I certainly have created a monster.
Interesting points on both sides.
The T-Rex quote was fantastic.
Since we’ve already gotten political, who here thinks Al Gore is using this glorified slideshow as part of a campaign for presidency? He’s denied it, but he’s a politician, so you know how that goes.
Here are some interesting facts about global whining, I’m mean warming:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/ten_facts_about_global_warming.htm
Britain is one degree Celsius cooler now than it was at the time of the Domesday book.
Greenland got its name from the verdant pastures that attracted the Norse settlers under Eric the Red in 986. They carried on their normal way of life (based on cattle, grain, hay and herring) for 300 years until the Little Ice Age, when they were driven off by the encroaching ice and the Inuit took over. The ice and the Inuit are still there.
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere there is over a hundred times the concentration of water vapour, which is the dominant greenhouse gas.
Without the Greenhouse Effect there would be no life on Earth.
Temperature measurements by satellite, radio sonde balloons and well maintained rural surface stations in the West show no significant warming.
The only evidence of significant warming comes from mainly non-western stations that are probably ill maintained or those that are contaminated by the Urban Heat Island Effect.
Computer models of the climate are worthless, as they are based on many assumptions about interactions between climate factors that are still unknown to science. They are generally unstable and chaotic, giving a wide variety of answers depending on the input assumptions.
The Kyoto agreement would have a devastating effect on the world economy but, since carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, an undetectable effect on the climate.
The IPCC (the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been the main engine for promoting the global warming scare. It has become notorious for its corrupt practices of doctoring its reports and executive summaries, after they have been approved by the participating scientists, to conform to its political objectives
The really big lie about man-made global warming is that almost all scientists accept it. More than 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal (1992), calling for a rational scientific approach to environmental problems. Many senior scientists have also supported The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (1992), The Leipzig Declaration (1997) and finally the Oregon Petition (1998) which received the signatures of over 19,000 scientists.
If Dry ice melts, can you swim in it and not get wet?
How much more could Al Gore bore if Al Gore could bore more?
Not the case. Since you like throwing around Nobel Laureates, look at Bob Coase and A.C. Pigou from the University of Chicago. Coase won the Nobel in economics for his emissions trading work. CO2 is like 20% of greenhouse gases, how is that undetectable?
P.S. The Heidelberg Appeal merely talks about focusing more on the scientific method…it doesn’t even mention GHGs.
[quote]wokeuptiedup wrote:
8. The Kyoto agreement would have a devastating effect on the world economy but, since carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, an undetectable effect on the climate.
Not the case. Since you like throwing around Nobel Laureates, look at Bob Coase and A.C. Pigou from the University of Chicago. Coase won the Nobel in economics for his emissions trading work. CO2 is like 20% of greenhouse gases, how is that undetectable?
P.S. The Heidelberg Appeal merely talks about focusing more on the scientific method…it doesn’t even mention GHGs.[/quote]
And you do know that C02 is what you are breathing out right now? Maybe you should hold your breath and stop depleting the ozone with all your hot air!
The balance of oxygen and co2 is important for the planet to maintain homeostasis, bozo. You’re so ill-informed it’s not even funny.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Mankind will figure out how to adapt and survive[/quote]
Well, if we’re figuring, I figure we should go de luxe, and figure out how to save what’s left of the planetary ecology, as well as our own worthless skins. Otherwise, our childrens’ children will curse our memory. Such of them as there are.
[quote]wokeuptiedup wrote:
The balance of oxygen and co2 is important for the planet to maintain homeostasis, bozo. You’re so ill-informed it’s not even funny.[/quote]
Because I don’t believe the scientists you believe, but instead believe the 4,000 scientists that disagree with your scientists, that’s ill-informed?
Riiiiight!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
wokeuptiedup wrote:
The balance of oxygen and co2 is important for the planet to maintain homeostasis, bozo. You’re so ill-informed it’s not even funny.
Because I don’t believe the scientists you believe, but instead believe the 4,000 scientists that disagree with your scientists, that’s ill-informed?
Riiiiight![/quote]
Ignoring the democratic aspect of the whole process, it’s funny that he/she considers him/herself informed. How you can read all of the research on global warming and contrast it to a real science like electronics or medicine and declare yourself ‘informed’ is beyond me. It’s like saying you’re informed on the existence of God.
I am well-informed on the arguments for and against the existence of global warming…there are good arguments on both sides. I’m VERY well informed about the economics behind pollution abatement, it’s actually what I used to research in college.
