OMG....JammieWearingFool
If you read anything today about Global Warming® read that piece. Prepare to be severely p***ed off.
Global Warming
Sort:
Jan 13, 2009
0
#63
P*ssed off yet? Read yet another article about how you've been bamboozled.
I will keep posting refutations to what is being taught the world populace until people start to get how they've been had by this scam. Now, we have a socialist in charge of Climate Change®. Thanks, Mr. President Elect! I can hardly wait for my taxes to go up to pay for that!
ok looks good
Jan 18, 2009
0
#66
President Obama 'has four years to save Earth' | Environment | The Observer
So, here's my question: Could the Global Warming® side look more ridiculous? You have to read this article about this clown, Hansen. He's a disgrace.
Jan 19, 2009
0
#67
Gore ice sculpture unveiled in Fairbanks
Associated Press - January 19, 2009 8:14 PM ET
FAIRBANKS, Alaska (AP) - Al Gore is now a wintertime fixture in Fairbanks.
Well, make that an ice sculpture of the 2007 Nobel Prize winner and leader in the movement to draw attention to climate change and global warming.
Local businessman Craig Compeau unveiled the frozen likeness on Monday.
The 8 1/2-foot-tall, 5-ton sculpture dominates a downtown street corner from its perch on the back of a flatbed truck.
Compeau says he's a "moderate" critic of global warming theories. He used Monday's unveiling of the sculpture to invite Gore to Fairbanks -- where it was 22 degrees on Monday -- to explain his global warming theories.
He says it will stand through March, unless it melts before then.
Information from: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, http://www.newsminer.com
Jan 19, 2009
0
#68
Jan 20, 2009
0
#70
Professor denies global warming theory - The Daily Princetonian
I have to laugh when I read the other Global Warming® thread. It's like watching ostriches with their heads in the sand.
Excerpt:
"Physics professor William Happer GS ’64 has some tough words for scientists who believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.
“This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, said in an interview. “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”
"Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore, reportedly for his refusal to support Gore’s views on climate change. He asked last month to be added to a list of global warming dissenters in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report. The list includes more than 650 experts who challenge the belief that human activity is contributing to global warming."
ok yep hmm
Jan 22, 2009
0
#72
Had enough yet? The jig is up, you've been lied to, and Al Gore should be put in prison after he gives back that dumb-assed Oscar he got.
PrinceTrumpet,
I can't really explain your first model, but I'm assuming that was the Great Warming period? (correct me if I'm wrong)
Your 2nd model, that slope that you mention, it starts and coincides with when the Industrial Revolution was happening. (18th-19th century)
Your 3rd model, even though the sun changes periodically, it does not mean it is the main cause and the reason you notice the heightening of solar activity is because the ozone layer has been depleted to a point where more of the sun's rays get through and you are also talking about the Arctic here where the ozone layer is at its weakest besides Antarctica.
Your 4th model, yes, there are regular trends of warming and cooling of the planet, but you will see that it is generally increasing upward, no?
Your 5th model, is almost the same as your 3rd model.
Your 6th model, I have no idea what that describes.
Your 7th-9th model, the increasing temperature of global warming by a few tenths of a degree do not really affect how powerful a storm is.
Your 10th model, the point is that it is going up with the amount of hydrocarbon increase even if it is the same slope so we can assume that the more hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) we dump into our atmosphere the more the sea level rises.
Your 11th model, all of those diagrams look as if they are slanting toward a positive degree change, no?
Your 12th model, what does US forests have to do in determining how much the world has warmed up? I think they have increased due to conservation efforts and, if any, by the larger amount of CO2 in the air (not proven, but it's just a theory).
Conclusion: GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL.
ADK
Dec 28, 2009
0
#74
ADK,
It's been forever and I hope you're well and ready for a good and prosperous New Year.
