Science & Technology

Rant

Don't Think Of Global Warming

Posted 7 months ago|128 comments|1,969 views
Is It The Solar Flares?
VIDEOS
Written by
Altruist
Eugene, OR
No one is talking about Climate change or global warming any more. All of the news people are very careful not to draw any connections between all of the record fires, droughts, floods, tornadoes, etc. etc. and climate change, even though this type of behavior is exactly what all of the climate scientists predicted would happen.

The fossil fuel industry has done a very good job of making people think that all of this climate change stuff is a big conspiracy. They hired the same people that the tobacco Industry hired to spread doubt about the health effects of tobacco, and they are using the same tactics.

The trouble though is that the evidence keeps mounting up. The ice caps are melting. We are having all of these extreme weather events, and despite the voices from the media that are saying don't think about this now. It is sort of like being told Don't think about an elephant. Once told that it is impossible.

Here are some other interesting things not ot think about. The climate deniers say that humans aren't causing all of these extreme events. It is the sun spots or some other nonsense. The only thing is that the 11 year solar cycle is just coming out of a decline and will now start increasing it's radiation. But them scientists don't really understand how tha sun effects the climate. After all the radiation reaching the earth only varies by .1% and the decline in the UV radiation is often offset by an increase in the visible radiation. http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cy...

Another thing not to worry about is that even though the Chinese have increased their coal plants by 800 % in the last 10 years with a huge increase in CO2, most of the effects of the increase in CO2 is being masked by the Sulfur they have been pumping into the air. The atmospheric sulfur shades the earth so it isn't as hot. Unfortunately atmospheric sulfur results in unpleasant things like acid rain, acidification of the oceans, and photo chemical smog which kills people. SO the Chinese are going to start using pollution controls in their coal plants to cut back the sulfur pollution and then the earth will get hotter because it will no longer be shaded by the sulfur. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...

When you are sweltering in the record heat this summer try not to think of the fossil fuels that are causing this, and don't think of the record profits they are making while they pollute our planet.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
7 months ago: Al, I know this subject is near and dear to your heart so I looked into it and I think I got to the bottom of the problem. The following is an excerpt from a Science Daily article. The research was conducted by Robert Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State's Department of Mechanical Engineering.


He cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."


So I suggest Al, that we just destroy all the plants, which are causing 95% of carbon dioxide release into the atmosphere and presto problem solved. (I should have been a scientist : )
7 months ago: There are several reasons why you have the wrong end of the stick there, Jakarta.

If you have a system in equilubrium, or balance, then you add an artificial burden to it, you no longer have stasis.

Example: Water flowing in to the sink and out the plughole at the same rate eg a liter a minute. Result: Level remains the same.

Example: Water flowing in to the sink and out the plughole at the same rate eg a liter a minute. But you add another 5% every minute. Result: overflow.

Example: You spend as much as you earn. Result: Not bankrupt.

Example: You spend 5% more than you earn. Result: Bankrupt.

Example: The earth's ecosystem deals with the carbon cycle: Result: Relative stasis.

Example: The earth's ecosysrem deals with the carbon cycle, but every year for the past 250 years you burn exponentially more carbon, and remove exponentially more trees. Result: Carbon accumulates.

If you think that is theoretical, well, you will be suprised that since the industrial revolution, atmospheric carbon has not been in stasis, but has been climbing at an unprecedented sustained rate. It's not volcanoes.

Sorry about your science aspirations. A little learning and all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon...
Truthbrary
Truthbrary
Canada
7 months ago: Here is a video for those who aren't politically slanted already... with comments by retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball ...any climatologists here retired or not to debate it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHHsithnE...
Truthbrary
Truthbrary
Canada
7 months ago: For those who enjoy research...
DR. TIM BALL'S CLIMATE DIGEST SERIES
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.ph...
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.ph...

PROVIDING INSIGHT
INTO CLIMATE CHANGE MYTHS / FACTS
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.ph...
7 months ago: Those are some great links Truth, thanks.
7 months ago: Stan, you would have a valid point I suppose if in fact it were proven that man produced carbon dioxide even had the ability to absorb a sufficient amount of the suns' radiation spectrum, which is necessary for heating in the sense suggested as "the green house effect".

