PDA

View Full Version : APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"



Pages : [1] 2

tinfoil
10-10-2009, 06:57 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

LOL

Mott the Hoople
10-11-2009, 07:45 AM
Considering that this is the APP forum, were not supposed to make ad hominen. This is just so incredibly hard to do with you. This is like the evolution debate, another topic is which I'm assuming you're as ignorant of as this one. The evidence of climactic change is just so "Nose on your face" obvious that no really intelligent person really debates it except flat earthers and young earth creationist and others of your ilk. To put is simply, why should we waste our time with your willful ignorance?

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/10/25/melting-icecap-nasa-timelapse/2

tinfoil
10-11-2009, 07:54 AM
Considering that this is the APP forum, were not supposed to make ad hominen. This is just so incredibly hard to do with you. This is like the evolution debate, another topic is which I'm assuming you're as ignorant of as this one. The evidence of climactic change is just so "Nose on your face" obvious that no really intelligent person really debates it except flat earthers and young earth creationist and others of your ilk. To put is simply, why should we waste our time with your willful ignorance?

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/10/25/melting-icecap-nasa-timelapse/2

News for you...

evidence of changes are not evidnece that humans caused them (via changes in CO2 concentration and the resulting forcing).

It just makes me luagh. The CO2 forcing theory for climate control is totally falling apart or stories like this would never see the airwaves.

CO2 concentration does not control climate change. It's an effect of climate change. humans have added to the concentration and will continue to add tot he concentration, but it's not going to affect the climate as much as CO2 based models predict.

Why?
because those models have assumptions built into them that are proving to be wrong.

You can't use a model with assumptions built into it to prove the very same assumptions are correct. Well, you can do it, but it's meaningless to anyone with a modicum of intellect.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-11-2009, 06:26 PM
You mean "assumptsions', like the fact that a decreased amount of sea ice means less heat reflects back into space, which further reduces sea ice? Totally absurd to take anything other than straight climate change from CO2 into account and pretend everything stays exactly the same, to anyone with intellect. LOL

FUCK THE POLICE
10-11-2009, 06:27 PM
These threads where tinfoil just posts a link and says LOL should be deleted. If he does not want to form an opinion of his own he should go to a different forum.

Taichiliberal
10-11-2009, 07:15 PM
Here's a little exchange I had with Lord Moncton, the former scientific advisor to the Queen. Very enlightening, since he has yet to counter my final statements/questions.

Answers in bold face in the body of your email below. - M of B
----- Original Message -----
From: Taichiliberal
To: monckton@mail.com
Subject: questions on global warming
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:54:36 EST

Dear Lord Monckton,


A few decades ago in America, environmental scientist pointed out that a few hundred lakes in America were dying or dead due to acid rain......rain that was loaded with the chemical pollutants that can be found in the smoke stacks of manufacturing factories. To stop this, it was suggested that all industrial smokestacks be fitted with additional filtration systems that would greatly curtail the pollutants.

Rather than pay for the installation, many industries came up with this hair splitting defense, "If you can't prove that pollutants from my particular plant ended up in a particular lake that killed its wild life, then I'm not libel, and therefore I don't have to change".

In other words, the death by pollution of American lakes via acid rain wasn't exactly being denied....the buck was just being passed....and the corporations just kept making bucks regardless of the consequences.


Now I have consistently asked all those that deny global warming these specific questions, and to date have not gotten a straight answer. Maybe you could answer the following:



1 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing pollutants from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Pollution is damaging: but carbon dioxide, which is what the "global warming" theory is about, is not pollution. It is actually plant food and, in the past million years, concentrations have been at near-starvation levels for trees and plants. Carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere is entirely beneficial to the biosphere, and - once the numerous errors in the IPCC's method of calculation are corrected - causes only a very small and generally beneficial warming.
You are in effect saying that CO2 emissions from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts is beneficial to the environment….which is perplexing given that you have a market decrease in the very natural system of turning that into oxygen…trees. All one has to do is live in an urban environment with heavy vehicle traffic and nearby industrial plant’s smokestack and very little to no forest area, and you get the point. Add to this the other various chemical effluents contained in these emissions, and your assertion of benefits becomes questionable at best.

2 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing deforestation of rainforests have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Deforestation, too, is not caused by carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere. It is caused by greed, bribery and governmental incompetence.
But you leave out the fact that deforestation releases the very carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that you base your article on, since trees are about 50% carbon. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year – 1.6 billion tonnes – is caused by deforestation. According to FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) figures, some 13 million ha of forests worldwide are lost every year, almost entirely in the tropics. Deforestation remains high in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, of which the by products are sold in Europe and North America. But this is old news.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/02/030214074147.htm

3 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing urbanization that have replaced fields, valleys and forests with concrete for housing, malls and high rises have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Urbanization is accompanied by increases in greenhouse-gas emissions and is, accordingly, relevant to the "global warming" debate, unlike your previous two questions. But the temperature globally would not rise very much even if we quadrupled the pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2. In order to quadruple urbanization, you would have to quadruple deforestation in various spots around the globe….less trees, grass, plants means a lot more CO2 without nature’s ability to convert it to oxygen. And that is not good for all air breathing. And as you know, it wouldn’t take much of a global temperature rise to drastically change the landscape our various societies now enjoy. Just look at what “unseasonable” weather in the form of heavy rains, longer droughts, hurricanes, etc., can do. My other two questions are most pertinent, being that it focuses on all parts of an environment that interacts with human society, and cannot be isolated and separated as you do.


4 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing dumping of industrial waste into our oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Again, this question has no relevance to the "global warming" question. In fact, the volume of the oceans is so large that pollution has had a rather small effect. That is not to say that pollution is a good thing: but one should keep matters in perspective. Most countries of the West now have reasonable and generally-effective systems to control pollution of the oceans.
How can you say that ocean pollution has no relevance to global warming, since the ocean is a critical part of replenishing oxygen and absorbing CO2 to our atmosphere? The more CO2 pumped into the air, the more of a burden on our oceans which can affect the acidic balance. Add to this destroying the various organisms, plant and animal life, and you restrain the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 release oxygen into the air. And our pollution control methods for industrial nations has a long way to go before being seen as generally effective…..just look at the current 2 term American President’s environmental record.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070919175542.htm
5 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing trawl nets on the oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Over-fishing, particularly in consequence of the Communist Fisheries Policy of the EU, is most certainly a problem. But, again, this question has little or no bearing on the "global warming" issue, which was the subject of my article.
If you damage the ocean’s ecology, you affect its ability to convert CO2 to oxygen. Acid rain has been confirmed to destroy lakes in America….and all one has to do is a quick recent historical review of the pollution of shorelines for many cities to know this is no small problem (slimy waters, dead fish, and terrible odors). The Green Peace folk have been most accurate in documenting the effects of trawling and who is doing it.
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/deepsea/archives/press/releases/

tinfoil
10-11-2009, 08:14 PM
I made it through the first red quote section where you display your utter lack of understanding. You keep equating gases OTHER THAN CO2 to the arguments at hand. THE ARGUMENTS ONLY REFER TO CO2!!!! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD

tinfoil
10-11-2009, 08:18 PM
LOL your second set of quotes in red make me laugh! As if the trees are cut down and simply left to rot. Trees that are used for products and homes SEQUESTER CO2 AND KEEP IT FROM BEING RELEASED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.

Either way, CO2 is not as important as you are lead to believe. that's the crux of the arguments. CO2 concentration can only provide so much additional forcing. It's near the point of saturation already. it could double and still not be a significant problem.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-11-2009, 09:57 PM
LOL your second set of quotes in red make me laugh! As if the trees are cut down and simply left to rot. Trees that are used for products and homes SEQUESTER CO2 AND KEEP IT FROM BEING RELEASED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.

Either way, CO2 is not as important as you are lead to believe. that's the crux of the arguments. CO2 concentration can only provide so much additional forcing. It's near the point of saturation already. it could double and still not be a significant problem.

:facepalm:

Tell that to Venus.

Taichiliberal
10-11-2009, 10:24 PM
I made it through the first red quote section where you display your utter lack of understanding. You keep equating gases OTHER THAN CO2 to the arguments at hand. THE ARGUMENTS ONLY REFER TO CO2!!!! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD

Either you're not too bright or you need a refresher course in reading comprehension, because I CONSISTENTLY REFER TO CO2 as produced by industrial by products and how it relates to the very eco-system which handles CO2. If you increase the machines that produce CO2, but eliminate more and more of the eco-system that handles CO2 via industrialization, urbanization, and deforestation (not to mention pollution), how can the results NOT be detrimental to the environment?

Go back, read carefully and comprehensively everything...hopefully you'll at least understand what I'm saying.

Taichiliberal
10-11-2009, 10:33 PM
LOL your second set of quotes in red make me laugh! As if the trees are cut down and simply left to rot. Trees that are used for products and homes SEQUESTER CO2 AND KEEP IT FROM BEING RELEASED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.

Hey, chuckles....if you had bothered to actually read through what I wrote and accessed the links, you'd know that when trees die or burn, they release CO2. Wood that is processed, treated and used for products and homes DO NOT recycle CO2 to oxygen....they need roots, leaves etc. to do that. So when you remove a tree, you remove it's capacity to change co2to oxygen. When you burn it, you additionally release more co2. Kill it and let it rot, same thing. Since industrialization has artificially accelerated this process beyond the natural capacity for replenishing, you have a serious contributor to global warming.

You need to stop laughing and start THINKING beyond what makes you feel secure in your beliefs.

Either way, CO2 is not as important as you are lead to believe. that's the crux of the arguments. CO2 concentration can only provide so much additional forcing. It's near the point of saturation already. it could double and still not be a significant problem.

An amazing declaration based on sheer willful ignorance. In effect, you do what Monckton does...and I addressed that schizoid take here:

You are in effect saying that CO2 emissions from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts is beneficial to the environment….which is perplexing given that you have a market decrease in the very natural system of turning that into oxygen…trees. All one has to do is live in an urban environment with heavy vehicle traffic and nearby industrial plant’s smokestack and very little to no forest area, and you get the point. Add to this the other various chemical effluents contained in these emissions, and your assertion of benefits becomes questionable at best.

PostmodernProphet
10-12-2009, 05:08 AM
goodness, Taich.....if Monkton's response is that given in the bold black I have to say, 1) I am astounded he bothered to respond to you the first time and 2) astounded you don't realize he ruined you......

Hermes Thoth
10-12-2009, 05:41 AM
TaiChiLiberal doesn't think too good.

Taichiliberal
10-12-2009, 04:14 PM
goodness, Taich.....if Monkton's response is that given in the bold black I have to say, 1) I am astounded he bothered to respond to you the first time and 2) astounded you don't realize he ruined you......

I took you off of IA here in hopes that you're up to a rational discussion. Here goes:

Monckton responded because he hoped his standard response would settle the issue. What my follow up does is point out the glaring disconnect in his response. In other words, you cannot say CO2 is negligible when you are eliminating the very natural process in the world that makes sure CO2 is negligible. Add to this the increasing artificial production of CO2, and you have a problem. You can't just ignore something because it doesn't fit your equation or belief, which is what Monckton does. His subsequent volume speaks volumes. YOU can assume anything you want, but neither you or apparantly Monckton can do more than just ignore a fact of nature and reality. I really would like an answer to my follow-up responses other than repetition of a point that ignores certain facts.

Taichiliberal
10-12-2009, 04:17 PM
TaiChiLiberal doesn't think too good.

