OT: Global warming deniers debunked

Page 4 of 13  


No, that is almost totally wrong. Observations were that temps are increasing, and CO2 and other greenhouse gases were an easy to identify culprit. If you see smoke you are going to look for fire, not for peacable scouts trying to light a fire by using wet wood.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

They're not even calling it Global Warming anymore. That was last year. It's "climate change" now. (hedging their bets)
-Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yup! Now where would the new glaciers be forming?
They have changed their minds so many times about this subject that belief in the AGW scare tactics is waning.
e.g. "Global Warming" has now been relabeled to "Global Climate Shift".
e.g. They told us the oceans would rise about 20 metres or more until people informed them that ice takes up less space when melted. Suddenly the ocean levels would only rise by one metre.
e.g. We were originally told that ice core samples showed an increase in temperature each year when CO2 levels were higher. Later scientists have discovered they were reading it backwards and the warmer temperatures caused more CO2 to be released from the oceans.
e.g. Global climate temperatures have decreased over the last 20 years despite higher CO2 levels.
The list of retractions is endless and no credibility has been maintained. I would like to know how they measured world average temperatures, accurately, to one tenths of a degree over 100 years ago.
Was Chicken Little right? This is story from decades or more back and it still is being promoted today.
------------
"zxcvbob" wrote in message They're not even calling it Global Warming anymore. That was last year. It's "climate change" now. (hedging their bets)
-Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Josepi wrote:

Just because anthropogenic climate change is a scam doesn't mean we *aren't* burning up our fossil fuels at an alarming rate. The two issues have very little to do with each other.
There are so many good reasons to conserve and to develop alternative energy source (including national security for the Republicans) there's no need to make up a bullshit reason -- except Al Gore and his buddies are trying to get rich off of it.
-Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Guys, maybe we should stick to topics we know something about, like humor and electricity...
:wq
--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2011 11:21 PM, zxcvbob wrote:

Rarely to never do "good reasons" to do something need government meddling to get implemented.
--
Jack
QUINNs FIRST LAW: Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That alone give me cause for concern. I mean usually one changes the name when the current one takes on a malodorous conatation in the minds of Populace. Global Warming->Climate Change, Timeshare->interval ownership, Liberal->Progressive. The list goes on.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2011 7:29 PM, Han wrote:

LOL ... like the correlations used to bolster AGW arguments?
:)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep. But there is a relatively logical theory behind AGW. In the case of conservatives vs progressives, I don't know of the "theory", as do you, I think, because otherwise you wouldn't ask!
Have to get back to wood working now the temps are lower and the family about to go home ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The "logic" part that bothers me is this. They have data going back about 600,000 years that shows I think 3 cycles of CO2 and temerature. That data came from ice core samples. Melting them in a lab, they captture the gas and determine the CO2. The ratio of isotopes in the samples gives a proxy for temperature.
Let's assume that data is correct. The "logic" problem is that when the data is graphed, in each of those cycles, temperature begins to rise for a few hundred to about 1500 years BEFORE CO2 increases. Now, if CO2 is causing the warming, why is it not the other way around? I have heard that question asked of global warming scientists and have never heard them answer it.
On the other hand, I have heard an ocean scientist from MIT explain that the world's oceans are huge reservoirs of CO2. As the earth warms from increased solar energy output from solar cycles, the oceans slowly warm, releasing the CO2, just as a warming soda bottle would. That explains the increase in CO2 and the delay in timing.
If anyone has the manmade glolbal warming proponents answer to why temperature leads CO2 increase, I'd love to hear it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 06:19:10 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

That's an interesting statement. Can you provide a link to a peer- reviewed article in a respectable journal that supports it? If so, I'd like to read it.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Do a search on "CO2 leads temperature" and "temperature lags CO2". There is a ton of stuff on this, and a lot of gobbledygook on why, even though it's true, it isn't. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 12:53:25 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