Forgive me if I don't go through each of the models but just discuss a few ideas overall. (I'm not a fast typist and wish I had the time to adress each and every one)
First, whether the temps have been going up is not really the question. Certainly it's about 1) what's causing it and 2) how much money should be thrown at it to "combat" it. Many accept the idea that the temps have gone up a certain amount. Spending the untold trillions to bring it down about a 10th of a degree is ridiculous.
Next, the rise of temps at the precise moment the Industrial Revolution's start seems to settle the argument. There is no possible way that said revolution could have had an effect that immediately. To accept that argument would be to say that machines blowing smoke in small pockets in America and Europe (the only places where anything of any significance was going on) enough to have an immediate effect goes against common sense. Yes,other countries did pick up the advances in industry but the lag in terms of atmospheric effect would have been many, many years.
There have been many articles written by now and since this thread started about the faulty quality of the computer models used by Al Gore to "settle the science". I'll try to fnd some for you.
One last concern: It has been widely touted that the CO2 levels have risen steadily over the last decade. Fine, let's accept that since neither you nor I owns a Global CO2 Indicator, we'll take science at its word. Then answer this question: How is it possible, if CO2 is the cause, for the temperature to have have gone down during the same period?
Okay, my friend, that took me 15 minutes to write without pausing! Told you I was slow 
.
Anyway, my grand point is to say that the science is clearly not settled and much needs to be learned before we throw away a lot of money to dictators like Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe under the guise of Climate Change accords.
Be well,
PT
princetrumpet wrote:
ADK,
It's been forever and I hope you're well and ready for a good and prosperous New Year.
Forgive me if I don't go through each of the models but just discuss a few ideas overall. (I'm not a fast typist and wish I had the time to adress each and every one)
First, whether the temps have been going up is not really the question. Certainly it's about 1) what's causing it and 2) how much money should be thrown at it to "combat" it. Many accept the idea that the temps have gone up a certain amount. Spending the untold trillions to bring it down about a 10th of a degree is ridiculous.
Next, the rise of temps at the precise moment the Industrial Revolution's start seems to settle the argument. There is no possible way that said revolution could have had an effect that immediately. To accept that argument would be to say that machines blowing smoke in small pockets in America and Europe (the only places where anything of any significance was going on) enough to have an immediate effect goes against common sense. Yes,other countries did pick up the advances in industry but the lag in terms of atmospheric effect would have been many, many years.
There have been many articles written by now and since this thread started about the faulty quality of the computer models used by Al Gore to "settle the science". I'll try to fnd some for you.
One last concern: It has been widely touted that the CO2 levels have risen steadily over the last decade. Fine, let's accept that since neither you nor I owns a Global CO2 Indicator, we'll take science at its word. Then answer this question: How is it possible, if CO2 is the cause, for the temperature to have have gone down during the same period?
Okay, my friend, that took me 15 minutes to write without pausing! Told you I was slow .
Anyway, my grand point is to say that the science is clearly not settled and much needs to be learned before we throw away a lot of money to dictators like Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe under the guise of Climate Change accords.
Be well,
PT
I hope you have a good New Year as well. : )
I don't think that we need to spend trillions of dollars to bring the temperature down a few degrees, but I think stopping oil industries in its tracks completely will solve the problem. We don't need oil when we have hydrogen. We don't need coal when we have solar, wind, wave, etc. So, I think a simple switch will do the trick.
Well, the Industrial Revolution started around the 18th century (1700's) and then gradually combined with latter ones so a few decades did go by before the full effect of it took place.
Yeah, we need some accurate models before drawing some conclusions.
A rise in CO2, even though it is a greenhouse gas, must have a counteractive effect or the planet would die from a massive heat wave. This is my theory: since CO2 causes a rise in temperature, the ocean becomes warmer and ,therefore, creating more cloud cover and massive sheets of it. This is called the Albedo Effect and so with more cloud cover, it is possible for the Earth to also cool itself down.
ADK
Global warming and cooling are natural cycles. Every planet in our solar system is heating up, not just this one. We are not responsible in any significant way. However, it is true that we could manage our consumption more effectively and treat the environment with a little more respect.
