OT: Global warming deniers debunked

Page 9 of 13  


There was something about that a few months ago, naturally I can't find it now. I vaguely recall it had something to do with moisture in the air instead of temps.
--
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 9/3/2011 10:47 AM, Leon wrote:

If it ain't broke, fix it until it is...
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is so incredibly uninformed that one doesn't know where to start. Atmosphere being cleaned up? Pulueeze! Are you not aware that, e.g. in countries where we ship our electronics women and children are bending over old computers, extracting the valuable toxic components while breathing in their death-dealing fumes? For just ONE example. To you, people driving less polluting cars in your developed country means the "atmosphere has been cleaned up"!!!
Are you not aware that white ice -- glaciers, snowpack, etc. REFLECTS certain wavelengths of sunlight such as infra-red. But now that the ice and snow are melting at unprecedented historical rates, due largely to CO2 entering the atmosphere in huge quantities, the oceans are a beautiful dark blue -- which ABSORBS infra-red radiation, aka heat.
Oh, I give up. Some choose to cling to their little Faith structures rather than looking at the evidence.
HB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 13:59:36 -0700 (PDT), Higgs Boson

You're wasting your breath. There's a certain arrogance attached to the bulk of the population in developed countries that states they can do no wrong.
Hell, the gulf oil disaster is over. So, it never happened right? Or, it's had a very minor effect on the ecosystem, right? *That* arrogance is widespread and pervasive. The current population will be long dead by the time any real effect will be felt, so why worry about it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article
Some cut.

This site claims glaciers are growing. http://www.iceagenow.com/index.htm
I noticed one other thing as I glanced at it. There was supposedly half the amount of ice in the Arctic at times than there is now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 17:29:16 -0500, Dean Hoffman

Ever wonder where the Northwest Passage idea came from? ;)
What the greenies forget to tell us is that while some glaciers recede here, others grow there. Mother Nature finds balance, but it isn't always in Man's best interest or convenience. <shrug>
My nitpick of the day: All those headlines and papers which say "Scientists believe..."
-- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques wrote:

And, really, it's a pretty lonely religion. But, due to the 1st Amendment, we are a tolerant people.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The EPA seems to have data that says the air in the USA has been cleaned up dramatically in the past 25 years and emissions are way down.
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html

PC's in a scrap heap are not the atmosphere. And perhaps those activities would be taking place here in conditions which are far better controlled. But one consequence of strict regulations in one place is that certain activities and jobs then move elsewhere.
Just like the discussion on blocking the pipeline for tar sand oil from Canada into the USA. If we don't use that oil, they will just sell it on the world market to someone else. And they may burn it in cars that are far more polluting than cars in NA.
>To you, people driving less polluting cars in your developed

No, the EPA data says it.

Don't know where these new dark blue oceans are. But here in the northeast USA they are the same color they always have been. I suspect they are most likely a figment of your imagination.

About time.
Some choose to cling to their little Faith structures

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:18:00 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

Now, on to more important stuff: http://goo.gl/xAANu
(Be Careful! Dump is like Wimp: an addictive timesucker.)
-- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Where is the "Like" button on Usenet? :-)
Luigi
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 09:44:18 -0700 (PDT), Luigi Zanasi

I just received it, WeeGee. Danke mucho, monsieur.
-- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In typed:

Nor is any report, from any ONE or even a small number of sources, proof of anything. If there was a clear answer, there would not be the controversey there is. Think while readng those artcles about what information they DON"T account for or dismiss without consideration!
HTH,
Twayne`
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Global warming alarmists are a PITA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 10:24:24 -0700, Smitty Two

Don't just quote lies, sTwo, go hither onto the Internet and read the real background on Algore's book/movie farce. It shows that the researcher he used grabbed (supposedly at random) 90 out of 900 papers on the subject and most 'just happened to be' alarming. Now research the other papers and find that there are a whole lot of ifs in there and a whole lot of deniers, not just alarmists. Feh!
-- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snipped>
Don't just quote lies, sTwo, go hither onto the Internet and read the real background on Algore's book/movie farce. It shows that the researcher he used grabbed (supposedly at random) 90 out of 900 papers on the subject and most 'just happened to be' alarming. Now research the other papers and find that there are a whole lot of ifs in there and a whole lot of deniers, not just alarmists. Feh!
Then there was the "hockey stick" stuff in that whole conversation.
-- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Smitty Two wrote:

First, I don't CARE what scientists "believe." I'm only interested in what they can prove.
And there is a difference between scientists and politicians. Politicians look at a bigger picture than the myopic climate scientists.
The climate scientists say "The earth is warming and mankind is (partly? mostly?) to blame. They then suggest some obvious consequences, i.e., ocean levels rising.
The politician says "Maybe." Then the politician looks at the obvious consequences. If we undertake heroic measures to mitigate the potential consequences forwarded by the climate scientists, we will end up living lives that are painful, brutal, and short as a significant portion of the world's GDP is either erradicated or diverted because of the threat.
If, however, we allow the consequences feared by the climate scientists to take place (assuming they do), the cost to minimize the downsides will be magnitudes less. Heck, there are even positive results that flow from GW. For instance, Canada can get three growing seasons for some crops (wheat) instead of the normal two, there are fewer deaths related to heat than cold, and so on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just picking this paragraph for comment. You are going to believe politicians and disregard scientists' opinions? As a scientist, I cannot respect such a view. Politicians have especially recently proven to be more interested in (re-)election than in what is for the good of the country. Now I admit that some scientists might emphasize their opinions rather than competing ones, but that isn't the majority nor do I believe they ultimately will have the respect of their peers.
--
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
Han wrote:

No, but I'm not going to give them equal weight. The scientist has only his data before him. He has NO knowledge of the secondary effects of his studies, even if his studies are correct. The politician has input from ALL the stakeholders and, as a result, has considerably more insight into the consequences.

Of course. That's the parochial view I was illustrating.

I somewhat agree, but in that regard they are no different than ALL climate scientists in that their own well-being and reverence for their views, is, ipso facto, the best thing that could happen to the country.

What climate scientists don't realize is that their opinions alone are not dispositive. At best their opinions are only ONE factor in a much larger equation. It is my view that the politician, due to the nature of his job, must necessarily take a bigger view. Here's an example:
Recently the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a set of regulations for (generally older) power plants. Further, that these regulations limiting ozone and other pollutants must come into effect by December 31st of this year. Thousands of lives would be saved, the EPA claimed.
The additional equipment necessary to retrofit some generating stations takes years to design, manufacture, and install. There is no way some 11% of Texas' power generating stations could meet that deadline. These plants would have to be completely shut down.
One day last week, the Texas power grid hit 77 GW of generation. This is perilously close to the current maximum of 80GW. If you take the 17 affected power plants in the state off-line, that would mean rolling blackouts.*
Rolling blackouts result in people dying from the heat, factories shut down, traffic signals don't work, and so on. A massive cost to society.
But that's what the "scientific experts" in the EPA recommended.
President Obama, a politician, saw the bigger picture and last Thursday ordered the EPA to rescind the proposed regulations.
-------------------- * Regarding the "rolling blackouts," I sent a note to Governor Perry outlining a proposed tactic should the EPA's rules necessitate power interruptions. My plan would prioritize those who get their power cut off.
* All EPA offices in the state * All military bases. Soldiers have generators, most citizens and businesses do not. * All federal courts. In the 1800's, courts met under trees on the courthouse square. They could do it again. * Various other federal facilities: Post offices, etc. Hey, the letter-carriers trudge their rounds without A/C; the counter folks could do likewise.
In other words, turnabout is only fair.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That's as about a screwed up opinion as I've ever seen. Scientists of this day and age compare their studies and correlate the effects. Part of a scientist's mandate is that personal opinion is *not* part of the equation. A politician on the other hand, has his own agenda, what he feels would be the best scenario for himself and what he feels is the best scenario for his country. A politician's opinions are heavily weighed down by personal opinion. These facts are evident and diametrically opposed to your comment above.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly, with a major correction. Thereare pitifully few politicians today concerned with the whole USA*. Most are only concerend with a) reelection, and b) getting their position solidified by getting like- minded idiots elected.
I presume your phrase "best scenario for his country" means the USA.
--
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

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.