T1B

Posted: **Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:15 am**

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Defense of what? No one's made a rational charge at all

Huh?

Have you been living in a cave for the last 3 years?

It's not speculated that Soros paid off Hansen/NASA -- that's a FACT, dude.

And oddly enough, it only took $750,000 to get Hansen to throw all scientific integrity out the window, and suddenly find a "fatal flaw" in OBSERVED DATA, and actually invert the graph of observed data.

Absolutely shameless. If I were in his shoes, I would have held out for at least $ 2 mil to toss my countrymen and the world's poor people under the bus.

You really are a tool of the wealthy.

"Hey, the temperatures seem to be dropping like a rock... wait, how much? Alrighty, then -- HIDE THE DECLINE it is."

Posted: **Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:33 am**

Felix wrote:so the science of global warming is just a scheme to redistribute wealth

Now you're starting to get it. Don't suppose you have paid any attention to the proposed "solutions," have you? Of course not. You're a dumbfuck.

Posted: **Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:12 am**

mvscal wrote:Don't suppose you have paid any attention to the proposed "solutions," have you?

You mean the "give us billions and billions upon billions of dollars, so we can build fossil-fuel-fired electric plants in 3rd world countries"?

Yeah, sounds like a reasonable solution to "carbon pollution" to me.

Just shut up, Denier... unless you care to point out the flawed logic here.

Just because Strong and Soros want to take your money and use it to build CO2-spewing powerplants in other countries (after charging a rather hefty commision), it doesn't mean it's a scam, you evil Denier.

They're truly concerned about CO2 levels, and want to even out CO2 discharge across the planet (at your expense), which will solve the problem of... something... they'll get back to you on that one.

Just because they try and topple foreign governments and create armed conflicts for the sole purpose of personal profit, and have paid people to "adjust" observed data after finding "fatal flaws," it doesn't mean they're not concerned with the average joe, and looking out for the Better Interest of Humanity. And since they're the ones implementing this change-for-the-better, it's only fair that they get several billion dollars in their bank account, right? You know, since they saved everyone's grandchildren from the oceans rising ~~15 feet~~ ~~10 feet~~ ~~5 feet~~ ~~1 foot~~ almost 2 millimeters in the last 10 years.

Stop being such a Denier.

Posted: **Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:23 pm**

88 wrote:
Interesting. I'll see your list and raise the bet to 1,000:

http://hw.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663fd237 ... id=2336201

Those Koch brothers must have carpel tunnel with all the checks they are writing...

really, a 1,000 scientists that don't believe global warming is partially driven by humans? the real question is "why so few".....notice, they're not disputing the fact the earth is warming, just what is driving it...oh and in reviewing the signators of that paper, I noticed lots of PHD's but I wonder exactly how many of them are climate scientists....btw, this kind of thing has been done before with the "over 3,000 "scientists dispute ACC" thingy a few years back...turns out that of those 3,000 "scientists" (there were really only about 200 scientists), a total of about 45 of them were in fact climate scientists......btw, the website that came from makes the wattsupwiththat site look like nobel quality work comparatively speaking

mvscal wrote: Now you're starting to get it. Don't suppose you have paid any attention to the proposed "solutions," have you? Of course not. You're a dumbfuck.

you mean Cap and Trade and Carbon credits? sure I know what they are, and as I said previously, I'm not in favor of either program because neither program will work....but what's this got to do with the science of global warming?

Dinsdale wrote:
Just a marginal theory, that's been militantly kept away from peer-review... unless said "peers" toe the party line... this is indisputable... to take a page from your side's playbook -- this item isn't up for debate.

again, you're espousing a global wide conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists which like I said is fucking stupid.....btw, the studies are all published so that anybody can review them....people like you and me or those scientists that don't believe in anthropomorphic climate change, anybody....again, you demonstrate a startling lack of understanding as to how the scientific process works.....but look, if you'd like me to provide you with some of the scientific papers written about anthropomorphic global warming so that you can check the veracity of the studies, let me know and I'll be glad to do it for you.....

I don't "think" it's anything -- I KNOW it's Maurice Strong. Crack a history book, bro. He's been at it for 25 years.

