Riots threatened! Global Warming must be STOPPED IMMEDIATELY!

[waspp]

So instead of all this guff about carbon trading what we need is to find a way to induce volcanic eruptions

 

BTW, I just love the name of the Meteorologist who helped put that chart together, pure gold!

 

Actually there has been about 175 eruptions since 1995.

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763388.html

[jrt]

If you want to have an honest discussion on the subject, I would suggest not using the term "global warming". For one thing, it is vague and for anther reason, it just ignites passions that obscure any meaningful discussion.

I would suggest using a term such as 'climate change'. There is no doubt that the earth is in the midst of climate change. It has been since day one and hopefully will be until day...last. last day. end of the planet. You get my drift.

 

The concern and predictions that science makes regarding climate change is that, as the average temperature of the earth increases, then we will see certain weather trends in regions. Some places are going to get colder, some places are going to get hotter. Most everyone will see increased variation and probably will see increased intensity of weather.

 

But don't believe me. I do teach a course in climate change, but I suggest reading the data for yourself.

 

EDIT: Oh, and Ratchet is just poking certain folks. Don't get yer panties in a bunch.

[DeBenGuzzi]

Breaking News!!!B

 

PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LOS ANGELES/OXNARD CA

1000 PM PST MON FEB 2 2009

 

...THIRD WARMEST JANUARY EVER IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES...

 

WITH AN AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE OF 62.5 DEGREES...JANUARY 2009

WAS THE THIRD WARMEST JANUARY IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES SINCE

OFFICIAL RECORDS BEGAN IN JULY 1877. ONLY JANUARY 1986 WITH AN

AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF 65.9 DEGREES AND JANUARY 2003 WITH AN AVERAGE

TEMPERATURE OF 63.4 DEGREES WERE WARMER.

 

Of course Ratchet may have been too busy indoors to have noticed the fine weather, and he never cherry picks his data or jump to conclusions based on scant evidence. (sarcasm intended)

Of course today is another month, February, and the weather has changed to cool rain...but either way, one should not jump to conclusions about global warming based on a little bit of local weather. All the data must be averaged out. But trying to get Ratchet to swing away from his right wing bias and admit to REAL science is an impossible task.

 

And if we look down under.

OK, well the midwest had the coldest January since the 1880's not one single day above freezing temps and around a week straight below 0F soooooooo, I think global warming is going to get us all this year, psh yeah right.

[Garsdad]

Two things:

 

One, on the subject of appropriate names:

 

"But David Frost, the director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said the collapse of the transport network was unacceptable."

 

Gee, a guy named Frost complaining that snow snarling traffic is a bitch...

 

Second, the earth is big. It goes through changes. We are small. Although we like to think that we are the most important thing on Mother Earth, and thus have a real say in the outcome, we really don't. Sunspots, volcanoes, meteors striking the Yucatan Peninsula... yeah, we can control that!

 

Sure, pollution causes problems, but CO2 is not pollution, for without it there could not be beer. Flat beer, without alcohol, sure, but who the hell wants to drink malty, hoppy, water?

 

Should we give up beer to keep the earth's temperature from rising another 1/100th of a degree? And if we WERE to stop making beer, would trees begin to die since CO2 is food for them?

 

I guess the thing that swings my vote is simply this:

 

The people who ring the global warming (sorry, "climate change") bell the loudest are the ones who stand to profit by it. Al Gore wants to sell his carbon credits. Governments want to tax the living hell out of us. Alternative Energy companies don't want to have to compete for your energy dollar on the open market, but climate change hysteria keeps the government subsidies flowing. Scientist who have paid themselves well for decades with research grants certainly don't want to have to find real gainful employment. Many of these same scientist who were paying themselves handsomely in the 1970's telling us we were headed for another ice age suddenly had to change their tune to keep the dollars coming when it became apparent we weren't freezing. Same research, same data, but with a new outcome to fit the current trend. Now we call it "climate change" to keep those research dollars coming. Even Al had to admit he altered the scale on the now famous "Temp vs CO2" graph to make the correlation look like CO2 leads temp, although temp leads CO2 in the real world. His agenda requires us to believe.