I took you off of IA here in hopes that you're up to a rational discussion. Here goes:

Monckton responded because he hoped his standard response would settle the issue. What my follow up does is point out the glaring disconnect in his response. In other words, you cannot say CO2 is negligible when you are eliminating the very natural process in the world that makes sure CO2 is negligible. Add to this the increasing artificial production of CO2, and you have a problem. You can't just ignore something because it doesn't fit your equation or belief, which is what Monckton does. His subsequent volume speaks volumes. YOU can assume anything you want, but neither you or apparantly Monckton can do more than just ignore a fact of nature and reality. I really would like an answer to my follow-up responses other than repetition of a point that ignores certain facts.

PostmodernProphet
10-12-2009, 04:31 PM
What my follow up does is point out the glaring disconnect in his response.
no, your follow up shows you didn't understand his response, which was quite sufficient to show the fault of your earlier question....he was NOT saying that CO2 emissions from emissions was beneficial, he said that the added CO2 emissions were not a statistical detriment.....you simply blew that off and repeated your previous statement.....between him and you, I am more inclined to believe he knows the truth of it and you do not.....

Taichiliberal
10-12-2009, 05:30 PM
no, your follow up shows you didn't understand his response, which was quite sufficient to show the fault of your earlier question....he was NOT saying that CO2 emissions from emissions was beneficial, he said that the added CO2 emissions were not a statistical detriment.....you simply blew that off and repeated your previous statement.....between him and you, I am more inclined to believe he knows the truth of it and you do not.....

His response points to plant emissions...he states a moot point. I didn't "blow off" anything...I am pointing out a fact of nature and life. Forests recycle CO2 to oxygen. You remove them in great numbers, you have a lessening in oxygen production. Add to this the increase in industrial produced CO2 and pollutants, and you provide a detrimental situation to the environment. That is a matter of history, a matter of fact. That Monckton chooses a rather myopic viewpoint won't make what I say any less true. Again, go live in an urban enviroment with a lot surrounding industry, concrete, high rise building and very little natural flora and fauna...you'll get the message. That Monckton refuses to acknowledge the correlations between natural and man made emissions and how the balance has been tipped, is what I prove out.

I could produce a lot of grade A, bonafide scientist who have corrected Monckton six ways to Sunday..but instead I just put forth a simple matter of fact that Monckton and folk like you seem most earnest to ignore. Repeating your belief won't alter the simple fact I put forth.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-12-2009, 09:55 PM
between him and you, I am more inclined to believe he knows the truth of it and you do not.....

You do realize your support for something is negative credibility, don't you?

Mott the Hoople
10-13-2009, 01:12 AM
News for you...

evidence of changes are not evidnece that humans caused them (via changes in CO2 concentration and the resulting forcing).

It just makes me luagh. The CO2 forcing theory for climate control is totally falling apart or stories like this would never see the airwaves.

CO2 concentration does not control climate change. It's an effect of climate change. humans have added to the concentration and will continue to add tot he concentration, but it's not going to affect the climate as much as CO2 based models predict.

Why?
because those models have assumptions built into them that are proving to be wrong.

You can't use a model with assumptions built into it to prove the very same assumptions are correct. Well, you can do it, but it's meaningless to anyone with a modicum of intellect.
Don't sweat it Tinny, no ones ever accused you of having a modicum of intellect. Ya know I've heard the same bull shit right wing arguments about Acid rain, NOX, SOX emmisions, particulates and their impact on climactic change and air quality, you've been wrong on all those issues and as the data becomes more and more overwhelming about CO/CO2 emmisions and other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxides it's abundantly evident that your not only wrong about that but that your so ideologically driven you'll ignore any and all evidence to the contrary. Where do you set the bar? At what point would you find data convincing that the industrial consumption of fossil fuels is impacting climate? When your leader Rush tells you?

I've seen the peer reviewed data. It's extraordinarily compelling but yet here you are with your flat earther point of view. I'm not going to bother with siting you the peer reviewed literature because I'm sure you'll come back with data from such famous climate experts as Rush, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck.

Mott the Hoople
10-13-2009, 01:19 AM
no, your follow up shows you didn't understand his response, which was quite sufficient to show the fault of your earlier question....he was NOT saying that CO2 emissions from emissions was beneficial, he said that the added CO2 emissions were not a statistical detriment.....you simply blew that off and repeated your previous statement.....between him and you, I am more inclined to believe he knows the truth of it and you do not.....
Be that as it may, his assertion is wrong. The causal links correalating to andropromorphic climactic change being detrimental is voluminous and statistically defensible. You may be correct in that Taichi didn't make the most informed argument but that does not make Moncton correct. In fact, Moncton's arguments are nonsensical in light of the available evidence.

Mott the Hoople
10-13-2009, 01:23 AM
I could produce a lot of grade A, bonafide scientist who have corrected Monckton six ways to Sunday...
That wouldn't be difficult to do either, would it? You're kind of banging your head against a wall. You're trying to convince the same kind of people who believe in young earth creationism and that ID is a valid science. As you continue to show them evidence, they will just raise the bar higher and higher. It's a waste of time. My suggestion to anyone out there on the topic. Check out the peer reviewed literature. It doesn't leave a whole lot of room for doubt.

Lowaicue
10-13-2009, 01:38 AM
And while you are arguing the permafrost is melting and releasing methane in huge quantities (much more detrimental than CO2), naked greed and corruption continue to erase our forests and green areas and your fellow humans continue to put a green piece of paper before a green piece of land.
You are falling right into the trap! Keep the debate going and we don't have to do anything!!!
Almost every person on the planet, and certainly every person in the 'civilised' (hahaha!) world can start the change. The change will NOT save the planet - it is way too late for that, but change might mean that the mess our children inherit is just a little more 'user friendly'.
So shut up and get on with living more responsible lives. Yes EVERYONE. Democrats and republicans, Americans and non Americans, black and white, brown and yellow, rich and poor.
If our kids are the last generation to inhabit this planet it is YOUR bloody fault ... and mine!!!
Start a movement in your own neighbourhood. Pool cars. Recycle waste. Grow your own food. CARE. For fucks sake CARE!!
Sorry about the language.

USFREEDOM911
10-13-2009, 01:41 AM
And while you are arguing the permafrost is melting and releasing methane in huge quantities (much more detrimental than CO2), naked greed and corruption continue to erase our forests and green areas and your fellow humans continue to put a green piece of paper before a green piece of land.
You are falling right into the trap! Keep the debate going and we don't have to do anything!!!
Almost every person on the planet, and certainly every person in the 'civilised' (hahaha!) world can start the change. The change will NOT save the planet - it is way too late for that, but change might mean that the mess our children inherit is just a little more 'user friendly'.
So shut up and get on with living more responsible lives. Yes EVERYONE. Democrats and republicans, Americans and non Americans, black and white, brown and yellow, rich and poor.
If our kids are the last generation to inhabit this planet it is YOUR bloody fault ... and mine!!!
Start a movement in your own neighbourhood. Pool cars. Recycle waste. Grow your own food. CARE. For fucks sake CARE!!
Sorry about the language.

How's the building oif that dam going.
Have your masters HAD to murder any more innocent farmers??

tinfoil
10-13-2009, 07:56 AM
Don't sweat it Tinny, no ones ever accused you of having a modicum of intellect. Ya know I've heard the same bull shit right wing arguments about Acid rain, NOX, SOX emmisions, particulates and their impact on climactic change and air quality, you've been wrong on all those issues and as the data becomes more and more overwhelming about CO/CO2 emmisions and other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxides it's abundantly evident that your not only wrong about that but that your so ideologically driven you'll ignore any and all evidence to the contrary. Where do you set the bar? At what point would you find data convincing that the industrial consumption of fossil fuels is impacting climate? When your leader Rush tells you?

I've seen the peer reviewed data. It's extraordinarily compelling but yet here you are with your flat earther point of view. I'm not going to bother with siting you the peer reviewed literature because I'm sure you'll come back with data from such famous climate experts as Rush, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck.

Fuck you, idiot. I've posted countless stuff to back it up. You choose to ignore it. Hell, you even claimed i was nuts saying the oceans controlled CO2 levels. Then, after I linked the NOAA page to verify it, you never responded. Shows what you know.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Aug_091.jpg

Hermes Thoth
10-13-2009, 07:59 AM
Mott pretends to be a man of science, but really he's just a man of idiocy.

Hermes Thoth
10-13-2009, 08:00 AM
And while you are arguing the permafrost is melting and releasing methane in huge quantities (much more detrimental than CO2), naked greed and corruption continue to erase our forests and green areas and your fellow humans continue to put a green piece of paper before a green piece of land.
You are falling right into the trap! Keep the debate going and we don't have to do anything!!!
Almost every person on the planet, and certainly every person in the 'civilised' (hahaha!) world can start the change. The change will NOT save the planet - it is way too late for that, but change might mean that the mess our children inherit is just a little more 'user friendly'.
So shut up and get on with living more responsible lives. Yes EVERYONE. Democrats and republicans, Americans and non Americans, black and white, brown and yellow, rich and poor.
If our kids are the last generation to inhabit this planet it is YOUR bloody fault ... and mine!!!
Start a movement in your own neighbourhood. Pool cars. Recycle waste. Grow your own food. CARE. For fucks sake CARE!!
Sorry about the language.

Your illuminist fearmongering lies will fail to achieve the results desired.

Lowaicue
10-13-2009, 08:40 AM
Your illuminist fearmongering lies will fail to achieve the results desired.

And people like you are what men of intelligence are fighting. I am NOT saying that there is 100% proof this way or that, but it costs nowt to care, it costs nowt to be better husbanders of this world of ours so why not just do it?
Are you so destructive in your everyday life? Do you hit first and ask questions later? Do you give a shit about ANYTHING apart from your dumb self?

Hermes Thoth
10-13-2009, 08:42 AM
And people like you are what men of intelligence are fighting. I am NOT saying that there is 100% proof this way or that, but it costs nowt to care, it costs nowt to be better husbanders of this world of ours so why not just do it?
Are you so destructive in your everyday life? Do you hit first and ask questions later? Do you give a shit about ANYTHING apart from your dumb self?

Men of intelligence? You mean brutal elitist assholes.

Why not just hand control of all energy over to the elitist nutsucks?

They suck ass, that's why. Assholery is not equal to intelligence. If you were smarter you would know that.

Lowaicue
10-13-2009, 09:30 AM
Men of intelligence? You mean brutal elitist assholes.

Why not just hand control of all energy over to the elitist nutsucks?

They suck ass, that's why. Assholery is not equal to intelligence. If you were smarter you would know that.

I am not suggesting that 'control' should be handed over to anyone. I am suggesting that casting of blame, arguing about control, debating methodology is, to some extent, self defeating, and if you and you little half brained buddies stopped faffing about and simply led more responsible lives, you might be happier, your environment might be better and your children might be safer. Meanwhile governments and business will talk for ever and maybe, just maybe they might take some action that will help us all improve matters.
Is that too difficult for you to understand?

Hermes Thoth
10-13-2009, 10:02 AM
I am not suggesting that 'control' should be handed over to anyone. I am suggesting that casting of blame, arguing about control, debating methodology is, to some extent, self defeating, and if you and you little half brained buddies stopped faffing about and simply led more responsible lives, you might be happier, your environment might be better and your children might be safer. Meanwhile governments and business will talk for ever and maybe, just maybe they might take some action that will help us all improve matters.
Is that too difficult for you to understand?

You are talking about control. You want to allow a few large corporations to become a market maker in the right to use energy and, additionally, to manipulate energy taxes to control usage.

It's all about control. I understand everything.

PostmodernProphet
10-13-2009, 12:07 PM
You do realize your support for something is negative credibility, don't you?

you realize your posts are a waste of finger-flexing, don't you?.....

PostmodernProphet
10-13-2009, 12:09 PM
The causal links correalating to andropromorphic climactic change being detrimental is voluminous and statistically defensible.
there is no evidence whatsoever that climate change would not have occurred or would not have reached current levels if not for human activity....nor is there any way to conclude that global warming will continue from this point forward or whether we have begun a period of global cooling........sorry, simple truth....