If you’d like to talk to be about the economics behind the Kyoto Protocol, I would enjoy it, as it is that half-assed logic that I originally attacked.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
wokeuptiedup wrote:
The balance of oxygen and co2 is important for the planet to maintain homeostasis, bozo. You’re so ill-informed it’s not even funny.
Because I don’t believe the scientists you believe, but instead believe the 4,000 scientists that disagree with your scientists, that’s ill-informed?
Riiiiight!
[/quote]
You mean the 4000 scientists that used to disagree back in 1992? Many of whom now - fifteen years later - have changed their opinions? But since you’re not ill-informed, I’m sure you knew that.
How can you trust them anyway? Most of them subscribe to the Theory of Evolution.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
wokeuptiedup wrote:
The balance of oxygen and co2 is important for the planet to maintain homeostasis, bozo. You’re so ill-informed it’s not even funny.
Because I don’t believe the scientists you believe, but instead believe the 4,000 scientists that disagree with your scientists, that’s ill-informed?
Riiiiight!
Ignoring the democratic aspect of the whole process, it’s funny that he/she considers him/herself informed. How you can read all of the research on global warming and contrast it to a real science like electronics or medicine and declare yourself ‘informed’ is beyond me. It’s like saying you’re informed on the existence of God.[/quote]
It is very telling that you and endgamer want Global Warming (GW) to be true so badly that you totally ignore the issue of pollution. In my very first post on this issue I stated that pollution in all forms need to be seriously addressed. But Nooooo! You need to have GW be true regardless of pollution.
So the thinking person must then ask you both, what is your motivation behind pushing GW because it sure isn’t reducing pollution? Because if it was we would have been in agreement on this issue from the start.
Perhaps your motivation is just political and if the Republicans were pushing GW you would then disagree with it. But because the Dem’s are pushing it, it has to be true?
It is very telling that you and endgamer want Global Warming (GW) to be true so badly that you totally ignore the issue of pollution.
In my very first post on this issue I stated that pollution in all forms need to be seriously addressed. But Nooooo! You need to have GW be true regardless of pollution.
[/quote]
In your very first post you started out saying that global warming is a myth. You might want to go back and read it.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
In my very first post on this issue I stated that pollution in all forms need to be seriously addressed.
[/quote]
Apple-hood and Mother-pie to you, too. The fact you think global warming is a crock is more interesting.
[quote]wokeuptiedup wrote:
If you’d like to talk to be about the economics behind the Kyoto Protocol, I would enjoy it, as it is that half-assed logic that I originally attacked. [/quote]
That’s funny because you piped up about the ‘balance of CO2 and oxygen being requisite for homeostasis’ none of which refers to the economics of the situation and pretty much proves that don’t know jack shit about the science of the situation (which, in turn, proves your economics to be utter bullshit).
Since you did research on the whole thing ‘back in college’, care to take credit for anything you wrote and published…
…or is this some B.S. internet conjecture that you have that hasn’t got any peer review or data to support it?
…or is this an ‘I knew a guy when I was in college who…’ B.S. story?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
wokeuptiedup wrote:
The balance of oxygen and co2 is important for the planet to maintain homeostasis, bozo. You’re so ill-informed it’s not even funny.
Because I don’t believe the scientists you believe, but instead believe the 4,000 scientists that disagree with your scientists, that’s ill-informed?
Riiiiight!
Ignoring the democratic aspect of the whole process, it’s funny that he/she considers him/herself informed. How you can read all of the research on global warming and contrast it to a real science like electronics or medicine and declare yourself ‘informed’ is beyond me. It’s like saying you’re informed on the existence of God.
It is very telling that you and endgamer want Global Warming (GW) to be true so badly that you totally ignore the issue of pollution. In my very first post on this issue I stated that pollution in all forms need to be seriously addressed. But Nooooo! You need to have GW be true regardless of pollution.
So the thinking person must then ask you both, what is your motivation behind pushing GW because it sure isn’t reducing pollution? Because if it was we would have been in agreement on this issue from the start.
Perhaps your motivation is just political and if the Republicans were pushing GW you would then disagree with it. But because the Dem’s are pushing it, it has to be true?[/quote]
Lorisco, I can only assume you aren’t talking to me. The best description I’ve heard of my stance or people I agree highly with on the GW issue is “agnostic”. I’m 75% convinced the globe is warming, I’m 50% (statistically, absolute ignorance) whether we’re responsible and I’m 99% certain there is little we can/should do about it, except maybe prepare.
