Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[gunnss]

He didn't say anything about invincible,
more like ineffectual,
was his apparent intent.

Regards,
Kevin

But to assume the opposite, that we are invincible, is equally dangerous.

-Penguin

[bj229r]

But to assume the opposite, that we are invincible, is equally dangerous.

-Penguin

WE aren't invincible...but the earth is

[Ghosth]

See there is your problem in a nutshell Penquin. You put words in peoples mouths.  I think you must think everything is either black or white. When in reality there are a million shades of gray.

So if someone proves one side isn't true, you assume the other side must be.

Nope, not the case.

True answer is rarely found on either extreme end, but somewhere in the middle.


 Accept that you are terrible at debating, and learn how to do it right.
Stop believing everything that someone else tells you. Learn to check facts for yourself.

Take everything that you see, hear, and read, and run it through an independent filter in the back of your head.
When you see, hear something that rings false, degrade how much you "believe" of what they are saying.
Ask yourself what is the person putting forth this idea getting out of this?
Fame? Fortune? how does that swing the balance? (follow the money)

Eventually you will realize that 90% of what you see and hear as the so called truth is either misstated, misrepresented, has fudged or juggled statistics, or is just plain out and out propaganda.

Those in control believe we are sheep, and treat us accordingly.

""But to assume the opposite, that we are invincible, is equally dangerous.

-Penguin""

Yes but no one is assuming the opposite.  We are just trying to stop those who are trying to use climate change as a vehicle for taxing us so they can give it to 3rd world country's. (and keep a % for themselves of course)

This is where you make your biggest  mistake Penquin.  If one extreme is disproved, you assume the opposite must then be true, or that we think it is true. Not true. Not even close.

[Widewing]

An Associated Press (a major AGW media mouthpiece) article appeared Wednesday (Jan 6), where the writer clearly was trying to prove that the coldest winter in generations was merely a fluke, an anomaly or just another indication of global warming. Here's a portion, in its proper context:

""It's part of natural variability," said Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. With global warming, he said, "we'll still have record cold temperatures. We'll just have fewer of them."

Fewer records? This year has produced more new cold records than have been seen in 40 years. Natural variability? I guess this was borrowed from the skeptical scientists who have been stating that AGW is a fraud and the warming is a function of normal and natural climate variability.

Deke Arndt of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., noted that 2009 will rank among the 10 warmest years for Earth since 1880.

This is a massive lie. According to the Russians, AGW scientists have not included the temperature readings from Russia in several years as this would demonstrate a considerable shift down average temperature. Cut the sample, eliminate the coolest readings and shift the average up. Massive fraud. This goes hand-in-hand with the Climategate scandal.

Scientists say man-made climate change does have the potential to cause more frequent and more severe weather extremes, such as heat waves, storms, floods, droughts and even cold spells. But experts interviewed by The Associated Press did not connect the current frigid blast to climate change."

What happened to the severe hurricane seasons predicted? Below normal hurricane activity has been the case every year since Katrina. What happened to massive storms caused by warming seas? This, despite the doom and gloom predictions of so-called experts. Moreover, it shows the absolute bottom feeding level these people will descend to in order to cover their tulips like nervous fan dancers on a windy stage. They will blame anything and everything on man-made global warming.



My regards,

Widewing

[Fishu]

Widewing,

According to Munich Ren in 2009 there was also alot less deaths to natural disasters than on average. In the past 10 years there's been on average 70 000 deaths per year, but last year there was only 10 000. Even so, that doesn't stop the same company from concluding that storms and natural disasters will be becoming worse in the future. Although it is an insurance company, so upkeeping fear regardless of the facts is only good for their business.

[Penguin]

Forget the cause.  Look what it has done:

LA, the air isn't supposed to be brown (wind or not, it comes from somehwere)
Bejinng, pre-Olympics it was worse
New Delhi, two stroke motors putting out more fumes than that Jeep you have, Widewing
Coal mine workers and surrounding population of coal fired power plants getting cancer at an above averag rate (each and every one)

-Penguin

[sluggish]

Forget the cause.  Look what it has done:

LA, the air isn't supposed to be brown (wind or not, it comes from somehwere)
Bejinng, pre-Olympics it was worse
New Delhi, two stroke motors putting out more fumes than that Jeep you have, Widewing
Coal mine workers and surrounding population of coal fired power plants getting cancer at an above averag rate (each and every one)

-Penguin

Is this discussion about local air pollution, or about global climate change?  Because,  I'll tell you, you'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE who wants to deliberately make their local air quality worse.  But... That's not what this thread is about, is it?

I have little doubt that this is an adolescent; he has the attention span of a gnat.

[CAP1]

Is this discussion about local air pollution, or about global climate change?  Because,  I'll tell you, you'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE who wants to deliberately make their local air quality worse.  But... That's not what this thread is about, is it?

I have little doubt that this is an adolescent; he has the attention span of a gnat.

diehard likes to change his footing when he's being beaten in a discussion here.

[Kev367th]

Watch the head of the UK Met office get roasted on BBC television.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8BCnX8LIIY&feature=player_embedded

He even has the nerve to claim that they predicted the temperature levelling/fall off the last ten years.

They can't predict weeks in advance, how the hell can we have any confidence they can predict 20, 30, 40+ years into the future.

Could the models be failing on one simple thing?
They use the IPCC figure of 100 years for the length of time CO2 stays in the atmosphere (down from 500 years). Whereas every single study (peer reviewed) shows an average of 10-15 years.

Of course they have to use to 100 year figure to make the doomsday scenarios work.

[edit] The hacked/leaked (your choice) emails are being investigated by the UK's National Domestic Extremism Team!!!