Taking into consideration atmospheric physicist James A. Peden's research and analysis on carbon dioxide which man produces through fossil fuel use, there seems to be adequate evidence that this form of carbon dioxide simply does not have the ability to retain the radiated heat as prescribed in your example.

And do I need to mention that right now there is about 380ppm of CO2 in the air. While in the past it has been over 5000ppm and the earth did not explode into a ball of fire. In fact it did just fine.
7 months ago: Alrighty. I guess I would have a valid point.

(1) How many sorts of CO2 do you know about and how do you tell the difference? Is volcano CO2 a greenhouse gas whereas other CO2 isn't?

(2) When was the level 5000ppm? Are you talking about 500 million years ago. Was agriculture sufficient to support 6 billion people at the time? Did the planet support people at all?

"Explode into Ball of Fire" is a straw man argument. We are talking about life and agriculture and 6 Billion and more people to be fed. Be serious.

"Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4–5 times during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.[29][30] Human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.[31]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere

7 months ago: Okay Stan I'll play, hoping you will reciprocate.

1. Several, and yes volcanic CO2 is considered to be a green house gas.

One for you. How many factors determine the earths climate.

2. The level of CO2 was 5000ppm before I was born sometime.

One for you. How old will you be when man made CO2 supposedly destroys the world if we don't change our ways?

Let's be serious for just a minute. Unless you have the capacity to create a planet I suggest you don't have the capacity to destroy one. Regardless of our arrogant and overestimated ability to control the earths climate we are seldom able to get a three day weather forecast right.
7 months ago: 1. So you are happy to believe that "Volcanic CO2" is a greenhouse gas but dispute that "non-volcanic CO2" is a greenhouse gas? Right.

Well, imagining that you are right, did you know that deforestation is meaning that more and more of your "volcanic CO2" is accumulating and increasing the greenhouse effect. And that more of the anthropogenic CO2 is taking up the capacity of the forests so they have less capacity to process your "volcanic CO2". You are pretty much trapped with your own words here. Quit while you are ahead on this one, or start denying that 'volcanic CO2" exists. Nevertheless, the "volcanic" CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to the limited capacity of the forests, whatever your theories.

Numerous factors determine the earth's climate.

2. "The level of CO2 was 5000 ppm before I was born sometime". You have a fatally limited sense of time, Jakarta. Do you mean 100 years ago or 500 million years ago? Where do you get your information?

Don't run too many of your straw man arguments in one go. "CO2 supposedly destroys the world". Who says? If you don't care about the facts, don't try to make an argument with nonsense, please.

You make worthless arguments. "Unless you have the capacity to create a planet I suggest you don't have the capacity to destroy one." Guess what? We have the capacity to wipe out thousands of species. We have the capacity to cut down most of the forrests in the world. We can definitely do this. It wouldn't even destroy the world. It would ruin it for our current civilization and many of the animals though, if you care about that. Your attitude is a destructive one where it doesn't matter what people do because there are no consequences.

When was CO2 5000ppm?
7 months ago: I did not really say I believed volcanic CO2 was a green house gas. I'm not
an atmospheric physicist. I did say it was considered to be one. This is
somewhat like the way you avoided my initial evidence from an actual
physicist on the matter of fossil fuel produced CO2 actually being able to
create a green house effect. It's funny how that evasion tactic has a way of
coming back around.

I don't really see that I am trapped because my theory is; if we knew as
much about this as you seem to think we do then there would not be well
educated people debating this issue and thus less educated people such as
ourselves would also not be debating it. It is pretty straight forward and simple
actually.

Yes numerous factors determine the earth's climate. Now how many of those
are we in complete control of?