And my disgust for the IPCC and it’s “scientific method” knows no limits.
j
[quote]wokeuptiedup wrote:
I also “piped in” to check out Bob Coase, you super-reader, you. If you had done that, I wouldn’t need to be posting this.
…
Coase won the Nobel for his work, and a little blurb from some biased website isn’t going to make Kyoto economically disastrous. You of all people should know that his b.s. websites don’t need to be peer reviewed or go through an IRB or anything else. What does that make them worth in your eyes? Fuck-all?
[/quote]
So, since you didn’t post any of your own work and just regurgitated a simplistic explanation of emissions trading, I’ll assume the research you did ‘back in school’ consisted of reading up on Coase? Apparently, you need to go back and read some more.
His name is Ronald, and no one calls him “Bob”. Even if you do know him, many might consider it ignorant and disrespectful to refer to him in a name other than his own.
Emissions trading is loosely based on the Coase Theorem. To say that Coase won the Nobel for emissions trading is like saying Einstein won the Nobel for his work on nuclear fission.
Coase’s Theorem assumes negligible transaction costs, which is a very big assumption. When you’re talking about a trace byproduct of power generation (or TSPs from a bakery), the EPA, and American Coal-fired powerplants oversight and transaction costs are considerable and accountable. When you’re talking the sine que non byproduct, some as yet unnamed regulatory agency, and global emissions, you’re talking about the unfathomable.
More importantly, and more fatally, the ‘emissions cap’ only works if it’s highly accurate, easily measured, and very predictable. Three things which atmospheric CO2 hasn’t been.
As we both know, websites, theory, and Nobels are just fuck-all if the ideas don’t bear any fruit. What do you think Carter’s Peace Prize is worth? While we’re on the topic of results, care to name a nation that is on track to meet it’s Kyoto quota? Care to throw up a number relative to the total emissions or the actual reduction in the rate of carbon accumulation (let alone cessation, further let alone alleviating warming)?
Lorisc,
I had some questions about your 10 facts.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Here are some interesting facts about global whining, I’m mean warming:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/ten_facts_about_global_warming.htm
[/quote]
The Domesday book was commissioned in 1085 and finished in 1086. According to your earlier posts, we did not even have accurate records of temperatures until the 1850’s. If this is correct, then it would be impossible to even know the temperature in the mid 1080’s. Please explain.(http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/)
[quote]
3. Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere there is over a hundred times the concentration of water vapour, which is the dominant greenhouse gas. [/quote]
You’re failing to take into account the scaling of water vapor in the atmosphere in response to increases in temperatures.
See, In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached.
Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.
(http://www.msc.ec.gc.ca/education/scienceofclimatechange/understanding/FAQ/sections/2_e.html)
This is only rhetoric. There are plenty of things which life is reliant on, however, a “more is better” philosophy doesn’t work. For example, there wouldn’t be any life on earth without sunlight, however, that does not mean that its beneficial for me to stand out in the sun all day long.
Of course the greenhouse effect is important. No one says we should eliminate it. However, the issue is not throwing it out of balance.
In a previous post of yours you said this, “So the fact is that the earth’s surface air temp has gotten warmer since 1850.”
Which is it?
This internally contradicts points 1 and 5. If the data is so corrupt that it cannot be used to claim global warming is happening, then it is also too corrupt to use to say global warming isn’t happening.
Also, I read the source that the website you copied this top 10 list from. The source (Global Warming - Greenhouse Effects, Global Warming, Climate Change), however, actually does NOT make the same point that the author of the top 10 list makes. Be VERY careful not to turn “some” into “only.”
I could not locate the reference for this claim. What are these models being used to do, specifically. Secondly, when was this idea published - and which technological advances have we seen in the field since then?
This is a red herring. Even if the agreement would have been terrible because it was harmful to the economy, that does not prove or disprove the fact that global warming occurs. I’ll leave you up to your own opinion on the agreement, however, realize that this says nothing about global warming as a phenomenon.
Please take a moment to read Chris Landsea’s letter (the source your webpage uses to make this claim). Realize, then, that most of the claims you’re making right here are exaggerated. Some of them even entirely unfounded. Moreover, please recognize that the “source” of this information is one man’s open letter to his colleagues about why he chose to quit. The letter itself does not actually prove any of his claims to be true. Can you please provide me the evidence which does?