As soon as your discovery hits the airwaves you'll be lionized in history as the man who figured things out. You and Big Oil. Nice work. I am very proud that The Paddock could serve as a springboard for unleashing your research that proves conclusively that the entire scientific body of the civilized world in every corner of the globe are all wrong but you, Google Search, and a Big Oil backed website saw through their ruse. Well done. Well done, indeed.
Does the snow storm disprove climate change?
- Thread starter ymmot31
- Start date
San Pedro Sula, Honduras. Is without doubt one of the most dangerous places in the world. Lord Z had better stay off the streets and go into the rain forest to hug his tree."The Friends of Science Society (FoS) is a Canadian non-profit group based in Calgary, Alberta, that is "made up of active and retired engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, as well as many concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable." [1]
In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, including a major grant from the Science Education Fund, a donor-directed, flow-through charitable fund at the Calgary Foundation. The donations were funnelled through a University of Calgary trust account research set up and controlled by U of C Professor Barry Cooper. [2] [3] The revelations were based largely on the prior investigations of Desmogblog.com, which had reported on the background of FoS scientific advisors and Cooper's role in FoS funding."
Pretty sure I met this guy on Roatan living on the beach looking for a handout.
"The Friends of Science Society (FoS) is a Canadian non-profit group based in Calgary, Alberta, that is "made up of active and retired engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, as well as many concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable." [1]
In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, including a major grant from the Science Education Fund, a donor-directed, flow-through charitable fund at the Calgary Foundation. The donations were funnelled through a University of Calgary trust account research set up and controlled by U of C Professor Barry Cooper. [2] [3] The revelations were based largely on the prior investigations of Desmogblog.com, which had reported on the background of FoS scientific advisors and Cooper's role in FoS funding."
So I can use that same logic to cast doubt on your side as well, correct? The government is funding the people that came up with man made global warming. The same government that will increase its power and control if we will just lay down and take it?
Surprised you don't know that it is a logical fallacy to assume information is wrong based solely upon its source. You are not very good at this. Perhaps go back to your adolescent diatribes.
I always enjoy when we get to this point and I know that you have no argument. Surprised that other idiot that usually dumbs up these threads didn't show up today. Ego must be fragile of late.
No, I fully support you and your important research. Just think about it. Here, on this message board, using only Google Search, you have found a website backed financially through nefarious means by Big Oil that blows the lid off what the entire scientific establishment of the world believes. That is a major accomplishment. I am licking the stamp on my certified mail envelope right now to get your important research forwarded immediately to the IPCC. This indeed is a "stop the presses" moment. Here, all that time, the research needed to disprove the greatest scientific minds in the world was right in front of us but it took you to find it. I, for one, am impressed with your work today. Thank you, and on behalf of a grateful nation, I thank you.
I posted links pretty much debunking all your claims. I'm sure you didn't take the time to read them. How anyone in this age can deny climate change and that man contributes to this change is either delusional or retarded. What other government conspiracy theories do you wackos believe in?
Yet you cite the IPCC? Who funds them? Have you ever even heard of Michael Mann? Are you not aware of the emails that were leaked that proved beyond doubt that data was manipulated to prove a premise? Do you think it is sound science to form an opinion and then manipulate data to prove it?
You will always lose this argument. You may win the battle though and we can pay 5$/gallon for gas and .50$/kwh for electricity. It won't fix the climate, but it will make you feel good that you won.
You will always lose this argument. You may win the battle though and we can pay 5$/gallon for gas and .50$/kwh for electricity. It won't fix the climate, but it will make you feel good that you won.
How much do we contribute? CO2 is not the driver of the climate. Stupid and unscientific to keep spouting that. I do not deny climate change. In fact, I'm more for it than you are. I know the climate changes constantly, you think it changes when man makes it change.
I don't think you do otherwise you would have noticed that Daboss posted a link that directly and completely refuted this tired old claim.
1. Doesn't matter where they get their money...the question is whether their science is correct.
2. Discounting them because of where they get their money certainly bodes poorly for any organization that must spout the party line to keep the grants coming. Absurdity at it's finest.
2. Discounting them because of where they get their money certainly bodes poorly for any organization that must spout the party line to keep the grants coming. Absurdity at it's finest.
If he posted a link that says the climate isn't always in a state of change, then I don't want or need to read it. That is for the gullible people like you two. It's not for me.
Oh I said that? Please show me where I said that. Lots of contributing factors to climate change. We aren't helping things though by pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
I asked you how much we contribute? It's a rhetorical question. If CO2 is not the driver of the warming, and it's not, then it doesn't matter that we contribute CO2 to the atmosphere.
The government is merely cherry picking an opportunity to expand its power.
Please. Take the time to read the links I shared. And if you get the chance go to your local community college and sign up for an entry level astronomy class. If that is too much just go to any middle school and ask them to explain to you how CO2 works and why it's bad to pump it into the atmosphere. It's fairly basic stuff my man.