No I think I have a fair sense of time Stan. Here it is. You cannot
control what has happened before you were born. If there are six billion
people then you only control a very miniscule share in what happens during
your time here. If you claim this problem is larger than what the next
generation has the capacity to deal with then you are in affect saying you
are smarter and better suited to deal with it, thus we need to be doing more
now because the next generation of idiots won't know how to deal with it, if this is the case then you are an arrogant cad. So, do what you feel you should do now and don't feel that you have control over what happened before or after Stan was here because it is
a delusion.
7 months ago: Continued

If you are saying CO2 does not destroy the world then once again you must be
saying we should do more than we can now because the next generation won't
have the capacity to address this situation, if it is one.

Uhmm lets see...... I make worthless arguments as opposed to yours I'm guessing. Okay I say unless man can create a planet I doubt he can destroy it. No way to prove either. Now you say " Guess what? We have the capacity to wipe out thousands of species. We have the capacity to cut down most of the forests in the world. We can definitely do this. It wouldn't even destroy the world. It would ruin it for our current civilization and many of the animals though" Well the first part there, the wipe out thousands of species thing. If you stay on board with your mainstream science then you surely know that way more species have gone extinct with no contact whatsoever by man than with contact of man. And then from the very small amount left there is no way to prove those species that went extinct while in contact with man would not have gone extinct regardless. So the man causing mass species extinction thing has to go in the improvable box. Now as for the ruining the world for our current civilization and many animals as well, oh yea that has happened so many times we should know better………..not. Never happen, can no more be proven to happen than my assessment that man does not have the capacity to destroy the planet.
No Stan it appears that unless you can prove we will mess everything up as you say or that species only go extinct with mans help then I would say both our arguments are pretty much in the same boat, be they worthless or not.

7 months ago: When was CO2 5000ppm?

Per Wikipedia, for all that's worth, but since you used it as a source:

Various proxy measurements have been used to attempt to determine
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels millions of years in the past. These
include boron and carbon isotope ratios in certain types of marine
sediments, and the number of stomata observed on fossil plant leaves. While
these measurements give much less precise estimates of carbon dioxide
concentration than ice cores, there is evidence for very high CO2 volume
concentrations between 200 and 150 Ma of over 3,000 ppm and between 600 and
400 Ma of over 6,000 ppm.[5] In more recent times, atmospheric CO2
concentration continued to fall after about 60 Ma.
7 months ago: Right.

So, you don't claim to know anything about atmospheric physics.

"if we knew as much about this as you seem to think we do then there would not be well educated people debating this issue and thus less educated people such as ourselves would also not be debating it."

Well, that's a pretty clear indication of why you choose to side with the minority and fringe scientists and the consensus of science, instead of understanding the mainstream science. Good for you. But don't think it's an argument for your cause.

Sure, you don't have to care about future generations if you don't want to.
7 months ago: So, you are saying that CO2 was at 5000ppm somewhere between 400 and 600 million years ago.

Are you saying the world was fine for human habitation back then?
7 months ago: So, to summarise your case, Jakarta.

We should not try to prevent harm to the environment because Jakarta, a man on the internet who does not know about science, has identified that there are fringe scientists who go against the 99% consensus of legitimate scientists. Just like those ones who don't believe in the germ theory of disease.

Accordingly, because Jakarta has presented an incoherent theory that there MIGHT NOT be irreparable harm, we should act as if we are certain that we cannot harm the environment. PS. Let the future generations pick up the pieces, or not, if they are like us and backwards.
7 months ago: Your argument is exactly as sensible as saying, "If you don't know how to make a vase, then you sure as hell won't be capable of breaking one."

The problem with your arguments is that you start with your conclusions and then make your facts fit.
7 months ago: Well as I mentioned to Al, that whole climategate thing pretty much summed up the extent of which the mainstream scientist would go to sell their wares. These are the type of people I teach my kids to avoid, i.e. deceivers.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...

Actually I do care about future generations. I don't want to see them being lead around by the nose by a bunch of elitist politicians who wish to dumb us down and keep us occupied with false crusades in order to control them easier.
7 months ago: Your arguments are also akin to saying, "It doesn't matter if I defecate in the soup, no one has proved the germ theory of disease, and the next person who turns up will be better placed to deal with it than us folk."
7 months ago: Well, your kids won't be better informed than you, if you teach them to ignore science because of "climategate".

