Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[Mister Fork]

Hi Hortlund,

I see that you're engaging in my conversation in absolutes which is not a very intelligent way to debate issues which I think both you and I agree upon.  I see that you're also boasting about your 'law' degree.  I won't let my M B A get in the way either since we're hauling our diks out. It's not like I learned anything in graduate school about geopolitics, socioeconomics, ideas marketing, and other global issues with respect to the WTO, IMF, and the UN.

We could talk about the real issues behind global warming, but perhaps you could take an objective approach?   When you're ready to talk about how we can save our planet, give me a PM.  I'm sure I can pick your brain on the politics of carbon trade credits, the legalities that await countries who void the Koyoto Accord, and how other international agencies can deal with future CO2 issues from the industrialization of developing nations.  

But that's another topic.

[Slash27]

sickem Fork:D

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Mister Fork
Hi Hortlund,

I see that you're engaging in my conversation in absolutes which is not a very intelligent way to debate issues which I think both you and I agree upon.  I see that you're also boasting about your 'law' degree.  I won't let my M B A get in the way either since we're hauling our diks out. It's not like I learned anything in graduate school about geopolitics, socioeconomics, ideas marketing, and other global issues with respect to the WTO, IMF, and the UN.

We could talk about the real issues behind global warming, but perhaps you could take an objective approach?   When you're ready to talk about how we can save our planet, give me a PM.  I'm sure I can pick your brain on the politics of carbon trade credits, the legalities that await countries who void the Koyoto Accord, and how other international agencies can deal with future CO2 issues from the industrialization of developing nations.  

But that's another topic.

I see lots of text here, but nothing adressing my answers to you. I take it that means you yield the discussion.

I will not pm you about how to "save the planet" however, if you dont want to discuss it in public, then I see little reason to discuss it at all.

[AKIron]

I beleive there may be a foxy loxy in this story. Time will tell whether the role is played by big oil or the one world neo-socialists.

[lazs2]

My education?   well.. it isn't in law but...

I could scrape up an AA or so... mostly weighted toward chemistry and water science.    I run a wastewater facility and am highly certified with continuing education a requirement.  

I am not drawing on that tho... I am simply reading the articles by the pro man made global warming by c02 and the scientists who say it is a hoax or simply bad science.

I deal with EPA bad science all the time so I do draw on that experiance... I know how lawyers pretending to be "concerned" "advocacy groups"cause abuse of science.

Now... me and the 17,000 people with advanced degrees and mister fork and a lot of others are being called stupid... by.... a lawyer.   in sweden no less.

And why not?  the math doesn't add up.   Mister fork hit it on the head about co2 but the lawyer and the iceland farmer won't listen.

but... is hortlund leading the scientific community?

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs

"Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Associated issues: Global Warming
Last week in his blog post, New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears, on "

I can find no link anywhere that supports the math that man made co2 can have any affect on global warming that can be measured at even half what the margin of error would be.

Not one person can show me the math.  Not one person has been able to dispute the math by the scientists who say that man made co2 is causing warming is a hoax.

Someone is stupid here but it is not the more than half of the worlds scientists who write peer reviewed papers saying that co2 isn't the problem.

lazs

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2

"Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

LOL typical dishonest BS.

First we have a majority supporting the consensus view of all the papers published between 1993 and 2003.

Then this new character shows up, desperate for a positive spin for the anti-environment crowd. So he examines the 528 papers on climate change, published after that...between 2004 to 2007.

Of these 528 total papers on climate change, he claims that only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category  (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.  

So...we have a new study that shows that 6 % of the papers reject the consensus. 6%. And you hold up this as something positive for your retarded side?

BWAHAHAHAAHAHA

Meanwhile...
http://www.ipcc.ch

[lazs2]

hortlund... you are proving my point.   Your side claimed that they had the majority... just a majority mind you... plenty did not agree..

that was an early study.... Now... a study that is current... says...nope...not so fast.... most do not agree...most think it is way overblown.