How does it feel to know your Leader also bilks people out of their money by running a loony-bin religious cult? And he couldn't just stop at the one cult -- he had to go and create a second, infintely more profitable one... in between his drilling for oil.

I've got to be honest with you here hoss, I don't have a clue as to who Maurice Strong is, so the whole "your leader" thing is just stupid.....but he sounds pretty sinister

Think what you like -- the fact is, this "science" was invented by one man, and one man only -- one with his billionaire sights set directly on your wallet.

the "science" was invented by one guy? wow, and somehow he's convinced thousands and thousands of scientists to get on board with this? again, trying to get tens of thousands of scientists to agree to anything is a laughably ignorant....seriously, you don't realize how fucking funny that is.....

And Walmart coerced Clinton and Congress to ship millions and millions of American jobs overseas with tax breaks for creating unemployment in America... who woulda believed that shit 25 years ago, eh?

Funny what throwing enough money at a "cause" will do.

uh, what the fuck does this have to do with the science of global warming....try and stick to the subject

Posted: **Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:09 pm**

Felix wrote:btw, this kind of thing has been done before with the "over 3,000 "scientists dispute ACC" thingy a few years back...turns out that of those 3,000 "scientists" (there were really only about 200 scientists), a total of about 45 of them were in fact climate scientist

So they have a much higher batting average than the "scientific consensus" at the IPCC.

the studies are all published so that anybody can review them

I supposer the "studies" themselves are -- once they've been gone through by the propaganda minsters.

The data certainly isn't. The name Phil Jones ring any bells?

the "science" was invented by one guy?

Yes.

And if you don't know who he is, your ignorance on the subject is showing.

wow, and somehow he's convinced thousands and thousands of scientists to get on board with this? again, trying to get tens of thousands of scientists to agree to anything is a laughably ignorant....seriously, you don't realize how fucking funny that is.....

Your naivete' is what's funny.

Gee, how exectly would a person go about getting people to abandon all ethics and toe the line?

HMMM.....

VVVVV

And Walmart coerced Clinton and Congress to ship millions and millions of American jobs overseas with tax breaks for creating unemployment in America... who woulda believed that shit 25 years ago, eh?

Funny what throwing enough money at a "cause" will do.

If in 1985, you told me that the Folks In Charge in DC would intentionally create mass unemployment in the US for the sake of a few companies making a disproportionate share of retail and manufacturing profits, I would have peed myself laughing...

I'm not laughing anymore.

Light coming on yet?

Follow the money -- it leads straight to a handful of the most vile, evil people on earth.

And your still stuck on this "everone agrees the earth is warming" -- not true. And the gall of going back and changing past data to make it jibe with predictions is really something -- it's not "science," but it's... something.

The temps peaked in 1998, just as many of the climate/solar/earth scientists said it would... they seem to be right, the Data Adjusters are wrong.

BTW -- I really liked that trick where by the beginning of September, it had been declared the "hottest year ever."

Uhm, see the problem there?

It's supposed to be about collecting data, not setting a goal and then achieving it.

And that other neat trick "it's the warmest winter ever" -- then, when everyone with a brain laughed their ass off, the rebuttle was... and I'm not making this up "well sure, the Arctic reporting stations are showing a below-average temp, but the places in the Arctic that you guys can't see are the warmest ever."

But there's still a tiny handful of people left who eat that shit up... as they sit around waiting for Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy to show up.

Posted: **Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:17 pm**

Again, like a cheap alarm clock, we get the standard wild conspiracy theory straight from Glenn beck--with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT.

What a pathetic joke.

Here's a refutation of the Climate Depot bought and paid for hit piece...

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002240024

And here's a clear response to the obvious political group behind the denialists..

Dear Mr. Morano of Climate Depot,

Your lengthy response to my piece "Obama Needs to Give a Climate Speech - ASAP" contains numerous errors of fact and interpretation. I think you revealed your politically driven agenda quite nakedly when you assailed the United Nations for its role in climate and energy policy. The fact that you think the solutions to climate change will cost more than letting the climate system run amok, particularly in the developing world, does not stand up to close scrutiny in the academic literature.

I stand by what I wrote, especially the criticism of your venture as existing largely to create the impression of a crumbling scientific consensus on climate change, when in fact there is no such trend taking place in the scientific community.

