[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
It validates the very real perception that many people in all walks of life are bat-shit crazy.[/quote]
I took the liberty of fixing that for you.
Former NASA scientist : Global Warming is nonsense.
Professor Woodcock is Emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics at the University of Manchester and has authored over 70 academic papers for a wide range of scientific journals. He received his PhD from the University of London, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, and a founding editor the journal Molecular Simulation. (h/t Climate Depot)
"The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth?s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.
"The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ - in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.
“There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.”
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
It validates the very real perception that many global warming religious fanatics are bat-shit crazy.[/quote]
And the second part?
Not to go all “It takes both ends to make the middle”, but it’s not like there haven’t been centuries of religious zealots that believe the exact opposite.
So really, aren’t both extremes bat shit crazy? Or is the only sane side the one you’re on?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
It validates the very real perception that many global warming religious fanatics are bat-shit crazy.[/quote]
And the second part?
Not to go all “It takes both ends to make the middle”, but it’s not like there haven’t been centuries of religious zealots that believe the exact opposite.
[/quote]
The exact opposite? You mean like we shouldn’t exterminate 90% of the world’s population with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What a crazy notion.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
It validates the very real perception that many global warming religious fanatics are bat-shit crazy.[/quote]
And the second part?
Not to go all “It takes both ends to make the middle”, but it’s not like there haven’t been centuries of religious zealots that believe the exact opposite.
[/quote]
The exact opposite? You mean like we shouldn’t exterminate 90% of the world’s population with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What a crazy notion.
[/quote]
No I mean the ones that view everything on earth as a creation of God at our disposal, for our pleasure, in unlimited bounty.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
It validates the very real perception that many global warming religious fanatics are bat-shit crazy.[/quote]
And the second part?
Not to go all “It takes both ends to make the middle”, but it’s not like there haven’t been centuries of religious zealots that believe the exact opposite.
[/quote]
The exact opposite? You mean like we shouldn’t exterminate 90% of the world’s population with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What a crazy notion.
[/quote]
No I mean the ones that view everything on earth as a creation of God at our disposal, for our pleasure, in unlimited bounty.
[/quote]
You know you could follow SM’s example and cite references for “the ones that view everything on earth as a creation of God at our disposal, for our pleasure, in unlimited bounty.”
Ready.
Set.
Go.
[photo]39976[/photo][/quote]
^ Done!
After 44 Earth Days, why resources have not “run out.”
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
After 44 Earth Days, why resources have not “run out.”[/quote]
Good article. Thanks!
Couple things here
a) we’re pretty much completely onto the debate side now which DB wanted to avoid in the thread
b) If you want to give credit to studies put out by environmental lobbies you have to do the same for oil lobbies and vice versa, they’re both shady imo but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong…just increases the likelihood a ton. So they can either both be introduced with equal amounts of criticism, or they shouldn’t be introduced at all on either side imho
c) I agree you can’t crown yourself an ecology guru, make wild predictions that consistently are nowhere near fulfilled, and then expect us to take you seriously. You can either do science or you can make headlines. If you decide to make headlines that’s great, but as soon as your predictions go south you’ve shot your credibility as a scientist. Scientists by trade are always rather circumspect in their predictions because they know how many things can be faulty.
d) I have a very hard time swallowing the idea that “there is no evidence that CO2 has increased over the last 100 years”. No matter who’s saying that–and an RCS Emeritus professor is as close to perfect source material as you can have–that’s not an assertion I would feel comfortable believing.
I would put this out here as a rather reasonable look into the process of the topic of climate science from somebody on the inside. I think this deserves to be carefully considered rather than viscerally reacted to based on her media-given status as “Global warming heretic”, because the fundamental issues she addresses in this article are not C02 or atmospheric science or “global warming pseudoscience” and she is not making outlandish claims.
I intend for this to be my last post on the “debate” portion of the this thread in an attempt to adhere to DB’s wishes.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
It validates the very real perception that many global warming religious fanatics are bat-shit crazy.[/quote]
And the second part?