The models were rigged to give exaggerated weight to the effect of increased CO2. CO2 is a very minute constituent of the atmosphere and of the greenhouse gasses. The government cannot effectively tax us for the water vapor in the air. You cannot show me one piece of scientific evidence that says CO2 drives the climate. CO2 drives climate MODELS, not the climate.
Not only has the effect of CO2 been exaggerated, the effect of increased temperatures has been exaggerated as well.
Not only has the effect of CO2 been exaggerated, the effect of increased temperatures has been exaggerated as well.
Didn't Al Gore invent global warming, I mean, uh, climate change, or whatever they call it in these days of enlightenment, right after he invented the Internet?
This is how it works:
-There's a blizzard outside. "No you knuckle draggers this has nothing to do with global warming, science says so."
-There's a summer heat wave. "See all you careless aholes...we are just burning up our atmosphere, this proves the science."
Irony
-There's a blizzard outside. "No you knuckle draggers this has nothing to do with global warming, science says so."
-There's a summer heat wave. "See all you careless aholes...we are just burning up our atmosphere, this proves the science."
Irony
![[pfftt]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/1682173.gif "Pfffttt [pfftt]")
It's when dumbasses like Z get ahold of these debates that they really just disintegrate. It's impossible to have an open discourse because you have two side of buffoons just playing a game of "he who screams the loudest, wins."
And it's mostly because it has been politicized, so you have 89% of the country in the "I'll believe the moon is made of skittles if my party's political leaders say it is" camp.
Truth and non-truth carry the same inertia in modern society. Really ****ing sad.
This is probably one of the dumbest things I've read on the Internet. And I'm on here every day.
This is taken from RealClimate...
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
Filed under:
— group @ 3 December 2004 - (
)
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
You do not need a PHD in Climatology to understand what is being said there. The inconvenient truth is CO2 does not cause warming. Science says it doesn't. Some scientists say it does, but not science.
As far as my model statement goes Daboss, I know that is not the dumbest thing you've read. Might be the simplest thing you can't understand. Here you go. The climate models were constructed by people. People decided on the parameters the models would use to make calculations. Each parameter is weighted against the other parameters. The Sun was given as a constant source. CO2 was given more weight than it has proven to deserve. That is why when the CO2 is increased in the model, an exaggerated result occurs.
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
Filed under:
— group @ 3 December 2004 - (
)This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
You do not need a PHD in Climatology to understand what is being said there. The inconvenient truth is CO2 does not cause warming. Science says it doesn't. Some scientists say it does, but not science.
As far as my model statement goes Daboss, I know that is not the dumbest thing you've read. Might be the simplest thing you can't understand. Here you go. The climate models were constructed by people. People decided on the parameters the models would use to make calculations. Each parameter is weighted against the other parameters. The Sun was given as a constant source. CO2 was given more weight than it has proven to deserve. That is why when the CO2 is increased in the model, an exaggerated result occurs.
This is taken from RealClimate...
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
Filed under:
— group @ 3 December 2004 - (
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
You do not need a PHD in Climatology to understand what is being said there. The inconvenient truth is CO2 does not cause warming. Science says it doesn't. Some scientists say it does, but not science.
As far as my model statement goes Daboss, I know that is not the dumbest thing you've read. Might be the simplest thing you can't understand. Here you go. The climate models were constructed by people. People decided on the parameters the models would use to make calculations. Each parameter is weighted against the other parameters. The Sun was given as a constant source. CO2 was given more weight than it has proven to deserve. That is why when the CO2 is increased in the model, an exaggerated result occurs.
The rest of the article you linked...
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.
From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a “feedback”, much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.
So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn’t tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]
Pumping more CO2, a greenhouse gas that traps long wave radiation that is essential to keeping us from freezing to death, will inevitably alter the temperature of the planet. It's not that difficult man. CO2 might be minute in comparison to other gases but that is irrelevant. It traps heat. That's what it does. And thank God, Allah, the Spagehtti monster, whoever that it does because we wouldn't be here if it didn't . You can't keep increasing the amount of a gas in the atmosphere and not expect there to be some sort of effect. Maybe there is some sort of money making conspiracy the government is conducting. I don't know. Maybe you're right and the majority of us are just idiots that don't really understand the way greenhouse gases work.
It is not "irrelevant". It is of utmost importance to the argument. If the effect is miniscule, and it is, then there is no need to create undo hardship on society to deal with it. Unless it can be used as a power grab.
The theory that it leads to a feedback loop is debunked by the reality of the RATE of warming slowing dramatically for the last 18 years while the increase in CO2 levels has remained fairly steady. If CO2 was a primary driver, then the temperature would have continued to rise. Actually, the rate would probably INCREASE, not stagnate.
The theory that it leads to a feedback loop is debunked by the reality of the RATE of warming slowing dramatically for the last 18 years while the increase in CO2 levels has remained fairly steady. If CO2 was a primary driver, then the temperature would have continued to rise. Actually, the rate would probably INCREASE, not stagnate.
