Prev Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 Please log in to reply 60 replies to this topic

[JR Texas]

RickBradford, on 2009-11-19 08:45:48, said:

Quote

... do not present scientific information........only pseudo-scientific information.......all of which is selected, not for accuracy, but to make a point and support a position that has lost the debate.

You're talking about Al Gore, I presume?

Even in Britain, a haven for climate change bed-wetters, a judge has told schools that if they show Gore's "alarmist" and "one-sided" film, they must also point out nine serious scientific errors which poke up above the rest of the hogwash...

So the "judge" is an expert on climate change and has published numerous papers in peer reviewed scientific journals?  

Think about it......just more nonsense from a member of the radical-right-wing lunatic camp that wants to keep us all in a mental and economic prison.

I am sure if a different life and time, that same judge would probably have supported stoning for any scientist making the claim that the earth is not really flat and at the center of the universe.  

Most of these skeptics have their heads and feet firmly embedded in the cement of emotion; they know virtually nothing about reason and science.

[RickBradford]

^

Quote

...have their heads and feet firmly embedded in the cement of emotion; they know virtually nothing about reason and science.

Now, you're definitely talking about Al Gore....

[teatree]

JR Texas, on 2009-11-19 09:00:52, said:

RickBradford, on 2009-11-19 08:45:48, said:

Quote

... do not present scientific information........only pseudo-scientific information.......all of which is selected, not for accuracy, but to make a point and support a position that has lost the debate.

You're talking about Al Gore, I presume?

Even in Britain, a haven for climate change bed-wetters, a judge has told schools that if they show Gore's "alarmist" and "one-sided" film, they must also point out nine serious scientific errors which poke up above the rest of the hogwash...

So the "judge" is an expert on climate change and has published numerous papers in peer reviewed scientific journals?  

Think about it......just more nonsense from a member of the radical-right-wing lunatic camp that wants to keep us all in a mental and economic prison.

I am sure if a different life and time, that same judge would probably have supported stoning for any scientist making the claim that the earth is not really flat and at the center of the universe.  

Most of these skeptics have their heads and feet firmly embedded in the cement of emotion; they know virtually nothing about reason and science.

You are right, the judge is not a scientist.  But wait neither is Gore.  He's just a very slick snake oil salesman.

At least the judge can read a graph, something which the 'warmers' don't seem to be able to do.  The relationship between CO2 and temperature is that temperatures go up FIRST and THEN CO2 goes up after a lag of several hundred years.  This is in the ice core data, it is indisputable and the fact that Gore imp-LIED that the relationship is the other way round shows what a lying, deceitful, toe-rag he is.

[cheshiremusicman]

Orac, on 2009-11-17 20:15:12, said:

As usual the figures here are being thrown around without making a great deal of sense - as has been pointed out already they suggest that subsidence is a far more significant problem than sea level rising and are almost of different levels of magnitude.

Also how a rise in sea level of 3mm a year becomes 1 metre in 50 years needs explaining too.

If I remember correctly, not long ago one of the so called 'Thai Experts' was telling us ( and it was reported on the TV forum) 'That the gulf of Thailand would not be affected by the rising sea water caused by glacial melting at the south pole'. How do we do it? He had probably come to some agreement to ship the water to another country like Saudi Arabia!

[JR Texas]

teatree, on 2009-11-19 11:07:32, said:

The relationship between CO2 and temperature is that temperatures go up FIRST and THEN CO2 goes up after a lag of several hundred years.  This is in the ice core data, it is indisputable and the fact that Gore imp-LIED that the relationship is the other way round shows what a lying, deceitful, toe-rag he is.

Predictably, you are being influenced by data that has been manipulated by BIG OIL.  Scientists don't present arguments the way you just did.  They don't pick and chose data points and selectively omit important parts of the entire equation.

You are confusing a natural cycle (pre-industrial revolution and multiples of millions of years) with an unnatural cycle (the post-industrial revolution period....short time period in terms of geological time).

If you take an unbiased view, you will not how CO2 has skyrocketed, especially over the past 50 years.  You will also not see a similar increase in temperature coming before the CO2 increase.

So, something else is at work...........huuuuummmmmmmm.......what could it be?  

What could account for the abnormal and very rapid increase in CO2?  

Let me guess:  TOO MANY HUMAN BEINGS BURNING FOSSIL FUELS.