You go on spiting those elitist eminent scientists and you stick with your "common man" fringe scientists. Don't get dragged into any schemes.
7 months ago: Why, are you saying man was suppose to habitat the earth back then? Where is all that natural order stuff? No I'm saying there have been very high levels of CO2 in history and not caused by man.
7 months ago: There is a difference between a "planet" and a "vase". You do realize that right?

No I don't have a conclusion Stan. You have the conclusion. I have simply been debating the validity of it.
7 months ago: According to your analogy, as soon as we can make the planet uninhabitable, we would then logically be able to make a new one. You are welcome to that view, and it explains some of your reasoning.
7 months ago: No one has said that the atmosphere of 500 million years ago was caused by humans. The point is obviously that the planet of 500 million years ago did not have the habitable ecosystem it does now. It was brought into a modern equilibrium by the ecosystem. That ecosystem is a system we are influencing and damaging. The earth doesn't have the capacity to care whether there are 300 or 5000 ppm carbon, but the people definitely will.

You can go back further, to the point where earth did not have much of an atmosphere at all. That wasn't caused by man either.

All of your points, so far as they are true, are well understood by people who study science and provide us with knowledge. I hope you aren't surprised that none of your points are telling.

None of your points make any headway against the fact that carbon dioxide has been accumulating in the atmosphere due to recent and historically unprecedented human activities.

You are demonstrating the Dunning Kruger effect.
7 months ago: Well you will most likely summarize as you have been indoctrinated to do I suspect. However I would summarize along the lines of; If a nobody with only a minor college degree in business from a nowhere college can raise questions to this so called "global warming" which can not be sufficiently answered then the entire theory should be re evaluated.

Accordingly if we question the validity of theories which cannot be proven without an unquestionable belief in the scientist which put forward such theories then I suggest we also question the character of this entire scientific group.

I also never suggested we should act as if we cannot harm the environment. This is a typical reactionary response that seems to have been placed in subjects who are easily indoctrinated. This type of defensive reaction appears to come up when one feels threatened by reasoning. I've seen this lot. It is still somewhat creepy though.
7 months ago: It appears you choose to forget that the source I cited is a "physicist". You do realize the extent of education required to become a physicist don't you. I would say it is a bit more than you could call "common man" fringe scientists. And I have also given recorded documentation on the deceptions played out by those scientists you seem to have so much respect for. So you may want to reconsider your sources of material.
7 months ago: So you believe that mainstream scientists come to their research conclusions because they are "indoctrinated". Is it just in relation to climate science, or is it all the sciences that you reject because of this indoctrination?

In real life, science is all about re-evaluation.

However, the fact that you can "raise questions" that you cannot understand the answers to, is not the same thing. You are welcome to re evaluate whatever you like, of course. Don't let your lack of knowledge hold you back. Go for it. However, it's quite arrogant to think your lack of knowledge evenly counterbalances scientific knowledge.

The validity of theories aren't about reverencing the scientist who put them forward as you erroneously believe.

If you are so progressive as to believe we can harm the environment, you might even come to understand that such harm can come from deforestation, extinctions and pollution, as some scientists have been indoctrinated to believe.
7 months ago: If the amount of education required to be called a physicist is your measuring stick, then you've lost the argument.

99.9% or thereabouts of Phd scientists acknowledge human produced climate change. They have had thousand of man-years more education than the fringe alternative. Sorry.
7 months ago: I mean to say "Phd climate scientists".
7 months ago: "99.9% or thereabouts of Phd scientists acknowledge human produced climate change".

