Author Topic: Global Warming (Read 16526 times)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #285 on:** February 07, 2007, 03:49:01 PM »

So posting dishonestly does not equal liar. oookaaay

I'd like to see your dictionary someday.

straffo · « **Reply #286 on:** February 07, 2007, 04:21:14 PM »

I've done it before posting and guess what ,the meaning in English is exactly the meaning in French.

I don't see how something lacking fairness can be considered as a lie,except if it was your prime intent.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #287 on:** February 07, 2007, 04:38:22 PM »

dis·hon·est
–adjective 1. not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief: a dishonest person.
2. proceeding from or exhibiting lack of honesty; fraudulent: a dishonest advertisement.

Perhaps you should invest in a new dictionary...

Angus · « **Reply #288 on:** February 07, 2007, 04:39:54 PM »

Zheeezzz. Lazs:
"Scientists are being denied money for not jumping on the "man made global warming" band wagon"
Really? Well, maybe it's cos they are being offered money by fossil-fuel related companies for debating, - something I recall you seeing nothing wrong with.
As for the dictionary, you do not have to tell a direct lie to be dishonest, but as for Holden's graph, I want to belive he didn't see the year 1900 at it's end. (It actually slipped my eyes when I glanced the first time over the reply)
And for volcanoes, they categorize as something that is not in our power to affect. But greenhouse gas emissions are, - and most of those emitted are in very little efficiency. And for some odd reasons, that varies a lot between countries, without directly affecting people's lives....
Finally, DDT, - quick answer.
Use enough of it, and not only is the end effect unforseable, - just safely bad. And,,,,there is no UNDO button on that one. From the short lived useage, every human on the planet has some DDT in the body. Some fatties that go on a proper diet may have some problems with it being released (from the fat) into the circulation, but it only came that far, thank the hippies and libs.
We also didn't use enough to screw up the world of insects, which is a nasty pain in the butt when it goes of the norm.
(BTW, I know DDT a bit, from using it on sheep louse years ago....)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #289 on:** February 07, 2007, 04:45:40 PM »

Angus,

I didn't notice that the end date was 1900, but as I see it the value of the graph is that it shows the natural variablity of the climate due to the sun, independant of whatever man is doing to the environment.

Angus · « **Reply #290 on:** February 07, 2007, 04:54:59 PM »

You do not have any sensible measurement's in the sun's emission in that period. Just the swings on the receiving end, which include very swift factors such as massive exhaust of soot like those emitted 1783-1786.
So, take the claims regarding the graph with a grain of salt, that's all.

Angus · « **Reply #291 on:** February 07, 2007, 04:55:51 PM »

BTW, you have higher swings than that in historic times, such as around 1000.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #292 on:** February 07, 2007, 05:02:37 PM »

So... you discredit the solar argument using the very same arguments CO2 deniers use to discredit the CO2 argument.

Okay, if that makes sense to you...

straffo · « **Reply #293 on:** February 08, 2007, 03:32:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
dis·hon·est
–adjective 1. not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief: a dishonest person.
2. proceeding from or exhibiting lack of honesty; fraudulent: a dishonest advertisement.

Perhaps you should invest in a new dictionary...

My dictionary is fine , so is your.

You can beat that dead horse but without me.

Angus · « **Reply #294 on:** February 08, 2007, 03:44:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So... you discredit the solar argument using the very same arguments CO2 deniers use to discredit the CO2 argument.

Okay, if that makes sense to you...

On that graph, YES.
Because it's old times with no measurements, while we DO know about the dimming effect. For what it's worth, the cooling effect in the late 18th century could have happened with a more active sun.
But of course I do not deny that a more active sun will cause heating, and even more so with a more solid greenhouse effect. On a sunny day your greenhouse is warmer, if there are no windows open it is also warmer, if you put some shade over it it cools etc. Add sunny day, and all shutters closed, and you might kill your flowers. While if you have plenty of sun, little temperature and no window it would be to cold.
So, in short, if we are to expect a rise in solar heating, the greenhouseffect is a bigger worry than before!

bozon · « **Reply #295 on:** February 08, 2007, 08:37:28 AM »

Quote

So, in short, if we are to expect a rise in solar heating, the greenhouse effect is a bigger worry than before!