Furthermore, your argument is breathtakingly heartless: You're actually pitching a do-nothing approach to climate change on the grounds that it would protect citizens of developing nations. If that is true, then why are leaders of developing countries, such as the African nations and small island states like Tuvalu and the Maldives, clamoring for the industrialized world to take action on climate change?

They rightly recognize the threat that it poses to their populations, through effects such as altered precipitation patterns, sea level rise, and the spread of tropical diseases, etc.

Study after study has shown that it is the world's most vulnerable who are going to suffer most from climate change, and yet you wish to focus on protecting them from the comparatively tiny risks of fighting the problem? What a remarkable argument. I can only imagine what the reaction to it might be in Dhaka, Bangladesh, where millions are at risk from sea level rise and increasingly intense tropical cyclones.

You make it hard to counter all your claims, yet easy to see through them, since you swiftly dismiss the Nobel Prize-winning U.N. IPCC as a "political" entity, rather than the scientific organization that it is. The U.N. sponsors it, but does not control its agenda. Scientists chart its course, not politicians. The IPCC follows one of the -- if not the most -- rigorous peer-review processes in all of modern science, and it has faced such criticisms before and consistently withstood them on the basis of the quality of its work. Only the Summary for Policymakers, which is a tiny fraction of the organization's report, must be approved line-by-line by political officials.

Your strategy is to dismiss the IPCC as political, and then swat away the joint statements of the world's major national academies of sciences and scientific organizations such as the American Geophysical Union etc., which then leaves you in the position of relying on the peer-reviewed academic literature, which you cherry pick to fit your preconceived political notion that is based on an antipathy to government.

Such reverse-engineered reasoning, in which you start at the desired political outcome and seek scientific evidence to support it, is nothing more than an anti-science and anti-science journalism agenda.

Posted: **Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:49 pm**

MADISON, Wis. -- Wisconsin residents should expect warmer weather over the next 50 years in the state, and will need to adapt to the changing weather conditions, according to a new study on climate change by University of Wisconsin researchers.

The report, titled "Wisconsin's Changing Climate: Impacts and Adaptation," was released Monday by the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts.

The scientists project that Wisconsin's average temperature is likely to rise an 4 degrees to 9 degrees by the middle of the century. They said that will mean more total precipitation and more intense storms are highly probable in many parts of the state.

“This report is the first comprehensive survey of climate change impacts in Wisconsin, and it provides information that will help decision-makers begin to plan for the kinds of changes we're likely to see in the years ahead," said Lewis Gilbert, associate director of the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

UW scientists already have documented changes in Wisconsin's climate over the past 60 years, including a 1.3 degree Fahrenheit increase in the annual average temperature and more frequent occurrences of heavy rainfall.

The researchers said the higher temperatures will have big impacts around the state. For example, the higher temperatures will impact water resources by shortening the duration of lake ice cover and cause more frequent heavy rains, which will wash polluted runoff into lakes, triggering more algae blooms.

In agriculture, warmer temperature may produce a longer growing season may help boost agricultural production. However, hotter summers could reduce yields of crops such as corn and soybeans. The higher temperatures could also have a major impact on public health. Summer heat waves may become more frequent and last longer, and accumulations of smog and ground-level ozone could pose more frequent air-quality hazards.

"We need to think about what climate change could mean for our natural resources and actively plan to address the issue," said Jack Sullivan, director of science services at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Sullivan coordinates efforts within the agency to evaluate how a changing climate may alter its management responsibilities and how to minimize negative impacts.

The report cites specific actions decision makers could take to reduce the negative consequences of climate change and capitalize on potential benefits. Many of these actions, according to the report, promise multiple payoffs regardless of how much climate change occurs.

Posted: **Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:09 pm**

88, I think LTS provided the clip AND text that he claims was written to refute that clip.

I didn't see that text via the link provided to the clip. But the powerful refute he did provide has me considering things differently.

Especially this line.

You make it hard to counter all your claims

I mean, I'm intrigued. Why is it hard to counter the claims made in the clip ? Seems like a lot of build up and poop slinging. "We're right and you climate change deniers are WRONG. BECAUSE WE SAY SO", rather than addressing the claims themselves and..refuting them.