Cancel 2016.2
10-13-2009, 03:44 PM
Considering that this is the APP forum, were not supposed to make ad hominen. This is just so incredibly hard to do with you. This is like the evolution debate, another topic is which I'm assuming you're as ignorant of as this one. The evidence of climactic change is just so "Nose on your face" obvious that no really intelligent person really debates it except flat earthers and young earth creationist and others of your ilk. To put is simply, why should we waste our time with your willful ignorance?

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/10/25/melting-icecap-nasa-timelapse/2

actually, you are incorrect. The 'flat earthers' in this story are those who refuse to look at the opposing evidence and pretend that they have a consensus. All this despite more evidence and discussion to the contrary.

Man being a large portion of global warming is based on a lot of ASSUMPTIONS. It is far from proven and does not explain the FACT that in the past 11 years we have not seen evidence of the warming. In fact, many of the global warming fear mongers are now faced with the possibility of another decade of potential cooling prior to their catastrophic end of the world warming starts up again.

Cancel 2016.2
10-13-2009, 03:50 PM
And people like you are what men of intelligence are fighting. I am NOT saying that there is 100% proof this way or that, but it costs nowt to care, it costs nowt to be better husbanders of this world of ours so why not just do it?
Are you so destructive in your everyday life? Do you hit first and ask questions later? Do you give a shit about ANYTHING apart from your dumb self?

There are many good reasons to reduce pollution and our dependency on fossil fuels. The fear mongering 'da world is gunna end' morons are detrimental to the cause. They give a valid reason to those who care not about cleaning things up to not do so.

Cancel5
10-13-2009, 04:31 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

LOL
I am going to remember that you like the BBC! thanks

Minister of Truth
10-13-2009, 06:12 PM
They're not as cool as the London tabloid, the Sun, which has a topless girl on page 3.

Lowaicue
10-13-2009, 06:30 PM
There are many good reasons to reduce pollution and our dependency on fossil fuels. The fear mongering 'da world is gunna end' morons are detrimental to the cause. They give a valid reason to those who care not about cleaning things up to not do so.

The same can be said for those who say 'da world ain't gonna end.'
We are in the midst of global climate change as we have been since the beginning of time. For the first time human kind MIGHT be able to affect the changes to their advantage. Of course, they might not, but I would rather be positive than negative.

Damocles
10-13-2009, 06:49 PM
This one became a rather good conversation on warming. I can't see why ib1 was whining about it. I'll leave this one here.

USFREEDOM911
10-13-2009, 07:57 PM
And people like you are what men of intelligence are fighting. I am NOT saying that there is 100% proof this way or that, but it costs nowt to care, it costs nowt to be better husbanders of this world of ours so why not just do it?
Are you so destructive in your everyday life? Do you hit first and ask questions later? Do you give a shit about ANYTHING apart from your dumb self?

So you're saying that China conducted a world wide poll; before they went ahead and started building that dam, because they CARE about what others might think.

Lowaicue
10-13-2009, 09:01 PM
So you're saying that China conducted a world wide poll; before they went ahead and started building that dam, because they CARE about what others might think.

and which particular dam might that be? Why don't you tell us all what you think? You are mouthing off every few minutes but never actually say anything. Say what you mean, chicken. Oh, and don't just google it - anyone can do that.

Cancel 2016.2
10-13-2009, 09:16 PM
The same can be said for those who say 'da world ain't gonna end.'
We are in the midst of global climate change as we have been since the beginning of time. For the first time human kind MIGHT be able to affect the changes to their advantage. Of course, they might not, but I would rather be positive than negative.

The arrogance of mankind is what never ceases to amaze me. To believe we can 'control' nature is absurd.

Damocles
10-13-2009, 10:15 PM
The arrogance of mankind is what never ceases to amaze me. To believe we can 'control' nature is absurd.
Oh, I think we'll be able to one day in the far future once this fledgling science comes somewhat to fruition.

Minister of Truth
10-13-2009, 10:58 PM
According to Back to the Future Part II, by 2015 we will be able to control the weather, and the weather service will be more efficient than the post office.

USFREEDOM911
10-13-2009, 11:08 PM
and which particular dam might that be? Why don't you tell us all what you think? You are mouthing off every few minutes but never actually say anything. Say what you mean, chicken. Oh, and don't just google it - anyone can do that.

Asking the question you have, only proves that you're an idiot.
It woiuld seem that the only one who isn't aware, of what has been referred to as The Three Gorges Dam, is you. :good4u:

I do enjoy it, when youi Chinese masters force you to defend their actions, up to and including the murder of Chinese farmers that were FORCED to surrender their land and move.

Massive fail on your part.
:facepalm:

Lowaicue
10-14-2009, 07:35 AM
Asking the question you have, only proves that you're an idiot.
It woiuld seem that the only one who isn't aware, of what has been referred to as The Three Gorges Dam, is you. :good4u:

I do enjoy it, when youi Chinese masters force you to defend their actions, up to and including the murder of Chinese farmers that were FORCED to surrender their land and move.

Massive fail on your part.
:facepalm:

Ah. The Three Gorges Dam which I have not visited. You did not say ... very remiss of someone as well informed as you. Not the Xiao lang di dam on the Yangxe which I have visited or any of the other dams which are either in their planning stages or under construction.
Now then, do you have a question or a point or do you just think you are being smart?

USFREEDOM911
10-14-2009, 10:12 AM
Ah. The Three Gorges Dam which I have not visited. You did not say ... very remiss of someone as well informed as you. Not the Xiao lang di dam on the Yangxe which I have visited or any of the other dams which are either in their planning stages or under construction.
Now then, do you have a question or a point or do you just think you are being smart?

AWWWWWWWWWWW, gee.
Now NoIQ claims ignorance; but then that particular piece of evidence was self evident. :good4u:

YOU FAIL, again.

:facepalm:

PostmodernProphet
10-14-2009, 12:26 PM
based on this historical data, predict whether the temperatures over the next fifty years are going to go up or go down....it can't be done from this or any other data.....all we can logically conclude is that in all likelihood, our future holds colder temperatures.....

http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/Vostok%20Ice%20Core%20Global%20Tempertatures.gif

tinfoil
10-14-2009, 04:24 PM
Cloud cover vs temp
http://www.climate4you.com/images/LowCloudCoverVersusGlobalSurfaceAirTemperature.gif http://www.climate4you.com/images/LowCloudCoverVersusGlobalSurfaceAirTemperature.gif

Cloud cover vs cosmic ray flux
http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/Cosmic_rays_and_cloud_cover-marsh.jpghttp://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/Cosmic_rays_and_cloud_cover-marsh.jpg


... cosmic rays collide with water vapor and cause condesation and cloud formation.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-14-2009, 06:49 PM
The arrogance of mankind is what never ceases to amaze me. To believe we can 'control' nature is absurd.

OH NOEZ?@ TEH ARROGANCE OF MANKING?!

That totally frees you from having to make a ratioanl, evidence based argument about global warming! Good job!

Lowaicue
10-14-2009, 07:01 PM
AWWWWWWWWWWW, gee.
Now NoIQ claims ignorance; but then that particular piece of evidence was self evident. :good4u:

YOU FAIL, again.



Why don't you tell us all about US dams? I mean, you DO actually LIVE in the USA, don't you? (Don't google, I'm sure you have enough knowledge to leave everyone flabbergasted. I just hope you haven't had a hand in pouring any of the concrete! We both know what I am referring to, don't we?)

tinfoil
10-14-2009, 11:36 PM
anybody even see the connection?

Lowaicue
10-15-2009, 02:07 AM
anybody even see the connection?

If you are referring to me I must crave indulgence and humbly apologise. The gentleman to whom I spoke has done nothing, for the last five years (I really dont know how long), other than make inane comments about 'my Chinese masters'. He is clearly a little man but size notwithstanding he has made enemies of almost every ex poster at WOT some of whom have actually quit and gone elsewhere.
I will do my best not to respond in future.

Lowaicue
10-15-2009, 02:10 AM
anybody even see the connection?

If you are referring to me I must crave indulgence and humbly apologise. The gentleman to whom I spoke has done nothing, for the last five years (I really dont know how long), other than make inane comments about 'my Chinese masters'. He is clearly a little man but size notwithstanding he has made enemies of almost every ex poster at WOT some of whom have actually quit and gone elsewhere.
I will do my best not to respond in future.

Cancel 2016.2
10-15-2009, 08:59 AM
OH NOEZ?@ TEH ARROGANCE OF MANKING?!

That totally frees you from having to make a ratioanl, evidence based argument about global warming! Good job!

Troll.... FAIL

Lowaicue
10-15-2009, 09:21 AM
Troll.... FAIL


I would not take a position on the existence in man's mind of a deity. It is an argument that is unlikely to be won. My position on global warming is, like I suspect the vast majority of mankind, moot. You may challenge that or ignore it at your leisure. I am certainly conceited but do not possess enough of that quality to be able to conduct a reasoned debate for or against the idea of global warming, cooling or staying the same.
I'm sure you can carry all before you in such a discourse and win the day. Then we can all, in the words of Evelyn Waugh, 'Put Out more Flags'.

cancel2 2022
10-15-2009, 05:11 PM
It is worth reminding people that Roald Amundsen navigated the Northwest Passage (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/arctic/huntford.html) in 1905 in a 47 ton wooden fishing boat. So when anyone tells you that the Arctic is melting for the first time in human history, ask them to explain how he was able to achieve this astounding feat?

Taichiliberal
10-15-2009, 10:53 PM
That wouldn't be difficult to do either, would it? You're kind of banging your head against a wall. You're trying to convince the same kind of people who believe in young earth creationism and that ID is a valid science. As you continue to show them evidence, they will just raise the bar higher and higher. It's a waste of time. My suggestion to anyone out there on the topic. Check out the peer reviewed literature. It doesn't leave a whole lot of room for doubt.

It cracks me up sometimes how hard people work to disconnect nature from the effects of industrial pollution and CO2 emmissions. If you hang in their and point out their convoluted logic, they just close their minds and repeat only what supports their contentions against the idea that there must be major changes in how we live and work and produce material in order to NOT enhance the natural occurences of the planet.

tinfoil
10-17-2009, 02:01 AM
It cracks me up sometimes how hard people work to disconnect nature from the effects of industrial pollution and CO2 emmissions. If you hang in their and point out their convoluted logic, they just close their minds and repeat only what supports their contentions against the idea that there must be major changes in how we live and work and produce material in order to NOT enhance the natural occurences of the planet.
Cracks me up how you ignore the data presented in the thread.
Which is why this site is a troll site. you folks never ever address the data I present.

Taichiliberal
10-17-2009, 08:19 PM
Cracks me up how you ignore the data presented in the thread.
Which is why this site is a troll site. you folks never ever address the data I present.

Okay, one more time for the cheap seats:

The vast majority of folks who are pointing out global warming are NOT disputing that the Earth has natural changes in it's temperature or atmosphere. What they are pointing out is that the two centuries of exponentially increasing industrial pollutants, urbanization and deforestation have heightened the natural course of things to an uncoming dangerous level. My simple questions and logic are consistently side stepped by the global warming nay sayers, because in order for their CO2 theoretical gymnastics to work they have to omit certain factors. Like it or not, what I pointed out is a matter of fact that is learned in grade and high school science. Trees, forests, greenery and the ocean are major CO2-oxygen exchangers. Screw that up (deforestation, urbanization, pollution) and you have problems like a slight acceleration of the melting of cold regions on the planet, etc.