Not to go all “It takes both ends to make the middle”, but it’s not like there haven’t been centuries of religious zealots that believe the exact opposite.
So really, aren’t both extremes bat shit crazy? Or is the only sane side the one you’re on?
[/quote]
There are plenty of bat shit crazy people to go around. This includes the doomsayers who believe our use of natural resources will cause the planet to implode upon itself killing off all life forms (hyperbole ALERT) and those who think we can use all our natural resources without any consequences at all.
I believe the global warming religious alarmists are akin to the religious alarmists constantly predicting the precise date of Armageddon and the Rapture. Every time, and it is every time, their predictions do not come true, they simply make new ones.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
It validates the very real perception that many global warming religious fanatics are bat-shit crazy.[/quote]
And the second part?
Not to go all “It takes both ends to make the middle”, but it’s not like there haven’t been centuries of religious zealots that believe the exact opposite.
So really, aren’t both extremes bat shit crazy? Or is the only sane side the one you’re on?
[/quote]
There are plenty of bat shit crazy people to go around. This includes the doomsayers who believe our use of natural resources will cause the planet to implode upon itself killing off all life forms (hyperbole ALERT) and those who think we can use all our natural resources without any consequences at all.
I believe the global warming religious alarmists are akin to the religious alarmists constantly predicting the precise date of Armageddon and the Rapture. Every time, and it is every time, their predictions do not come true, they simply make new ones.
[/quote]
Yeah who needs science
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
It validates the very real perception that many global warming religious fanatics are bat-shit crazy.[/quote]
And the second part?
Not to go all “It takes both ends to make the middle”, but it’s not like there haven’t been centuries of religious zealots that believe the exact opposite.
So really, aren’t both extremes bat shit crazy? Or is the only sane side the one you’re on?
[/quote]
There are plenty of bat shit crazy people to go around. This includes the doomsayers who believe our use of natural resources will cause the planet to implode upon itself killing off all life forms (hyperbole ALERT) and those who think we can use all our natural resources without any consequences at all.
I believe the global warming religious alarmists are akin to the religious alarmists constantly predicting the precise date of Armageddon and the Rapture. Every time, and it is every time, their predictions do not come true, they simply make new ones.
[/quote]
Yeah who needs science
[/quote]
Are you referring to the science that predicted the ice caps would be gone by last year which instead have increased by something like 50%? Or perhaps the science that predicted the Himalayan glaciers melting but in which IPCC “scientists” admitted was wrong. Or the science that predicted an ice age and massive famines and resulting human depopulation that never occurred? Or the prediction of milder winters? Oops, wrong again.
If the sea levels rise and Belgium floods, then the EU institutions are under water. I’d call that a net positive. Time to go spray aerosol cans into the sky.
I echo some of what has already been said, namely, the energy re-tooling policies are damaging and not emission friendly. Smae with the carbon taxes. The law of unintended consequences is in full swing in this area.
There is another article on carbon taxes causing the UK steel industry to outsource its factories, but I can’t find it.
I ask again, what are the costs to these schemes? How about the human costs of energy?
Global Warming Blamed for Future UFO Attacks:
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/08/19/global-warming-blamed-future-ufo-attacks
'According to the Guardian: “Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth’s atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilization growing out of control - and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.”
So, who are the “scientists” making such claims? They must be some rogue crazies who believe the earth is flat and the moon landing was staged on a vacant movie lot in Arizona, right? Well, according to the Guardian the scientists are affiliated with NASA and Penn State University. Yes, our tax dollars at work.’
“If you’ve been hearing that extreme cold spells, like the one that we’re having in the United States now, disprove global warming, don’t believe it,” said [John] Holdren, [Whitehouse science Czar and] author of the book Ecoscience promoting forced abortion and sterilization, drugging of the water supply with contraception, and the creation of what he called “planetary regime” to control the world and its population.