First I had to un-reverse your search keys :-). You're absolutely correct that there is a ton of gobbledygook out there. But finding a site that was both readable by a layman and didn't have an axe to grind one way or the other proved impossible.
The most reasonable explanation I could find was that the variations in the Earth's orbit warm the oceans causing them to emit more CO2. The CO2 then intensifies the warming. There's a name for that type of feedback circuit, but I forgot it decades ago :-).
But I found no site on either side of the issue that I would consider authoritative. So I'm going to go with the overwhelming majority of climate experts and say that human activities are affecting the climate.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Typical. The fact that temp leads CO2 is just a puzzling little inconvenient truth and can be ignored. I bet you believed all the govt scientific experts that told you that substituting tranfat loaded margarine for butter was necessary or you would die. And that eating lots of carbs, ie bread and pasta instead of meat would make you trim and healthy. Remember who started that govt song and dance? George McGovern. Only problem was that it was all wrong. Now America has an obesity epidemic with record diabetes and heart disease. Now the govt is banning transfat and the stupid dietary pyramid laden with carbs is out too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Scientists were decrying transfats long before, as they were decrying some of the corn-derived unsaturated fats. We need the really polyunsaturated long and very long chain fatty acids. There should be very many sources going back many, many years, but for reent stuff Google CN Serhan and "resolution of inflammation" Caveat: Charlie is a scientist who has attributed part of his education to me.
Margarine has "saved" many people who couldn't afford butter when that was a luxury.
But the main point is this - there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature. If warming leads CO2 over geological time periods, we could be talking about a feed-forward mechanism, where solar input raises temps, which raises CO2, which then further raises temps. Once started, that vicious cycle might be difficult to stop. But now we aren't dealing with geological time periods of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. Greeenland might have been called green because for a relatively short period, when temperatures were such that Greenland was indeed green while Iceland was ice. Who knows the intentions of those old Vikings when they named things. When temps became more like the average, they disappeared from Greenland (and Canada?). Now we are dealing with short time periods again, and we don't know how to stop warming other than by limiting CO2. Some fancy ideas have come up though, and the laws of unintended consequences really scare me - put up some SO2 clouds in the stratosphere to reflect light back into space, for instance. I'd rather have black asphalt be replaced by white concrete.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, a FEW scientists were decrying transfats and corn-derived fats long ago.. But most of them were in agreement and supporting the govt recommendations that they were both perfectly safe and healthy. And those scientists that dared to question transfats were dismissed as loons. Based on those mainstream scientists findings, the govt told Americans to eat transfats and to make bread, pasta and other refined carbs the core of their diets.
Now, with an epidemic in obesity, diabetes and heart disease, it turns out those mainstream scientists and the govt were wrong. That is the relevant analogy.

What a joke. Since when was butter a necessity? I see the UN delivering food to starving people and have yet to see them dropping in trucks of butter or margarine. Nor during my lifetime has the price of butter been so significantly different than that of margarine.
And if you believe that price delta has saved people, then what about the cost of eliminating CO2? That already is costing lives as the diversion of agriculture to bio-fuels has tripled the price of corn, soybeans, wheat, etc.

Those past cycles started with temp rising, followed by CO2 rising anywhere from a few hundred to 1500 years later. I don't believe anyone knows with 100% certainty exactly what caused those cycles to start. So, how do we know that the current cycle isn't being driven by exactly the same things?

What did they do back in that short period to stop Greenland from becoming green and get it reversed?

I have no problem with taking some of the easy steps, those that are either free or cost effective, to reduce CO2 emissions. It's the notion of going hell bent, spending trillions of $$$ that no one has, making the USA more uncompetitive with China, etc that scares me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, speaking of my experiences as a child in the 50's in Holland. A lot of the research went on there, in Britain and in the Midwest.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 06:29:06 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I don't think anyone knows *anything* with 100% certainty. There's always the philosophy that it's all an illusion :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/4/2011 9:29 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

In a capitalist economy, cost effective steps are not needed, they come naturally. Individuals tend to like "cost effective" Governments tend to avoid it like the plague.

If you hated the US, it wouldn't scare you at all:-)
--
Jack
Got Change: The Individual =======> The Collective!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

1. New Evidence Debunks Manmade Global Warming
New research from one of the world’s most prestigious scientific organizations indicates that cosmic rays and the sun — not manmade carbon emissions — are the major factors influencing global climate.
“The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating,” writes Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe, in Canada’s Financial Post.
“The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.”
The findings, published in the journal Nature, come from CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centers for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories, according to Solomon.
CERN — the organization that invented the World Wide Web — built a stainless steel chamber that precisely re-created the Earth’s atmosphere.
“In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds.” And the cloudier it is, the cooler it will be, Solomon notes.
“Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.”
So when the sun’s magnetic field is strongest, fewer cosmic rays impact the Earth, which in turn leads to decreased cloud formation and warmer temperatures.
The link between cosmic rays and global warming was first proposed by two Danish scientists in 1996, and was immediately denounced by the IPCC.
But CERN scientist Jasper Kirkby, a British experimental physicist, accepted the Danes’ theory. He told the scientific press in 1998 that it “will probably be able to account for somewhere between half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.”
It took Kirkby nearly 10 years to convince the CERN bureaucracy to proceed with his plan to create the chamber that replicates the Earth’s atmosphere and has produced the recent results.
But CERN “remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success,” observes Solomon, author of “The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud.”
CERN told Kirkby and his team to downplay the results by stating “that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.”
Solomon concludes: “CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate science won’t yet permit a celebration of the find.”
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.