This is where linear logic can go wrong. Unlike your greenhouse, the earth has more effects that cause negative or positive feedback. For example, if you raise temperatures, you evaporate water which contribute to greenhouse effect - positive feedback. On the other hand, you form more clouds that increase the earth albido hence reduce heating - negative feedback. But this may interact with other processes that encourage or discourage the formation of clouds. For example, the amount of light particles that act as condensation nuclei in the clouds.

The bottom line is that we don't really know how to calculate all that. So we feed this into numerical codes and press ENTER. Some result comes out, but since we are not sure about the fundamental precesses and whether we included everything important, we have no confidence in the result. The truth is we do not even know for sure the sign of human contribution to global heating - negative or positive. The most likely result tends to be slightly positive, but the error bars are big enough to accommodate even some low negative values.

Btw, a lot of the scientist that claim against human causes for warming, agree that we should reduce the burning of fossil fuels - for plenty of other reasons. I don't think those guys are funded by the oil companies. I know a couple of them and where they get their research grants from. It's not the oils industry.

lazs2 · « **Reply #296 on:** February 08, 2007, 09:00:32 AM »

I think it is obvious by the data and the letters from scientists about the UN use of their data and by the use of totally nebulous terms like "significant" and "contributing" and now... "massive" with... NO DATA other than flawed models that can be made to show a result that is opposite of the one they do just as eaisily....

With all that, it is obvious that it is the "man made global warming" community that is being "dishonest"

And I mean that in the American way.... not the french one.

So where are my answers of chicken littles of the globe?

When will we reach the tipping point? will this year be hotter than last? Will we have more or less hurricanes?

When does the doomsday clock run down to zero and.... if we all slit our throats today... how many minutes could we add to it?

People... people with something at stake ... will want to know the answers to these questions... despite the brit scientists call to shut up any debate...

There will be debate and you chicken littles better have a lot better stuff to show us than the crap so far.

Face it... the guys you are listening to with their flawed models can't predict the globes climate 100 years from now... they can't predict it for 10 years from now... not even really for next week... They can't predict the hurricanes or anything..

I can predict one thing... No matter what the weather does... colder hotter whatever... it will be a "crisis" of "global" proportions and it will be "man made" so far as these liars are concerned. And... I predict that they will want the countries who haven't been decimated by socialism to pay for it.

lazs

Jackal1 · « **Reply #297 on:** February 08, 2007, 09:36:39 AM »

MAN..........you mean I`ve been missing all of this????????
I got to stop woooo....weeerrrrkkk.......wu uuuuuuu...........working (tough word for me to get out

) so hard.
ROFL

This just in......................
I personaly experienced global warming last night while having a few cool ones and sitting on a lit cig in the ash tray.
BAN GOBAL WARMING!!!!!

lazs2 · « **Reply #298 on:** February 08, 2007, 09:43:38 AM »

welcome back jackal... It is comedy gold here if it weren't for the fact that these guys want to "do something" and do it right now... doesn't matter what or how much it costs or even if it will help or matter... only that someone do something to sooth their jangled nerves...

It is like watching a herd of cattle just as a storm comes in... waiting for the stampede.

lazs

Jackal1 · « **Reply #299 on:** February 08, 2007, 09:45:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
welcome back jackal... It is comedy gold here if it weren't for the fact that these guys want to "do something" and do it right now... doesn't matter what or how much it costs or even if it will help or matter... only that someone do something to sooth their jangled nerves...

It is like watching a herd of cattle just as a storm comes in... waiting for the stampede.

lazs

AmooZing to say the least.