Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[Angus]

Opinions or not, degrees or not, 0.5 deg errors or not, any Eskimo or Inuit can tell what's happening without even having a termometer.
And 6 degrees globalwise in a century is not JUST something, it's a bloody DISASTER!

[bj229r]

6 degrees? I've never seen that, Heard 3/4 of one degree over the past 100 years MANY times

[lazs2]

6 degrees in a century is the most outlandish prediction that any computer "model" could make and I think that you will find that it has some pretty bizarre parameters.   It says that the world has no clouds and that greenhouse gas is the only thing that can change climate.  No other factor is allowed.   No sun increase or decrease... no earths rotation... not tectonic shift or el nino or la nina.... none..nothing zip nada.

The majority of the global warming alarmists agree tho on a slightly more reasonable increase (all else staying the same) of about 1 or 2 degrees in 100 or so years.  

If man made co2 is 0.3% of this increase..  well.. you do the math on how much we can reduce the one or two degrees that will happen by cutting our co2 by 30%  (we are only 25%) of the increase in co2)

lazs

[lazs2]

moray..  we do agree that scientists don't agree.. you are not a climate scientist... you think co2 is warming the planet and that the 25% increase that humans are adding will cause a catastrophic event.   This seems like an odd thing and that the numbers don't add up but...

You have good company.   2,500 people with advanced degrees (dozens maybe with degrees in climate science)  have signed documents saying that you are right and that it is almost certain that maybe man has a "significant" effect on global warming by his creation of co2.

I have about as much credibility as you on global climate (about nothing) and I disagree.  I say that the numbers that anyone ever shows me don't add up and that there is a whole lot of hysteria and false science and reaching and bogus modeling going on and that there is an obvious agenda by a group that has always had an agenda....  and worse... that they are not the concensus.

I am not alone.    19,000 people with advanced degrees have signed a document that says just what I am saying here on these boards.   They may or may not have an agenda but they certainly are not being paid by anyone to sign... not like the UN ones eh?   they know that to say what they think will cause the kind of uproar that I get here so most don't bother.

While working on my degree I have had to take geology and chemistry classes and the profs for those classes both agree that co2 being the driver is silly.  they are only two people but... not everyone agrees.

also..I understand your abhorance of "pollution" given your work... but... co2 is not pollution.  Co2 is a benificial and natural gas that is the stuff of life... more is way better than less.  too much makes plants grow better... too little makes it hell on earth.

And... lastly   The sun.    The poor old sun has not been "discredited" as you say.  one article came out saying that brightness (not all solar activity) can only account for 25% of the increase.. or more... I use their 25% number tho..

What?????  25% of the increase and they never felt it was worth mentioning till a few months ago?  and then only to discredit?   with something that important wouldn't you think that at least 25 times more research and model making would be made based on the sun than on the tiny co2 contribution???

so we have a few articles saying the sun is "only" a 25% or so player in the warming... all based on a ten year span on a chart that is based on weather stations that are faulty and that is enough to not even look at the sun as a driver anymore?   No further research needed eh?   one article should be plenty.  

lazs

[bj229r]

Originally posted by MORAY37
The reason this was such a big deal, is what you are missing.  It is not the job of the head of ANY scientific organization to present an OPINION.  He did not present a hypothesis, or any supporting data.  He simply stood up there and presented his OPINION.  That is why so many scientists were upset.  Whether his opinion is right or wrong, he did not back up his opinion with a hypothesis or any sort of data.  

Also, his commenting on Global Warming, publically, from his position, is quite irresponsible.  He holds no degrees in any sort of relevance to the stated topic.  He did not author a paper on the subject.  He didn't even present a hypothesis.  He just stated what he felt, which could be construed as fact, though there were no statistics used to back up his position.  All of his master's degrees are in aeronautical engineering, none of which deal with the topic of climate studies.   They make him a good choice for director of NASA, yet not a climate scientist.

