| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
16 Sep 2007 03:32:45 PM |
| Object: |
2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=42
The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died
September 3, 2007
By Alan Caruba
When did the global warming hoax die? Historians are likely to
pinpoint 2007. It will take another decade to insure it cannot be
revived, but the avalanche of scientific studies and the cumulative
impact of scientists who have publicly joined those who debunked the
lies on which it has been based will be noted as the tipping point.
It took some forty years to unmask the Piltdown Man hoax that began in
1912 alleging that the skull of an ancient ancestor of man had been
found in England. Any number of British anthropologists unwittingly
contributed to the hoax by confirming the authenticity of the skull
until it was found that the jaw of an orangutan had been cunningly
attached. The unmasking of "global warming" has taken well under than
half that time.
The hoax has mainly been a creation of the United Nations
Environmental Program and took off in earnest with the 1992 Earth
Summit. It culminated in 1997 with the Kyoto Climate Control Protocol,
an agreement to reduce the generation of carbon dioxide, a
"greenhouse" gas (CO2) said to be the cause of an accelerated warming
of the earth. By 2005, 140 nations had ratified the pact, agreeing to
reduce CO2 emissions. Notably exempt from the pact were nations such
as China and India. Few, if any, nations have ever met the limits that
require reductions in CO2 production, primarily the result of the use
of so-called "fossil fuels" such as oil, natural gas, and coal.
The United States refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and, at one
point, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution rejecting it.
This has not kept the U.S. from spending billions on so-called
"climate research" intended to address climate change with the aim of
reducing or capturing CO2 emissions. Had that money been devoted to
maintenance of the nation's infrastructure, tragic events such as the
collapse of the Minnesota bridge over the Mississippi might have been
averted.
In August, it was revealed that NASA scientists had corrected an error
that resulted in 1934 replacing 1998 as the warmest year on record in
the U.S. Repeatedly the data put forth to justify the global warming
hoax has been debunked.
As Dr. David Wojick recently noted, "The real significance is that
such a small correction can make such a big difference. The reason is
that the much touted warming of the last three decades is merely a
return to earlier warm times, after an equally long period of cooling...
There is no way this pattern constitutes a warming trend...In short,
there is no evidence for human-induced global warming in the U.S.
temperature record."
"Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust," declared
astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing a new study that has been
accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research
authored by a Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. A
former Harvard physicist, Dr. Lubos Motl, said the new study has
reduced global warming fear-mongers to "playing the children's game to
scare each other."
The new research concludes that the Earth's climate is only about one-
third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as a series of reports by the
UN's International Panel on Climate Change has asserted for years. The
IPCC reports have been increasingly dismissed as deliberate
distortions of data that amount to little more than propaganda to
advance the "global warming" hoax.
Having testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment &
Public Works, paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter noted in a June 18,
2007 essay that global warming has stopped. There has been little, if
any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2
has increased by 17 percent. Thus, the connection between CO2 and
"global warming", the key to the claims that it is occurring and will
increase has been proven wrong.
Prior to and during 2007, one research study after another revealed
that the central premise of "global warming" lacks any scientific
merit. One by Dr. Tim Patterson concluded that, "The earth temperature
does respond to the solar cycle as confirmed by numerous studies." The
solar cycle is known to be about eleven years in length and reflects
increased or decreased sunspot (magnetic storms) activity. It is the
Sun that largely determines the Earth's temperature, which is never
the same throughout the planet, given seasonal and solar changes.
In 2007, meteorologist Anthony Watts who led a team of researchers
revealed that, "The U.S. National Climate Data Center is in the middle
of a scandal. Their global observing network, the heart and soul of
surface weather measurement, is a disaster." It had been discovered
that many of the measuring stations were placed in locations such as
on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust
vents, and even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills!
In May 2007, Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department
of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin dismissed fears of
increased man-made CO2 in the atmosphere. He called the "global
warming" argument "absurd." As to any increase in the Earth's
temperature, he said, "Of course it's going up. It has gone up since
the early 1800s, before the industrial Revolution, because we're
coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting carbon
dioxide in the air."
On August 15, 2007, meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first Director of
Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American
Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and
Forecasting, said, "If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our
annual anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contribution today would be
equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."
When Newsweek magazine recently devoted a cover story calling the
growing international body of scientists debunking global warming
"deniers", it was forced to debunk itself when one of its own editors
called the article "highly contrived" and "fundamentally misleading."
Thus, it will be people like former Vice President Al Gore or actor
Leonardo DiCaprio, whose reputations are now heavily invested in the
"global warming" hoax, who will continue to fight a rear-guard action.
The mainstream media is likely to be supportive until it too is forced
to admit the truth of the science regarding the Earth's climate.
There will be dying gasps to this hoax, not the least of which is a
planned $100 million media blitz by Al Gore's Alliance for Climate
Protection, but the public is already far more concerned about
instability in the Middle East, the forthcoming national elections,
and shocks to the U.S. economy to accord such an effort much
credibility.
Hoaxes have a life of their own and "global warming" is now coming to
an end. Mark 2007 as the year it began to seriously bleed to death.
.
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
20 Sep 2007 04:31:00 PM |
|
|
Geoff wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
The South Pole is land based ice several
thousand feet thick, but it is 46 F colder than the north pole. Any
ice breaking off the south pole will be floating ice which can't
raise se levels by melting.
True, but that's not the whole story. The sea ice provides braking for
glaciers over land. Glacial melt and progression are accelerating in both
Greenland and Antarctica.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070920_antarctic_snowmelt.html
Antarctic snow has been melting farther inland and at higher altitudes
over the past 20 years, NASA scientists announced today.
With a surface size about 1.5 times the size of the United States,
Antarctica contains 90 percent of the Earth's fresh water, making it
the largest potential source of sea level rise from global warming.
The water at the bottom of the world is, of course, frozen.
Unlike the well-documented and rapid Arctic meltdown, snow melt in
Antarctica has been very limited because even summer temperatures
rarely rise above freezing.