What you presented DOES not alter those facts.

tinfoil
10-18-2009, 12:53 PM
October 9, 2009
Yamal cherry picking

[I'm late on the Yamal tree ring story -- 'been away for two weeks -- but I'm including it here for completeness]

"Most of the proxy data does not show anything unusual about the 20th century. But two data series have reappeared over and over that do have a hockey stick shape. One was the flawed bristlecone data that the National Academy of Sciences panel said should not be used, so the studies using it can be set aside. The second was a tree ring curve from the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, compiled by UK scientist Keith Briffa.

Briffa had published a paper in 1995 claiming that the medieval period actually contained the coldest year of the millennium. But this claim depended on just three tree ring records (called cores) from the Polar Urals. Later, a colleague of his named F. H. Schweingruber produced a much larger sample from the Polar Urals, but it told a very different story: The medieval era was actually quite warm and the late 20th century was unexceptional. Briffa and Schweingruber never published those data, instead they dropped the Polar Urals altogether from their climate reconstruction papers.

In its place they used a new series that Briffa had calculated from tree ring data from the nearby Yamal Peninsula that had a pronounced Hockey Stick shape: relatively flat for 900 years then sharply rising in the 20th century. This Yamal series was a composite of an undisclosed number of individual tree cores. In order to check the steps involved in producing the composite, it would be necessary to have the individual tree ring measurements themselves. But Briffa didn’t release his raw data.

Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in prominent journals using Briffa’s Yamal composite to support a hockey stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would question the Yamal data.

Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre’s repeated requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored.

Then in 2008 Briffa, Schweingruber and some colleagues published a paper using the Yamal series (again) in a journal called the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, which has very strict data-sharing rules. Steve sent in his customary request for the data, and this time an editor stepped up to the plate, ordering the authors to release their data. A short while ago the data appeared on the Internet. Steve could finally begin to unpack the Yamal composite.

It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead (partially fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp uptrend in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees alive as of 1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century portion of the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year. But that portion doesn’t show a warming spike. The only segment that does is the late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least reliable portion of a dataset.

But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa’s small group the 20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium [see graph].

Combining data from different samples would not have been an unusual step. Briffa added data from another Schweingruber site to a different composite, from the Taimyr Peninsula. The additional data were gathered more than 400 km away from the primary site. And in that case the primary site had three or four times as many cores to begin with as the Yamal site. Why did he not fill out the Yamal data with the readily-available data from his own coauthor? Why did Briffa seek out additional data for the already well-represented Taimyr site and not for the inadequate Yamal site?

Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series, depends on the influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on here, it is not science." "Ross McKitrick: Defects in key climate data are uncovered"
-http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_chronologies_rev2.gif
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/10/yamal-cherry-picking.html
Posted by jblethen at 10/09/2009

tinfoil
10-18-2009, 09:55 PM
bump for hockey stick fans

tinfoil
10-19-2009, 06:34 PM
Global warming!!

Taichiliberal
10-19-2009, 09:39 PM
Originally Posted by tinfoil
Cracks me up how you ignore the data presented in the thread.
Which is why this site is a troll site. you folks never ever address the data I present.


Okay, one more time for the cheap seats:

The vast majority of folks who are pointing out global warming are NOT disputing that the Earth has natural changes in it's temperature or atmosphere. What they are pointing out is that the two centuries of exponentially increasing industrial pollutants, urbanization and deforestation have heightened the natural course of things to an uncoming dangerous level. My simple questions and logic are consistently side stepped by the global warming nay sayers, because in order for their CO2 theoretical gymnastics to work they have to omit certain factors. Like it or not, what I pointed out is a matter of fact that is learned in grade and high school science. Trees, forests, greenery and the ocean are major CO2-oxygen exchangers. Screw that up (deforestation, urbanization, pollution) and you have problems like a slight acceleration of the melting of cold regions on the planet, etc.

What you presented DOES not alter those facts.


Appropo to this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870856/

Lowaicue
10-19-2009, 10:02 PM
Appropo to this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870856/

There is little colour to those simple minds. All is either black or white. Environmental issues are left wing issues, good husbandry is a left wing issue, social responsibility is a left wing issue and all left wing issues are socialist issues and all socialist issues are communist issues and all communists should be shot because they plan to murder all right wing idiots in their beds and bring America down around their ears.

Taichiliberal
10-19-2009, 10:38 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Appropo to this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870856/


There is little colour to those simple minds. All is either black or white. Environmental issues are left wing issues, good husbandry is a left wing issue, social responsibility is a left wing issue and all left wing issues are socialist issues and all socialist issues are communist issues and all communists should be shot because they plan to murder all right wing idiots in their beds and bring America down around their ears.

Sad, isn't it?

It's pretty bizarre...as if all the corporations and business folk who fight reforms on behalf of a better environment act as if when the air and water go bad they'll just have theirs shipped in from an alternate universe or something.

Lowaicue
10-20-2009, 12:04 AM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Appropo to this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870856/



Sad, isn't it?

It's pretty bizarre...as if all the corporations and business folk who fight reforms on behalf of a better environment act as if when the air and water go bad they'll just have theirs shipped in from an alternate universe or something.

There is a rather strange British chat show host and comedian by the name of Paul O'Grady aka Lily Savage. He flew into Miami airport in August, I think, and was detained for two hours because the immigration official that he had a funny accent and could be a communist Cuban terrorist.
He is from Liverpool!
I mention this to further underline the stupidity of some Americans who seem hard wired into McCarthyism and cannot accept that the last communist regime ceased to be about twenty years ago.
I mean look at this bunch. Obama's health plan is 'Socialist'. 'Liberals' is to them a swear word. The bush tourist/terrorist joke is taken as deadly serious so that they are scared shitless by anyone who isnt a clone of them. And of course, the strangest thing of all, and the one thing that Europeans cannot come to terms with..... They are free to walk the streets just as if they are normal people!

cancel2 2022
10-20-2009, 03:58 AM
There is a rather strange British chat show host and comedian by the name of Paul O'Grady aka Lily Savage. He flew into Miami airport in August, I think, and was detained for two hours because the immigration official that he had a funny accent and could be a communist Cuban terrorist.
He is from Liverpool!
I mention this to further underline the stupidity of some Americans who seem hard wired into McCarthyism and cannot accept that the last communist regime ceased to be about twenty years ago.
I mean look at this bunch. Obama's health plan is 'Socialist'. 'Liberals' is to them a swear word. The bush tourist/terrorist joke is taken as deadly serious so that they are scared shitless by anyone who isnt a clone of them. And of course, the strangest thing of all, and the one thing that Europeans cannot come to terms with..... They are free to walk the streets just as if they are normal people!

You just can't make this sort of shit up!!

Paul O'Grady held at airport over communist fears

Wed Aug 12 10:46AM by TV Editor
http://l.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/util/anysize/200,http%3A%2F%2Fa323.yahoofs.com%2Fymg%2Fukie_tv_ _2%2Fukie_tv-27195145-1250070350.jpg%3FymONCuBDhXvz2l83?v=2

Paul O'Grady has revealed that he was held by officials at a US airport because they thought he was a communist.
The TV presenter said he was taken aside for questioning at Miami airport by staff who made the assumption because of his 'funny' accent.
He was then held for two hours while an officer accused him of being an 'illegal alien' from Cuba.
He told listeners of his Radio 2 show: "How could I be accused of being an illegal Cuban alien? Do I look Cuban? Do I sound Cuban?"
He added: "I've been to hell, folks - it's called Miami airport."
The Channel 4 star was later released after the customs officials studied his passport and found no links with Cuba.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/413769S94FL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

PostmodernProphet
10-20-2009, 05:16 AM
Environmental issues are left wing issues, good husbandry is a left wing issue, social responsibility is a left wing issue

wrong......the left wing approach to all issues is to make a lot of noise about problems, never to solve them....if they actually took steps to solve a problem they would lose a campaign issue......as I recall, Clinton took the Kyoto accord home and never presented it to his left wing controlled Congress, because he knew he could never get ratification.....

PostmodernProphet
10-20-2009, 05:19 AM
You just can't make this sort of shit up!!


is there any indication that O'Grady didn't?.......never heard of this before.....

Lowaicue
10-20-2009, 05:35 AM
is there any indication that O'Grady didn't?.......never heard of this before.....

Ahhh. There we have it in a nutshell. You haven't heard of it so you doubt its truth. Do you really think the Miami Airport Immigration Department are going to publicise their utter stupidity? Really?
Yeah, yeah. O'Grady made it all up. He's an American, y'know. Born in Liverpool and speaking with a scouse accent and one of the most popular family entertainers in the UK but really he's a secret American. Ipso facto he lies.
Jeeeezusss H! Is it any wonder?

Lowaicue
10-20-2009, 05:40 AM
wrong......the left wing approach to all issues is to make a lot of noise about problems, never to solve them....if they actually took steps to solve a problem they would lose a campaign issue......as I recall, Clinton took the Kyoto accord home and never presented it to his left wing controlled Congress, because he knew he could never get ratification.....

Here's a simple question.
Its worth 2 marks.

What literary device was being used in that statement?

Use only one side of the paper for your answer and place your name, date and Class number in the space provided.
I'm recommending that you be kept back for one year to redo Sec 1.

Hermes Thoth
10-20-2009, 07:37 AM
There is little colour to those simple minds. All is either black or white. Environmental issues are left wing issues, good husbandry is a left wing issue, social responsibility is a left wing issue and all left wing issues are socialist issues and all socialist issues are communist issues and all communists should be shot because they plan to murder all right wing idiots in their beds and bring America down around their ears.

Consideration for the environment should be based on real science, not al gore's lies. These lies are embraced by corporatists (right wingers), and america haters (left wingers) alike. The only oversimplified analysis I see is yours. That's because you're a simple person. You don't really get the complexities of modern living.

cancel2 2022
10-20-2009, 07:42 AM
is there any indication that O'Grady didn't?.......never heard of this before.....

I can't really see the American media bothering with it as Paul O Grady is not really known in the US.

PostmodernProphet
10-20-2009, 08:59 AM
Ahhh. There we have it in a nutshell. You haven't heard of it so you doubt its truth. Do you really think the Miami Airport Immigration Department are going to publicise their utter stupidity? Really?
Yeah, yeah. O'Grady made it all up. He's an American, y'know. Born in Liverpool and speaking with a scouse accent and one of the most popular family entertainers in the UK but really he's a secret American. Ipso facto he lies.
Jeeeezusss H! Is it any wonder?

he's an entertainer....from the looks of things, a humorist......folks like that embellish stories to make them more entertaining.....that doesn't mean you should treat what they say as the equivalent of a news report.....well, maybe the equivalent of an MSNBC news report, but you know what I mean......

PostmodernProphet
10-20-2009, 09:00 AM
What literary device was being used in that statement?

political satire.....

USFREEDOM911
10-20-2009, 09:32 AM
You just can't make this sort of shit up!!

Paul O'Grady held at airport over communist fears

Wed Aug 12 10:46AM by TV Editor
http://l.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/util/anysize/200,http%3A%2F%2Fa323.yahoofs.com%2Fymg%2Fukie_tv_ _2%2Fukie_tv-27195145-1250070350.jpg%3FymONCuBDhXvz2l83?v=2

Paul O'Grady has revealed that he was held by officials at a US airport because they thought he was a communist.
The TV presenter said he was taken aside for questioning at Miami airport by staff who made the assumption because of his 'funny' accent.
He was then held for two hours while an officer accused him of being an 'illegal alien' from Cuba.
He told listeners of his Radio 2 show: "How could I be accused of being an illegal Cuban alien? Do I look Cuban? Do I sound Cuban?"
He added: "I've been to hell, folks - it's called Miami airport."
The Channel 4 star was later released after the customs officials studied his passport and found no links with Cuba.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/413769S94FL._SL500_AA280_.jpg


But he did prove that he's a bigot.
""How could I be accused of being an illegal Cuban alien? Do I look Cuban? Do I sound Cuban?"