Posted: **Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:04 pm**

Thanks 88, appreciate the links.

I'm with you and I especially appreciated Grassely's comments in one of the articles. Who knows maybe the "churn and burn" of both extreme factions will simply motivate some healthy common sense solutions to progress towards more sustainable, cleaner, and afforable alternatives. And jobs too.

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 2:01 am**

Papa Willie wrote:
Papa Willie wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Uh..Wllie, you do know that the Bush fortune was made by working hand in glove with the Nazis right up to 1942, right? And that the Bush malignancy has been at the center of the entire paradigm of post-war American bubble 'n bust kleptocracy fuck you suicidal Madoff economic scheme...right?

If GW Bush was invested in innovative companies on the cutting edge of energy efficiency, I'd applaud him. And you.

Why aren't you on board with the new and necessary industries and directions of America? Al Gore is completely on target and there's no reasonable dispute of his positions or personal behavior.

Unlike the entire decrepit and reeling GOP nightmare. Or what?

I don't think I got to address this.

1. I think the Bush family may well be the most corrupt political family on the planet.

2. What in the FUCK does Bush have to do with this conversation?

Chances are - you're not going to get to physically suck Algore's cock, so why do you feel the need to defend him as you do?
What if it were W that would have gone from a net worth of $800k to a billionaire. Wouldn't you sort of - well - not like that?

Are yo totally drunk?

You mentioned Bush and I responded. And I'm right.

there's nothing whatsoever offered to support the paranoid conspiracy nonsense.

While there's lots of plain evidence of the purely political basis for the Denialists funding and agenda.

Remember...YOU'RE WITH GLEN BECK!!!!!!!!

You're not with Science at all!. You and the Koch panels and the Morano cabal have about as much place in the discussion as the Creationists--many of whom are in your group!

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 2:10 am**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Creationists!

Remember, LTS -- if you don't do as told, the End Times are coming, and it's very important that you don't question the higher-ups -- just do as they say.

You're going to burn up with the rest of the heathens if you don't pay your tithing, and bear witness to all your neighbors (and apparently everyone on the internet).

But keep trying to make it a religious thing -- it's by far your most humorous quality.

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:42 am**

Papa Willie wrote: What if it were W that would have gone from a net worth of $800k to a billionaire. Wouldn't you sort of - well - not like that?[/quote]

Papa Willie wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote: Are you totally drunk?

You mentioned Bush and I responded. And I'm right.

Okay - go back to page 1 and show me where I said anything about Bush.

Well, right there, asshole. Are you just a moronic hillbilly?

Remember, you're with Glenn Beck..and this fatuous gas bag..

http://www.politicususa.com/en/limbaugh ... ald-reagan

Keep trying...but why? You're dead in the water with no game.

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 2:13 pm**

88 wrote:Unlike Felix, he points out the problems with drawing definite conclusions based on AGW science in a rational, coherent and scientific way.

Look, you need to quit putting shit on me that simply isn't true....I've never stated that man-made global warming is a fact....the only thing I've ever said is that based on the scientific evidence I've seen and read, I believe that human activity contributes to global warming.....

I've never heard of a credible climate scientist stating that man-caused global warming is a fact-rather, they typically say something like "given the body of evidence it appears that human activity may contribute to the increases in the earths temperature"

the only ones stating it as "fact" are alarmists and non-scientific types (Al Gore is a perfect example)

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:11 pm**

But SS, you're talking medicated gibberish again. Except you're trying to sound clear and coherent.

The problem is the your utterly inane and evasive approach.

First you're suggesting that humanity does not have the ability to significantly effect the planet's ecosystem.

This is absurdly false on a variety of counts.

You mention the danger of ..huh.. "The ocean is affected any time we dump water into it, or haul fish out of it."

Are you fucking kidding?

Do you know the first thing about the rising acidity level of the oceans?

How about the shrinking ozone layer?

How about the gigantic trash island growing in the Pacific?

Desertification?

Okay? Each of these man made catastrophes is having a direct negative effect on the planet right now.

And on ANY of these subjects I will easily kick your pathetic ass up and down the block. But why?

You're obviously wound up in a curled position in your Limpdick denial mode.