I would really like to see the actual proof on this statement. And please don't source a blog by Scruffy Sam who has estimated in his supreme intelligence. I have given solid sources and would like the same.
7 months ago: No Stan. He is saying. Don't defecate in my face without facts or at least a liberal court order.
7 months ago: As to your disease theory Stan. More people get and die from staph infections from contact made in hospitals than from anywhere else. Do you suggest we get rid of Hospitals? Whoa everyone! Get rid of all GHGs and Hospitals because they will make you sick! Where will your list end?
7 months ago: If I knew how your point related to what I said, I might be able to respond to your satisfaction.
7 months ago: "A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers"
7 months ago: Again Stan, this flows back to the IPCC which is highly suspect in my opinion. Nice shot though and if you could get something that does not stem from the IPCC I would be much more interested. Keep in mind; these types of "studies" are akin to taking a poll from union auto workers and asking them if union auto workers build better cars than non-union auto workers.

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/...
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
7 months ago: Classic "straw that broke the camel's back" argument. Problem is, there has been climate change before - just as fast and just as big WITHOUT enough humans to make a difference.

What, pray tell, brought the world out of the "little ice age"? Only a fraction of the people there are now using a fraction of the per capita energy use of our time so what caused the change?

What caused the midieval climate optimum that allowed the Swedes to raise temperate zone crops and the Brits to have a WINE INDUSTRY producing such high quality wine that the wine merchants of Rome got a law passed to prohibit importation/sale of British wine (crony capitalism is nothing new)?

What caused the last ice age to end when there were only a pitiful few humans on the entire globe?

But you are as entitled to your religious beliefs as anyone. Just don't try to force ME to believe in your fairy tales. You and the Red Queen can go on believing in 6 impossible things before breakfast all you want.
7 months ago: Was all of that carbon in fossil fuels not once in the atmosphere? Where did they get if from if it wasn't floating around at on time or another? You guys want to tell us that plants do not require CO2 to survive. Yeah, plants sequester it when they die and are buried. However, it is not man made. Man does not artificially produce CO2. It all comes from mother nature.
7 months ago: Yes, the atmposphere was not always the sort of atmosphere that people can breathe. Thanks partly, I think, to earlier types of organisms, including plants, sequestering carbon the atmosphere has become liveable for land dwelling, air-breathing animals with lungs.

7 months ago: So, Stan et al...You concede that once upon a time well before any land dwelling air breathing organisim the atmosphere was polluted by mother nature with tons and tons and tons of CO2, O3, N2O and CH4? Does your side et al want to continue on your save the planet tirades?
7 months ago: You might have to explain your point.

Is it controversial to you that there was a time millions of years ago that there were no mammals living on the Earth?
7 months ago: Cypress!
7 months ago: Hey Red! You want to really tick them off? Since they admit that all of that CO2 et al was around well before any living land organisim. We must ask the question...

Evolution? Hello? If we can't "Evolve" into CO2 breathing organisims could it be that we were "Created"?
7 months ago: Ok. If you thought what you said made sense, tell me, and I might be able to clear things up for you.
7 months ago: Come on Stan. Now your playing dumb. I need to explain the fact that man does not artifically generate CO2? All of that CO2 your side wants to place on our shoulders was produced a very long time ago and sequestered. You have a problem with reintroducing something back into its original environment?

You want the world to think that man is flooding the atmosphere with something made by man. Wrong. The only CO2 man produces comes by exhaling. The "Emissions" you claim that man produces is nothing more than re-establishing something back to its original state.

You want to talk pollution? What exactly is that? Remember, everything we produce comes in one form or another from this planet. What exactly does man produce that will not degrade in nature?
Felix Mannow
Felix Mannow
England
7 months ago: Al,
China has been a bit bad in history for pollution but it is trying to clean all industry up.
They are bring legislate to cover industry so can keep record and eye on.
It is world wide problems temperature going upwards.
In england having record dry time and all grass brown.
co2 is natural and is cow main produceing,
7 months ago: Remember that scene in Animal House where they frat is put on double secret probation and belushi starts everyone coughing and saying bull $4it...cough cough cough.