I guess because he's English, he doesn't realize that Cubans come in all shapes and colors.

Canceled1
10-20-2009, 09:41 AM
But he did prove that he's a bigot.
""How could I be accused of being an illegal Cuban alien? Do I look Cuban? Do I sound Cuban?"

I guess because he's English, he doesn't realize that Cubans come in all shapes and colors.

Do black people in the UK call themselves African British/Brits?

I can tell you that many people are shocked when they see Chinese speaking with a heavy British accent, Arabs, Indians, Pakistanis, Blacks etc.

I wouldn't say this fella looks like what I would imagine Cubans to look like, but I don't know what they see in Miami. Probably a wide variation of people claiming to be Cuban is my guess.

I am so glad he tamped down the drama though and didn't include his crown in his carry-on. :rolleyes:

christiefan915
10-20-2009, 09:52 AM
You just can't make this sort of shit up!!

Paul O'Grady held at airport over communist fears

Wed Aug 12 10:46AM by TV Editor
http://l.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/util/anysize/200,http%3A%2F%2Fa323.yahoofs.com%2Fymg%2Fukie_tv_ _2%2Fukie_tv-27195145-1250070350.jpg%3FymONCuBDhXvz2l83?v=2

Paul O'Grady has revealed that he was held by officials at a US airport because they thought he was a communist.
The TV presenter said he was taken aside for questioning at Miami airport by staff who made the assumption because of his 'funny' accent.
He was then held for two hours while an officer accused him of being an 'illegal alien' from Cuba.
He told listeners of his Radio 2 show: "How could I be accused of being an illegal Cuban alien? Do I look Cuban? Do I sound Cuban?"
He added: "I've been to hell, folks - it's called Miami airport."
The Channel 4 star was later released after the customs officials studied his passport and found no links with Cuba.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/413769S94FL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

Dang, this is embarrassing --- but not surprising. :(

PostmodernProphet
10-20-2009, 11:21 AM
but not surprising. :(

really?....if it isn't "surprising" it takes all the punch out of the story, doesn't it?.....

Cancel 2016.2
10-20-2009, 11:22 AM
You just can't make this sort of shit up!!

Paul O'Grady held at airport over communist fears

Wed Aug 12 10:46AM by TV Editor
http://l.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/util/anysize/200,http%3A%2F%2Fa323.yahoofs.com%2Fymg%2Fukie_tv_ _2%2Fukie_tv-27195145-1250070350.jpg%3FymONCuBDhXvz2l83?v=2

Paul O'Grady has revealed that he was held by officials at a US airport because they thought he was a communist.
The TV presenter said he was taken aside for questioning at Miami airport by staff who made the assumption because of his 'funny' accent.
He was then held for two hours while an officer accused him of being an 'illegal alien' from Cuba.
He told listeners of his Radio 2 show: "How could I be accused of being an illegal Cuban alien? Do I look Cuban? Do I sound Cuban?"
He added: "I've been to hell, folks - it's called Miami airport."
The Channel 4 star was later released after the customs officials studied his passport and found no links with Cuba.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/413769S94FL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

Does anyone have a link to this story that tells something other than Grady's take on this? While I don't put anything beyond the realms of possibility when it comes to our immigration department, it would be nice to have at least something from the immigration service or the Miami airport confirming this.

PostmodernProphet
10-20-2009, 11:30 AM
personally, I suspect O'Grady had a six year old kid hiding in his suitcase......and it was all for the show....

cancel2 2022
10-20-2009, 02:09 PM
But he did prove that he's a bigot.
""How could I be accused of being an illegal Cuban alien? Do I look Cuban? Do I sound Cuban?"

I guess because he's English, he doesn't realize that Cubans come in all shapes and colors.

Yep, it's well known that there is an enclave of Scousers named O'Grady in Cuba.

Lowaicue
10-20-2009, 07:22 PM
Consideration for the environment should be based on real science, not al gore's lies. These lies are embraced by corporatists (right wingers), and america haters (left wingers) alike. The only oversimplified analysis I see is yours. That's because you're a simple person. You don't really get the complexities of modern living.

Consideration for the environment is a phrase that doesn't work without qualification. My environment is not necessarily the same as your environment. What we all 'should' do is act for our own conscience. Respect that which gives us life and sustenance and do not destroy that which does not need to be destroyed.
If you can't see across the bay for airborne particulates you (society) have done something wrong and need to put it right. If we watch as the last Bengal tiger fights for its existence, we have done something wrong and need to put it right. If we alter local climates by cutting down mile upon mile of forest we have done something wrong and need to do something about it.
This has nothing to do with Al Gore or Al Bowley, this has to do with you and me.

and what might 'the complexities of modern living' be? Pollution is not solely an American problem. American lifestyle needs to be addressed as do all lifestyles.
Don't look for problems - look for solutions.

Lowaicue
10-20-2009, 07:24 PM
Yep, it's well known that there is an enclave of Scousers named O'Grady in Cuba.

The Castros are big in Maghull, y'know.

Hermes Thoth
10-20-2009, 07:40 PM
Consideration for the environment is a phrase that doesn't work without qualification. My environment is not necessarily the same as your environment. What we all 'should' do is act for our own conscience. Respect that which gives us life and sustenance and do not destroy that which does not need to be destroyed.
If you can't see across the bay for airborne particulates you (society) have done something wrong and need to put it right. If we watch as the last Bengal tiger fights for its existence, we have done something wrong and need to put it right. If we alter local climates by cutting down mile upon mile of forest we have done something wrong and need to do something about it.
This has nothing to do with Al Gore or Al Bowley, this has to do with you and me.

and what might 'the complexities of modern living' be? Pollution is not solely an American problem. American lifestyle needs to be addressed as do all lifestyles.
Don't look for problems - look for solutions.

You're a totally ignorant stooge.

Minister of Truth
10-20-2009, 08:17 PM
Do black people in the UK call themselves African British/Brits?

I can tell you that many people are shocked when they see Chinese speaking with a heavy British accent, Arabs, Indians, Pakistanis, Blacks etc.

It took me a while to get used to it. When I was a freshman in high school, Harry Potter 4 had just come out, and a few people casually asked my English teacher a question based upon the assumption that Cho Chang must be a foreign student from China, because obviously English people are white.

No matter the race, though, British (along with South African) accents are the hottest one's on planet Earth. French-Canadian are alright too.

Lowaicue
10-20-2009, 08:32 PM
You're a totally ignorant stooge.

Yes, of course. Enjoy your super intelligence dumb yank arsehole. It's into the box with you, I think.

Lowaicue
10-20-2009, 08:43 PM
It took me a while to get used to it. When I was a freshman in high school, Harry Potter 4 had just come out, and a few people casually asked my English teacher a question based upon the assumption that Cho Chang must be a foreign student from China, because obviously English people are white.

No matter the race, though, British (along with South African) accents are the hottest one's on planet Earth. French-Canadian are alright too.

White people call black people 'People'. Black people call white people 'People'.
White people call themselves 'people'. Black people call themselves 'people'.
What, in heaven's name do Americans call each other?
However, within that generality, we call people from Liverpool 'scousers' and people from Newcastle-on-Tyne 'geordies'. Most people we don't call; we hope they will go away. Accents are quite interesting and Professor Higgins is alive and well and living all over the country.
For my sins I speak with a southern accent quite close to RP. It tends to cause a few problems should I dare to travel into the wild and woolly north.

Taichiliberal
10-20-2009, 10:38 PM
There is a rather strange British chat show host and comedian by the name of Paul O'Grady aka Lily Savage. He flew into Miami airport in August, I think, and was detained for two hours because the immigration official that he had a funny accent and could be a communist Cuban terrorist.
He is from Liverpool!
I mention this to further underline the stupidity of some Americans who seem hard wired into McCarthyism and cannot accept that the last communist regime ceased to be about twenty years ago.
I mean look at this bunch. Obama's health plan is 'Socialist'. 'Liberals' is to them a swear word. The bush tourist/terrorist joke is taken as deadly serious so that they are scared shitless by anyone who isnt a clone of them. And of course, the strangest thing of all, and the one thing that Europeans cannot come to terms with..... They are free to walk the streets just as if they are normal people!

Low, there is no way I'm going to defend the actions of the neocons who went hog wild for 8 years...or for the idiocy you describe here. Fortunately, there are those of us who are fighting the good fight here.

What I will call you on is your European snobbery that has a tendency to go into overdrive. England has never been immune to the excesses that America has currently been internationally vilified for the last 8 years....Margaret Thatcher, the National Front...that's just for starters. What I'm trying to say is that your shit stinks too.....so just let's keep it all in perspective.

Taichiliberal
10-20-2009, 10:43 PM
wrong......the left wing approach to all issues is to make a lot of noise about problems, never to solve them....if they actually took steps to solve a problem they would lose a campaign issue......as I recall, Clinton took the Kyoto accord home and never presented it to his left wing controlled Congress, because he knew he could never get ratification.....

Slick Willy was the best thing that happened to the GOP....one of the reasons why I didn't vote for his second term. Maybe he was still wary of another GOP walkout?

But your accusations are hilarious....because every blessed time the "left wing" offers solutions, the "right wing" fights like hell to ignore, demonize or prevent them from implimentation (or even rational discussion). And remember, the "left wing" weren't the spearhead or leaders on the S&L Scandal, or the Iran/Contra Scandal, or the Enron Scandal, or the Wall St. bailout.

Lowaicue
10-20-2009, 10:48 PM
Low, there is no way I'm going to defend the actions of the neocons who went hog wild for 8 years...or for the idiocy you describe here. Fortunately, there are those of us who are fighting the good fight here.

What I will call you on is your European snobbery that has a tendency to go into overdrive. England has never been immune to the excesses that America has currently been internationally vilified for the last 8 years....Margaret Thatcher, the National Front...that's just for starters. What I'm trying to say is that your shit stinks too.....so just let's keep it all in perspective.

I concur

tinfoil
10-21-2009, 06:50 AM
AGU presentation backs up McIntyre’s findings that there is no late 20th century hockey stick in Yamal
30 09 2009

If you are just joining us, the story is this. After 10 years of data being withheld that would allow true scientific replication, and after dozens of requests for that data, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit finally was given access to the data from Yamal Peninsula, Russia. He discovered that only 12 trees had been used out of a much larger dataset of tree ring data. When the larger data set was plotted, there is no “hockey stick” of temperature, in fact it goes in the opposite direction.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/30/agu-presentation-backs-up-mcintyres-findings-that-there-is-no-hockey-stick-in-yamal/


where are the warmers?
Cypress? Mott? What's up? Do you guys understand now? You've been duped because you failed to understand how statistics were being used to lie to you. LOL and you call me an idiot.

tinfoil
10-21-2009, 08:12 PM
Global Warming!!!

Hermes Thoth
10-22-2009, 09:51 AM
OMGozzerZ!@@ It's the CO2zes!

Hermes Thoth
10-22-2009, 09:55 AM
OMGozerZ!! it's the Co2zers#!

Taichiliberal
10-22-2009, 11:01 PM
Global Warming!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870856/

PostmodernProphet
10-23-2009, 04:53 AM
It took me a while to get used to it. When I was a freshman in high school, Harry Potter 4 had just come out,

goodlord....when I was a freshman in high school television had just come out......