But satellite data collected between 1987 and 2006 showed snowmelt in
some unlikely places in 2005-as far inland as 500 miles from the coast
and as high as 1.2 miles above sea level in the Transantarctic
Mountains. This data record, longer than those previously studied,
provides confirmation of earlier reports of unusual melting in 2005.
The data also showed increased persistent snowmelt on the Ross Ice
Shelf, in terms of both the area affected and the duration of the
melt. (Persistent snowmelt is defined as melting that occurs for at
least three days or for one consecutive day and night.)
The NASA scientists who examined the data suspect that Earth's rising
temperatures may be to blame for the unusual melting patterns.
"Snow melting is very connected to surface temperature change, so it's
likely warmer temperatures are at the root of what we've observed in
Antarctica," said study leader Marco Tedesco of NASA's Goddard Space
Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
The researchers did observe less snowmelt in some places during the 20-
year period, but the increased melt in places like the Ross Ice Shelf
is worrying because it can lead to melt ponds, which pool on the
surface of the ice, and can fill small cracks in the ice, putting
pressure on them and causing larger fractures in the ice.
"Persistent melting on the Ross Ice Shelf is something we should not
lose sight of because of the ice shelf's role as a 'brake' system' for
glaciers," Tedesco said. "Ice shelves are thick ice masses covering
coastal land with extended areas that float on the sea, keeping warmer
marine air at a distance from glaciers and preventing a greater
acceleration of melting."
The NASA study is detailed in the Sept. 22 issue of the journal
Geophysical Research Letters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "the_blogologist" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
20 Sep 2007 06:43:25 PM |
|
|
JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070920_antarctic_snowmelt.html
Antarctic snow has been melting farther inland and at higher altitudes
over the past 20 years, NASA scientists announced today.
NASA seems best at discovering things that need funding.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 09:20:38 AM |
|
|
the_blogologist wrote:
JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070920_antarctic_snowmelt.html
Antarctic snow has been melting farther inland and at higher altitudes
over the past 20 years, NASA scientists announced today.
NASA seems best at discovering things that need funding.
Nice refutation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
20 Sep 2007 08:00:26 PM |
|
|
On Sep 20, 11:17 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
There are local implications for global climate change. They include, among
others, cooling, desertification, increased precipitation and decreased
precipitation. Vintners in France are enjoying the warming. Not so much joy
in the Canary Islands, sub-Saharan Africa, etc.
Ah, so gloabl warming can cause two contradictory effects at the
same time.
If so, then the reverse can also cause increased precipitation and
decreased precipitation.
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 10:14:40 AM |
|
|
Michael Ejercito wrote:
On Sep 20, 11:17 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
There are local implications for global climate change. They
include, among others, cooling, desertification, increased
precipitation and decreased precipitation. Vintners in France are
enjoying the warming. Not so much joy in the Canary Islands,
sub-Saharan Africa, etc.
Ah, so gloabl warming can cause two contradictory effects at the
same time.
If so, then the reverse can also cause increased precipitation and
decreased precipitation.
Sure. Global climate change does not preclude local effects. Thanks for your
observation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 11:05:44 AM |
|
|
On Sep 21, 8:14 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
Ah, so gloabl warming can cause two contradictory effects at the
same time.
If so, then the reverse can also cause increased precipitation and
decreased precipitation.
Sure. Global climate change does not preclude local effects. Thanks for your
observation.
Predicting exactly what local effects would happen where would be
very difficult.
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 12:01:24 PM |
|
|
Michael Ejercito wrote:
On Sep 21, 8:14 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
Ah, so gloabl warming can cause two contradictory effects at the
same time.
If so, then the reverse can also cause increased precipitation and
decreased precipitation.
Sure. Global climate change does not preclude local effects. Thanks
for your observation.
Predicting exactly what local effects would happen where would be
very difficult.
You have a flair for the obvious. Not to mention atrocious grammar.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "3783 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
20 Sep 2007 08:22:50 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:00:26 -0700, Michael Ejercito
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 11:17 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
There are local implications for global climate change. They include, among
others, cooling, desertification, increased precipitation and decreased
precipitation. Vintners in France are enjoying the warming. Not so much joy
in the Canary Islands, sub-Saharan Africa, etc.
Ah, so gloabl warming can cause two contradictory effects at the
same time.
If so, then the reverse can also cause increased precipitation and
decreased precipitation.
Mike, in July, it can be summer AND winter at the SAME TIME!
Ask folks in Santiago, Chile how that works...
Michael
--
One of the [Gold Star mothers], Elaine Johnson, recounted a meeting that she had with
President Bush in which he gave her a presidential coin and told her
and five other families: "Don't go sell it on eBay."
--from interview broadcast on NPR
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
20 Sep 2007 01:21:47 AM |
|
|
the_blogologist wrote:
magilla <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 16, 8:57 pm, (the_blogologist) wrote:
The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN. <hugh.ja...@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Go ***** yourself.
Interesting arguement.
They employ scientists - real ones educated in a
civilised country that has high standards of education and doesn't
tolerate degree mills or give academic degrees to people just for
being able to pick a ball off the ground and run with it dressed in
half a ton of ridiculous padding.
Blah, blah, you just desicribed yourself.
Global warming is a fact, and anthropogenic CO2 is causing it.
The CO2 from oil and coal used to be in the atmosphere. It was
extracted from the atmosphere by plants which requier CO2 to grow.
Returning it to the atmosphere will make the planet greener.
Completely transparent CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
What's it like to be so mind-numbingly stupid that you need breathing
assistance in order to post to Usenet?
Chris
If you're so smart then you should be able to explain what is stupid
about it?
Because you obviously don't understand that the greenhouse gas effect has
*nothing* to do with transparent wavelengths. Solar energy arrives
predominantly (energy-wise) ultraviolet. The Earth is heated and emits
infrared radiation to the cooler atmosphere. When a photon of IR strikes a
CO2 molecule, the normally linear O-C-O bends. This is an unstable alignment
so the CO2 releases a photon and becomes linear again. The photon is
released in a random direction. Sometimes it proceeds out of the atmosphere,
sometimes it doesn't. It's this net trapping that causes the greenhouse
effect.
