total bunch of losers.

And where did Paaskynen come from, now trying to claim that normal weather events that kill people are attributed to climate change?

okie, perhaps you would like to wait longer than 12 hours on a Friday night before accusing someone of not answering you. If you want to be as rude as Bernard. Feel free but I will treat you the same then.

You claimed you know personally of such an accident? Then why couldn't you post a link to an obit or a news story. Certainly a death in the remote area of Oklahoma would make news. (Would you accept that I personally know someone that was killed by climate change or would you demand evidence?) I can find nothing through google about a driver for the transfer company dying. Waste Connections lists 2 outstanding lawsuits over accidents in its Edgar filings. One is from Nebraska. The other is for an injury at an Oklahoma landfill.

The road from Wichita to Menlo OK is a US highway or a US Freeway to an Oklahoma state road. 688 tons per day are transferred. I doubt you will find a road engineer that will tell you that 20 trucks a day do major damage to a road compared to all the other traffic. (Wichita trash is no longer shipped to Oklahoma. They built a landfill in Kansas. )

Sorry okie, your argument is still BS.

If the "tree huggers" are losers then why is there now a landfill in Kansas that is used for Wichita? Your argument is defeated by recent facts.

0 Replies

I'm late to this thread but directly addressing the title, its not one or the other, its both sides of the same coin. Fighting over oil, burning it to screw up the atmosphere. If anyone thinks its something to do with religion or "freedom" they should think again.

0 Replies

I do have to say Bernard and Gunga make me laugh

Quote:

Global warming is probably real, but humans have less than nothing to do with it.

Quote:

You make some good points,Gungasnake, but here is some recent evidence that also supports you---

Quote:

We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45-50% of the 1900-2000 global warming, and 25-35% of the 1980-2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century,

I didn't realize that 65-75% is "less than nothing" until Bernard and Gunga told me.

0 Replies

Not that I can't sympathize with those afflicted with hypochondria, it's just that "global warming" is such a flagrant crock of ****.

Want something more worthy of worrying about? Try worrying about the weenie shrinkers shrinking your weenie:

http://magazine.magnus.se/artikele.asp?artikel=peniskry

It seems obvoius enough to me that the African tribesmen dealing with this dire problem are more in tune with reality than "scientists" worrying about "global warming".

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

..."global warming" is such a flagrant crock of ****...

many more people far more qualified to comment than you would disagree with you mr reptile.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Not that I can't sympathize with those afflicted with hypochondria, it's just that "global warming" is such a flagrant crock of ****.

Want something more worthy of worrying about? Try worrying about the weenie shrinkers shrinking your weenie:
http://magazine.magnus.se/artikele.asp?artikel=peniskry

It seems obvoius enough to me that the African tribesmen dealing with this dire problem are more in tune with reality than "scientists" worrying about "global warming".

Then I shall endeavor to give your wife a wide berth.

Shall we rename you gungaworm?

0 Replies

It makes sense that Gunga would be overly worried about his penis shrinking.

Somethings are painfully obvious to Gunga...

0 Replies

parados wrote:

It makes sense that Gunga would be overly worried about his penis shrinking...

all that slithering about presumably

0 Replies

parados wrote:

It makes sense that Gunga would be overly worried about his penis shrinking.

Somethings are painfully obvious to Gunga...

gunga ain't hunga no mo'

0 Replies

I didn't say that weenie shrinkers were worth worrying about; just that they were MORE worth worrying about than "global warming". That isn't asking for much of anything.

As Rush Limbaugh notes, the sum total of all the pollution the human race has ever created from Alley Oop to this day is less than that of a medium sized volcano.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

I didn't say that weenie shrinkers were worth worrying about; just that they were MORE worth worrying about than "global warming". That isn't asking for much of anything.

As Rush Limbaugh notes, the sum total of all the pollution the human race has ever created from Alley Oop to this day is less than that of a medium sized volcano.

and of course you believed that was relevent?

did that idiot also mention that the pollution from a volcano acts as a global warming surpressant by absorbing and blanketing the light from the sun whereas the man-made pollutant that cause global warming is mostly CO2?

the two types of atmospheric pollutants referenced are not similar and they have opposite affects on climate change.

the fricking moron.

you ought to spend your time worrying about your penis dimensions for all you bring to the dimensions of this discussion.

0 Replies

Not to mention the fact that it's a totally bullshit statistic. Anybody that believes anything Rush Limbaugh says without checking it for himself repeatedly is a moron. CO2, while not technically speaking a pollutant, is the main anthropogenic cause of global warming. Over the last 600,000 years and six ice ages, C02 has varied from about 180ppm to about 300ppm, and there have been hundreds of volcanoes active during that period. And the figure never got above about 300 ppm. That's on a year-to-year or decadal resolution scale too, when we know CO2 in the atmosphere stays there for on average a century, so it would have showed up in the record. Human activity has driven it up to ca. 390ppm, and volcanoes had a miniscule effect at most. And that doesn't even mention the mountains (literally) of crap we produce every year that dwarf a volcano's output.

0 Replies

At least Username gives some statistics instead of mindless name calling.

I am certain that one of the ways to know whether your arguments are winning, Gungasnake, is when your adversaries begin to name call. That means they are frustrated and have no rational arguments left.

Now to look at Username's interesting post----

According to Marland et. al. in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change

see

www.http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm

"the annual Global Carbon emissions went up from One Billion Tons per year in 1925 to Four Billion Tons per year in 1975".

This did not appear to cause any rise in the surface temperature which did not start to climb until 1980.

Mr. Username does not tell us that about 55 percent of the released Co2 is absorbed again by the oceans, by northern forest regrowth and generally by increased plant growth> The concentration of CO2 has increased by 31 percent from pre-industrial times to the present day.

Mr. Username's post may frighten some of us but Mr. Username must first answer these questions:

l. HOW MUCH DOES THE INCREASED AMOUNT OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE AFFECT US? IF THE EFFECT IS SLIGHT, GLOBAL WARMING MAY NOT BE PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT.

2.COULD THERE BE OTHER CAUSES BEHIND THE INCREASING TEMPERATURE?( I have posted some scientific peer-reviewed studies which claim that solar activity may be the cause of a great deal of the slight rise in temperature)

3. Are the scenarios written up by the IPCC reasonable? Some of the Assumptions fed into the IPCC scenarios are off the mark( just as the predictions made by the hapless purveyor of doom--Paul Ehrlich( who said we would all starve to death by 2000 because we could not control the population growth or grow enough food)

Ehrlich was way off. So are some of the IPCC assumptions!

Now, Username, Instead of just bloviating, I gave a link. Do you have one for your claims or do you really expect me to take your claim on faith.

I have found that the defenders of Global Warming are quick to bloviate but cannot come up with scientific peer-approved studies.

0 Replies

Oh, yes, Mr. Username- I would love to hear your theory about what we must do about the DEADLY co2 emitted by China. You can find evidence of that both in the column written by Samuelson--Greenhouse Hypocrisy--and charts showing China's future emissions.

Do you think, Mr. Username, if we Nuked them into submission, they would cease their "pollution"

I am sure you will not anwer this question.

0 Replies

username and anyone else interested, time to post this again.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

This site provides just a little information on the subject, which for me serves to remind me of the complexity of the science, and therefore more convinced that we really know very little about what is going on, and anyone that thinks they can is basically full of it. The science of climate is in its infancy and many theories are bound to evolve and change. We are not even close to understanding it.

0 Replies

Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know