Stupid Gobal Warming Alarmists - Page 23

Sombra · 08-10-2006, 11:10 AM

For the formation of hurricanes you need to meet certain conditions. Water temperature only one of them. The water temperature has be at least 27°C .

IF you simply raise the "middle" water temperature you will see more occurences of the water temperature rising over the critical temperature.

Even if Amerika this year has been spared so far major hurricanes. The other side of the worlds had its share of deadly storms.

gunnut · 09-21-2006, 14:11 PM

It seems like the environazis have completed the switch from "global warming" to "climate change."

California is set to sue automakers for "carbondioxide emissions that has caused real damage to the environment."

Meanwhile, using real data, we can easily prove hurricanes aren't getting bigger or more frequent, contrary to popular belief that climate change will result in severe weather patterns.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo..._hurrican.html

http://www.reason.com/hod/pm081705.shtml

http://eurota.blogspot.com/2005/08/e...other-one.html

dalem · 09-21-2006, 16:14 PM

It's good to be right.

-dale

AntiSatellite · 09-22-2006, 16:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

According to the global warming cult, storms will get more frequent and more intense. I don't see it. Do you?

It ain't a cult because cult groups engage in beliefs or practices that the world's society considers to be far outside the mainstream. For example. Waco is a cult, Aum Shinrikyo is a cult, Heaven's Gate and a heap of other weird Adam and Eve Chirstian groups are cults

Globalwarming/climatechange is a conclusion by some of the world's most well respected scientists
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/sc...pagewanted=all
Here was a story on how the top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out

**Parihaka** · 09-22-2006, 19:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntiSatellite

It ain't a cult because cult groups engage in beliefs or practices that the world's society considers to be far outside the mainstream. For example. Waco is a cult, Aum Shinrikyo is a cult, Heaven's Gate and a heap of other weird Adam and Eve Chirstian groups are cults

Globalwarming/climatechange is a conclusion by some of the world's most well respected scientists
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/sc...pagewanted=all
Here was a story on how the top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out

And just as many well respected scientists say it's a load of horseshyt.
How, for example, do you explain previous global warming events when humans weren't around burning fossil fuels?

dalem · 09-22-2006, 20:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntiSatellite

It ain't a cult because cult groups engage in beliefs or practices that the world's society considers to be far outside the mainstream. For example. Waco is a cult, Aum Shinrikyo is a cult, Heaven's Gate and a heap of other weird Adam and Eve Chirstian groups are cults

Globalwarming/climatechange is a conclusion by some of the world's most well respected scientists
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/sc...pagewanted=all
Here was a story on how the top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out

Read this whole thread. Repeat my responses in your head.

-dale

YellowFever · 09-23-2006, 05:08 AM

"If the temperature increases by about 2 degrees by the time I retire, it's very simple. I'll pretend I moved to Arizona"

-Dennis Miller-

AntiSatellite · 09-23-2006, 18:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parihaka

How, for example, do you explain previous global warming events when humans weren't around burning fossil fuels?

Well - before the big bad white-man came to New Zealand to develop and modernize the place you had other stuff going on in this planet that effected the weather.

You had massive Volcanic eruptions and huge Forest-fires that caused changes to the climate, there were Solar cycles factors, then there is the tilt effect on Planet Earth's orbit which happens about once every 45000 years and you got stuff like big meteorite impacts that occur once every few million years and cause grave climatic changes...I could go on but unless you've been schooled in some form of science or math then most of this will probably fly over your head

I find it amusing that most of these anti-global warming experts are not in fact scientists at all, and are just PR people on the payroll of some big corporate company

**Parihaka** · 09-23-2006, 18:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntiSatellite

Well - before the big bad white-man came to New Zealand to develop and modernize the place you had other stuff going on in this planet that effected the weather.

You had massive Volcanic eruptions and huge Forest-fires that caused changes to the climate, there were Solar cycles factors, then there is the tilt effect on Planet Earth's orbit which happens about once every 45000 years and you got stuff like big meteorite impacts that occur once every few million years and cause grave climatic changes...I could go on but unless you've been schooled in some form of science or math then most of this will probably fly over your head

I find it amusing that most of these anti-global warming experts are not in fact scientists at all, and are just PR people on the payroll of some big corporate company

Well thanks for the condescension but everything you've listed here still doesn't explain any difference between previous global warming and cooling cycles and the current warming cycle. They happen all the time and have done for as far back as we've been able to investigate. Now what evidence do you have that this current cycle is any different to the previous ones?

edit: Oh, and there was nothing bad about any of my white ancestors that made them any better or worse than my Maori ancestors.

**Parihaka** · 09-23-2006, 18:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntiSatellite

I find it amusing that most of these anti-global warming experts are not in fact scientists at all, and are just PR people on the payroll of some big corporate company

While I'm at it

Quote:

Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'
By Robert Matthews
(Filed: 01/05/2005)

Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.

A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.
Radcliffe on Sour power station with Dr Benny Peiser (inset)
Radcliffe on Sour power station with Dr Benny Peiser (inset). He disagrees with the pro-global warming line

A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.