About the Thai expert telling people the Gulf of Thailand will not be impacted by climate change under any and all conditions.  That is not what he said.  

But the skeptics, of course, have taken his words out of context.

He was talking about something very complex.........pointing out anomalies in tropical zones that might lesson the degree of sea level rise.  

But if both poles melt, there is no doubt the Gulf of Thailand will see a very large sea level rise.

Personally, I think the Thai scientists in question would agree with what I just said.

It would be nice if posters would stop posting pseudo-scientific crap........it is the same nonsense, posted over and over again.

Before you post anything else, you really should read what the scientists are saying; not the BIG OIL paid for hacks......I am talking about what real and responsible scientists who work on climate change are saying about the subject.

This is a good place to begin.  I don't think there is a specific topic here about the Gulf of Thailand, but you can learn about sea level rise and climate change, among other things.

http://www.realclimate.org/
http://ossfoundation.us/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

[RickBradford]

^

Quote

It would be nice if posters would stop posting pseudo-scientific crap........it is the same nonsense, posted over and over again.

I agree.

Quote

Predictably, you are being influenced by data that has been manipulated by BIG OIL.

Quote

...misleading, pseudo-scientific information, most of which is being generated by BIG OIL to confuse the public.

Quote

They were constructed to counter the BIG OIL funded misleading information that has already surfaced on this site.

The same nonsense, posted over and over again...

[MarkTSpalding]

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here.  The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

  

http://www.dailytech...rticle10866.htm

[MarkTSpalding]

AL GORE WARMING LIES & THE REAL 'INCONVENIENT TRUTH'  

By IAIN MURRAY

AL Gore was born and spent most of his life in Washington, D.C. Yesterday, he returned to the fever swamp to show he's forgotten none of his old political tricks.

Addressing the House and Senate on global warming, he put forth a litany of half-truths that he twisted into a morality tale. But the facts tell a different story. The former veep is a master politician, not a prophet or a planetary savior.

Gore's biggest rhetorical trick is saying that the Earth has a fever. He says that 10 of the hottest years in history came in the last 11 years, and this proves we must do something, because, "If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor."

This is meaningless. The Earth has been much, much hotter in the past than today. No giant space nanny fed it medicine.

Moreover, a healthy baby has a constant temperature - that's why a fever is bad. The Earth does not have a constant temperature. It has been generally warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 19th century, but that has not been uniform. It's had warming phases (the 1920s and 1930) and cooling phases (the 1940s to 1970s).

It's also had periods like today, when temperatures are flat - there hasn't been much warming since 1998. Yes, it's warmer today than it was a hundred years ago, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Talking about fevers is misleading, but it's a great rhetorical trick.

And when it comes to the economics of the issue, Gore is way outside the mainstream. Appearing before a House committee, he said that changing the American economy in the way he proposes - a plan of freezes, taxes, market controls and regulations that would represent a massive expansion of government control over the economy - would not be costly.

Yet he also endorsed the ill-fated Kyoto Protocol (which he helped negotiate). The U.S. Energy Information Administration calculates that Kyoto would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by $100 billion to $400 billion a year.

Gore is a very wealthy man, but it's hard to see why he can't recognize that this is a lot of money lost - and a lot of jobs lost and a lot of families going cold and hungry.

How does Gore address this point? He doesn't; he simply avoids it, with highfalutin rhetoric. It's not just the Earth's "fever" and our supposed moral duty to cure it; he says our descendants will either condemn us as blind or praise us for our moral courage. He also makes veiled references to himself as Churchill, while all around him others appease fascism.

It's not subtle stuff - nor accurate.

If you establish that the Earth is warming, it doesn't necessarily follow that we have a moral duty to reduce emissions. What should follow is an informed debate about the costs and benefits of various policies to address that warming - reducing emissions is just one possible answer. Another debate should focus on those policies' economic costs.

Al Gore doesn't want to have those debates, because the majority of evidence suggests that emissions reduction will be very costly and will have little effect. Kyoto, fully enacted by all its parties, would for all its cost reduce global warming by a mere 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050 - a barely detectable amount.

Meanwhile, 2 billion people around the world go without electricity. About 3 million die each year because of fumes given off by primitive stoves. The U.S. economy sneezes when gasoline hits $3 a gallon.

