Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[KONG1]

From junkscience.com:

If you think it's a no-brainer that humans are causing catastrophic  global warming, here's your opportunity to earn an easy US $100,000!

 
Contest rules here: ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com

I sent 'em an e-mail telling them it must be true because some guys in the O'Club forum of the Aces High BBS said so. Haven't heard back yet..........

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by KONG1
From junkscience.com:


 
Contest rules here: ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com

I sent 'em an e-mail telling them it must be true because some guys in the O'Club forum of the Aces High BBS said so. Haven't heard back yet..........

Thats a bet they will never have to pay out on lol.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by AKIron
You're not getting into this debate again huh? Are you not jumping right in with both feet? I guess we're just supposed to be quieted at your superior self proclaimed scientificness? Pardon me if I'm not impressed.

I'm not asking you to be quieted at all... just the opposite.  Learn the science and THEN speak your mind.  And I'm not jumping in with both feet.  I merely dabbled a toe.... until we speak in the same language, and not the same ideology, then we can debate all you want.  It's not a debate when you have already determined you are right.  I'm simply stating known facts and drawing conclusions from them.  You may be right, there may be absolutely nothing to worry about, and I'd love the empirical data to be something else entirely... it's just not stacking up that way no matter how you slant it.  

The empirical data does not support your ideology.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by MORAY37
I'm not asking you to be quieted at all... just the opposite.  Learn the science and THEN speak your mind.  And I'm not jumping in with both feet.  I merely dabbled a toe.... until we speak in the same language, and not the same ideology, then we can debate all you want.  It's not a debate when you have already determined you are right.  I'm simply stating known facts and drawing conclusions from them.  You may be right, there may be absolutely nothing to worry about, and I'd love the empirical data to be something else entirely... it's just not stacking up that way no matter how you slant it.  

The empirical data does not support your ideology.

My ideology in this regard is simply to resist those who have a hidden but nonetheless obvious agenda and those who fall for this fear mongering hook line and sinker.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by AKIron
My ideology in this regard is simply to resist those who have a hidden but nonetheless obvious agenda and those who fall for this fear mongering hook line and sinker.

That's good idea...resist an agenda.... If we had more people like you, a friend of mine might have his legs, which he left in Fallujah.   Oh, but I guess you fell for that "agenda" of fear mongering...HOOK, LINE AND SINKER.  

People keep saying this agenda of Climate Change...what agenda?  I missed the memo on it,  I must be out of the loop.  Somehow my data backs it up.. the agenda... are MY eyeballs and brain being controlled by the agenda???I'm sooooo confused.  As one of those "scientists", maybe i might be let in on this agenda, so I don't have to spend any more time with our mongoloid, critically thoughtless college students.
     Whatever.... I don't have kids, yet, but if I did,  they're the ones who will inherit the world you leave them, bereft of it's former wonders.  This species is undeniably the most idiosyncratic nature has ever come up with.  Nothing else strives to destroy more of it's habitat, or itself, more than ours.  Then people like yourself sit back and try to make it seem logical.
    Seriously.... think about it.  A 24,000 mile diameter ball of rock, covered by an atmosphere, which we'll give it a generous depth of 120,000 feet. (roughly 23 miles)  Is it so hard to think that almost 7 billion people can create issues in an atmosphere that is exactly .0000958 the contents of said planet Earth.  That is all the atmosphere takes up.  Why is that so hard for people to wrap their little brains around?  The atmosphere is paper thin... change doesn't take alll that much...especially if you figure 23 miles is all that separates you from space.  Any minor change in he consistency of the atmosphere has implications.  
    It is a sad world when those that do good are met with suspicion, and to those that do nothing but harm, you then give over your constitutional rights.

[Angus]

Paper thin. Yep, and has less total mass than the polar caps.

[Angus]

Oh, btw, there are so many threads on these topics, and they cover so many angles. I'll start one on alternative fuels and sources of energy.
Brave new world.

[lazs2]

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?

As for the deserts.. we have to protect em here.. they are retreating.  deserts are like the northern ice pack... they retreat and advance all the time in africa.  Truth is tho...food production is up.

As for the predictions...  the predictions from the majority of scientists 30 years ago was that we would be in an ice age by now caused by us.. they changed it when even a fool could see that we were in a warming cycle.   they are good at predicting what has already happened.

The ozone layer?  guess what.. the holes have moved around just as they did... there was a lot of hysteria at the time too... just like now... Lots of exaggeration...  I knew that but seen no real harm in getting rid of CFC's.. they are evil in any case.   and... it didn't bankrupt countries doing it... No big deal.   I don't know and no one knows if we had much to do with the ozone changes.   They sure seem eager to take credit for it tho.

Clean air.. clean water... good things.. we have more of both now than 50 years ago.  

moray says that we all thought it was perfectly fine to dump anything we wanted into the ocean.