Also, your point that the carbon in fossil fuels was once airborn is
entirely true, but it is completely invalid as a basis for your argument.
That carbon was sequestered over millions of years. We are releasing it in a
period that is probably five to six orders of magnitude shorter. Do you
understand the implications of this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "the_blogologist" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
20 Sep 2007 11:32:12 AM |
|
|
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
magilla <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 16, 8:57 pm, (the_blogologist) wrote:
The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN. <hugh.ja...@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Go ***** yourself.
Interesting arguement.
They employ scientists - real ones educated in a
civilised country that has high standards of education and doesn't
tolerate degree mills or give academic degrees to people just for
being able to pick a ball off the ground and run with it dressed in
half a ton of ridiculous padding.
Blah, blah, you just desicribed yourself.
Global warming is a fact, and anthropogenic CO2 is causing it.
The CO2 from oil and coal used to be in the atmosphere. It was
extracted from the atmosphere by plants which requier CO2 to grow.
Returning it to the atmosphere will make the planet greener.
Completely transparent CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
What's it like to be so mind-numbingly stupid that you need breathing
assistance in order to post to Usenet?
Chris
If you're so smart then you should be able to explain what is stupid
about it?
Because you obviously don't understand that the greenhouse gas effect has
*nothing* to do with transparent wavelengths.
I've never knew a wavelength could be transparent or non-transparent.
But it was magilla who I was talking to who is supposed to be so smart.
Solar energy arrives
predominantly (energy-wise) ultraviolet. The Earth is heated and emits
infrared radiation to the cooler atmosphere. When a photon of IR strikes a
CO2 molecule, the normally linear O-C-O bends. This is an unstable alignment
so the CO2 releases a photon and becomes linear again. The photon is
released in a random direction. Sometimes it proceeds out of the atmosphere,
sometimes it doesn't. It's this net trapping that causes the greenhouse
effect.
MY GOD!!! Looks like all those infrared scopes won't work anymore!!!!
CO2 wasn't a green house gas before. Did something catastrophic change
the laws of physics or chemistry? If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then so
are nitrogen and oxygen.
Also, your point that the carbon in fossil fuels was once airborn is
entirely true, but it is completely invalid as a basis for your argument.
That carbon was sequestered over millions of years. We are releasing it in a
period that is probably five to six orders of magnitude shorter. Do you
understand the implications of this?
Yes, a greener planet.
If so much CO2 is so bad, then how come global temperatures have risen
only 0.5 F in the last century?
Don't forget mister global warming himself created the internet and then
tried to tax it. Now he wants to tax the weather.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
20 Sep 2007 04:16:31 PM |
|
|
On Sep 20, 12:32 pm, (the_blogologist) wrote:
Geoff <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
magilla <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 16, 8:57 pm, (the_blogologist) wrote:
The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN. <hugh.ja...@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Go ***** yourself.
Interesting arguement.
They employ scientists - real ones educated in a
civilised country that has high standards of education and doesn't
tolerate degree mills or give academic degrees to people just for
being able to pick a ball off the ground and run with it dressed in
half a ton of ridiculous padding.
Blah, blah, you just desicribed yourself.
Global warming is a fact, and anthropogenic CO2 is causing it.
The CO2 from oil and coal used to be in the atmosphere. It was
extracted from the atmosphere by plants which requier CO2 to grow.
Returning it to the atmosphere will make the planet greener.
Completely transparent CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
What's it like to be so mind-numbingly stupid that you need breathing
assistance in order to post to Usenet?
Chris
If you're so smart then you should be able to explain what is stupid
about it?
Because you obviously don't understand that the greenhouse gas effect has
*nothing* to do with transparent wavelengths.
I've never knew a wavelength could be transparent or non-transparent.
But it was magilla who I was talking to who is supposed to be so smart.
Solar energy arrives
predominantly (energy-wise) ultraviolet. The Earth is heated and emits
infrared radiation to the cooler atmosphere. When a photon of IR strikes a
CO2 molecule, the normally linear O-C-O bends. This is an unstable alignment
so the CO2 releases a photon and becomes linear again. The photon is
released in a random direction. Sometimes it proceeds out of the atmosphere,
sometimes it doesn't. It's this net trapping that causes the greenhouse
effect.
MY GOD!!! Looks like all those infrared scopes won't work anymore!!!!
CO2 wasn't a green house gas before. Did something catastrophic change
the laws of physics or chemistry? If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then so
are nitrogen and oxygen.
Somebody doesn't know spectroscopy! Or dipoles.
Also, your point that the carbon in fossil fuels was once airborn is
entirely true, but it is completely invalid as a basis for your argument.
That carbon was sequestered over millions of years. We are releasing it in a
period that is probably five to six orders of magnitude shorter. Do you
understand the implications of this?
Yes, a greener planet.
If so much CO2 is so bad, then how come global temperatures have risen
only 0.5 F in the last century?
If pigs have wings, why can't they fly?
Temp. are up more than 0.5 F.
Don't forget mister global warming himself created the internet and then
tried to tax it. Now he wants to tax the weather.
Try snopes before spreading an urban legend.
.
|
|
|
| User: "the_blogologist" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
20 Sep 2007 06:43:24 PM |
|
|
Lloyd <lparker@emory.edu> wrote:
On Sep 20, 12:32 pm, (the_blogologist) wrote:
CO2 wasn't a green house gas before. Did something catastrophic change
the laws of physics or chemistry? If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then so
are nitrogen and oxygen.
Somebody doesn't know spectroscopy! Or dipoles.
Is it you?
Also, your point that the carbon in fossil fuels was once airborn is
entirely true, but it is completely invalid as a basis for your
argument. That carbon was sequestered over millions of years. We are
releasing it in a period that is probably five to six orders of
magnitude shorter. Do you understand the implications of this?
Yes, a greener planet.
If so much CO2 is so bad, then how come global temperatures have risen
only 0.5 F in the last century?
If pigs have wings, why can't they fly?
Because they don't have wings.
Temp. are up more than 0.5 F.
Is there an echo?
Don't forget mister global warming himself created the internet and then
tried to tax it. Now he wants to tax the weather.