And now Fred Upton, head of the House Energy Committee--a congregationalist Christer--has decided that, no , no Climate Change.

But just repeating the same Koch sponsored drone--with the blathering right wing radio gas bags--does not in any way dispute the facts.

you and your sorry fake ilk are a joke.

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:21 pm**

Felix wrote:again, you're espousing a global wide conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists which like I said is fucking stupid.....btw, the studies are all published so that anybody can review them

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

That would appear to meet the absolute textbook definition of a "conspiracy."

Felix wrote:they're not disputing the fact the earth is warming

Well, if by "they" you mean "everyone but their leader," you might be almost right.

Phil Jones wrote:I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

Not sure which part of that you're struggling to comprehend?

Maybe this will help you out...

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Light coming on yet?

They're not interpreting data -- they're setting a goal, and achieving it. You can call that whatever you want, but please don't insult humanity by calling it "science."

Science's ship left port quite some time ago.

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:53 pm**

88 wrote:Felix-

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your positions. I thought you were someone who believes that government ought to impose drastic measures on humans to reduce CO2 emissions ostensibly to prevent a future climate change apocolypse. If all you believe is that humans might be contributing to global warming, without drawing any conclusions as to how significnat that contribution is and are not advocating drastic governmental restrictions and regulations on humans, then we are probably not too far away from each other's thinking.

We're pretty close on the way we view it, but I think we may differ on what the magnitude of global warming might potentially have.....as far as the "global warming programs" are concerned, I initially thought they might be on to something, but after reading exactly what they were, I think programs like cap and trade and carbon offsets are not only impractical, but they’re fucking stupid. They won’t have any real effect on reducing global warming; they’ll just serve to make some people very fucking rich.

I am certain that human activity has some affect on climate. Building a parking lot, for example, causes more solar radiation to be absorbed rather than reflected, which definitely has some impact on the local temperatures and, presumably, on the global mean temperature. The ocean is affected any time we dump water into it, or haul fish out of it. There are definitely human activities that cause changes to our environment and thus it is not a reach to conclude that there is some degree of human induced effect. But the degree of that effect is what is important. As I noted, any human activity is going to have some impact on the climate. If that impact is neglible in the grand scheme of things, then who gives a rat's ass? The data and scientific papers I've reviewed do not suggest that human greenhouse gas contributions to the atmosphere make any significant effect on climate, and certainly not any effect that is going to drive climate in a direction other than where it would go by reason of other climate drivers that are not in human control.

Well, that’s really the million dollar question: how much of an impact does it have? My hope is that it won’t have a significant effect, but my instinct (based on the knowledge I’ve acquired reading lots of scientific literature) tells me that the more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is going to be amplified proportionately. The more long wave radiation that is absorbed, the higher the temperature will go…..the higher the temperature goes, the more glaciers will melt which in turn will release more CO2 into the atmosphere and the more the temperature will increase….it’s kind of a vicious cycle, but really it’s simple physics…..

How do you respond to the 10 reasons Matt Rogers lists for drawing a conclusion that human activity is not driving climate change?

Pretty extensive questions, but I’ll put together my responses and post them…actually, the one for hurricanes is pretty easy…..really, the only people that are claiming increased hurricane and typhoon activity are a direct result of global warming are uninformed mooks looking for shock value headlines. The increased number of hurricanes and typhoons we saw from 1995 to 2005 was attributable to a natural 60-80 year cycle that’s referred to as the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation-if you look at graphs that chart these types of storms, this 60-80 year cycle is clearly evident. The typical claim is that as the sea temperature rises, the number of hurricanes will rise, but that’s pure horseshit…in fact, the exact opposite would be true…..sea surface temperature isn’t the only factor that influences the formation of hurricanes-the difference in temperature between the sea surface and the upper troposphere is also a driving factor. As the upper troposphere warms, the difference between sea temperature and the temperature in the upper troposphere would be reduced, and in fact the number of hurricanes would theoretically be reduced (by 18% over the next 50 years, and a 30% reduction in the number of hurricanes and typhoons by the turn of the century). There was a pretty extensive study done on results were written up in a scientific paper called Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change. If you’re interested, here’s the link for the paper http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n ... eo779.html

I’ll post my responses to the others later on

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:55 pm**

Dinsdale wrote: Light coming on yet?

yeah, the lights coming on....you read shit cobbled together by uninformed idiots and accept it as gospel.....