The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.

The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.

However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".

Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.

A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel."

Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted the original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them."

Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.

As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish."

Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."

He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.

As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. "Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming."

Concern about bias within climate research has spread to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings are widely cited by those calling for drastic action on global warming.

In January, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".

A spokesman for Science denied any bias against sceptics of man-made global warming. "You will find in our letters that there is a wide range of opinion," she said. "We certainly seek to cover dissenting views."

Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that the journal was always happy to publish papers that go against perceived wisdom, as long as they are of acceptable scientific quality.

"The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that undermines the idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and utterly naive about what makes journals thrive," he said.

Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science."

I had a family friend stay with us after he returned from McMurdo. He'd been taking ice cores off the Antartic mainland to study changes in CO2 levels etc in an attempt to look at past warming and cooling events. When I asked him about the current populist views he said, "don't quote me but it's a crock of sh:t". He said he was just presenting raw data and hoped he'd be able to publish it in 'about 15 years' once the current 'ideological idiots' had found something else to get excited about.
At that point I joined the sceptics.

Anon · 09-24-2006, 14:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntiSatellite

It ain't a cult because cult groups engage in beliefs or practices that the world's society considers to be far outside the mainstream. For example. Waco is a cult, Aum Shinrikyo is a cult, Heaven's Gate and a heap of other weird Adam and Eve Chirstian groups are cults

Globalwarming/climatechange is a conclusion by some of the world's most well respected scientists
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/sc...pagewanted=all
Here was a story on how the top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out

Aint nothing but a big business cult.

Ted Turner just said the same the other night on Larry King. "Global warming is big business."

gunnut · 10-17-2006, 02:37 AM

I watched An Inconvenient Truth on the plane back from China. Now I'm convinced more than ever before that global warming is a hoax.

More than 90% of the data presented by Al in the movie was taken after 1940, with a great majority of them after 1970.

If I take a random sample of recorded earth temperature, let's say we have a time machine and can go back in time, I can formulate my data to say anything I want. I can pick from the year 940 to 990 and say the earth will burn up in the year 1300, if the current trend continues. Or I can take a 50 year sample from the year 1780 to 1830, and say the earth will freeze in a few hundred years and the next ice age will be upon us.

Here's an unrelated question: whatever happed to that hole in the ozone layer? It was all the rage in the late 80s and the early 90s. Everyone thought the hole will get bigger and bigger and eventually the ultraviolet ray from the sun will hit the earth surface unimpeded and give us all skin cancer. I don't see that cult any more. Do you? Perhaps they changed the "hole in the ozone layer" to "global warming" and the "climate change?"

My question for the "hole in the ozone layer" cult is how do they know that hole hasn't always been there? Did they send up a balloon or a weather satellite in the year 738 to find it was much smaller than present day?

gunnut · 10-17-2006, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntiSatellite

It ain't a cult because cult groups engage in beliefs or practices that the world's society considers to be far outside the mainstream. For example. Waco is a cult, Aum Shinrikyo is a cult, Heaven's Gate and a heap of other weird Adam and Eve Chirstian groups are cults

So global warming is a cult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntiSatellite

Globalwarming/climatechange is a conclusion by some of the world's most well respected scientists
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/sc...pagewanted=all
Here was a story on how the top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out

Have you ever asked yourself who those scientists are and how they make a living? Do they sell stuff? Do they make stuff? Do they perform a service?

Allow me to tell you how they make a living. They sell research. They get their money from grants. Someone has to foot the bill for hiring them to conduct research, else they have nothing to live on.

Scientist A tells the world that the earth is doing just fine, temperary fluctuations in hurricanes, temperatures, blah blah blah, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Great, thanks! Have a nice day.

Scientist B tells the world that the earth is heating up. If it heats up more, the polar ice caps will melt, hurricanes will get stronger and more frequent, blah blah blah. We suspect this is linked to human activity. We aren't quite sure yet. Data is very prelimenary. We will need to conduct more research to find out more about this problem.

No way!!! Really? We could be in danger? Here's some money, please do some more research to find out what is happening to the earth.

Scientist B comes back and says that we have found correlations between the carbon level in the air and the rising temperature. There's a link between burning fossil fuel and the carbon emission it puts out. We aren't quite sure. We will need to conduct further studies to determine the exact cause and it will cost you even more if you want to find out what possible solutions there might be.

Oh yeah, here, have some more $$$ and please find out how we can save the earth, because I have a crapload of money and I don't want to lose it all if the earth blows up.

Guess which scientist is employed.

I may not be a scientist, but I know business and capitalism. Nothing escapes the fundamental principles of capitalism, not even science.