Try snopes before spreading an urban legend.
Strawman argument. Try actually READING snopes before jumping to
disinformation.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Snopes disputes Gore said he "invented" the internet, but confirms that
he claimed to have created the internet.
al Gore: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."
http://texastechie.com/Images/HumorMedia/gore_internet.wav
Of course left wingers, desperate to save face for their glorious
leader, seize on the slight difference between the words "created" and
"invented" to somehow discredit the claim. Since there is only one
internet, then the use of "invented", although not an exact quote, has
pretty much the same meaning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 10:06:53 AM |
|
|
On Sep 20, 7:43 pm, (the_blogologist) wrote:
Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
On Sep 20, 12:32 pm, (the_blogologist) wrote:
CO2 wasn't a green house gas before. Did something catastrophic change
the laws of physics or chemistry? If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then so
are nitrogen and oxygen.
Somebody doesn't know spectroscopy! Or dipoles.
Is it you?
Also, your point that the carbon in fossil fuels was once airborn is
entirely true, but it is completely invalid as a basis for your
argument. That carbon was sequestered over millions of years. We are
releasing it in a period that is probably five to six orders of
magnitude shorter. Do you understand the implications of this?
Yes, a greener planet.
If so much CO2 is so bad, then how come global temperatures have risen
only 0.5 F in the last century?
If pigs have wings, why can't they fly?
Because they don't have wings.
Temp. are up more than 0.5 F.
Is there an echo?
Don't forget mister global warming himself created the internet and then
tried to tax it. Now he wants to tax the weather.
Try snopes before spreading an urban legend.
Strawman argument. Try actually READING snopes before jumping to
disinformation.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Snopes disputes Gore said he "invented" the internet, but confirms that
he claimed to have created the internet.
al Gore: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."
And as snopes explains, that isn't the same thing. Or is English not
your native language?
http://texastechie.com/Images/HumorMedia/gore_internet.wav
Of course left wingers, desperate to save face for their glorious
leader, seize on the slight difference between the words "created" and
"invented" to somehow discredit the claim.
He didn't say he created it either. Is English your third language?
Since there is only one
internet, then the use of "invented", although not an exact quote, has
pretty much the same meaning.
To a 5th grader maybe. Oh, sorry, does that describe you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "the_blogologist" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 05:19:47 PM |
|
|
Lloyd <lparker@emory.edu> wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:43 pm, (the_blogologist) wrote:
Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
On Sep 20, 12:32 pm, (the_blogologist) wrote:
Don't forget mister global warming himself created the internet and then
tried to tax it. Now he wants to tax the weather.
Try snopes before spreading an urban legend.
Strawman argument. Try actually READING snopes before jumping to
disinformation.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Snopes disputes Gore said he "invented" the internet, but confirms that
he claimed to have created the internet.
al Gore: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."
And as snopes explains, that isn't the same thing. Or is English not
your native language?
http://texastechie.com/Images/HumorMedia/gore_internet.wav
Of course left wingers, desperate to save face for their glorious
leader, seize on the slight difference between the words "created" and
"invented" to somehow discredit the claim.
He didn't say he created it either. Is English your third language?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Creation
"After much work, the first two nodes of what would become the ARPANET
were interconnected between UCLA and SRI International in Menlo Park,
California, on October 29, 1969. The ARPANET was one of the "eve"
networks of today's Internet."
(Al Gore was first elected to congress in 1978, a few years after the
creation of what we now call the "internet".)
"The opening of the network to commercial interests began in 1988."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore#Political_career_.281976.E2.80.9320
00.29
"In the late 1980s, Gore introduced the Gore Bill, which was later
passed as the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991.
The bill was one of the most important pieces of legislation directly
affecting the expansion of the internet."
All Gore did was to get the ball rolling to open it up to public access
which let other people build upon it. I think Gore invisioned a system
resembling BBS which were personal computers with slow modems that
traded text files and simple public domain software. Had he thought it
would become a new media that offered stiff competition to the
mainstream media he would have been against it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
20 Sep 2007 12:46:54 PM |
|
|
the_blogologist wrote:
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
magilla <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 16, 8:57 pm, (the_blogologist) wrote:
The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN. <hugh.ja...@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Go ***** yourself.
Interesting arguement.
They employ scientists - real ones educated in a
civilised country that has high standards of education and
doesn't tolerate degree mills or give academic degrees to people
just for being able to pick a ball off the ground and run with
it dressed in half a ton of ridiculous padding.
Blah, blah, you just desicribed yourself.
Global warming is a fact, and anthropogenic CO2 is causing it.
The CO2 from oil and coal used to be in the atmosphere. It was
extracted from the atmosphere by plants which requier CO2 to grow.
Returning it to the atmosphere will make the planet greener.
Completely transparent CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
What's it like to be so mind-numbingly stupid that you need
breathing assistance in order to post to Usenet?
Chris
If you're so smart then you should be able to explain what is stupid
about it?
Because you obviously don't understand that the greenhouse gas
effect has *nothing* to do with transparent wavelengths.
I've never knew a wavelength could be transparent or non-transparent.
Sorry. I worded that wrong. Silly me thinking you could figure out what I
clearly (pun unintended) meant.
Read that as: "Because you obviously don't understand that the greenhouse
gas effect has *nothing* to do with the transparency of CO2 to visible
wavelengths."
But it was magilla who I was talking to who is supposed to be so
smart.
Do you want to learn or are you just interested in flexing your Usenet
muscles?
Solar energy arrives
predominantly (energy-wise) ultraviolet. The Earth is heated and
emits infrared radiation to the cooler atmosphere. When a photon of
IR strikes a CO2 molecule, the normally linear O-C-O bends. This is
an unstable alignment so the CO2 releases a photon and becomes
linear again. The photon is released in a random direction.
Sometimes it proceeds out of the atmosphere, sometimes it doesn't.
It's this net trapping that causes the greenhouse effect.
MY GOD!!! Looks like all those infrared scopes won't work anymore!!!!
What one has to do with the other is anyone's guess.