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:00 pm**

And don't forget George Soros, Dins...OOOoooohh...A Huge Conspiracy to spread socialism, raise our taxes, take our guns..and impose Sharia!!!

Dins fires up the 'puter

Sure....Global Warming is caused by ..the sun..

(And CO2 is plant food! And gosh knows we need that!)

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:55 pm**

Felix wrote:the more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is going to be amplified proportionately.

Uhm... not a chance.

Norm Kalmanovitch, geophysicist, wrote:It only takes a minute amount of CO2 to fully “capture” the energy at the resonant wavelength, and additional CO2 progressively captures energy that is further and further from the peak wavelength. At the 280ppmv CO2 preindustrial level used as reference in the forcing parameter, about 95% of the energy bandwidth that could possibly be captured by CO2 has already been captured. There is only 5% of this limited energy available within the confines of this potential “capture” band left to be captured.

That's not a bunch of grantwhores speculating, it's nuts-and-bolts physics.

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:58 pm**

Felix wrote:
Dinsdale wrote: Light coming on yet?
yeah, the lights coming on....you read shit cobbled together by uninformed idiots and accept it as gospel.....

Uhm...

I quoted the head of the East Anglia Creative Research Unit.

As far as the Alarmist scheme goes, Phil Jones word IS the fucking gospel.

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:59 pm**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Sure....Global Warming is caused by ..the sun..

Sorry, just wanted to quote this before you sobered up and had the good sense to edit it.

Classic.

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:13 pm**

S'cuse, Dins...but the Limpdick ten-minute commercial sign-off "Global Warming is caused by the sun" is classic childish nonsense to mollify the moronic.

And...you're on board with it?

You're on board with Inhofe and the Creationists?

You're on board with hysterical Glenn Beck conspiracy theories?

YES TO ALL OF THE ABOVE!!!

So....how do you dare show your face?

I know you won't go anywhere near the Koch brothers' funding of "experts," and you're scared shitless of any other subject than altered data and simplistic points of obvious obfuscation. It's one thing to be simplistic and fake--but a cringing coward is even lower.

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:16 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
Norm Kalmanovitch, geophysicist, wrote:It only takes a minute amount of CO2 to fully “capture” the energy at the resonant wavelength, and additional CO2 progressively captures energy that is further and further from the peak wavelength. At the 280ppmv CO2 preindustrial level used as reference in the forcing parameter, about 95% of the energy bandwidth that could possibly be captured by CO2 has already been captured. There is only 5% of this limited energy available within the confines of this potential “capture” band left to be captured.

so I'm assuming he's produced a scientific study (peer reviewed of course) that supports this? Of course not....he's a fucking hack with a bachelors degree in geophysics

like I said, listening to a bunch of uninformed mooks

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:06 pm**

Felix wrote:so I'm assuming he's produced a scientific study (peer reviewed of course) that supports this? Of course not....he's a fucking hack with a bachelors degree in geophysics

like I said, listening to a bunch of uninformed mooks

Felix, Felix, Felix...

He's just echoing what... NASA observed 40 years ago... right up until they were PAID to say otherwise.

Dude, crack a book. Scientists know a shitload about astrophysics, and there's reams and reams of books on the subject which all say the same thing. But suddenly you want to toss out what we know to be true, because it doesn't gibe with what some people want to be true?

Yeah, that's "science."

And since the scientist on the other side of the aisle don't have the gall to dispute the wavelengths of CO2 absorbtion of radiation, you might wanna back off on this one. Research upon resarch has been done on the subject for decades and decades, and the numbers always come up the same. Yet now that they blow some people's theories/agendas out of the water, they must be wrong?

Puh-leez.

But let's take this debate down to a much, much more fundamental level, and toss out CO2 wavelengths and other such shit...

Let's just stick to rudimentary logic.

First, let's start with the end of WW2 -- the reasons being many: A much larger percentage of the world became industrialized, fossil fuel consumption began accelerating rapidly, and our information gathering techniques (and the interest in gathering it) improved dramatically.