AL.....IT'S ALL A HOAX AL.
7 months ago: You crack me up Red !!
7 months ago: Alongside the works of various "no-human-activity-can-influence-the-ecosystem pundits" that ranks as an excellent and thoughtful contribution to the debate.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
7 months ago: Stan has given a good analysis of the situation. Plants and animals normally create and sequester CO2 in a natural equilibrium. It isn't until we pull fossil fuels out of the ground and burn them that the equilibrium is shifted. The other thing that shifts the equilibrium is that we are destroying forests at an unprecedented rate. 90% of the trees that used to cover America are gone. Now we are eliminating rain forests at an unprecedented rate. If the deforestation rate is not changed we will have lost 90% of the rainforests in a period of 40 years.

This isn't just about climate change and the ability of the forests to absorb CO2. The rainforests are home to 50% of the worlds' plant and animal species. http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

People cutting down and burning the rain forests accounts for 18% of the CO2 contributing to global warming. In addition now that climate change is kicking in, there are droughts that are killing the rain forests, and the loss of the rain forests are creating further drought conditions down wind because those trees are not pumping as much moisture into the air. The amount of CO2 created by humans has increased 30% in the last 300 years, half of that in the last 40. But at the same time we are destroying the means to absorb that CO2. http://www.rainforestconservation.org/ra...

In the past there were three things that absorbed and helped balance CO2. The forests absorbed about a third, the soil about a third and the oceans about a third. Now the oceans have just about maxed out and their absorption rate is going down because hot water absorbs less gas than cold water. At the same time the oceans are becoming acidic because of the Carbonic acid formed by that CO2, so that shell fish cannot grow shells that are strong enough. This and the over fishing is destroying the ocean ecosystem. http://www.helium.com/items/2144256-fact...

In addition to the CO2 that people are pumping out there are other green house gases like methane, that is 21 times as powerful as CO2 which is contributing to the greenhouse effect. Now that the arctic tundra is thawing out for the first time since the ice age and it is pumping millions of tons of methane and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...

Then there is the methane from human caused agriculture and the animals we raise. Normally animals don't fart much because they are adapted to eating their natural feed. By feeding animals grain it disrupts the systems and the animals produce many times more methane. Agriculture creates more methane than any other source. Animal agriculture produces more than 100 million tons of methane a year. And this source is on the rise: global meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past fifty years. http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.h...

And Truthberry Dr. Tim Ball is not a climatologist. He is a retired Geology professor in the pay of the fossil fuel indu
4 months ago: http://forestry.about.com/library/bl_us_forest_acre_trend.htm

90% Al? The 1800's was the time period of de-forestation, numbers have been increasing since the early 1900's, except the rain forest and that trend will slow soon as well.

If you were talking about 90% of the trees alive at a particular moment in time I'd believe you, just have to remember that most of those cut today to be repurposed are also replanted in larger acerage numbers than those cut.

Also most of the forest cut in this country was turned into farmland with more CO2 consuming plants than the forest could do on its own.

I think they should start building cities in the desert and turn most of those rural subdivisions back into farmland.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
7 months ago: Reached the word limit. Tim Ball is just another flack paid for by the fossil fuel industry to provide doubt about climate change. These are the guys the industry pays to tell you not to think of global warming, as the rivers flood, the forests die from bugs and forest fires, the tornadoes destroy towns, and the hurricanes get more powerful and common. Tim Ball is just another denial whore willing to prostitute his scientific integrity for a buck. Just like the fake doctors paid for by the tobacco industry, that told us that smoking was not harmful to your health.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?****...
7 months ago: This is link appears to be bunk from a liberal mud slinging site. But here are some actual facts about Dr. Tim Ball which are on record rather than hearsay.

