Global Warming Lies

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
…
Either way I see little we could do to avert it. The idea that humans currently have the political, economic, and technical ability to significantly reduce the growth of human co2 release much less actually reverse the trend any time soon is just not based in reality.

Exactly correct. That does not stop people from trying to make money or gain power by pretending we can reduce CO2.

It’s really like pounding sand in here.

Piss off troll.[/quote]
Sounds like an admission that you were factually wrong/ and or serially misinformed.

You could just apologize—far more graceful.

Or post that apparently hard to find link to the actual perjury.

waiting…
waiting…
waiting…

42

[quote]100meters wrote:

Or post that apparently hard to find link to the actual perjury.[/quote]

Clinton negotiated his disbarment and a $25k fine so that federal prosecutors would not pursue the perjury charges against him.

Now, back to the topic - a left-wing radical has made the scientific case as to why believes man-made global warming is hooey.

Who is buying him off?

43

[quote]100meters wrote:

Hmm…I wonder if scientists are able to account for a variety of variables, like the ocean being the largest resovoir? Oh, they can? Right, I thought so. Oh, and the oceans are holding more C02, and there’s more in the biosphere? Oh, dear—it doesn’t take a scientist to figure that seas aren’t the source.

This was covered in the the Swindle film, no?[/quote]

How would we know? Do we have CO2 measurements of sea water more than a few decades back?

Did we not allready have CO2 3 to 4 tims higher a few million years ago?

How do you explain the medeaval warming period, the little Ice Age or the holocene maximum mentioned in that movie?

44

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters wrote:

Or post that apparently hard to find link to the actual perjury.

Clinton negotiated his disbarment and a $25k fine so that federal prosecutors would not pursue the perjury charges against him.

Now, back to the topic - a left-wing radical has made the scientific case as to why believes man-made global warming is hooey.

Who is buying him off?[/quote]

A real rock solid case they had on the perjury right. But at least you attempted a form of honesty.

Cockburn says:
?As Hertzberg says, water in the form of oceans, snow, ice cover, clouds and vapor ?is overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the Earth and the sun?. Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane.? And water is exactly that component of the Earth?s heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for.?

Which is weird because their models DO include water vapor. (It’s as if his main contention was dead wrong–he is just a meteorologist(Herzberg) after all.)

Witness: “A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases.”

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html

But hey, you did say he was radical.

45

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
…
Either way I see little we could do to avert it. The idea that humans currently have the political, economic, and technical ability to significantly reduce the growth of human co2 release much less actually reverse the trend any time soon is just not based in reality.

Exactly correct. That does not stop people from trying to make money or gain power by pretending we can reduce CO2.

It’s really like pounding sand in here.

Piss off troll.
Sounds like an admission that you were factually wrong/ and or serially misinformed.

You could just apologize—far more graceful.

Or post that apparently hard to find link to the actual perjury.

waiting…
waiting…
waiting…

[/quote]

You are the liar claiming Bill Clinton did not perjure himself and trying to spin the global cooling issue to pretend it was not a concern 30 years ago.

I have no time to debate or discuss issues with liars and trolls.

I merely point out that they are full of shit.

Piss off.

46

[quote]100meters wrote:

But hey, you did say he was radical.[/quote]

But hey, no he described himself as such. Thanks for playing.

A bigger concern is, there might be a way to refute Cockburn with scientific evidence - that might be a useful debate.

But you said everyone who was against the idea of man-made GW was a corporate hack with an agenda - now you are conceding that there is good-faith (if wrong, in your view) disgreement on the issue.

After all, the main editor of Counterpunch isn’t taking money from Big Oil to write his opinion, is he?

The fact that you took Cockburn at his word means that your moron theory of “everyone against GW is arguing in bad faith!” is false - you have undermined your own silly claim.

47

[quote]100meters wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters wrote:

Or post that apparently hard to find link to the actual perjury.

Clinton negotiated his disbarment and a $25k fine so that federal prosecutors would not pursue the perjury charges against him.

Now, back to the topic - a left-wing radical has made the scientific case as to why believes man-made global warming is hooey.

Who is buying him off?

A real rock solid case they had on the perjury right. But at least you attempted a form of honesty.

Cockburn says:
?As Hertzberg says, water in the form of oceans, snow, ice cover, clouds and vapor ?is overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the Earth and the sun?. Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane.? And water is exactly that component of the Earth?s heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for.?