Can we agree on that?

Thought so.

In the ~65 years of that period, it's estimated that human-released CO2 has risen by a factor of around 6 (600% increase), in an accelerating curve.

Fair enough.

Atmosperic CO2 has risen by about 28% in that period, give or take a bit.

And in those 65 years, the earth has been in a warming trend for 23 years of the 65, and in cooling trends for the other 42.

Simple fucking logic -- if there is a large correlation between atmosperic CO2 levels driving earth's temperature, there's logically only one conclusion that can be drawn...

That CO2 COOLS earth's temps.

Simple fucking logic.

Now, if you wanna go out on a limb and say that the extra CO2 that's released by humans could possibly have a slight æffect on earth's normal climate swings, you'd get no arguments from me. With the little bit we do know for fact about the atmosperic systems, this seems pretty reasonable, and could almost qualify as "likely."

To say it "causes" it is ridiculous, a logical fallacy that falls flat on its face, and frankly -- has been disproven to all but the "True Believers."

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:16 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Sure....Global Warming is caused by ..the sun..

Sorry, just wanted to quote this before you sobered up and had the good sense to edit it.

Classic.

I suppose like other flat earther simpletons, you have some sort of idea that the large yellow ball of fire in the sky has an effect on us.

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:23 pm**

smackaholic wrote: I suppose like other flat earther simpletons, you have some sort of idea that the large yellow ball of fire in the sky has an effect on us.

I left the CO2 tank for the kegerator in a dark closet, and it burned my house down.

Posted: **Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:55 pm**

again... science is not the same as politics.

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:03 am**

What the fuck is your point, idiot?

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:38 am**

Bizzarofelice wrote:again... science is not the same as politics.

again...

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:50 am**

mvscal wrote:What the fuck is your point, idiot?

He thinks he's being clever... just give him his moment.

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:23 pm**

Papa Willie wrote:
88 wrote:A Cleveland TV weatherman makes an interesting trip through the weather news archives...

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/wea ... -it-before
I would say that if his employer were an NBC affiliate, he'd be getting a pink slip tomorrow. Some pretty damning evidence if you're a global war..... errrrrrr....... climate change person right there.

hmmmm a bunch of stories with speculative conclusions drawn by non-scinetific types based not on scientific data and analysis but assumptions and opinions? why does anybody give any credence to this sort of tripe

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:10 pm**

Feelix is quite the line-toer.

Anyone who doesn't support his views is a "hack," regardless how many letters they have next to their name.

Anyone who supports his side is beyond reproach.

And yes, he's pretty much tossed Dr. Lindzen, the most knowledgable atmosperic scientist who ever lived in the "hack" category -- which is pretty funny, since the computer modelers and Alarmist crowd use Lindzens discoveries and theories in their model and hypothothes (although Lidzen tells them they're not applying them correctly).

Fine bit of KYOA, Feelix.

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:08 pm**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:No, SS.the FOX connection is not merely a tangent fact, it's the ENTIRE support for this fatuous and shameless stalling effort sponsored directly by the oil interests.

The Federal government alone spends 8.7 billion dollars every year promoting err...studying this alleged problem. How much does the "oil industry" spend?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/09/n ... udget-axe/

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:20 pm**

Several years old, but an interesting take on the origins:

http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

Posted: **Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:29 pm**

Feelix is quite the line-toer.

Anyone who doesn't support his views is a "hack," regardless how many letters they have next to their name.

that’s fucking horseshit and you know it….why do you constantly misrepresent?

Anyone who supports his side is beyond reproach.

and that’s not true either….there is lots of sensationalism on the side of global warming-it’s just that I don’t pay much attention to shit that’s spewed without scientific evidence to back up whatever claim is being made….here’s a clue for ya bud…whats up with that is NOT BASED ON FUCKING SCIENCE-it’s a bunch of opinions being espoused by weathermen that have about as much credibility as their weather forcasts…..