[Penguin]

I'm still not sure whether or not we are debating about AGW's truth or falsehood, or about the methods used in its study.

I can't say much about those scientists, if it's that, I concede.  On the otherhand, I will continue to debate on AGW, if this is what the thread is is about.

One of you told me to be more skeptical, so why are you guys taking everything these guys put out about their papers as true?  For all anyone knows, they could have just made everything up.  This might not have even been a study, merely a scam.  You wouldn't think that a scam artist would be telling you the truth, would you?

Still confused,

-Penguin

[bj229r]

For all anyone knows, they could have just made everything up.  This might not have even been a study, merely a scam.  You wouldn't think that a scam artist would be telling you the truth, would you?

I'm not sure which group you attribute that to, but the PRO-man-made global warming crowd certainly has the motive, and have shown it many times

[saggs]

Is this discussion about local air pollution, or about global climate change?  Because,  I'll tell you, you'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE who wants to deliberately make their local air quality worse.  But... That's not what this thread is about, is it?

I have little doubt that this is an adolescent; he has the attention span of a gnat.

I tried making that point about 12 pages ago, this discussion is just going in circles now.

That's the method used by a lot of "climate crisis" folks.  If you don't believe in global warming you are automatically and evil monster who wants to fill the oceans with toxic sludge, spew poison into the air, pave all the wilderness, and kill all the cute fuzzy animal babies!!

Besides, I feel gipped, Penguin hasn't tore into my latest rant yet.

[Penguin]

LOLOL Several of the folks in this thread know me personally, as well as many others who have not posted.

By the way, Woof Woof....


My regards,

Widewing

To end the age madness:

Yes, and around twenty others know me: ZENZEN, Simba, TeeArr, bortas1, BudGray, qbert, Phantom, just to name a few...

I am a member of Duxford Squadron, Eagle Wing.  I am its squeaker, and frequently told to move the microphone a few feet back.  My wingman is ZENZEN, and I wouldn't be where I am in the game without his and BudGray's help.  Simba isn't on that much, but usually can tell us anything we need to know about how our planes behaved in WWII.  We've recently had a few players get angry at each other (won't name names out of respect), and leave, as well as one leaving to join the Arabian Knights.

If you want to question their ability to tell a man's voice from a child's, go ahead, you'll be soundly rebuffed.

To saggs:

Now you're putting words in my mouth.  This is about the gases that are released into the atmosphere, and who or what releases them (I think! To clarify this, I have some questions about this debate, and here they are:). 

(Not to sound obtuse, I'm just trying to get my facts straight)

For the intents and purposes of this forum, is this "group" the scientists that have been caught making fraudulent claims?

How much did they make?

How much of the pro-man made global warming scientist population do they represent?

How many of the group has been caught breaking the code of ethics?

If we're arguing about the guys who did it, book 'em!  I'm outta here!  On the other hand, if we are arguing about AGW being either man-made, earth made, or neither; and if the former is true, how to prevent it, if the middle is true, how to mitigate its effects, and if if the latter is true, what else to complain about .

To the zit on her butt issue:

Duh, we are, but we don't have to make our time awful by polluting!  Sure the earth and its life will survive after we are gone, but why exactly wouldn't we be there  ?  Also, if we won't be there, who cares?

-Penguin

[CAP1]

I'm still not sure whether or not we are debating about AGW's truth or falsehood, or about the methods used in its study.

I can't say much about those scientists, if it's that, I concede.  On the otherhand, I will continue to debate on AGW, if this is what the thread is is about.

One of you told me to be more skeptical, so why are you guys taking everything these guys put out about their papers as true?  For all anyone knows, they could have just made everything up.  This might not have even been a study, merely a scam.  You wouldn't think that a scam artist would be telling you the truth, would you?

Still confused,

-Penguin

however old you are, look out your window.

[CAP1]

To end the age madness:

Yes, and around twenty others know me: ZENZEN, Simba, TeeArr, bortas1, BudGray, qbert, Phantom, just to name a few...

I am a member of Duxford Squadron, Eagle Wing.  I am its squeaker, and frequently told to move the microphone a few feet back.  My wingman is ZENZEN, and I wouldn't be where I am in the game without his and BudGray's help.  Simba isn't on that much, but usually can tell us anything we need to know about how our planes behaved in WWII.  We've recently had a few players get angry at each other (won't name names out of respect), and leave, as well as one leaving to join the Arabian Knights.

If you want to question their ability to tell a man's voice from a child's, go ahead, you'll be soundly rebuffed.

To saggs:

Now you're putting words in my mouth.  This is about the gases that are released into the atmosphere, and who or what releases them (I think! To clarify this, I have some questions about this debate, and here they are:).  i think it was not originally.

(Not to sound obtuse, I'm just trying to get my facts straight)

For the intents and purposes of this forum, is this "group" the scientists that have been caught making fraudulent claims?

How much did they make?don't know yet, but at the very minimum, they got to keep their jobs, which would be gone without this.

How much of the pro-man made global warming scientist population do they represent?more than likely the majority

How many of the group has been caught breaking the code of ethics?see above

If we're arguing about the guys who did it, book 'em!  I'm outta here!  On the other hand, if we are arguing about AGW being either man-made, earth made, or neither; and if the former is true, how to prevent it, if the middle is true, how to mitigate its effects, and if if the latter is true, what else to complain about .it is a natural cycle of the planet, thus it cannot and will not be prevented by man. [/color]

To the zit on her butt issue:

Duh, we are, but we don't have to make our time awful by polluting!  Sure the earth and its life will survive after we are gone, but why exactly wouldn't we be there  ?  Also, if we won't be there, who cares?

-Penguin