If we have a moral duty, it's to keep energy affordable here and to expand access to it overseas. That's the real moral truth, however inconvenient for Al Gore.

Iain Murray is senior fellow in Energy, Science and Technology at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

http://www.nypost.co...WKZDieukjRUChXJ

[JR Texas]

MarkTSpalding, on 2009-11-20 07:07:43, said:

The earth is not cooling; it is warming.  You can find an actual SCIENTIFIC discussion of the subject here:

http://www.skeptical...bal-cooling.htm

Maybe this will help (anybody see a trend?):

 Total_Heat_Content.gif   10.79K   3 downloads

[brahmburgers]

mccw, on 2009-11-17 18:03:32, said:

climate change is undeniable, but debatable to its causes. However, for what ever reason the ice caps and glacies are melting and sea levels are rising and its sensible to get ready, build sea defenses, etc.

Building sea defenses may apply in some places.  However, better long term planning would be to relocate.  Granted, it's expensive and a lot of toil, but if seas are rising (as it appears they are), then it's better to get to higher ground, than to keep fortifying sea walls and buying bigger pumps, as New Orleans is doing.  I went to a tiny island off Belize, with about 200 population.  They've put a 1/8" steel wall around it to try and keep mother nature out.  May work for a couple years, but surely won't work for the long term, particularly when it's in a hurricane region.

phetaroi, on 2009-11-17 22:53:25, said:

But, if I must, what's happening to glacial trends, just as one example.  Go up into Glacier National Park in the U.S. or the Canadian Rockies.  You look at the terminal glacial moraines and see how they're being uncovered faster and faster...I did.  Hiked places I visited in 1960, 1980, and 2008, and the front of the glaciers have receded nearly a mile...and not just one glacier.  Athabasca Glacier, Crowfoot Glacier (which no longer even looks like a crow's foot), and many more.

craigt3365, on 2009-11-17 23:14:48, said:

If you do any sort of "global" travel, you will see how much the earth has changed recently.  I flew over the Amazon in Bolivia recently.  I was shocked as to how much land is under development/farming.  Way over 50%.  Entire mountains have been cleared...heck, entire mountain ranges have been cleared.  I was in shock.   I also recently returned from Patagonia and a trip around Cape Horn.  Visited dozens of glaciers, did some serious ice trekking on 3 of them.  I saw pics from the guides showing the glaciers just 5 years ago.  One, in Torres del Paine, has receded well over 1km in 5 years.  He showed me where they started ice trekking 6 months earlier.  It was 100 meters away from where we started.  Same was true of my recent hike up Kilimanjaro.  We all know what is happening there.  But what we don't know is that when that glacier is gone, as it will soon be, the local people will be without a reliable water supply.  Horrible for them... When you see all this, you know something is happening.  Impossible to deny, but hard to identify the culprit.  But for sure, glaciers are melting...and I have to believe the incredible increase in the human population has something to do with it....we are for sure ruining our beautiful planet.

First hand reports are compelling.  Notice none of the climate change naysayers offer us first hand reports.  Instead they tell us to watch a video.  I watched it.  It is compelling.  Then I did a Wiki search on it and its author, and found that several of the scientists on the video later said they were misrepresented (dialogue taken out of context to give a different spin, etc.).   Some of the charts in the video were tampered with in order to make a stronger case to convey the message of the video. I'm not saying it's all bunk, but just as Photoshop can do amazing things with photos, so too can video makers with an agenda do amazing things to espouse a particular opinion.

[JR Texas]

brahmburgers, on 2009-11-22 10:38:23, said:

Thanks for the post..........as they say, "seeing is believing."  

Why the politeness at this point........tell them what they are actually reading:  BS funded by BIG OIL..........facts are ignored, charts are manipulated, data is selected for maximum distortion of the facts....the skeptics are not using science/reason, they are on emotion only.  

What they are doing is Micky Mouse science. It is, almost entirely, nonsense science.  It is, in fact, not science.  It is propaganda.......from a radical-right-wing spin machine designed to keep us trapped in the jaws of BIG OIL controlled Stone Age Energy Technology.

Fortunately, I know you and others see right through their deception.

Anybody see a trend?  Sometimes visuals help with understanding the nature and magnitude of a problem.

 GLAC_Grinnel_Glacier_Retreat.jpg   35.88K   2 downloads