And yes, he's pretty much tossed Dr. Lindzen, the most knowledgable atmosperic scientist who ever lived in the "hack" category -- which is pretty funny, since the computer modelers and Alarmist crowd use Lindzens discoveries and theories in their model and hypothothes (although Lidzen tells them they're not applying them correctly).

not so, I’ve simply read scientific reviews of his work that point out some serious flaws in his analyses….why you won’t take the time to do the research on this is baffling to me…the scientific reviews are pretty easy to find

Papa Willie wrote:Felix - why was it warmer 5,000 or even 8,000 years ago than it was 10,000 years ago? LTSuck won't answer for some strange reason.

well, we don't necessarily know for a fact that it was hotter, but if your asking why it's hotter in 2010 than it was in 1890, there are lots of reasons......

global warming isn't something that would potentially affect you or I, and it probably wouldn't affect your children's children's great great great grandchildren.....but at some point, if warming from man made gasses is true, eventually it's going to hit home....look I can't say with absolute certainty that anthropomorphic climate change is a certainty, all I can do is weigh the evidence based on the scientific data available....

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:30 am**

mvscal wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:No, SS.the FOX connection is not merely a tangent fact, it's the ENTIRE support for this fatuous and shameless stalling effort sponsored directly by the oil interests.
The Federal government alone spends 8.7 billion dollars every year promoting err...studying this alleged problem. How much does the "oil industry" spend?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/09/n ... udget-axe/

You're cornered in some pissy Limpdick cul de sac.

Here's a good start on just who, what and why is behind the calculated assault on Science and environmentalism in the issue of Climate Change.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 ... fact_mayer

And a bit more recent obvious efforts.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns ... ndustries/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-d ... 05129.html

The point is that they're NOT interested in Science or the planet's health--or any sort of long term vision. The basic paradigm of the modern desperate debt-riding industrialist is the profitability of the next quarter.

Look at their arguments. All they really care about is some possible lost profit. It makes sense then that they would deny there's even a problem at all. That this vile greed dovetails so easily into the absurd Creationist philosophy of humanity being unable to affect the planet is lurid and obscene.

And yet that's who you Deniers are standing shoulder to shoulder.

Not one of you will cop to it, but you're with Glenn Beck! C'mon, admit it. At least cop to your crew!

How dare you attempt to be taken seriously?

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:49 am**

How much, Felchco?

Seems to me 8.7 billion dollars will buy a metric fuckton of "shit you want to hear."

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:53 am**

How much? How much has the Koch Denial Machine spent?

Well, read the fucking article and get educated. They've spent exactly how much they feel is necessary and will continue to do so. Got it?

How's Glenn?

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:59 am**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:How much? How much has the Koch Denial Machine spent?

Well, read the fucking article and get educated.

I did. I didn't see any specific figure mentioned. Would you say that it is more or less than the 8.7 billion dollars the Federal government spends to finance their propaganda every year? Of course that is only the US Federal spend. Needless to say, there are billions more being bilked out of naive rubes from other sources in state governments, private non-profits and in Europe etc.

The money is clearly and overwhelmingly on the side of Big Climate Change.

Posted: **Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:54 am**

Papa Willie wrote:

Felix. It was much warmer 5,000 years ago than it was 10,000 years ago. We were coming out of an ice age, but man had absolutely no bearing on it (for certain) at that juncture.

uh, you need to check your dates.....the earth wasn't in an ice age 10,000 yrs ago

It was all just part of the natural evolution of climate. There has always been climate change, dude.

the earth has natural self-correction mechanisms....when those mechanisms are thrown out of whack (increased CO2 output coupled with continual destruction of the rain forests) tend to throw that natural balance out of gibe....there just aren't as many plants to process the increased CO2-hence you can probably see how things could get out of hand pretty quickly (relatively speaking)....it's a pretty delicate balance

It's warmer now than it was 10,000 years ago. I'm sure it's a hell of a lot cooler now than it was at some periods of time within the last 4 billion years.

100 years in the context of 4,000,000,000 years isn't even a blip on the radar.

like I said, it won't have any effect on me or my kids or their kids, but eventually, the balance will tip and by the time we've realized it, it will be irreversible...

I get the idea that a lot of people here would simply prefer that we stop all scientific study of climate change, and I'm not sure I understand why that is...anybody that thinks they've got the answers (s'up dins) is either woefully ignorant, or just plain stupid....

T1B

Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"

Re: Al Gore explains "Snowmageddon"