This is BS of course.   At one point in mans history.. it most certainly was..  our contribution was tiny no matter what.   it got oxidized and washed up and well.. just wasn't a problem.   Modern man has known tho that polluting the ocean was a problem... too many of us with too much dumping.

I worked in the wastewater field in the early 70's in the bay area and I can assure you that we had been "caring" about dumping into the ocean for many years... I spent time in a boston whaler taking samples of the ocean and filing out chain of custodies and sending reports to the state.   We were not allowed to just dump stuff into the ocean.

But co2?  that is thin... co2 is a benificial part of our atmosphere... at levels far greater than we can ever achieve...  reducing it, or our contribution to it, 30%....  does nothing.   If the whole global warming thing is based on co2 then you got nothing.

And what will we do when we go into a global cooling trend?  How much co2 will we have to spew out to gain back even 1 degree according to the flawed models?

lazs

[Jackal1]

Good idea.
I am awaiting the arrival of the truck load of hip waders i bought wholesale. I will then commence volume sales on eBay. By the looks of things here the market is about to boom. The BS is getting too deep to wade in without them.
The market will be manipulated and people will fall into....just like they have done here.

I predict.........now , if .........uhhhhhh......possibl y...........well..wait....... ..according to. No uhhhhhhhhh.....I`ll get back to you.

[lazs2]

Yep.. you need to read this angus... it shows just how dishonest the alarmist can be in order to achieve their agenda of panic and get their 15 minutes of fame and of course.. grants.

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

The patent and flagrant ignoring and discrediting of real evidence should be enough for you to at least question motive?

lazs

[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

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Yes those noble environmental scientists work for handouts and would never think of taking money from people who have a vested interest in this. Like Gore. No they are noble kind people like hobbits, but without the hairy toes.

Exactly. I always nearly spew the monitor when one of the "The sky if falling for lunch bunch" spouts off about oil companies , then can`t see through the thin veil that is being held over their own heads about global warm...errr.... climate change.

Retro PNGed? Who would have thunk it?

[Jackal1]

Yep. All in the name of "For the good of the planet". Horse manure!
For the good of the pocket book would be more like it.

[lazs2]

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.  

The quote you give is one that is a "for instance"  it takes the very worst case scenario that is predicted by the most wild eyed of the alarmists and says.. "ok.. lets say they are right on this" and goes from there.

Fact is... natural or man made.. we simply can't increase the temp over a degree or two with the greenhouse effect of co2 alone.   even that would take about 100 years.  and.. it would mean that no other natural factor could occur... no normal cooling cycle... it would mean that everyone would still be driving 1999 chevies 100 years from now.   It is bogus.. even you must be losing faith.

mister fork... I agree we have too much waste.   I hate the packaging.  I have never owned a new car.  How much do I save compared to the hollier than tho set by never buying new cars?   I have a kirby vac that will outlast 20 of the plastic ones they use... I remodel my home.... I reload ammo... I fix stuff others throw away... hell... even my omega watch will probly get passed on to my son while they throw away 20 plastic ones.  I have guns that are 100 years old.   refinished a couple of benches for my and my girlfriends porches instead of letting then get thrown away... they are better made and look better than the new ones you can buy.

But... I am not gonna tell them how to live.  when plastic gets more expensive.. we will use less for  worthless things like packaging.

lazs

[bj229r]

If Gore is so confident of his position, why are his only media appearances in front of sycophants like NPR?

    Best-selling author Dennis
Avery is the next prominent figure to challenge the facts Al Gore is
promoting in his global warming crusade. Mr. Avery is co-author of
Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years. Both Al Gore and Dennis Avery have New York Times best-selling books on global warming, but with opposite conclusions.
    The list of Al Gore detractors continues to grow as his extreme
rhetoric and conclusions get dissected by scientists, economists, and
researchers. Avery joins Lord Christopher Monckton (former Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher advisor), Bjorn Lomborg (Danish economist), author
Michael Crichton, Prof. S. Fred Singer (former director of the U.S.
National Weather Service), Tim Ball, Ph.D. (historical climatologist),
Prof. Ian Clark (University of Ottawa), and Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT)
among others.
    Gore claims recent climate change is the result of human activities,
and society must give up most of its energy supply to prevent global
catastrophe. Conversely, Avery amassed physical evidence of past
warming/cooling cycles and experimental evidence demonstrating variations
in solar activity affect Earth's constantly varying temperatures.
    "My book says our warming is natural, unstoppable-and not very
dangerous anyway," stated Avery.
    "These books represent the two leading explanations for the Earth's
recent temperature changes-and they conflict. If global warming truly is
the most important public policy issue of our day, then it is high time the
public got to hear the arguments from both sides matched up against each
other," continued Avery.
    Gore has refused all debate challengers to date. Joseph Bast, president
of The Heartland Institute, noted, "Maybe it's because climate alarmists
tend to lose when they debate climate realists. Or because most scientists
do not support climate alarmism." The Heartland Institute has run more than
$500,000 of ads in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington
Times promoting a debate.

link