CO2 wasn't a green house gas before. Did something catastrophic change
the laws of physics or chemistry? If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then so
are nitrogen and oxygen.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas by the physics of its structure. It doesn't change
with an act of Congress or a symposium at the NAS.
Also, your point that the carbon in fossil fuels was once airborn is
entirely true, but it is completely invalid as a basis for your
argument. That carbon was sequestered over millions of years. We are
releasing it in a period that is probably five to six orders of
magnitude shorter. Do you understand the implications of this?
Yes, a greener planet.
Let me be more specific. Do you understand the implications of this
regarding the sustainability of a human population of several billion and
with about 80% hugging oceanic coastlines?
If so much CO2 is so bad, then how come global temperatures have risen
only 0.5 F in the last century?
No, over 1C. With expections for a further increase of between 2C and and
5C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Please don't tell me that these are not significant.
And CO2 is only part of the problem. Methane for example, much of it a
result of agriculture, is a big problem too.
Don't forget mister global warming himself created the internet and
then tried to tax it. Now he wants to tax the weather.
Neocon lie #387,472:
www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "the_blogologist" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
20 Sep 2007 06:43:23 PM |
|
|
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas by the physics of its structure. It doesn't change
with an act of Congress or a symposium at the NAS.
It was never a greenhouse gas before al Gore figured out how to get rich
on it.
Also, your point that the carbon in fossil fuels was once airborn is
entirely true, but it is completely invalid as a basis for your
argument. That carbon was sequestered over millions of years. We are
releasing it in a period that is probably five to six orders of
magnitude shorter. Do you understand the implications of this?
Yes, a greener planet.
Let me be more specific. Do you understand the implications of this
regarding the sustainability of a human population of several billion and
with about 80% hugging oceanic coastlines?
A 0.5 F rise in global temperatures will not meil the ice caps or
greenland.
If so much CO2 is so bad, then how come global temperatures have risen
only 0.5 F in the last century?
No, over 1C.
Ok, 1 C, whoopie. That's not going to melt Greenland.
With expections for a further increase of between 2C and and
5C.
by those who expect to make a hell of a lot of money on global warming.
The Democratic party has a long history of rewarding people who are
politically active. Want a nice, cushy government job? Just organize an
anti-republican protest.
They can't predict the weather a week in advance, how do they expect to
predict it in the next century? Most weather models turn out to be
horribly inaccurate. The most accurate are those that take into account
solar activity. The changing output of the SUN has much more effect on
climate change than does CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Please don't tell me that these are not significant.
1 C, whoopie.
And CO2 is only part of the problem. Methane for example, much of it a
result of agriculture, is a big problem too.
Don't forget mister global warming himself created the internet and
then tried to tax it. Now he wants to tax the weather.
Neocon lie #387,472:
www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
You just verified what I said, lol Snopes gives the quote:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative
in creating the Internet."
The snopes cite disputes that Gore claimed to have "invented" the
internet, which is NOT what i said, but not that far from the truth
either:
http://texastechie.com/Images/HumorMedia/gore_internet.wav
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 10:04:57 AM |
|
|
On Sep 20, 7:43 pm, (the_blogologist) wrote:
Geoff <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas by the physics of its structure. It doesn't change
with an act of Congress or a symposium at the NAS.
It was never a greenhouse gas before al Gore figured out how to get rich
on it.
Also, your point that the carbon in fossil fuels was once airborn is
entirely true, but it is completely invalid as a basis for your
argument. That carbon was sequestered over millions of years. We are
releasing it in a period that is probably five to six orders of
magnitude shorter. Do you understand the implications of this?
Yes, a greener planet.
Let me be more specific. Do you understand the implications of this
regarding the sustainability of a human population of several billion and
with about 80% hugging oceanic coastlines?
A 0.5 F rise in global temperatures will not meil the ice caps or
greenland.
It's indication of warming, which will accelerate. And it's more than
0.5 F.
If so much CO2 is so bad, then how come global temperatures have risen
only 0.5 F in the last century?
No, over 1C.
Ok, 1 C, whoopie. That's not going to melt Greenland.
With expections for a further increase of between 2C and and
5C.
by those who expect to make a hell of a lot of money on global warming.
The Democratic party has a long history of rewarding people who are
politically active.
Halliburton?
Want a nice, cushy government job? Just organize an
anti-republican protest.
They can't predict the weather a week in advance, how do they expect to
predict it in the next century?
You know, if you don't know the difference between weather and
climate, you should be embarrassed to post here.
Most weather models turn out to be
horribly inaccurate. The most accurate are those that take into account
solar activity. The changing output of the SUN has much more effect on
climate change than does CO2.
But it isn't changing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Please don't tell me that these are not significant.
1 C, whoopie.
And CO2 is only part of the problem. Methane for example, much of it a
result of agriculture, is a big problem too.
Don't forget mister global warming himself created the internet and
then tried to tax it. Now he wants to tax the weather.
Neocon lie #387,472:
www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
You just verified what I said, lol Snopes gives the quote:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative
in creating the Internet."
Which isn't "I invented the internet" like you said.
The snopes cite disputes that Gore claimed to have "invented" the
internet, which is NOT what i said, but not that far from the truth
either:
http://texastechie.com/Images/HumorMedia/gore_internet.wav
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 12:56:28 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:43:23 -0700,
(the_blogologist) wrote:
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas by the physics of its structure. It doesn't change
with an act of Congress or a symposium at the NAS.
It was never a greenhouse gas before al Gore figured out how to get rich
on it.
The problem with CO2 as a "greenhouse gas" is that that's not even how
greenhouses work. We've known since the early 20th century that the
composition of gases in a greenhouse has little or no effect on the
interior temperature. It doesn't even work like they taught you in
4th grade, that sunlight enters, is absorbed and turned into thermal
energy, which is "trapped" by the glass in the greenhouse walls.
That's a load of crap. They've built greenhouses of quartz, which is
TRANSPARENT to thermal radiation, and there's virtually no measurable
difference between the temperature inside a quartz as a glass
greenhouse. Greenhouses warm up simply on the principle of stagnant
air: The air trapped inside can't mix with the cooler air outside and
so the greenhouse stays warm.