 

On the other hand, the "flat earthers" really have nothing to gain. I always lean towards the guy with a compelling argument, good data, and no direct financial benefit. As I asked my Dad, who has never answered the question, "Would you still believe in Global Warming if it was George Bush leading the charge and Haliburton selling the carbon credits?"

 

Please, someone without a financial, social, or political agenda please show me a climate model that works. So far, there isn't one.

[dlaing]

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blo...08/08/25/p28062

"The next ‘warm and dry’ climatic phase is scheduled to arrive in the early 2030s, probably peaking around 2038. It is expected to produce even hotter and drier weather patterns than we saw during the late 1990s and early 2000s."

 

 

"But, we should remember, that the Earth’s coldest periods have usually followed excessive warmth. Such was the case when our planet moved from the Medieval Warm Period between 900 and 1300 A.D. to the sudden ‘Little Ice Age,’ which peaked in the 17th Century."

 

"By the end of this 21st Century, a big cool down may occur that could ultimately lead to expanding glaciers worldwide, even in the mid-latitudes. We could possibly see even a new Great Ice Age. Based on long-term climatic data, these major ice ages have recurred about every 11,500 years. Well, you guessed it. The last extensive ice age was approximately 11,500 years ago, so we may be due. Again, only time will tell."

 

Pretty scary that theory that the warming could very well be followed by very cool period.

If so, I hope we have fuel left by the predicted 2090 date on the chart.

[dlaing]

Sure, pollution causes problems, but CO2 is not pollution, for without it there could not be beer. Flat beer, without alcohol, sure, but who the hell wants to drink malty, hoppy, water?

 

Should we give up beer to keep the earth's temperature from rising another 1/100th of a degree? And if we WERE to stop making beer, would trees begin to die since CO2 is food for them?

We don't have to outlaw beer, just burping.

 

The people who ring the global warming (sorry, "climate change") bell the loudest are the ones who stand to profit by it. Al Gore wants to sell his carbon credits. Governments want to tax the living hell out of us. Alternative Energy companies don't want to have to compete for your energy dollar on the open market, but climate change hysteria keeps the government subsidies flowing.

The greenies want tax breaks for solar panels and green cars, so the government might be conspiring to ignore the greenies.

Alternative Energy companies are weak, with the exception of the Alternative Energy companies like BP and Shell that make more money on petrol and are just hedging there bets on alternative. The oil lobby is huge and has clearly been shown to create propaganda of doubt.

It seems you have been reading some of their work:

Scientist who have paid themselves well for decades with research grants certainly don't want to have to find real gainful employment. Many of these same scientist who were paying themselves handsomely in the 1970's telling us we were headed for another ice age suddenly had to change their tune to keep the dollars coming when it became apparent we weren't freezing. Same research, same data, but with a new outcome to fit the current trend. Now we call it "climate change" to keep those research dollars coming.

Can you list these many scientists?

Ratchet brought up the same point in the great lost thread and I countered by showing the reasoning of the primary scientist who switched his view because of Evidence. You shouldn't be criticizing a scientist that admits they were wrong, IMHO.

If Jaap would open up the archive I might find the post.

 

Even Al had to admit he altered the scale on the now famous "Temp vs CO2" graph to make the correlation look like CO2 leads temp, although temp leads CO2 in the real world. His agenda requires us to believe.

Not that I would put it past Al, but do you have a source for this alleged confession?

 

On the other hand, the "flat earthers" really have nothing to gain. I always lean towards the guy with a compelling argument, good data, and no direct financial benefit. As I asked my Dad, who has never answered the question, "Would you still believe in Global Warming if it was George Bush leading the charge and Haliburton selling the carbon credits?"

 

Maybe Al Gore is the bugle boy leading the charge, but shooting him is only symbolic.

The substance of the charge is the army of climate scientist in the IPCC that are charging forth with Truth.

The bulk of the credible evidence supports the fact that humans are causing the climate to change.