That is what I had claimed... They are deserting the ranks of the man made global warming religion... if in fact they ever were in it.

No matter what tho.. You have to admit...there are plenty of scientists who have more than a law degree who agree with me.

You just called thousands of em "stupid" in an earlier post.  

Now it turns out that by your defenition of stupid.... more than half of the worlds scientists are "stupid"

Perhaps if they took some courses on swedish law?

lazs

[lazs2]

It really is the sun...

Most debunking of the solar effect on global warming or... marginalizing it to only 25% or so of the warming... are traced to Lockwoods  study.   There are some real problems with that study tho.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/shining_more_light_on_the_solar_factor_a_discussion_of_problems_with_the_royal_society_paper_by_loc.html

lazs

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund... you are proving my point.  

[/b]
If your point was that you are an idiot, then yeah you are correct.

Lets look at the figures.

In the 1993-2003 period
928 papes published. Not a single one disagreed with the consensus, 25% were "neutral", while 75% shared the consensus view.

In the 2004 - 2007 period
528 papers published. 6% disagreed with the consensus, 45% share the consensus view, 48% are "neutral".



So, we have 32 papers who disagree with the consensus. 32 of 1456.
We have 934 who agree with the consensus. 934 of 1456.
And we have 485 who are "neutral".

And lets remember that by "neutral" it just means that the author does not state an opinion either way, it doesnt count as pro or con for either side.


32 of 1456 are against, 934 of 1456 agree. See any majority here?

Your side claimed that they had the majority... just a majority mind you... plenty did not agree..

[/b]
And my side was right...again. And your side was wrong...again. As always.

[AKIron]

The first century Zealots had nothing on the GWA in their fervor or zeal. Call me an idiot if you will but I won't be joining the church of the GWA anytime soon.



Unless they let me be the High Goombah

[lazs2]

hortlund...  interesting way to look at it...  5 years ago.. the true believers were legion.... 75% were praying at the altar of man made global warming... the rest...were "neutral".  No opinion.

Now....  only 45% are true believers... 6% are going so far as to say it is not even possible... the rest have fallen off the evangelist band wagon and are now saying that they don't know...

That essentialy.... you are not making your point... you are not convincing then anymore...

The trend is huge and the direction is apparent to anyone but you.   You are losing the faithful..

It is your own fault...  yours and your priests arrogance and hysteria and outright lieing about the subject has angered the scientific community at last... they don't appreciate being called "stupid" anymore than I do and they are backlashing out at you and your priests.

The whole think is just more left wing BS done in the same old left wing BS way.   an unholy marriage of socialism and science...  it never fools anyone for long.

lazs

[lazs2]

and.. I think that the anti's are being too generous..

"The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of  consensus here.  Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming.  In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results."

what you are really seeing is that only one paper agrees with you about a real catastophe.

For instance...  I agree that if I put a cup of salt down the toilet I am contributing to making the oceans saltier.. that does not mean that I think it is a problem.

face it.. they faithful are deserting in droves..  you pushed em into it tho with your lefty ways and arrogance and bullying.. you are your own worst enemy...

"stupid"...  indeed..

lazs

[Angus]

Did anyone see the latest figures of the N-Pole meltings.
Score last year is AFAIK 1.000.000 sq. km.  European sattellite mesure (it has been hovering since 1978 measuring the stuff now why would anybody send a sattellite up in 1978 to explore the Northern icemass, - how silly !!!)

So, I guess that the Sun is at a 20 million years peak, right?

[AKIron]

Angus, the arctic sea melting may be an indication of global warming but a harbinger of doom it ain't.

[LEADPIG]

Ya'll can stick your heads up your butts about global warming if you want but if something happens were all gonna look stupid. I don't see what the aversion is to admiting the possibility of something, just to ere on the safe side. Even if we can or can't do something about it, might as well check it out. What's the harm in that? But outright denying the possibility of something is a move only left up to the completely ignorant. Probably the same people said Albert Einstein was stupid about that E=MC2 thing.

Know it all's, usually don't end up knowing much about anything.