Hermes Thoth
10-23-2009, 06:49 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870856/

Sorry, msnbc isn't a news organization.

tinfoil
10-23-2009, 08:51 AM
LOL I post the evidence that CO2 theory uses faulty and skewed data and the morons ignore it.
Typical.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/30/agu-presentation-backs-up-mcintyres-findings-that-there-is-no-hockey-stick-in-yamal/

tinfoil
10-23-2009, 09:46 AM
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114055974

tinfoil
10-23-2009, 10:13 AM
Thomas Fuchs does an excellent job of presenting what's going on. after you read what he has to say, go to climate audit and read Steve's analysis. Kinda hard to argue that we should be setting policy based on a study that used a tiny sample of trees out of a much larger potential sample, and also magically included the trees with greatest anomaly skewed in the favor of CO2 warming theorists who created the study.

Obvious fraud is obvious

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m10d1-A-tale-of-tree-rings-global-warming-and-Fangorns-Ents




In the ongoing saga of the tree rings at the end of the world (the English translation of Yamal), there appeared today two responses from the coterie of scientists that have systematically used controversial techniques to create the impression that global warming is happening much faster than previously believed, but have fought tooth and nail to avoid releasing the data behind their publications.

The first was a fairly gracious response from the paper's author, Keith Briffa: "We have not yet had a chance to explore the details of McIntyre's analysis or its implication for temperature reconstruction at Yamal but we have done considerably more analyses exploring chronology production and temperature calibration that have relevance to this issue but they are not yet published. I do not believe that McIntyre's preliminary post provides sufficient evidence to doubt the reality of unusually high summer temperatures in the last decades of the 20th century. We will expand on this initial comment on the McIntyre posting when we have had a chance to review the details of his work."

But the second was a semi-hysterical rant from the Real Climate weblog where the scientists involved are principal contributors. As Roger Pielke Jr. points out, "Steve McIntyre must be on to something, judging by the nasty and vituperative comments coming from Real Climate, where Gavin Schmidt levels a serious allegation: 'So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that [Keith] Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever.

I have followed this issue closely, and it is clear that Steve McIntyre "declared" no such thing. In fact he declared exactly the opposite:

(McIntyre): "I don't wish to unintentionally feed views that I don't hold. It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked. My guess is that the Russians selected a limited number of 200-400 year trees - that's what they say - a number that might well have been appropriate for their purpose and that Briffa inherited their selection - a selection which proved to be far from random and which, as you and I agree, falls vastly short of standards in the field for RCS chronology (as opposed to corridor or spline chronologies)."

(Pielke Jr.) Gavin's outright lie about McIntyre is an obvious attempt to distract attention from the possibility that Steve may have scored another scalp in the Hockey Stick wars. Rather than distract attention from McIntyre, Gavin's most recent lie simply adds to the list of climate scientists behaving badly. When will these guys learn?

The sarcastic and insulting reply from Real Climate included a number of charts showing hockey sticks developed by other members of the team using the same suspect analysis and the same hidden data sets as if that would prove McIntyre wrong. What it proved was how important--and how threatening--McIntyre's analysis must look to these scientists, who have served as each other's co-authors and peer reviewers for over a decade.

However, McIntyre, while keeping fairly quiet himself, is not without his defenders:

We start with Ross McKitrick: "Beginning in 2003, I worked with Stephen McIntyre to replicate a famous result in paleoclimatology known as the Hockey Stick graph. Developed by a U.S. climatologist named Michael Mann, it was a statistical compilation of tree ring data supposedly proving that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the 20th century. Prior to the publication of the Hockey Stick, scientists had held that the medieval-era was warmer than the present, making the scale of 20th century global warming seem relatively unimportant. The dramatic revision to this view occasioned by the Hockey Stick’s publication made it the poster child of the global warming movement."

"Most of the proxy data does not show anything unusual about the 20th century. But two data series have reappeared over and over that do have a hockey stick shape. One was the flawed bristlecone data that the National Academy of Sciences panel said should not be used, so the studies using it can be set aside. The second was a tree ring curve from the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, compiled by UK scientist Keith Briffa."

"Briffa had published a paper in 1995 claiming that the medieval period actually contained the coldest year of the millennium. But this claim depended on just three tree ring records (called cores) from the Polar Urals. Later, a colleague of his named F. H. Schweingruber produced a much larger sample from the Polar Urals, but it told a very different story: The medieval era was actually quite warm and the late 20th century was unexceptional. Briffa and Schweingruber never published those data, instead they dropped the Polar Urals altogether from their climate reconstruction papers.

In its place they used a new series that Briffa had calculated from tree ring data from the nearby Yamal Peninsula that had a pronounced Hockey Stick shape: relatively flat for 900 years then sharply rising in the 20th century. This Yamal series was a composite of an undisclosed number of individual tree cores. In order to check the steps involved in producing the composite, it would be necessary to have the individual tree ring measurements themselves. But Briffa didn’t release his raw data.

Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in prominent journals using Briffa’s Yamal composite to support a hockey stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would question the Yamal data.

Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre’s repeated requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored."

"The key ingredient in most of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series, depends on the influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on here, it is not science."

Read the whole thing.

And Jeff Id from The Air Vent continues in the same vein: "Their (Real Climate's) post is very silly from a scientific perspective but will read well for their attack dogs." He goes on to pick apart their rant in thorough detail.

More to come. Including the explanation of Fangorn's Ents.

Taichiliberal
10-23-2009, 04:35 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870856/


Sorry, msnbc isn't a news organization.

Translation: the facts reported in the news report contradict the assertions and conclusions of what the neocon AsshatZombie presented....so since he has neither the ability or inclination to try and disprove what is presented point for point, he goes the usual Karl Rove road.....slander the source and ignore the information.

Taichiliberal
10-23-2009, 04:37 PM
Thomas Fuchs does an excellent job of presenting what's going on. after you read what he has to say, go to climate audit and read Steve's analysis. Kinda hard to argue that we should be setting policy based on a study that used a tiny sample of trees out of a much larger potential sample, and also magically included the trees with greatest anomaly skewed in the favor of CO2 warming theorists who created the study.

Obvious fraud is obvious

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m10d1-A-tale-of-tree-rings-global-warming-and-Fangorns-Ents




In the ongoing saga of the tree rings at the end of the world (the English translation of Yamal), there appeared today two responses from the coterie of scientists that have systematically used controversial techniques to create the impression that global warming is happening much faster than previously believed, but have fought tooth and nail to avoid releasing the data behind their publications.

The first was a fairly gracious response from the paper's author, Keith Briffa: "We have not yet had a chance to explore the details of McIntyre's analysis or its implication for temperature reconstruction at Yamal but we have done considerably more analyses exploring chronology production and temperature calibration that have relevance to this issue but they are not yet published. I do not believe that McIntyre's preliminary post provides sufficient evidence to doubt the reality of unusually high summer temperatures in the last decades of the 20th century. We will expand on this initial comment on the McIntyre posting when we have had a chance to review the details of his work."

But the second was a semi-hysterical rant from the Real Climate weblog where the scientists involved are principal contributors. As Roger Pielke Jr. points out, "Steve McIntyre must be on to something, judging by the nasty and vituperative comments coming from Real Climate, where Gavin Schmidt levels a serious allegation: 'So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that [Keith] Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever.

I have followed this issue closely, and it is clear that Steve McIntyre "declared" no such thing. In fact he declared exactly the opposite:

(McIntyre): "I don't wish to unintentionally feed views that I don't hold. It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked. My guess is that the Russians selected a limited number of 200-400 year trees - that's what they say - a number that might well have been appropriate for their purpose and that Briffa inherited their selection - a selection which proved to be far from random and which, as you and I agree, falls vastly short of standards in the field for RCS chronology (as opposed to corridor or spline chronologies)."

(Pielke Jr.) Gavin's outright lie about McIntyre is an obvious attempt to distract attention from the possibility that Steve may have scored another scalp in the Hockey Stick wars. Rather than distract attention from McIntyre, Gavin's most recent lie simply adds to the list of climate scientists behaving badly. When will these guys learn?

The sarcastic and insulting reply from Real Climate included a number of charts showing hockey sticks developed by other members of the team using the same suspect analysis and the same hidden data sets as if that would prove McIntyre wrong. What it proved was how important--and how threatening--McIntyre's analysis must look to these scientists, who have served as each other's co-authors and peer reviewers for over a decade.

However, McIntyre, while keeping fairly quiet himself, is not without his defenders:

We start with Ross McKitrick: "Beginning in 2003, I worked with Stephen McIntyre to replicate a famous result in paleoclimatology known as the Hockey Stick graph. Developed by a U.S. climatologist named Michael Mann, it was a statistical compilation of tree ring data supposedly proving that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the 20th century. Prior to the publication of the Hockey Stick, scientists had held that the medieval-era was warmer than the present, making the scale of 20th century global warming seem relatively unimportant. The dramatic revision to this view occasioned by the Hockey Stick’s publication made it the poster child of the global warming movement."

"Most of the proxy data does not show anything unusual about the 20th century. But two data series have reappeared over and over that do have a hockey stick shape. One was the flawed bristlecone data that the National Academy of Sciences panel said should not be used, so the studies using it can be set aside. The second was a tree ring curve from the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, compiled by UK scientist Keith Briffa."

"Briffa had published a paper in 1995 claiming that the medieval period actually contained the coldest year of the millennium. But this claim depended on just three tree ring records (called cores) from the Polar Urals. Later, a colleague of his named F. H. Schweingruber produced a much larger sample from the Polar Urals, but it told a very different story: The medieval era was actually quite warm and the late 20th century was unexceptional. Briffa and Schweingruber never published those data, instead they dropped the Polar Urals altogether from their climate reconstruction papers.

In its place they used a new series that Briffa had calculated from tree ring data from the nearby Yamal Peninsula that had a pronounced Hockey Stick shape: relatively flat for 900 years then sharply rising in the 20th century. This Yamal series was a composite of an undisclosed number of individual tree cores. In order to check the steps involved in producing the composite, it would be necessary to have the individual tree ring measurements themselves. But Briffa didn’t release his raw data.

Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in prominent journals using Briffa’s Yamal composite to support a hockey stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would question the Yamal data.

Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre’s repeated requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored."

"The key ingredient in most of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series, depends on the influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on here, it is not science."

Read the whole thing.

And Jeff Id from The Air Vent continues in the same vein: "Their (Real Climate's) post is very silly from a scientific perspective but will read well for their attack dogs." He goes on to pick apart their rant in thorough detail.

More to come. Including the explanation of Fangorn's Ents.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870856/

Damocles
10-23-2009, 07:40 PM
Translation: the facts reported in the news report contradict the assertions and conclusions of what the neocon AsshatZombie presented....so since he has neither the ability or inclination to try and disprove what is presented point for point, he goes the usual Karl Rove road.....slander the source and ignore the information.
So is that the "translation" of what the Obama Admin says about Fox, or are you a huge partisan hypocrite?

Taichiliberal
10-23-2009, 08:02 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Translation: the facts reported in the news report contradict the assertions and conclusions of what the neocon AsshatZombie presented....so since he has neither the ability or inclination to try and disprove what is presented point for point, he goes the usual Karl Rove road.....slander the source and ignore the information.


So is that the "translation" of what the Obama Admin says about Fox, or are you a huge partisan hypocrite?

Damo, for someone always claiming not to be a neocon, you sure as hell do a great impression of regurgitating their convoluted BS.

No translation necessary if you've been paying attention for the last 8 years....especially since November of 2008. Where Obama is concerned, FOX News is about as objective as the Pope is on abortion rights. If you have any doubt, take a gander at the following:

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/10/23/fox_news_was_at_war_with_obama_long_before_obama_w as_at_war_with_fox_news.php#more

Damocles
10-23-2009, 08:10 PM
Damo, for someone always claiming not to be a neocon, you sure as hell do a great impression of regurgitating their convoluted BS.