The mechanism by which the Earth's atmosphere cools pretty much
precludes CO2 from operating as a greenhouse gas. Most of the heat
transfer down in the troposphere is via CONVECTION, which isn't
affected by the so-called "greenouse effect". Most of the thermal
transfer in the upper atmosphere to space is via thermal radiance,
which is in theory how CO2 "reflects" this back to Earth. Heat
transfers between the lower and upper atmosphere because warm air in
the tropic rises and get caught in the jet streams that circle the
planet at high altitude. But CO2 is heavier than air and tends to
stay in the lower troposphere; there's only trace amounts in the
stratosphere and above. Not enough to "reflect" any heat back to
Earth. This is why water vapor is many times more effective as a
"greenhouse gas". Water vapor traps heat about 90 times better than
CO2.
--
John Conyers' comments about Bill Clinton pardoning convicted
terrorists:
"Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to what is clearly a
politically motivated and totally senseless resolution. We are a
Nation of laws, and if any matter is abundantly clear by our
Constitution, it is that the President has the sole and unitary power
to grant clemency. Is there any Member that does not understand that?
Every President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency. Now
the reason that he has the power to grant clemency is that it is that
the President is uniquely positioned to consider the law and the facts
that apply in each request for clemency."
[EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT
HAVE GRANTED CLEMENCY TO TERRORISTS] (House of Representatives -
September 09, 1999). Passed 311-41; 72 voted "present", Conyers voted
NAY)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 10:10:45 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:43:23 -0700,
(the_blogologist) wrote:
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas by the physics of its structure. It doesn't
change with an act of Congress or a symposium at the NAS.
It was never a greenhouse gas before al Gore figured out how to get
rich on it.
The problem with CO2 as a "greenhouse gas" is that that's not even how
greenhouses work.
It's a metaphor. Don't be so literal.
The mechanism by which the Earth's atmosphere cools pretty much
precludes CO2 from operating as a greenhouse gas. Most of the heat
transfer down in the troposphere is via CONVECTION, which isn't
affected by the so-called "greenouse effect".
Most of the heat transfer is via radiation from the Sun. The laws of
thermodynamics require this or Earth would be lifeless.
Even if you are considering just net energy away from Earth, it doesn't
matter which vector is most prominent. Any change to the background net
transfer is going to affect global temperature means.
Most of the thermal
transfer in the upper atmosphere to space is via thermal radiance,
which is in theory how CO2 "reflects" this back to Earth. Heat
transfers between the lower and upper atmosphere because warm air in
the tropic rises and get caught in the jet streams that circle the
planet at high altitude. But CO2 is heavier than air and tends to
stay in the lower troposphere; there's only trace amounts in the
stratosphere and above.
Wow. Whodathunk it? Why then is there any O2 or N2 in the near-Earth
atmosphere? We should all be suffocating.
Not enough to "reflect" any heat back to
Earth.
It doesn't matter where the CO2 is or its concentration. If it's
concentration is increasing then there is going to be a corresponding net
increase in the amount of IR capture and "reflection".
This is why water vapor is many times more effective as a
"greenhouse gas". Water vapor traps heat about 90 times better than
CO2.
I don't know about that number. Please cite if you please. Regardless, no
one (at least no one who understands the least but about the issue and the
science behind it) is saying that CO2 is the *only* GHG. Methane is another
that is on the rise due to anthropogenic sources.
And as GMT rises, I think the expectation is that water vapor will as well.
This is a warming feedback loop.
.
|
|
|
| User: "the_blogologist" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 02:25:56 PM |
|
|
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
orionca@earthlink.net wrote:
This is why water vapor is many times more effective as a
"greenhouse gas". Water vapor traps heat about 90 times better than
CO2.
I don't know about that number. Please cite if you please.
Know what freekin clouds are???
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
22 Sep 2007 11:47:24 AM |
|
|
the_blogologist wrote:
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
orionca@earthlink.net wrote:
This is why water vapor is many times more effective as a
"greenhouse gas". Water vapor traps heat about 90 times better than
CO2.
I don't know about that number. Please cite if you please.
Know what freekin clouds are???
Don't even try to be condescending.
Provide support for your claim that "water vapor traps heat about 90 times
better than CO2" or withdraw it. What is the basis for comparison? Weight %?
Molecular %? What do you mean by effective? Be specific.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
22 Sep 2007 11:49:11 AM |
|
|
Geoff wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
orionca@earthlink.net wrote:
This is why water vapor is many times more effective as a
"greenhouse gas". Water vapor traps heat about 90 times better
than CO2.
I don't know about that number. Please cite if you please.
Know what freekin clouds are???
Don't even try to be condescending.
Provide support for your claim that "water vapor traps heat about 90
times better than CO2" or withdraw it. What is the basis for
comparison? Weight %? Molecular %? What do you mean by effective? Be
specific.
Well, to be fair, you didn't make the claim, but obviously you agree with
it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 11:04:27 AM |
|
|
On Sep 20, 10:56 pm, wrote:
The mechanism by which the Earth's atmosphere cools pretty much
precludes CO2 from operating as a greenhouse gas. Most of the heat
transfer down in the troposphere is via CONVECTION, which isn't
affected by the so-called "greenouse effect". Most of the thermal
transfer in the upper atmosphere to space is via thermal radiance,
which is in theory how CO2 "reflects" this back to Earth. Heat
transfers between the lower and upper atmosphere because warm air in
the tropic rises and get caught in the jet streams that circle the
planet at high altitude. But CO2 is heavier than air and tends to
stay in the lower troposphere; there's only trace amounts in the
stratosphere and above. Not enough to "reflect" any heat back to
Earth. This is why water vapor is many times more effective as a
"greenhouse gas". Water vapor traps heat about 90 times better than
CO2.
--
This would mean that the primary greenhouse gas from burning diesel
and gasoline would be water vapor, since water vapor is a product of
combustion of hydrocarbons.
