Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[lazs2]

yep...all you got to do is say "retro (or insert new handle here), I have never heard of you so you didn't "tell me so" in the past"

He will then start quoting beetle and give himself up... his ego won't let him not do it.

as for the "scientists" that believe in man made global warming and are altruistic?

No such thing.. they are jumping on the bandwagon and going after those grants... publish or die is still very much alive in their community and if you can "prove" man made global warming or prove some disaster that warming the planet may cause... you get published.  they are every bit as ignoble as any scientist on the oil company payroll.   they are not better or worse.  I don't trust any of em.

I look at what they say.. I look at what they say that is discredited or does or doesn't happen.. and I look at how evasive they are.   Why be evasive if you are as certain as you claim?

Why not publish some simple guide like the doubters do... something with real science that proves their point that man made co2 (LOL) is causing the planet to heat up more than a degree or so (all else being equal) in 100 years?   co2 just can't make things much warmer no matter how much is in the air.   A doubling of it (by the worst case scenario) might add a degree.. a further doubling... maybe half a degree... after that.. nothing... no further doubling will increase the greenhouse effect.

lazs

[JB88]

sounds like someone has taken the day off to do some fishin'.

[Gunthr]

this is the first time i've read  Vin Suprynowicz.  this guy is a real gem....


i can perfectly visualize that ululating, self-flagellating, technologically Kervorkian chorus collectively gnashing it's teeth about CO2...  very very good stuff, Suprynowicz is now on my morning reading list of columnists.  

[Angus]

Global warming crusade, - what a nice term. What does it mean? Does it refer to the occuring global warming, or does it refer to the peope related effect on the atmosphere.
Does it tag the brave crowd of folks that rather prefer the globe not to boil up ike Venus in a matter of some generations? A crusade to save your grandchildren? A confontation that so many faced, for their existance? Like the British being the only ones to stick to having a war with Nazi power.
Futile perhaps. Futile to try to fight against human stupitity?

[Angus]

I'll answer this one quickly.
"angus.. you need to read the site. the more you delve into this global climate thing the more you see how little we know.. including even... our ability to measure temperature for the globe... yep.. we are not even sure what the average is.

The stations have been proven to be bogus... satalite data shows that north America has not even warmed in almost two decades. "

Bear in mind, that just the sheer mass of the arctics and glaciers is more than the sheer mass of the whole paper-thick atmosphere.
Then bear in mind that getting good figures about temperature are much easier in a mass of water, than in a mass of air.
Bear in mind that no matter how little "we", or rather "you" know, the global temps and their effect in air, water, and ice, all point the same way.
Bear in mind, that living near to arctic borders, you don't even have to know a termometer to see what is happening.
So, maybe I have to bear in mind that you don't know squat about what you are talking about....errrr...cutting and pasting?

[Angus]

p.s. bear in mind that just the air temps in N-America, are just the air temps over that area. The area of fast warming old USSR is much bigger for instance.
And Europe, with 4 degs up will eat 1 deg down in N-America.

This is GLOBAL.

[lazs2]

angus... again... you aren't reading the site.   It is complex and long but very informative.  We can't really get good "average" temps like you talk about...  A 4 degree increase in one area does not really mean you average that out with a 4 degree lowering in another... size of area is not even everything.  it is very complex and any honest scientist will tell you that it is only an estimate.

As for you not needing a thermometer...  you are falling into the trap you claim the "deniers" are falling into... that of local conditions being the rule... why are you allowed to do that?

Here I am having a very mild summer... the winter was also better than normal.  So I got... a less hot summer and a less cold (milder) winter..  seems great for me.

My only consolation is that there is nothing anyone can do about it so I will enjoy it as it comes.   I don't have to worry about nature and the weather...

The old adage that you can't do anything about the weather is just as true now as it ever was.

lazs

[FBBone]

Originally posted by Angus
Does it tag the brave crowd of folks that rather prefer the globe not to boil up ike Venus in a matter of some generations?