Which is weird because their models DO include water vapor. (It’s as if his main contention was dead wrong–he is just a meteorologist(Herzberg) after all.)

Witness: “A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases.”

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html

But hey, you did say he was radical.[/quote]

Did you read what you posted?

Oh, never mind. Piss off.

48

[quote]100meters wrote:

A real rock solid case they had on the perjury right. But at least you attempted a form of honesty.[/quote]

Actually yes, disbarment over false statements is a very serious matter, even if that is how he “pleaded” out of it. You shouldn’t pretend like it didn’t happen.

49

Wait, I just read your post again…

[quote]Cockburn says:
?As Hertzberg says, water in the form of oceans, snow, ice cover, clouds and vapor ?is overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the Earth and the sun?. Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane.? And water is exactly that component of the Earth?s heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for.?[/quote]

So, Cockburn says water vapor is the primary culprit, and CO2 is barely a drop in the bucket. Then…

Bwahahah! The old models may have been overestimating temperature increases? So there is a chance that the earth won’t even heat up as predicted?

Plus, more from the article:

In response to human emissions of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, the Earth warms, more water evaporates from the ocean, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases. Since water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, this leads to a further increase in the surface temperature.

But water vapor can be affected by CO2 and the like - but whatever the impact of CO2-influenced water vapor (compared to inherent water vapor as a natural phenomenon): “‘it may be weaker than we expected,’ Minschwaner said.” This, from your own article you posted.

The NASA guy says that future temperature models are likely overstated because the effect of CO2 produced water vapor is likely lower than previously expected.

Hilarious, 100meters.

EDIT: to add, Cockburn says the models don’t sufficiently integrate water into the models. The NASA report confirms that CO2-influenced water vapor is sufficiently part of the model (and overestimated).

50

This curve will explain it all. The population of earth will get to a certain level and at that point all the resources will be used up. To correct itself what do you think has to happen? Its a sad truth but unless we find another planet to live on this one wont be able to hold everyone forever. Whether its Global Warming or a Nuclear War something will affect life on the planet eventually. You could even be more of a smart ass and say well when the sun burns out in 10 billion years we’re all going to die anyways. This much we do know.

51

[quote]Raven3606 wrote:
This curve will explain it all. The population of earth will get to a certain level and at that point all the resources will be used up. To correct itself what do you think has to happen? Its a sad truth but unless we find another planet to live on this one wont be able to hold everyone forever. Whether its Global Warming or a Nuclear War something will affect life on the planet eventually. You could even be more of a smart ass and say well when the sun burns out in 10 billion years we’re all going to die anyways. This much we do know.[/quote]

How do you know the population will not be 200 billion when the growth stops?

It is true that populations of animals etc. rise and fall and it is likely that it will happen to mankind but it is impossible to predict with any accuracy when the decline will start.

People have been predicting the end of the world for thousands of years (probably more).

I don’t think it is going to happen anytime soon.

52

I can see into the future, that’s why.

But really, I dont know, it could all end tomorrow for all I know. But it wouldnt hurt to stop destroying our planet, so at least our children could have a good life.

53

[quote]orion wrote:
…
But no, brainless Republicans, all of them, because Republicans want us to go extinct to please their reptilian overlords.[/quote]

It’s a stretch, but it would explain a lot.

54

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
…
Either way I see little we could do to avert it. The idea that humans currently have the political, economic, and technical ability to significantly reduce the growth of human co2 release much less actually reverse the trend any time soon is just not based in reality.

Exactly correct. That does not stop people from trying to make money or gain power by pretending we can reduce CO2.

It’s really like pounding sand in here.

Piss off troll.
Sounds like an admission that you were factually wrong/ and or serially misinformed.

You could just apologize—far more graceful.

Or post that apparently hard to find link to the actual perjury.

waiting…
waiting…
waiting…

You are the liar claiming Bill Clinton did not perjure himself and trying to spin the global cooling issue to pretend it was not a concern 30 years ago.

I have no time to debate or discuss issues with liars and trolls.

I merely point out that they are full of shit.

Piss off.[/quote]

Hey, he asked for a link.
A couple of times.
Why not simply give him the link?

55

[quote]Raven3606 wrote:
I can see into the future, that’s why.[/quote]

So could Malthus at the turn of the 19th century.

In case you don’t read history or science books, he was wrong.