No translation necessary if you've been paying attention for the last 8 years....especially since November of 2008. Where Obama is concerned, FOX News is about as objective as the Pope is on abortion rights. If you have any doubt, take a gander at the following:

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/10/23/fox_news_was_at_war_with_obama_long_before_obama_w as_at_war_with_fox_news.php#more
So, your answer is that you are a huge hypocrite. I'm good with that, I just wanted you to be clear.

USFREEDOM911
10-23-2009, 08:20 PM
Damo, for someone always claiming not to be a neocon, you sure as hell do a great impression of regurgitating their convoluted BS.

No translation necessary if you've been paying attention for the last 8 years....especially since November of 2008. Where Obama is concerned, FOX News is about as objective as the Pope is on abortion rights. If you have any doubt, take a gander at the following:

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/10/23/fox_news_was_at_war_with_obama_long_before_obama_w as_at_war_with_fox_news.php#more


Obama lost this war, so live with and get over it. :good4u:

Taichiliberal
10-23-2009, 08:28 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Damo, for someone always claiming not to be a neocon, you sure as hell do a great impression of regurgitating their convoluted BS.

No translation necessary if you've been paying attention for the last 8 years....especially since November of 2008. Where Obama is concerned, FOX News is about as objective as the Pope is on abortion rights. If you have any doubt, take a gander at the following:

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/10/23/..._news.php#more


So, your answer is that you are a huge hypocrite. I'm good with that, I just wanted you to be clear.

Thanks for proving the highlighted sentence, Damo. Now, why don't you run along and join the other neocon geniuses on these boards in maudlin exchange for justification of your BS. :cof1:

Damocles
10-23-2009, 08:32 PM
Thanks for proving the highlighted sentence, Damo. Now, why don't you run along and join the other neocon geniuses on these boards in maudlin exchange for justification of your BS. :cof1:
:facepalm:

I am just glad that you are so comfortable in your own hypocrisy. I find it interesting that you take my points as some indication of "neocon"...

Please tell me, can you define neocon and show how pointing out your hypocrisy is part of that definition? I'm reasonably sure that in no definition I have ever read or expounded upon was there mention of pointing out hypocrisies of partisan hacks.

My bet is you will not even bother trying to back up your assertions with any sort of definition, nor be capable of creating a link to my capacity to see your hypocrisy.

USFREEDOM911
10-23-2009, 08:35 PM
:facepalm:

I am just glad that you are so comfortable in your own hypocrisy. I find it interesting that you take my points as some indication of "neocon"...

Please tell me, can you define neocon and show how pointing out your hypocrisy is part of that definition? I'm reasonably sure that in no definition I have ever read or expounded upon was there mention of pointing out hypocrisies of partisan hacks.

It's because his mommy said so.

Taichiliberal
10-23-2009, 11:14 PM
:facepalm:

I am just glad that you are so comfortable in your own hypocrisy. I find it interesting that you take my points as some indication of "neocon"...

Stop acting simple, will ya please? You're sounding EXACTLY like USFreedumb. You can make an accusation all you want...that doesn't excuse the documented FACT that you completely ignored the examples I gave earlier, or my fact based dismantling of the previous BS from the other neocon numbskull that spurred you to this current blathering. You can talk all the self delusional BS you want, but the recorded posts tell a different story.

Please tell me, can you define neocon and show how pointing out your hypocrisy is part of that definition? I'm reasonably sure that in no definition I have ever read or expounded upon was there mention of pointing out hypocrisies of partisan hacks.

So far, you keep making the accusation of hypocrisy...but have yet to logically prove it by any of the posts I've made on this particular thread....so essentially you're just blowing smoke. Secondly, you insist upon parroting the same rhetoric that neocons use whenever faced with concrete evidence as to the wrongdoing of their icons and leaders....they never discuss the evidence, they just make accusations and slander in an effort to move off topic...as you've done here. You can repeat your BS until doomsday, but the recorded posts will always be your undoing.

My bet is you will not even bother trying to back up your assertions with any sort of definition, nor be capable of creating a link to my capacity to see your hypocrisy.

Don't bet the farm on it, Damo. So far you're all talk and no substance. Your making accusations while ignoring previous information and posts, and then you build on that faulty premise as if it's gospel. Only in your mind, Damo. Stop BS'ing and get your ass in gear, because if I want to sink to the level you're creating, I'll take Freedumb off of IA.

tinfoil
10-24-2009, 07:48 AM
LOL the dude linked the same dumb article. Obviously, statistics is not within your grasp, I see.

I don't know how to explain it better but it's something like this:

Scientist chooses proxy data that skews the sample in favor of CO2 theory predicted results.

Scientist claims the study supports CO2 theory.
Scientist witholds data for decade(FRAUD) while others attempt to replicate his work(SCIENCE)

When the data is finally obtained (through freedom of information act) the data used in the sample is found to be cherry picked.

The whole IPCC hockey stick rode on theis study.. that used 12 fucking trees

But the warmers "trust peer reviewed" studies

LOLZ

tinfoil
10-24-2009, 07:57 AM
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039186.shtml

An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability
An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability

Marco Tedesco

Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, City College of New York, New York, New York, USA

Andrew J. Monaghan

National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season. The 30-year record confirms that significant negative correlations exist at regional and continental scales between austral summer melting and both the ENSO and SAM indices for October–January. In particular, the strongest negative melting anomalies (such as those in 2008 and 2009) are related to amplified large-scale atmospheric forcing when both the SAM and ENSO are in positive phases. Our results suggest that enhanced snowmelt is likely to occur if recent positive summer SAM trends subside in conjunction with the projected recovery of stratospheric ozone levels, with subsequent impacts on ice sheet mass balance and sea level trends.

Received 13 May 2009; accepted 12 August 2009; published 24 September 2009.

Citation: Tedesco, M., and A. J. Monaghan (2009), An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186.

christiefan915
10-24-2009, 08:55 AM
Thanks for proving the highlighted sentence, Damo. Now, why don't you run along and join the other neocon geniuses on these boards in maudlin exchange for justification of your BS. :cof1:

Freakin' unbelievable. "Obama's a Muslim, Obama's a natural-born Kenyan, Obama-Osama, Obama and his wife exchanged terrorist fist jabs, Obama's a socialist/communist/anti-American", ad nauseum.

The internet is crawling with misstatements, inaccuracies and lies regarding Obama, and Faux is one of the biggest offenders. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. I'd like to see these hacks pick out a few controversies from the sites below, and explain why they aren't biased against Obama.


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

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/07/03/is_fox_nation_in_bed_with_newsbusters.php

Damocles
10-24-2009, 09:52 AM
Don't bet the farm on it, Damo. So far you're all talk and no substance. Your making accusations while ignoring previous information and posts, and then you build on that faulty premise as if it's gospel. Only in your mind, Damo. Stop BS'ing and get your ass in gear, because if I want to sink to the level you're creating, I'll take Freedumb off of IA.
And I was right. Too bad nobody took me up on the bet. I'll give you another try. Please post the definition of "neocon" that you are using so that we can see how pointing out your hypocrisy can be defined as such. I'd be willing to bet again, if anybody would take the offer, that you won't be able to do it and won't even try, just like in this post.

Hermes Thoth
10-24-2009, 11:50 AM
And I was right. Too bad nobody took me up on the bet. I'll give you another try. Please post the definition of "neocon" that you are using so that we can see how pointing out your hypocrisy can be defined as such. I'd be willing to bet again, if anybody would take the offer, that you won't be able to do it and won't even try, just like in this post.

Neocon: A globalist who pretends that internationalist fascism is patriotic.

Minister of Truth
10-24-2009, 02:52 PM
That's enough internationalist nationalism for today Asshate. Take your oxymorons elsewhere...

USFREEDOM911
10-24-2009, 03:22 PM
Don't bet the farm on it, Damo. So far you're all talk and no substance. Your making accusations while ignoring previous information and posts, and then you build on that faulty premise as if it's gospel. Only in your mind, Damo. Stop BS'ing and get your ass in gear, because if I want to sink to the level you're creating, I'll take Freedumb off of IA.

AWWWWWWWWWWWWW, does sissy have me on IA.

What's the matter, poor baby; did you get tired of me spanking you?? :good4u:

Damocles
10-24-2009, 07:38 PM
Neocon: A globalist who pretends that internationalist fascism is patriotic.
I agree with this definition, it's a relatively good one. However, that cannot be the definition he was using, nothing in it matches any of my actions.

Cancel 2018. 3
10-24-2009, 07:45 PM
AWWWWWWWWWWWWW, does sissy have me on IA.

What's the matter, poor baby; did you get tired of me spanking you?? :good4u:

anyone he loses a debate with gets put on ignore....

Hermes Thoth
10-24-2009, 07:46 PM
That's enough internationalist nationalism for today Asshate. Take your oxymorons elsewhere...

Today's predominant brand of fascism is internationalist.

Fascism is characterized by a melding of corporate and government power.

When that government is global, and the corporations are multinational, it's internationalist fascism.

Taichiliberal
10-24-2009, 10:18 PM
LOL the dude linked the same dumb article. Obviously, statistics is not within your grasp, I see.

What's "dumb" about the article, chuckles? What information contained in that article can you logically prove wrong or inconclusive. See chuckles, that article is what you and your CO2 loving corporate dupes just keep ignoring...because to acknowledge it would make your myopic arguments irrelevent. But then again, the WHOLE TRUTH has never been of interest to you.

I don't know how to explain True enough...you just parrot what others tell you without applying the cognitive reasoning skills that God gave you...the term "willful ignorance" decribes you to the letter. it better but it's something like this:

Scientist chooses proxy data that skews the sample in favor of CO2 theory predicted results.

SOME scientist....not ALL scientist envolved in the global warming debate. Your problem is that whenever one global warminng group or person is proven wrong, you jump on it like a flea to a dog's ass and claim that is the ENTIRE premise of people warning about global warming. But, as in the article I showed you, that is not the case. And mind you, that is just ONE example. I could spend a day and a night referencing other bonafide sources from the scientific community that give various aspects as to the proof of global warming with relations to industrialization and urbanization. And let us not forget that many bogus and fraudulent claims by "reputable" scientist (paid by various corporations) to debunk global warming. For you to act as if fraud is one sided is naive at best

Scientist claims the study supports CO2 theory.
Scientist witholds data for decade(FRAUD) while others attempt to replicate his work(SCIENCE)

See above paragraph

When the data is finally obtained (through freedom of information act) the data used in the sample is found to be cherry picked.

See above paragraph

The whole IPCC hockey stick rode on theis study.. that used 12 fucking trees

But the warmers "trust peer reviewed" studies

See above paragraph

LOLZ

Laugh, clown, laugh. Neither you, the great Lord Monckton, or any other self described expert can refute my statements or the links I provided.

Taichiliberal
10-24-2009, 10:24 PM
Freakin' unbelievable. "Obama's a Muslim, Obama's a natural-born Kenyan, Obama-Osama, Obama and his wife exchanged terrorist fist jabs, Obama's a socialist/communist/anti-American", ad nauseum.

The internet is crawling with misstatements, inaccuracies and lies regarding Obama, and Faux is one of the biggest offenders. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. I'd like to see these hacks pick out a few controversies from the sites below, and explain why they aren't biased against Obama.


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

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/07/03/is_fox_nation_in_bed_with_newsbusters.php

Thing is, my exchange with the Asshat had NOTHING to do with Obama and Fox...it was about global warming and the reality of my statements that Lord Monckton couldn't adequately answer. Essentially, Damo decided to try and change the subject....why, I don't know.

Taichiliberal
10-24-2009, 10:43 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Don't bet the farm on it, Damo. So far you're all talk and no substance. Your making accusations while ignoring previous information and posts, and then you build on that faulty premise as if it's gospel. Only in your mind, Damo. Stop BS'ing and get your ass in gear, because if I want to sink to the level you're creating, I'll take Freedumb off of IA.