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 11:59:01 AM |
|
|
Michael Ejercito wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:56 pm, wrote:
The mechanism by which the Earth's atmosphere cools pretty much
precludes CO2 from operating as a greenhouse gas. Most of the heat
transfer down in the troposphere is via CONVECTION, which isn't
affected by the so-called "greenouse effect". Most of the thermal
transfer in the upper atmosphere to space is via thermal radiance,
which is in theory how CO2 "reflects" this back to Earth. Heat
transfers between the lower and upper atmosphere because warm air in
the tropic rises and get caught in the jet streams that circle the
planet at high altitude. But CO2 is heavier than air and tends to
stay in the lower troposphere; there's only trace amounts in the
stratosphere and above. Not enough to "reflect" any heat back to
Earth. This is why water vapor is many times more effective as a
"greenhouse gas". Water vapor traps heat about 90 times better than
CO2.
--
This would mean that the primary greenhouse gas from burning diesel
and gasoline would be water vapor, since water vapor is a product of
combustion of hydrocarbons.
And that would be a non sequitur. Thanks for playing Mikie! Now go take your
seat with the rest of the class.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Whata Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 03:21:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:04:27 -0700, Michael Ejercito
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
This would mean that the primary greenhouse gas from burning diesel
and gasoline would be water vapor, since water vapor is a product of
combustion of hydrocarbons.
Michael
Except the water vapor in the atmosphere is many times
more plentiful than the hydrogen combined from liquid fuel or
natural gas.
Possibly a million times greater.
.
|
|
|
| User: "the_blogologist" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 05:19:46 PM |
|
|
Whata Fool <whata@fool.ami> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:04:27 -0700, Michael Ejercito
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
This would mean that the primary greenhouse gas from burning diesel
and gasoline would be water vapor, since water vapor is a product of
combustion of hydrocarbons.
Michael
Except the water vapor in the atmosphere is many times
more plentiful than the hydrogen combined from liquid fuel or
natural gas.
Possibly a million times greater.
Yeapers. CO2 is transperent, clouds are not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 09:56:50 AM |
|
|
the_blogologist wrote:
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas by the physics of its structure. It doesn't
change with an act of Congress or a symposium at the NAS.
It was never a greenhouse gas before al Gore figured out how to get
rich on it.
You really don't know how mindnumbingly stupid you sound, do you? CO2 is and
always was a GHG.
Also, your point that the carbon in fossil fuels was once airborn
is entirely true, but it is completely invalid as a basis for your
argument. That carbon was sequestered over millions of years. We
are releasing it in a period that is probably five to six orders of
magnitude shorter. Do you understand the implications of this?
Yes, a greener planet.
Let me be more specific. Do you understand the implications of this
regarding the sustainability of a human population of several
billion and with about 80% hugging oceanic coastlines?
A 0.5 F rise in global temperatures will not meil the ice caps or
greenland.
Strawman. That's all I will say about that ignorant comment.
If so much CO2 is so bad, then how come global temperatures have
risen only 0.5 F in the last century?
No, over 1C.
Ok, 1 C, whoopie. That's not going to melt Greenland.
Greenland is melting and it is accelerating too. Do you have anything to say
other than just throwing up your hands and saying "Is not!"
With expections for a further increase of between 2C and and
5C.
by those who expect to make a hell of a lot of money on global
warming.
Neocon tinfoil hat time.
The Democratic party has a long history of rewarding people
who are politically active. Want a nice, cushy government job? Just
organize an anti-republican protest.
The Republican party has a long history of rewarding people
who are politically active. Want a nice, cushy government job? Just
go to Liberty University and get a worthless law degree.
They can't predict the weather a week in advance, how do they expect
to predict it in the next century? Most weather models turn out to be
horribly inaccurate.
Missed science class right? This isn't the weather report we're talking
about.
The most accurate are those that take into
account solar activity. The changing output of the SUN has much more
effect on climate change than does CO2.
Go ahead and cite any data on that. But make sure it's really what you want.
There is *no* study that shows anything near the correlation between the
rise in mean global temperature and anthropogenic green house gases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Please don't tell me that these are not significant.
1 C, whoopie.
Thank you for agreeing that it is significant.
And CO2 is only part of the problem. Methane for example, much of it
a result of agriculture, is a big problem too.
Don't forget mister global warming himself created the internet and
then tried to tax it. Now he wants to tax the weather.
Neocon lie #387,472:
www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
You just verified what I said, lol Snopes gives the quote:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."
The snopes cite disputes that Gore claimed to have "invented" the
internet, which is NOT what i said, but not that far from the truth
either:
No, you claimed he "created the Internet". Anyone who thinks that he really
meant that is either obfuscating or stupid. Regardless, it is irrelevant to
this discussion. Your silly red herring lends no credence to your argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "the_blogologist" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
21 Sep 2007 02:25:57 PM |
|
|
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas by the physics of its structure. It doesn't
change with an act of Congress or a symposium at the NAS.
It was never a greenhouse gas before al Gore figured out how to get
rich on it.
You really don't know how mindnumbingly stupid you sound, do you?
I'm a freekin genius compared to you.
CO2 is and always was a GHG.
It's only since al Gore announced it was that anyone has said CO2 was a
green house gas. I've NEVER heard of it called a green house gas before
that.
Also, your point that the carbon in fossil fuels was once airborn
is entirely true, but it is completely invalid as a basis for your
argument. That carbon was sequestered over millions of years. We
are releasing it in a period that is probably five to six orders of
magnitude shorter. Do you understand the implications of this?
Yes, a greener planet.
Let me be more specific. Do you understand the implications of this
regarding the sustainability of a human population of several
billion and with about 80% hugging oceanic coastlines?
A 0.5 F rise in global temperatures will not meil the ice caps or
greenland.
Strawman. That's all I will say about that ignorant comment.
Is that all the intelligence you can muster?
The South Pole averages from a high of -14 F in summer to a low of -81 F
in winter. How is a 1 C increase going to melt the ice caps (or
greenland)?
If so much CO2 is so bad, then how come global temperatures have
risen only 0.5 F in the last century?
No, over 1C.
Ok, 1 C, whoopie. That's not going to melt Greenland.
Greenland is melting and it is accelerating too.