The best sources that I found are

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.realclimate.org/

The worst source, and a favorite of Ratchet's, is Exxon funded Steven Milloy's http://junkscience.com/

You can read about Milloy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy

Ratchet of course denies the credibility of wikipedia.

So I suggest you look here http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll...1/REG/378909269

Where it says,

" Mr. Milloy also runs a non-profit think tank—the Free Enterprise Education Institute—and he is an adjunct analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based non-profit public policy organization dedicated to free enterprise and limited government."

"Steve Milloy, co-manager of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, which owns 4,000 Exxon shares,"

and

"Exxon has been generous to these organizations. Between 1998 and 2005, the oiler gave $130,000 to the Free Enterprise Education Institute and $2 million to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, according to research from environmental activist group Greenpeace that was based on Exxon’s corporate-giving records."

Of course Ratchet does not trust Greenpeace, but Milloy to the best of my knowledge never challenged the allegations, and I am sure he would.

junkscience.com spends enough time attacking greenpeace.

If you want prove the accusation wrong be my guest.

Here is a headstart in the search of no evidence

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cli...amp;btnG=Search

 

 

O

 

Please, someone without a financial, social, or political agenda please show me a climate model that works. So far, there isn't one.

Which model doesn't work, and why not?

 

Here is a good article on the value (and issues with) climate models

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...climate-models/

[Garsdad]

In order for a climate model to work, it has to come up with the same conclusions going forward and backward. If 1+1=2, then 2-1 must equal 1. None of the climate models work that way, because the formulas have to be constantly tweaked to fit reality.

 

We can trade websites all day long on both sides of the issue. Here are a few:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming

 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...d9-68c808e8809e

 

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm

 

http://www.boston.com/news/science/article...ient_scientist/

 

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org...=view&id=66

 

On a more local note, our State Climatologist, George Taylor, didn't toe the Climate Change line, and was fired, because he would get in the way of the Governor's cap and trade tax scheme.

 

Oh, and Gore and his minions (including Oregon's Secretary of State) have removed the graph overlay from their show, because it was shown to be a fabrication. Temperature leads CO2, which makes sense: Warm water can't hold as much gas in solution. Decay and fermentation both release CO2, and both occur more quickly in warmer situations. Of course, that becomes an inconvenient truth when your goal is to say that CO2 causes temperature rise.

 

There is a correlation, but that does not mean there is a direct cause and effect. One could just as easily say that when the oceans were colder, there were more pirates, and the decline in pirates caused the oceans to warm, just as the recent cooling of the oceans coincides with the increased pirate activity off the coast of Somalia. Stupid, silly, and farcical, but a correlation does exist...

 

I think on this one, we will disagree, but in a civilized manner.

 

Garsdad

[dlaing]

In order for a climate model to work, it has to come up with the same conclusions going forward and backward. If 1+1=2, then 2-1 must equal 1. None of the climate models work that way, because the formulas have to be constantly tweaked to fit reality.

 

We can trade websites all day long on both sides of the issue. Here are a few:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming

 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...d9-68c808e8809e

 

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm

 

http://www.boston.com/news/science/article...ient_scientist/

 

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org...=view&id=66

 

On a more local note, our State Climatologist, George Taylor, didn't toe the Climate Change line, and was fired, because he would get in the way of the Governor's cap and trade tax scheme.

 

Oh, and Gore and his minions (including Oregon's Secretary of State) have removed the graph overlay from their show, because it was shown to be a fabrication. Temperature leads CO2, which makes sense: Warm water can't hold as much gas in solution. Decay and fermentation both release CO2, and both occur more quickly in warmer situations. Of course, that becomes an inconvenient truth when your goal is to say that CO2 causes temperature rise.

 

There is a correlation, but that does not mean there is a direct cause and effect. One could just as easily say that when the oceans were colder, there were more pirates, and the decline in pirates caused the oceans to warm, just as the recent cooling of the oceans coincides with the increased pirate activity off the coast of Somalia. Stupid, silly, and farcical, but a correlation does exist...

 

I think on this one, we will disagree, but in a civilized manner.