I believe the warming and cooling trends are partially down to the way the Earth rotates the sun, it's not always the same distance away due to it's wobble. Also, more significantly is the sun itself. Solar activity dictates everything in our system.
Years from now when the cycle reverses and we're all being blamed and taxed for global cooling you will realise the truth.
I think there is a good chance this is what really killed off the dinosaurs.
Science reckons there have been 5 extinction level events over the course of Earths history. People tend to think of comets or asteroids, personally I believe the planets trajectory will eventually take us too close or too far away from the sun, there it will stay for a long time.
Life would survive in the form of bacteria, or the mighty cockroach. As for humanity, unless you could survive underground for a century or two then it's curtains.
DMX21x1 wrote:
Global warming and cooling are natural cycles. Every planet in our solar system is heating up, not just this one. We are not responsible in any significant way. However, it is true that we could manage our consumption more effectively and treat the environment with a little more respect.
I believe the warming and cooling trends are partially down to the way the Earth rotates the sun, it's not always the same distance away due to it's wobble. Also, more significantly is the sun itself. Solar activity dictates everything in our system.
Years from now when the cycle reverses and we're all being blamed and taxed for global cooling you will realise the truth.
I think there is a good chance this is what really killed off the dinosaurs.
Science reckons there have been 5 extinction level events over the course of Earths history. People tend to think of comets or asteroids, personally I believe the planets trajectory will eventually take us too close or too far away from the sun, there it will stay for a long time.
Life would survive in the form of bacteria, or the mighty cockroach. As for humanity, unless you could survive underground for a century or two then it's curtains.
Yeah, they are natural cycles, but we are speeding them up by pumping out a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.
It's not always the same distance, yes, but it's not significant enough to have that warming and cooling trends. The solar activity itself remains fairly constant and doesn't differ that highly.
Even if the cycles reverse, it will still be warmer than the last cooling cycle was.
If that is what killed off the dinosaurs, then what did that monstrous crater do?
Trajectory? Us flying away from the sun? It's not happening if gravity works like I think it does.
ADK
Jan 7, 2010
0
#78
ADK wrote:
I hope you have a good New Year as well. : )
I don't think that we need to spend trillions of dollars to bring the temperature down a few degrees,
Yet, that's precisely what's being proposed!
but I think stopping oil industries in its tracks completely will solve the problem. We don't need oil when we have hydrogen. We don't need coal when we have solar, wind, wave, etc. So, I think a simple switch will do the trick.
There's no such thing as a "simple switch". Neither coal nor wind, nor sun provides the efficiency that coal and oil do. Nuclear power is a viable option whereas the amount of real estate required to implement sun and wind power is staggering.
Well, the Industrial Revolution started around the 18th century (1700's) and then gradually combined with latter ones so a few decades did go by before the full effect of it took place.
Volcanic eruptions during the same period would have had much greater effect on the troposhpere than the pittance (relatively speaking) that was emitted from the machines that were around in those days.
Yeah, we need some accurate models before drawing some conclusions.
A rise in CO2, even though it is a greenhouse gas, must have a counteractive effect or the planet would die from a massive heat wave. This is my theory: since CO2 causes a rise in temperature, the ocean becomes warmer and ,therefore, creating more cloud cover and massive sheets of it. This is called the Albedo Effect and so with more cloud cover, it is possible for the Earth to also cool itself down.
Then why spend trillions of dollars to do what, according to you, is already happening? Moreover, cloud cover keeps heat in during winter months.
It just doesn't add up.
ADK/PT
princetrumpet wrote:
ADK wrote:
I hope you have a good New Year as well. : )
I don't think that we need to spend trillions of dollars to bring the temperature down a few degrees,
Yet, that's precisely what's being proposed!
but I think stopping oil industries in its tracks completely will solve the problem. We don't need oil when we have hydrogen. We don't need coal when we have solar, wind, wave, etc. So, I think a simple switch will do the trick.