I don't believe that *****. The only place I've heard that is from the
mainstream media which is controlled by big corporations, the rich
elite.
Don't forget mister global warming himself created the internet and
then tried to tax it. Now he wants to tax the weather.
Neocon lie #387,472:
www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
You just verified what I said, lol Snopes gives the quote:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."
The snopes cite disputes that Gore claimed to have "invented" the
internet, which is NOT what i said, but not that far from the truth
either:
No, you claimed he "created the Internet". Anyone who thinks that he really
meant that is either obfuscating or stupid. Regardless, it is irrelevant to
this discussion. Your silly red herring lends no credence to your argument.
http://texastechie.com/Images/HumorMedia/gore_internet.wav
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
22 Sep 2007 03:10:23 PM |
|
|
On Sep 21, 3:25 pm, (the_blogologist) wrote:
Geoff <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
Geoff <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas by the physics of its structure. It doesn't
change with an act of Congress or a symposium at the NAS.
It was never a greenhouse gas before al Gore figured out how to get
rich on it.
You really don't know how mindnumbingly stupid you sound, do you?
I'm a freekin genius compared to you.
CO2 is and always was a GHG.
It's only since al Gore announced it was that anyone has said CO2 was a
green house gas. I've NEVER heard of it called a green house gas before
that.
Which proves you never took a science course. Heck, I've got a 1987
chem book which mentions that. Doesn't your foot taste bad?
Also, your point that the carbon in fossil fuels was once airborn
is entirely true, but it is completely invalid as a basis for your
argument. That carbon was sequestered over millions of years. We
are releasing it in a period that is probably five to six orders of
magnitude shorter. Do you understand the implications of this?
Yes, a greener planet.
Let me be more specific. Do you understand the implications of this
regarding the sustainability of a human population of several
billion and with about 80% hugging oceanic coastlines?
A 0.5 F rise in global temperatures will not meil the ice caps or
greenland.
Strawman. That's all I will say about that ignorant comment.
Is that all the intelligence you can muster?
The South Pole averages from a high of -14 F in summer to a low of -81 F
in winter. How is a 1 C increase going to melt the ice caps (or
greenland)?
If so much CO2 is so bad, then how come global temperatures have
risen only 0.5 F in the last century?
No, over 1C.
Ok, 1 C, whoopie. That's not going to melt Greenland.
Greenland is melting and it is accelerating too.
I don't believe that *****. The only place I've heard that is from the
mainstream media which is controlled by big corporations, the rich
elite.
You know, some people don't believe the earth goes around the sun
either. Fortunately, science doesn't depend on the acceptance by
idiots to work.
Don't forget mister global warming himself created the internet and
then tried to tax it. Now he wants to tax the weather.
Neocon lie #387,472:
www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
You just verified what I said, lol Snopes gives the quote:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."
The snopes cite disputes that Gore claimed to have "invented" the
internet, which is NOT what i said, but not that far from the truth
either:
No, you claimed he "created the Internet". Anyone who thinks that he really
meant that is either obfuscating or stupid. Regardless, it is irrelevant to
this discussion. Your silly red herring lends no credence to your argument.
http://texastechie.com/Images/HumorMedia/gore_internet.wav
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: 2007: The Year The Global Warming Hoax Died |
22 Sep 2007 12:02:57 PM |
|
|
the_blogologist wrote:
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas by the physics of its structure. It doesn't
change with an act of Congress or a symposium at the NAS.
It was never a greenhouse gas before al Gore figured out how to get
rich on it.
You really don't know how mindnumbingly stupid you sound, do you?
I'm a freekin genius compared to you.
Is that a fact? How do you figure?
CO2 is and always was a GHG.
It's only since al Gore announced it was that anyone has said CO2 was
a green house gas. I've NEVER heard of it called a green house gas
before that.
Your ignorance of the subject is not my problem.
Also, your point that the carbon in fossil fuels was once airborn
is entirely true, but it is completely invalid as a basis for
your argument. That carbon was sequestered over millions of
years. We are releasing it in a period that is probably five to
six orders of magnitude shorter. Do you understand the
implications of this?
Yes, a greener planet.
Let me be more specific. Do you understand the implications of this
regarding the sustainability of a human population of several
billion and with about 80% hugging oceanic coastlines?
A 0.5 F rise in global temperatures will not meil the ice caps or
greenland.
Strawman. That's all I will say about that ignorant comment.
Is that all the intelligence you can muster?
What should I respond to? It was a stupid statement.
The South Pole averages from a high of -14 F in summer to a low of
-81 F in winter.
Maybe in the interior. "Temperatures reach a minimum of between -80 °C
and -90 °C (-112 °F and -130 °F) in the interior in winter and reach a
maximum of between +5 °C and +15 °C (41 °F and 59 °F) near the coast in
summer."
How is a 1 C increase going to melt the ice caps (or
greenland)?
First of all, Greenland and Antarctica are already melting. Secondly,
average mean global temperature is supposed to increase a further 2 - 5 C
this century.
If so much CO2 is so bad, then how come global temperatures have
risen only 0.5 F in the last century?
No, over 1C.
Ok, 1 C, whoopie. That's not going to melt Greenland.
Greenland is melting and it is accelerating too.
I don't believe that *****. The only place I've heard that is from the
mainstream media which is controlled by big corporations, the rich
elite.
Tinfoil hat time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11385475/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3922579.stm
Don't forget mister global warming himself created the internet
and then tried to tax it. Now he wants to tax the weather.
Neocon lie #387,472:
www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
You just verified what I said, lol Snopes gives the quote:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."
The snopes cite disputes that Gore claimed to have "invented" the
internet, which is NOT what i said, but not that far from the truth
either:
No, you claimed he "created the Internet". Anyone who thinks that he
really meant that is either obfuscating or stupid. Regardless, it is
irrelevant to this discussion. Your silly red herring lends no
credence to your argument.
http://texastechie.com/Images/HumorMedia/gore_internet.wav
No one is dusputing what he said.
See: http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm
According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who's
been called the Father of the Internet, "The Internet would not be where it
is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related
research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier
role as Senator."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