 

Garsdad

If you give those websites a better introduction I might read them.

As for Al Gore admitting to manipulating graphs, you keep going at him without showing evidence. Sure he probably did, but let's see the citation, please.

There is a correlation, and a direct cause and effect. Scientists know for fact that some gasses like CO2 absorb more infrared energy. It is an undeniable fact. What is more difficult to correlate is how much temperature will increase, from a given increase in CO2. Models work to show what the increase will be, but the models are not perfectly accurate.

But how accurate do the models have to be?

I suspect the following models don't accurately take into consideration the power of the earth to absorb and we are likely to see a lower than predicted peak around 2050. These models predict fairly accurately into the past.

As for the number of pirates, the number has been growing for centuries, they just don't look like the characters in Disney movies. The seas are not immune to crime. The only thing likely to better correlate to temperature than volcanoe eruptions and CO2 is solar radiation, but only modeling can show what that was centuries ago. Maybe someday there will be a model to include dinosaur farts in the model

[grossohc]

Getting back to the original post, our snowman is bigger than ever and wont be fading away anytime soon <_ i will be charging the f thing rent shortly.>

[Guzzirider]

How long did the original global warming thread go on for?

[Admin Jaap]

From Jan. 6 2006, 10:41 AM to Dec. 29 2006, 06:16 PM

 

If you really want to read all 106 pages... Global Warming thread

 

You can only read it if you're logged in.

[Garsdad]

Oh, OK. I'll try to "properly introduce" a website next time.

 

Here's a thought for you-

 

Water vapor is a much better greenhouse gas than CO2- it holds a lot more energy. So does Methane. But you can't tax water vapor and methane, and with the exception of cattle and human farts, you would have a hard time blaming man for the warming caused by methane.

 

Paving streets, building houses, watering golf courses and irrigating crops all cause warming. If you turn 100 acres that was grass and trees into streets and rooftops that soak up the sun's energy all day, then release it all night, you will have warming. But you can't really tax people for that. When the water evaporates out of your pool, hot tub, lawn, and around the crops we grow for food and energy, it causes warming. But you can't tax that. And you really have a tough time making money on evaporation from the oceans, lakes, and streams.

 

But you can tax fossil energy use, and say it is all in the name of reducing our carbon footprint. Stop making the nasty CO2.

 

No one is arguing that the world is getting warmer, we simply don't know the cause, and the idea that pinpointing the smallest contributor to the total of "greenhouse gases" and putting the total blame on that is silly. It is a money grab.

 

Those with the cash (or the company that sells "carbon credits") fly around in private jets spewing more crap into the air in a year than I will in a lifetime. They live in a 40,000 (yes, that's forty thousand) square foot mansion that they heat and cool to their liking, all the while telling me that I am ruining the planet if my thermostat is set at more than 68 degrees in the dead of winter. They own a token Prius, but they are driven around in a limo and I am supposed to make do with a SMART car.

 

Governments have never met a tax they didn't like, so this is a goldmine for them.

 

As I stated earlier- follow the money. The loudest shills for any cause are usually the ones that stand to gain from it.

 

I am all for saving the earth, as I live here, too. But- I want proof that something is harmful before we cripple economies and burden society to combat it. So far, the proof isn't there.

 

One last thought- I see you put a PCIII and TuneBoy on your V11. Both of those richen the fuel mixture, and thus your bike emits more CO2 and other pollutants, probably more than the regs allowed. They don't leave the factory set lean to help the power delivery, do they.

 

So, you are willing to tax and regulate the CO2 emissions of others, as long as your motorcycle is improved by increasing your own. Sort of your personal "Cap and Trade" system?

[badmotogoozer]

Real evidence of global warming in Alaska. Hey, it's on the 'net... must be true.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4gbb4egOho

[Ralph Werner]

Real evidence of global warming in Alaska. Hey, it's on the 'net... must be true.

 

Now that made me laugh!!

[raz]

If anyone missed it, here is that pirate theory in writing: http://www.venganza.org/

 

 

Can you imagine ANYTHING that you can't support with quotes from the 'net?