"Tim Ball has an extensive science background in climatology, especially experience in water resources and areas of sustainable development, pollution prevention, environmental regulations and the impact of government policy on business and economics. He is a regular contributing writer for Country Guide magazine and a researcher/author of numerous papers on climate, long range weather patterns, impacts of climate change on sustainable agriculture, ecosystems, historical climatology, air quality, untapped energy resources, silting and flooding problems. After a long academic career at the University of Winnipeg, he moved to Victoria in 1996. He has a B.A. from the University of Winnipeg, an M.A. from the University of Manitoba and a PH.D. (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England".

http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/864

Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
7 months ago: Dr. Tim Bell and his industry denial propaganda machine does put out a lot of videos. Unfortunately these reasonable sounding arguments are not backed up by the actual scientific community or real climatologists. Each argument they put out is countered at the following site: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-d...
7 months ago: Oh Al let's not forget that whole wonderful climategate thing. Now there are a bunch of well educated global warming scientists who are also pretty good in the art of deception. Remember all those enlightening emails? Here let me remind everyone of the depth at which the global warming scientist will go to deceive, err, uhm, educate us.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...
7 months ago: Lets not forget about that.

However, the actual facts are on record, and the climategate emails don't disprove any of them.

Too bad for the conclusion you have settled on.
7 months ago: I guess you would have believed the consensus of the world's best scientists, if not for climategate. Lucky for you, climategate happened.
7 months ago: Stan, you have concluded the worlds best scientists back up global warming and are arguing that without any real facts...........just sayin.
7 months ago: Oh, well I guess I should be citing the world's best bible readers for you.

You've already concluded the world's best scientists are wrong. And you've already demonstrated you don't understand the real facts about the atmosphere.

If the facts satisfy the real scientists, I guess they have a long way to go before they satisfy you.
7 months ago: Where is Michael Mann et al today with the "Hockey Stick" theory? Dang, even yourside on "Real Climate dot Orgasim" has a decrease in global temps in the next few years. Yeah, I know....Sunspots....How does UV effect those nasty GHGs again?
7 months ago: I have concluded that there are some serious questions and evidence suggesting much of the global warming issue is far from being resolved or established.

I have concluded that often when the questions or evidence points out the discrepancies on global warming, the supporters tell me I should just believe the scientists who support global warming and those scientists who do not are just fringe whackos who don't know anything. This brings even more doubt to the situation as science is not supposed to be a "faith based" doctrine.

I have concluded that if a nobody such as myself can scrounge up serious questions about global warming and find well educated persons who have many doubts about it then I should be wary of jumping in head first.

I have concluded that the global warming people are trying to push the whole package on everyone as if it were a 50% off sale on jeans. The supporters insist we buy it now without thinking. Don't question, there's no time to think just act on impulse before the world ends or is made desolate. This in itself gives me strong reservations. Somewhat like the title of this rant, "don't think of global warming" just act on emotion I'm guessing. If the world has survived as long as the mainstream scientist say then it will survive the time it takes to investigate and establish the problem, if any, for certain.

These things I have concluded.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
7 months ago: As Stan has pointed out 6 independent committees investigated the "Climategate" controversy and concluded that while one or two of the scientists might have been a bit overzealous in defending their work, the emails were inconsequential in the overall scheme of things. http://theprojectonclimatescience.org/wp...

The science of climate change is solid, about 97% of the millions of climate scientists have reached consensus based on overwhelming evidence from thousands of different sources that global warming is happening and is human caused. http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/...

People like Jakarta who base their entire denial on two or three personal emails out of 2000 stolen documents, must never have sent out an email which included stuff you later regretted. To base your entire worldview on conspiratorial speculation about what one or two people might have meant when they sent those emails, while disregarding mountains of solid research accumulated over a hundred years by tens of thousands of independent scientists from all over the globe, indicates that you are not playing with a full deck. It doesn't matter what you read or hear from experts. Your mind is already made up.

You are saying that we are claiming that all of the scientists did not base their consensus upon facts. I wonder who you would believe? Even though Red is a fanatical conservative and a denier, he still likes NASA, would he believe what NASA says?

How about investigating their site? http://climate.nasa.gov/

How about the folk who are supposed to be in charge of studying the oceans and the atmosphere? A new scientific study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reaches a powerful conclusion and shows how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009...

How about part of the business community that is usually super conservative and only gives money to the Republicans. The Insurance Industry has no doubts about global warming because they have to pay out for the increasing disasters global warming is creating. http://marketplace.publicradio.org/displ...