There's no such thing as a "simple switch". Neither coal nor wind, nor sun provides the efficiency that coal and oil do. Nuclear power is a viable option whereas the amount of real estate required to implement sun and wind power is staggering.
Well, the Industrial Revolution started around the 18th century (1700's) and then gradually combined with latter ones so a few decades did go by before the full effect of it took place.
Volcanic eruptions during the same period would have had much greater effect on the troposhpere than the pittance (relatively speaking) that was emitted from the machines that were around in those days.
Yeah, we need some accurate models before drawing some conclusions.
A rise in CO2, even though it is a greenhouse gas, must have a counteractive effect or the planet would die from a massive heat wave. This is my theory: since CO2 causes a rise in temperature, the ocean becomes warmer and ,therefore, creating more cloud cover and massive sheets of it. This is called the Albedo Effect and so with more cloud cover, it is possible for the Earth to also cool itself down.
Then why spend trillions of dollars to do what, according to you, is already happening? Moreover, cloud cover keeps heat in during winter months.
It just doesn't add up.
ADK/PT
The proposal to spend trillions of dollars is a dumb idea and it certainly is not one favored by me either. A "simple switch" can be installing solar to many houses all over the globe which can be used to sustain your own power and pump excess back into the grid for those against it. For pollution, hydrogen is the solution! Volcanic Eruptions cool the planet if I'm not mistaken through the thick ash that will cover and refract the sun's rays away and since the volcanic action is working against the heat and that the temperature continues to rise then I think it was the machines. I didn't propose we spend trillions of dollars to fix this. AND the cooling effect is insignificant and to a lesser extent to the previous cooling period because of global warming. Clouds do keep in warm air during the winter months, but the cloud cover is dense enough that way less heat is entering and so it won't hold much.
ADK
ADK wrote:
DMX21x1 wrote:
Global warming and cooling are natural cycles. Every planet in our solar system is heating up, not just this one. We are not responsible in any significant way. However, it is true that we could manage our consumption more effectively and treat the environment with a little more respect.
I believe the warming and cooling trends are partially down to the way the Earth rotates the sun, it's not always the same distance away due to it's wobble. Also, more significantly is the sun itself. Solar activity dictates everything in our system.
Years from now when the cycle reverses and we're all being blamed and taxed for global cooling you will realise the truth.
I think there is a good chance this is what really killed off the dinosaurs.
Science reckons there have been 5 extinction level events over the course of Earths history. People tend to think of comets or asteroids, personally I believe the planets trajectory will eventually take us too close or too far away from the sun, there it will stay for a long time.
Life would survive in the form of bacteria, or the mighty cockroach. As for humanity, unless you could survive underground for a century or two then it's curtains.
Yeah, they are natural cycles, but we are speeding them up by pumping out a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.
It's not always the same distance, yes, but it's not significant enough to have that warming and cooling trends. The solar activity itself remains fairly constant and doesn't differ that highly.
Even if the cycles reverse, it will still be warmer than the last cooling cycle was.
If that is what killed off the dinosaurs, then what did that monstrous crater do?
Trajectory? Us flying away from the sun? It's not happening if gravity works like I think it does.
ADK
The impact probably killed everything for miles around but I doubt it completely wiped out all the species. Crocodiles are proof of this.
As for trajectory, I don't mean flying away from the Sun to any great degree, just enough to change the temperature drastically, in either direction.
Gravity is dependant on the Sun, mankind has watched the Sun since day one but it's only recently that we've gained a better understanding of it. Maybe we haven't been around long enough to see all that the Sun is capable of.
Earth is the exact distance from the Sun it needs to be to sustain life, the slightest alteration of that could affect life on this planet, totally.
French physicist calls Al Gore a 'crook' over global warming issues
Perhaps 2008 will be known as the year Global Warming® was finally exposed for the fraud it is.
That pic was from a couple of days ago.