You are right about it being a power grab. You just fail to see the side that is actually trying to grab the power. I provided links that debunks all your claims. There is plenty of information out there if you aren't satisfied with those links; the Internet is a big place. I actually have a piece of paper that says I can teach this shit. I don't teach it, but I could if I wanted to. That doesn't make me an expert, but it's really not that complicated. This doesn't come from a political place for me. I get it. You don't like big government. You want the government to stay out of your affairs and all that jazz. I understand how ideology works. You're just wrong. The majority of the scientific community is in agreement. Maybe you're Copernicus though and we are all screaming, "No! The sun revolves around the earth." Who knows.
He wont read them. All his claims have been debunked, from model exaggeration (which its not), to not understanding the role of greenhouse gases. You can lay peer reviewed article after article, you can show every scientific argument you want, the reply will always be some unlogical nonsequiter, without really looking at it.
Some people are so agenda driven, that facts get in the way. I wish climate change wasnt real, I really do. I have no agenda for this. The science has been settled for some time, most places have moved on past these people, from government to private industry. Its the same type of people that think Obama is Muslim.
You can shove all the facts you want down their faces, some people think they are being free thinkers by ignoring established science. It wont change their minds. As the evidence mounts more and more (rising temperatures) they are just left behind. Let them live in fantasy world. If people want to believe the moon is made of cheese, no matter how many facts you throw at them, they will still believe.
We won this argument a long time ago.
You make the mistake of acting like this is a personal opinion of mine. Their are many people more intelligent than either of us, and more qualified, that understand the same things I am telling you. Are you saying you are more knowledgeable than them as well?
How can anyone as smart as you profess to be, read the information on realclimate and not see the bias involved? How can you read the IPCC reports and not question when they say 90% certainty? IF it was settled science, it would 100% certainty, wouldn't it? Why is it that every time the climate history has been changed, it always indicates a larger warming trend? Is that an accident? Luck of the draw? Convenient manipulation?
How can anyone as smart as you profess to be, read the information on realclimate and not see the bias involved? How can you read the IPCC reports and not question when they say 90% certainty? IF it was settled science, it would 100% certainty, wouldn't it? Why is it that every time the climate history has been changed, it always indicates a larger warming trend? Is that an accident? Luck of the draw? Convenient manipulation?
We won this argument a long time ago.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is how liberals win arguments.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is how liberals win arguments.
NUH- UH
Ladies and gentleman, how deniers think they win arguments.
No, its the use of facts. You refuse to listen after beat down over and over again. We use facts, you use nu uh.
The evidence has been settled for a long time, we keep refuting every claim you make, you ignore it. No point in discussing. Like the rest of the world from all elements of governments worldwide and private industries, just move on.
Like tommy making the same arguments that have been refuted time and time again. No point in arguing with a denier.
Last edited:
There are tons of these public spending boondoggles which makes me chuckle when someone says that only one side is effected by funding.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture will give $150,000 to North Carolina State University for an educational campaign to encourage high school teachers to use more global warming materials for their lessons. The idea is to convince young farmers and future agriculture professionals to pay more attention to global warming.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture will give $150,000 to North Carolina State University for an educational campaign to encourage high school teachers to use more global warming materials for their lessons. The idea is to convince young farmers and future agriculture professionals to pay more attention to global warming.
At this point, I think stating that climate change is an opiate for the masses is itself an opiate for the masses.
Not understanding the basics of science can get you killed, like the tragic deaths over the weekend due to carbon monoxide poisoning in the snow.
Analogous to that is pollution and greenhouse gasses, but worse still it hurts us all. The real tragedy is that this issue is politicized in the first place.
Analogous to that is pollution and greenhouse gasses, but worse still it hurts us all. The real tragedy is that this issue is politicized in the first place.
It is very childish.
Wtf is the harm anyway have to pay a couple dollars more on your weekly wal mart checkout? Maybe you have to change careers? Is it that annoying to reduce, reuse and recycle lazy tcukers? Does the sight of a bunch wind turbines in a field make you long for the days of that sweet sweet oil well smell?
Wtf is the harm anyway have to pay a couple dollars more on your weekly wal mart checkout? Maybe you have to change careers? Is it that annoying to reduce, reuse and recycle lazy tcukers? Does the sight of a bunch wind turbines in a field make you long for the days of that sweet sweet oil well smell?
Last edited:
I think a lot of people are open to ways to get alt energy into the system. Unfortunately CC advocates have probably become more annoying than pentecostal evangelists (similar styles tho)...and their main solution is a shitload of new taxes and refuse to talk about their effect on the poor and jobs (or how India/China really are the key).
This. Its ever increasingly clear that he knows nothing other than to say "SEE THEY SAY IT".
Im not entirely sure theyre not the same poster.
How can anyone still believe that data after it was discovered they altered it.