Most conservatives are pro military and believe what the military says. The Defense dept. says that Climate Change is a significant threat to our security. http://www.pewenvironment.org/uploadedFi...

In fact Jakarta if you read any scientific journal or magazine that is not funded by the fossil fuel industry you can read thousands of articles and studies proving that global warming is human caused. Take your pick. Just realize that if you refuse to belie
7 months ago:
Checked out the NASA website Al. Pretty informative, especially this quote;

"This website presents a data-rich view of climate and a discussion of how that data fits together into the scientists' current picture of our changing climate. But there's a great deal that we don't know about the future of Earth's climate and how climate change will affect humans".

Really love the "there's a great deal that we don't know about the future of Earth's climate". Gee I thought this was all rock solid stuff from the way you guys talk. Thanks for that link Al it really supports my point.

Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
7 months ago: Just realize that if the paid fossil fuel flacks are the only ones you believe, then You are the one "lead around by the nose by a bunch of elitist politicians who wish to dumb us down and keep us occupied with false crusades in order to control them easier."
7 months ago: "People like Jakarta who base their entire denial on two or three personal emails out of 2000 stolen documents"

I guess you guys have lived in greenville so long the situation is beyond hope. But for those who are reading this objectively I will again present solid facts which Al and Stan have repeatedly evaded in preference to mud slinging.


"Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore".

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

If you go to the link and read the article you will see that another 250 "prominent" scientists from around the world joined with these 400 in disputing the consensus of man made climate change. 650 scientists here and many more world wide. Sorry Al and Stan but these are well educated people not kindergarten teachers. You can act as if my debating points are baseless all you want but from the beginning of my remarks here I have given sources of very well educated people who know much more than you or I on these things. The demeaning remarks only solidify my case that global warming supporters are acting upon emotion as much as any real proof of the matter.
7 months ago: No Jakarta. They are too busy living in Facebook, FarmVille with farm amimals that don't poot methane. While they produce all of that ORGANIC food without producing a single GHG. It never decomposes to generate methane or any other GHG. Yeah, something like eating enriched paper for your entire life. Make sure you have your 4 quarts of non-existent clean drinking water per day.

While your at it...Lay off that nasty sodium...Lord knows it didn't come from the ground either.
7 months ago: You know TCG when I was in the Army we once had to march for miles without rations or even a chance to stop and eat. Once we stopped we scrounged to find eatable bugs, roots and whatever else we could as we were very hungry. After cooking up some grubs etc I came to the realization that being a vegetarian is most certainly a "good times" frame of mind because when one is starving all those ridiculous idiosyncrasies will go out the window and a starving vegetarian will light into a Big Mac with no thought of his/her previously precious eating eccentrics.

I wonder, in my most definite limited knowledge, if all the greenies went hungry for a few days because there was no fossil fuel used to transport or raise food, how quick they would abandon those iron clad principles on GHG's. The simple fact in my mind appears to be none of them have ever actually gone hungry, thus it is also a "good times" ideology. As long as times are good it is a simple thing to preach the sins of green house gases. Be they real or not.
7 months ago: Create "Global Warming Jobs"! Starve a vegetatian to the point that they will beg for a Big Mac! Then give them a cup of acid rain water and a few fresh cut nitrogen enriched grass leaves.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
7 months ago: These so called 650 International Scientists have been debunked before. There are 2 general responses. One is that most of these guys are not in fact experts in the climate field. Most are Industry flacks or others who have an agenda to push fossil fuels. This is a link debunking the 650 scientists. http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2010/12/0...

The second is that they are indeed scientists but are skeptical of joining into a general consensus because of one or two picky concerns, but generally agree with the main idea. This site specifically addresses the concerns of the Skeptics: http://650list.blogspot.com/

This whole argument has been recycled many times and dismissed many times This site should address any other concerns of the "skeptics". http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs...
7 months ago: Go Albert! Can you find us any members@AOL sites?
7 months ago: From the previous U.S Senate web site, (as opposed to the three liberal web sites you presented Al).

"Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London".