Wow, with that kind of sensationalism, you sound just like all the other alarmists.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
but... back on topic...  it really is the sun...  if we cut back the 30% of our co2 contribution that these guys say is the max we could do.. and even then.. we would be hurting... millions would sink into devestating poverty with mass starvation... we would accomplish little or nothing.  negligible.

http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html

The reason there is a contest that awards $100,000 to anyone who can prove man is the cause of global warming with co2 is because... it is simply not possible... at some point the co2 has that is added adds no more greenhouse effect.  That point may be 1 or at best 2 degrees.   that is with their estimates... the alarmists... not mine.  they admit that when pressed.

So.. the contest simply makes em put up the science... there is no science.. there is speculation but no hard numbers.. they have been burned on the numbers too many times so now... it is "significant" and "almost certain"  make em put up...

angus.. it must make you uncomfortable when you research this and find so little real hard predictions and numbers.  and.. that the recent predictions of even a year ago are now being revised to less dramatic ones.   It doesn't bother you that they are making no predictions?

The deniers the blashemers are.. and they are not being proved wrong.

lazs

The fact you even put up a website called "junk science" as a reference... Do you even read what you type, or does it just spew un-abated from your mouth like diarrhea?  It is an inspiration to lunacy, your posts.

We didn't pollute...we stopped polluting?  Even now, with our almost stringent wastewater management, you still have an "acceptable" amount of fecal colliform being released.  Let's not even talk of physical garbage...  you're living in denial, I'll send you pictures of atolls in the pacific that are strewn with trash.   Your hero, Mr. Bush, has even rolled back pollution controls in an effort to better the economy!  Cleanest water, you said?  Top predators such as tuna, swordfish, and mackerel are ALL showing higher and higher bottom up (meaning they aquire it from what they eat) pollutants such as mercury and lead every time they are comparatively analized....  Laz, you simply don't know what you are talking about and your scope of knowledge is undeniably limited.
EPA control has actually DECREASED in the past decade under bush's direction.  He's even told NASA's "Climate Studies" Program to cease collecting data on climate.  Talk about an agenda.

[Angus]

"angus... you didn't answer the question. what would happen in ten years to the global temperature if we were all dead. what would happen to it if we reduced our portion of co2 by 30%... How bout some hard numbers?"

Dead like by  a neutron bomb?

Let's see. In just 10 years not much. CO2 would fall slightly. The warming would seize to increase perhaps, but would yet be continuing. Polar area meltings continue. Vegetation would change drastically in agricultural areas, depending on what happens to the lifestock though. That is a huge question. So, assuming a big drop in lifestock, areas will go from field to scrub. In just 10 years the difference would be notable.
Now pollution would drop, that affects the dimming effect, which is a plus for warming. So it's a matter of balance before co2 and others start dropping.
So in short, in 10 years, not much. Will probably be even warmer.
BTW, I have read an article about something very similar. Stepping from 100 years to 100.000 years.

Now I have a question for you.

What do you think will happen to the big oil companies, if alternative fuels start advancing, say 5% of the cake every year? In, say, 10 years?

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
Global warming crusade, - what a nice term. What does it mean?  

Sheesh Angus.........the grants haven`t even been handed out to the scientists to study this yet.
Give them time. Say..........ten to fifteen years. A few added grant extensions, etc. There are charts to make for Christ`s sake.  
Don`t worry , you will get your share of the bill.

[AKH]

Steven Milloy, publisher of junkscience.com also dismissed the EPA's 1993 report linking secondhand smoke to cancer as "a joke," and when the British Medical Journal published its own study with similar results in 1997, he scoffed that "it remains a joke today." After one researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?"

Same tactics, different "debate."

[Angus]

A scientist doesn't have to have an agenda to get a grant.
However a "scientist" working to promote a certain thesis for an Oil Tycoon MUST have a certain agenda.
That's the difference.

[Angus]

Wasn't Lazs quite hot in the tobacco thread?
Hot like in smoking

[Skuzzy]

Three active threads on the same topic merged into one.