56

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
…
Either way I see little we could do to avert it. The idea that humans currently have the political, economic, and technical ability to significantly reduce the growth of human co2 release much less actually reverse the trend any time soon is just not based in reality.

Exactly correct. That does not stop people from trying to make money or gain power by pretending we can reduce CO2.

It’s really like pounding sand in here.

Piss off troll.
Sounds like an admission that you were factually wrong/ and or serially misinformed.

You could just apologize—far more graceful.

Or post that apparently hard to find link to the actual perjury.

waiting…
waiting…
waiting…

You are the liar claiming Bill Clinton did not perjure himself and trying to spin the global cooling issue to pretend it was not a concern 30 years ago.

I have no time to debate or discuss issues with liars and trolls.

I merely point out that they are full of shit.

Piss off.[/quote]

Document the perjury. Please. Just. Document. It.

Or apologize.

Do you not understand simple realities?
A vast majority of scientists all agree today the globe is warming. A vast majority did not believe in an imminent ice age in the seventies. (hard to find evidence of this apparently–no links from you) You understand the difference between almost all and hardly any?

This does not mean a few had concerns of an ice age occuring because of various cycles (say:10,000 years from now) nor does it mean there wasn’t some lower temperatures from aerosols etc… The myth perpetuated by these kooks (and sadly you) is along the lines " the same experts that said global cooling in the seventies are saying global warming now"
Do ya get it yet?

57

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters wrote:

Or post that apparently hard to find link to the actual perjury.

Clinton negotiated his disbarment and a $25k fine so that federal prosecutors would not pursue the perjury charges against him.

Now, back to the topic - a left-wing radical has made the scientific case as to why believes man-made global warming is hooey.

Who is buying him off?

A real rock solid case they had on the perjury right. But at least you attempted a form of honesty.

Cockburn says:
?As Hertzberg says, water in the form of oceans, snow, ice cover, clouds and vapor ?is overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the Earth and the sun?. Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane.? And water is exactly that component of the Earth?s heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for.?

Which is weird because their models DO include water vapor. (It’s as if his main contention was dead wrong–he is just a meteorologist(Herzberg) after all.)

Witness: “A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases.”

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html

But hey, you did say he was radical.

Did you read what you posted?

Oh, never mind. Piss off.[/quote]

Uhh…yeah I did.

58

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Wait, I just read your post again…

Cockburn says:
?As Hertzberg says, water in the form of oceans, snow, ice cover, clouds and vapor ?is overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the Earth and the sun?. Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane.? And water is exactly that component of the Earth?s heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for.?

So, Cockburn says water vapor is the primary culprit, and CO2 is barely a drop in the bucket. Then…

Witness: “A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases.”

Bwahahah! The old models may have been overestimating temperature increases? So there is a chance that the earth won’t even heat up as predicted?

Plus, more from the article:

In response to human emissions of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, the Earth warms, more water evaporates from the ocean, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases. Since water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, this leads to a further increase in the surface temperature.

But water vapor can be affected by CO2 and the like - but whatever the impact of CO2-influenced water vapor (compared to inherent water vapor as a natural phenomenon): “‘it may be weaker than we expected,’ Minschwaner said.” This, from your own article you posted.

The NASA guy says that future temperature models are likely overstated because the effect of CO2 produced water vapor is likely lower than previously expected.

Hilarious, 100meters.

EDIT: to add, Cockburn says the models don’t sufficiently integrate water into the models. The NASA report confirms that CO2-influenced water vapor is sufficiently part of the model (and overestimated).[/quote]

I think your edit makes my point. I really couldn’t have said it better.

59

[quote]100meters wrote:

I think your edit makes my point. I really couldn’t have said it better.
[/quote]

Uh, no - it points out that Cockburn and NASA are talking about two different things.

And what to make of your own article’s point that temperatures under the current model may have been wrongly overestimated?

Your own article - and silence from you.

60

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters wrote:

I think your edit makes my point. I really couldn’t have said it better.

Uh, no - it points out that Cockburn and NASA are talking about two different things.

And what to make of your own article’s point that temperatures under the current model may have been wrongly overestimated?

Your own article - and silence from you.[/quote]

Uhh excluding water vapor feedback from models still leads to global warming from co2. The study did confirm there is a watervapor feedback eventhough it may be less than thought in 2004 adjusted models(Hey guess what? It’s 2007 now!)er obviously still point to global warming—(or you think NASA has bailed on global warming?).

The point of course, water vapor is vigorously factored into models.