Point taken, but if a guy has a PHD and FIVE MASTERS, excuse me for listening to his opinion--and my point was more the level of hysteria with which he has BEEN beat down--dissenting views in this area are simply NOT allowed--

The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming.[/i] This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.
 
The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.
 
"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website

Cullen’s call for decertification of TV weathermen who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers." See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8 & http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD

LINK

[Angus]

Earths temp, - may I point out, is very visible on the polar areas. 3/4 in the atmosphere calculated and all, is not the equal energy of 3/4 in the oceans, and that with melting ice.
6. Never saw that untill today, but I don't buy it. 6 would be a catastrophy.

[lazs2]

yep.. it is just this kind of hysteria and marxist "the end justifies the means" type of thinking that has set me off.

No debate allowed..  the sun...  an admitted 25% to 75% player in the game not even bothered to be researched until the "deniers" point it out and everyone says "yeah.. what about that?"  then the alarmists scramble to put together one  or two articles to say the sun is ONLY 25% of the increase???  25 to 50 times the amount of mans so called contribution and you can find nothing on it?

How is the agenda not apparent to anyone who bothers to look?   What kind of a scientist says that any research that does not agree with their conclusion should be ignored or ridiculed and the researchers lose their acreditation???

lazs

[Angus]

Well, even Gore has confessed overstating things to get attention to his point.
But anyway, the Sun is being researched as we speak.

[GtoRA2]

Moray is just another global warming acolyte, their religion is a religion of fear. Listen to Angus with his 6 degrees OMG OMG OMG OMG the ski is falling!!! THE ICE IS MELTING!!!!! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!



Sheep.





20 years from now when the next environmental scare mongering thing is global cooling or mutant ants or some other BS will you look back on this and be skeptical or just stay in the flock and bleat away?

This is all about political power and money.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Angus
Well, even Gore has confessed overstating things to get attention to his point.
But anyway, the Sun is being researched as we speak.

Yet that doesn't make you wonder? He has to lie to make his points, yet you still buy his crap.



Your island isn't going to melt, your not going to die, your kids will be fine.   Relax.

[Angus]

Lie? No, overstate.
My island is melting where there is ice, but that's just a little part of it. However, all the nicest places will be flooded as a side-result. Including where I live. And if my children live to grow old, this might actually happen in their time.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Angus
Lie? No, overstate.
My island is melting where there is ice, but that's just a little part of it. However, all the nicest places will be flooded as a side-result. Including where I live. And if my children live to grow old, this might actually happen in their time.

Angus, how do you tell a Politician is lying?


His lips are moving.


Its a joke but it applies very much to gore.


Don't you get tired of worrying about this ****? Nothing you do will change it either way.

[Terror]

Looks like a Y2K bug hit the NASA temperature model.  Shows that 5 of 10 hottest years occured before WWII.... And 1934 out does 1998 as the hottest year on record.

Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data

Terror

[Angus]

Gtora2:
"Nothing you do will change it either way."

What exactly?

And BTW wasn't Churchill also a Politician? After all he saw and defined a threat, responded, fought, and then a little while later the USA found itself in the brew as well....

Guess he was overstating stuff....

[lazs2]

angus... it doesn't bother you that these guys are admitting that they are exaggerating the apocolypse?   that the doom and gloom is mostly a lie?

Well... it bothers me.  what kind of scientists are these anyway?  not any that I would ever listen to in the future.

Now the data shows that the hottest years were before the increase in co2?  

That doesn't bother you?  they were frigging wrong.. they are always wrong.

Now they have decided to do research on the sun?   what is next.. research el nino and la nina?  

admit it.. they have an agenda and they use some real ugly lies and tactics to get their message out... "the end justifies the means" is their mantra.

Well...  I don't think the end justifies the means except by coincidence.. I believe that all we have is the means and the means needs to be what we live by.

I have listened to their doom and gloom and exageration about everything all my life and am frankly.... sick of hearing them flap their jaws..  sick of their BS.

lazs