**astralis** · 10-17-2006, 10:21 AM

gunnut,

Quote:

Here's an unrelated question: whatever happed to that hole in the ozone layer? It was all the rage in the late 80s and the early 90s. Everyone thought the hole will get bigger and bigger and eventually the ultraviolet ray from the sun will hit the earth surface unimpeded and give us all skin cancer. I don't see that cult any more. Do you? Perhaps they changed the "hole in the ozone layer" to "global warming" and the "climate change?"

those are two different issues. the hole in the ozone layer was caused by a fairly easy to identify problem, namely, CFCs. there was such a direct connection that the world actually got up and did something- banned CFCs. that was no cult. the hole has been shrinking, so that is one problem solved at a fairly low cost.

global warming and climate change, however, on the other hand, can be attributed to so many different things that it is necessarily quite difficult to pin it down on human activity. and even if we can pin it down on human activity, the cost of doing so is so high that it's not very palatable.

incidentally, it seems that we can draw a picture of temperatures for a LONG way back in time. for example, we do know of a "little ice age" from 1550-1830. this extends back thousands and millions of years (because we know that because when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the world was a LOT hotter than it was today- off the top of my head, i believe it was 10-15 degrees F hotter).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png

in any case, i do think this whole global warming thing is overblown., ie i very much doubt it's the thing causing more hurricanes or what not. but at the same time, it's hard to believe all those industrial, automobile, or what have you emissions is not doing SOMETHING, after all. that's a whole lotta chemical processes we're doing/speeding up.

gunnut · 10-17-2006, 13:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astralis

those are two different issues. the hole in the ozone layer was caused by a fairly easy to identify problem, namely, CFCs. there was such a direct connection that the world actually got up and did something- banned CFCs. that was no cult. the hole has been shrinking, so that is one problem solved at a fairly low cost.

You misunderstood me.

I was drawing a comparison between past environmental concerns borne out of junk science and the present environmental concerns borne out of junk science.

Ever calculated the molecular weight of a CFC molecule? It's a lot heavier than N2/O2 mixture of our atmosphere. How does something that heavy, coming out of our spray cans and air conditioner at sea level, rise up to above the stratosphere?

I'm not saying we should trash the environment for no good reason. I'm quite big on conservation. I just don't agree with the cultists of "climate change."

09-21-2006, 14:11 PM	#332 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 9,382 Country:	It seems like the environazis have completed the switch from "global warming" to "climate change." California is set to sue automakers for "carbondioxide emissions that has caused real damage to the environment." Meanwhile, using real data, we can easily prove hurricanes aren't getting bigger or more frequent, contrary to popular belief that climate change will result in severe weather patterns. http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo..._hurrican.html http://www.reason.com/hod/pm081705.shtml http://eurota.blogspot.com/2005/08/e...other-one.html __________________ "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

09-23-2006, 05:08 AM	#337 (permalink)
YellowFever Contributor Join Date: 07-17-06 Location: In front of my computer...duh! Posts: 502	"If the temperature increases by about 2 degrees by the time I retire, it's very simple. I'll pretend I moved to Arizona" -Dennis Miller- __________________ ...If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Global Warming, A Good Thing?	brokensickle	Science & Tech	388	06-30-2007 04:33 AM
The Great Global Warming Swindle	Canmoore	Science & Tech	86	06-30-2007 04:32 AM
Antarctic air is warming faster than rest of world	Parihaka	Science & Tech	13	04-01-2006 12:20 PM
The Basic Laws of Human Stupidty	sparten	World Affairs Board Pub	0	03-08-2006 08:44 AM
10 Most Stupid questions (courtsey PDF)	sparten	World Affairs Board Pub	2	07-24-2005 23:28 PM

08-10-2006, 11:10 AM	#331 (permalink)
Sombra Patron Join Date: 11-27-04 Posts: 274	For the formation of hurricanes you need to meet certain conditions. Water temperature only one of them. The water temperature has be at least 27°C . IF you simply raise the "middle" water temperature you will see more occurences of the water temperature rising over the critical temperature. Even if Amerika this year has been spared so far major hurricanes. The other side of the worlds had its share of deadly storms.

09-21-2006, 16:14 PM	#333 (permalink)
dalem Lord High Hullabalooster *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-04 Location: Columbia Heights, MN Posts: 8,325 Country:	It's good to be right. -dale

10-17-2006, 02:37 AM	#342 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 9,382 Country:	I watched An Inconvenient Truth on the plane back from China. Now I'm convinced more than ever before that global warming is a hoax. More than 90% of the data presented by Al in the movie was taken after 1940, with a great majority of them after 1970. If I take a random sample of recorded earth temperature, let's say we have a time machine and can go back in time, I can formulate my data to say anything I want. I can pick from the year 940 to 990 and say the earth will burn up in the year 1300, if the current trend continues. Or I can take a 50 year sample from the year 1780 to 1830, and say the earth will freeze in a few hundred years and the next ice age will be upon us. Here's an unrelated question: whatever happed to that hole in the ozone layer? It was all the rage in the late 80s and the early 90s. Everyone thought the hole will get bigger and bigger and eventually the ultraviolet ray from the sun will hit the earth surface unimpeded and give us all skin cancer. I don't see that cult any more. Do you? Perhaps they changed the "hole in the ozone layer" to "global warming" and the "climate change?" My question for the "hole in the ozone layer" cult is how do they know that hole hasn't always been there? Did they send up a balloon or a weather satellite in the year 738 to find it was much smaller than present day?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)