And I was right. About what? As I've stated above, you've proven nothing logically, you just keep telling everyone that you're right. Got news for you, Damo...that "logic" gets kicked to the curb by grade school teachers every day. Too bad nobody took me up on the bet. Based on your opinion and not facts? That's a sucker's bet...no wonder no one will touch it. I'll give you another try. Translation: SOS Please post the definition of "neocon" that you are using so that we can see how pointing out your hypocrisy can be defined as such. I'd be willing to bet again, if anybody would take the offer, that you won't be able to do it and won't even try, just like in this post.


Okay, let's follow the bouncing ball: I'm discussing global warming issues with Asshat. He cannot disprove the information in the links I provided or contradict how I display the flaws in Lord Monckton's statements.

Then you appear on the scene and call me a hypocrit. You don't explain what I am being hypocritical about. For good measure, you throw in Obama, who had nothing to do with the discussion. I ask for clarification as to my crime of hypocrisy....you gave none. I provide fact based evidence that the Obama White House claim of Fox bias is true....you ignore that and repeat your claim. So when I rightly point out that you're just acting like a neocon parrot....changing the subject and repeating accusations while ignoring information provided, you now change the subject yet again to make it about you not acting like a neocon...despite my pointing out that you are mimicking the exact debate "tactics" of such luminaries as USfreedumb (or LoyalEnd, or Tutu Blabba, etc., etc.).

So when all is said and done, the recorded posts show that you are not really interested in a logical discussion on any subject with me here...but are instead intent upon slander....using convoluted logic in your attack. Why, I don't know....but clearly you've got a range of topics that you just can't stand having your personal beliefs challenged on. Tough donuts bunky....you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Or you could ban me from the site and make all the accusations you want.....which would cement your status as "fair and balanced", like Fox News.

Carry on. :cof1:

Taichiliberal
10-24-2009, 10:57 PM
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039186.shtml

An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability
An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability

Marco Tedesco

Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, City College of New York, New York, New York, USA

Andrew J. Monaghan

National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season. The 30-year record confirms that significant negative correlations exist at regional and continental scales between austral summer melting and both the ENSO and SAM indices for October–January. In particular, the strongest negative melting anomalies (such as those in 2008 and 2009) are related to amplified large-scale atmospheric forcing when both the SAM and ENSO are in positive phases. Our results suggest that enhanced snowmelt is likely to occur if recent positive summer SAM trends subside in conjunction with the projected recovery of stratospheric ozone levels, with subsequent impacts on ice sheet mass balance and sea level trends.

Received 13 May 2009; accepted 12 August 2009; published 24 September 2009.

Citation: Tedesco, M., and A. J. Monaghan (2009), An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-epa-climate14-2009oct14,0,4010488.story

Bush-era EPA document on climate change released
The 2007 draft suppressed until now calls for regulation of greenhouse gases, citing global warming as a serious risk to the U.S. A finding by the Obama administration is nearly identical.

Taichiliberal
10-24-2009, 11:02 PM
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039186.shtml

An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability
An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability

Marco Tedesco

Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, City College of New York, New York, New York, USA

Andrew J. Monaghan

National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season. The 30-year record confirms that significant negative correlations exist at regional and continental scales between austral summer melting and both the ENSO and SAM indices for October–January. In particular, the strongest negative melting anomalies (such as those in 2008 and 2009) are related to amplified large-scale atmospheric forcing when both the SAM and ENSO are in positive phases. Our results suggest that enhanced snowmelt is likely to occur if recent positive summer SAM trends subside in conjunction with the projected recovery of stratospheric ozone levels, with subsequent impacts on ice sheet mass balance and sea level trends.

Received 13 May 2009; accepted 12 August 2009; published 24 September 2009.

Citation: Tedesco, M., and A. J. Monaghan (2009), An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-epa-climate14-2009oct14,0,4010488.story

Bush-era EPA document on climate change released
The 2007 draft suppressed until now calls for regulation of greenhouse gases, citing global warming as a serious risk to the U.S. A finding by the Obama administration is nearly identical.

And then there's this:

http://cdn.optmd.com/V2/62428/166226/index.html?g=Af////8=&r=townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJMichaels/2009/10/16/deafening_silence_on_real_climate_change

Lowaicue
10-24-2009, 11:58 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-epa-climate14-2009oct14,0,4010488.story

Bush-era EPA document on climate change released
The 2007 draft suppressed until now calls for regulation of greenhouse gases, citing global warming as a serious risk to the U.S. A finding by the Obama administration is nearly identical.

And then there's this:

http://cdn.optmd.com/V2/62428/166226/index.html?g=Af////8=&r=townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJMichaels/2009/10/16/deafening_silence_on_real_climate_change

I really see little point in arguing the toss with people whose minds are so totally closed.
In the end there are more people in your country and certainly many more in civilised parts of the world who are concerned about the various aspects of climate change than those who are not.
If the concerned people take such action as they can and aim their debates and arguments at those who genuinely do not know and who are willing to listen we are much more likely to have improvements to show our children and grandchildren.
I suggest that we all do what we can and leave the thickos to their own devices. They may come to thank us in the end. And if they dont, who gives a toss?

USFREEDOM911
10-25-2009, 12:24 AM
I really see little point in arguing the toss with people whose minds are so totally closed.
In the end there are more people in your country and certainly many more in civilised parts of the world who are concerned about the various aspects of climate change than those who are not.
If the concerned people take such action as they can and aim their debates and arguments at those who genuinely do not know and who are willing to listen we are much more likely to have improvements to show our children and grandchildren.
I suggest that we all do what we can and leave the thickos to their own devices. They may come to thank us in the end. And if they dont, who gives a toss?


Now it's "CLIMATE CHANGE"!!

What happened to "GLOBAL WARMING"??

Damocles
10-25-2009, 08:21 AM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
About what? As I've stated above, you've proven nothing logically, you just keep telling everyone that you're right. Got news for you, Damo...that "logic" gets kicked to the curb by grade school teachers every day.
[COLOR="Red"]Okay, let's follow the bouncing ball: I'm discussing global warming issues with Asshat. He cannot disprove the information in the links I provided or contradict how I display the flaws in Lord Monckton's statements.

Then you appear on the scene and call me a hypocrit. You don't explain what I am being hypocritical about. For good measure, you throw in Obama, who had nothing to do with the discussion. I ask for clarification as to my crime of hypocrisy....you gave none. I provide fact based evidence that the Obama White House claim of Fox bias is true....you ignore that and repeat your claim. So when I rightly point out that you're just acting like a neocon parrot....changing the subject and repeating accusations while ignoring information provided, you now change the subject yet again to make it about you not acting like a neocon...despite my pointing out that you are mimicking the exact debate "tactics" of such luminaries as USfreedumb (or LoyalEnd, or Tutu Blabba, etc., etc.).

So when all is said and done, the recorded posts show that you are not really interested in a logical discussion on any subject with me here...but are instead intent upon slander....using convoluted logic in your attack. Why, I don't know....but clearly you've got a range of topics that you just can't stand having your personal beliefs challenged on. Tough donuts bunky....you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Or you could ban me from the site and make all the accusations you want.....which would cement your status as "fair and balanced", like Fox News.

Carry on. :cof1:
About what?

Jeebus...

1. It all starts with the RL statement from the Obama Administration, "Fox News isn't real news."

2. Couple days later in a thread with Taichi someone says half-mockingly, "MSNBC isn't real news."

3. Taichi tries to defend MSNBC by making a "translation" of that statement.

4. Damocles sees this and points out that if the MSNBC statement should be translated this way, wouldn't you agree the Obama Admin's statements should be translated the same or are you a hypocrite?

5. Taichi says, "You're a neocon!" to Damocles.

6. Damocles says, "How would that make me a neocon, it doesn't fit any definition of neocon I've ever seen? And it also appears as if you selected the 'hypocrite' choice of those two."

7. Taichi says, "You're a neocon!"

8. Repeat as necessary.

I asked you in what way, even if you were "right", that I would be a "neocon" therefore. What do you mean I didn't "explain"... I quoted the post with your defense of MSNBC using the same statements (almost exactly) as conservatives do when talking about Obama's war on FOX News...

So far all you've done is take the long winded approach of what you attempt to hypocritically accuse me of here, just saying you are "right" with no capacity to back it up. You are unable to find one iota of information that shows only neocons disagree with the hypocrite Taichi, and you won't be able to.

Plus, nobody is going to ban you. You aren't a victim. Quit being deliberately ignorant and begin to do what you so constantly say you want others to do actually make arguments from facts rather than begin a dialogue with "You are a neocon"

You constantly make me embarrassed for you. I don't like feeling empathy towards stupid.

Lowaicue
10-25-2009, 09:05 AM
Now it's "CLIMATE CHANGE"!!

What happened to "GLOBAL WARMING"??

As you are well aware, oh boy of little brain, I am instructed by my masters to say such things with the threat of having my finger nails extracted and being condemned to listen to arseholes like you for eternity.
Can you make a well known phrase or saying from the words : OFF FUCK

tinfoil
10-25-2009, 09:14 AM
I swear, you are just plain ignorant. Does the Yamal cherry picking of 12 trees to base the global record on give you any concern? Science? LOL

12 trees were used to build the hockey stick graph.
It's a joke

Hermes Thoth
10-25-2009, 10:06 AM
Climate change hysteria is used to justify government takeover of all energy usage.

Damocles
10-25-2009, 10:15 AM
I swear, you are just plain ignorant. Does the Yamal cherry picking of 12 trees to base the global record on give you any concern? Science? LOL

12 trees were used to build the hockey stick graph.
It's a joke
They are willing to fully ignore bad science in the effort to agree with human created global climate change.

Taichiliberal
10-25-2009, 05:14 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,4010488.story

Bush-era EPA document on climate change released
The 2007 draft suppressed until now calls for regulation of greenhouse gases, citing global warming as a serious risk to the U.S. A finding by the Obama administration is nearly identical.

And then there's this:

http://cdn.optmd.com/V2/62428/166226...climate_change


I really see little point in arguing the toss with people whose minds are so totally closed.
In the end there are more people in your country and certainly many more in civilised parts of the world who are concerned about the various aspects of climate change than those who are not.
If the concerned people take such action as they can and aim their debates and arguments at those who genuinely do not know and who are willing to listen we are much more likely to have improvements to show our children and grandchildren.
I suggest that we all do what we can and leave the thickos to their own devices. They may come to thank us in the end. And if they dont, who gives a toss?

Well, the catch is that once you pull the rug out from under the willfully ignorant and those of stubborn pride, then it all comes down to sheer personal choice....>I'm going to keep doing what I do because I like it, not because it makes sense.<

What we are seeing is the beginnings of a true challenge to the powers that be....and many are afraid to step up to the plate. So those in charge of power distribution, health distribution, etc., tell their lies and half truths and pass out the talking points, because the under lying threat is "you better do as we say, or we'll take our toys and go home". Unfortunately for them, that old stand by isn't holding as firm as it use to....because as history shows when you push people to a point where they have nothing to lose, change will happen.
The reason why I engage most closed minded people on this subject is to get them to a point where they demonstrate it's not about logic from their point of view, but about being comfortable with the status quo, and suppressing those who they're ideologically opposed to. Once that level of honesty is reached, then we can all move on (or most of us can, anyway).

Taichiliberal
10-25-2009, 05:54 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
About what? As I've stated above, you've proven nothing logically, you just keep telling everyone that you're right. Got news for you, Damo...that "logic" gets kicked to the curb by grade school teachers every day.
Okay, let's follow the bouncing ball: I'm discussing global warming issues with Asshat. He cannot disprove the information in the links I provided or contradict how I display the flaws in Lord Monckton's statements.

Then you appear on the scene and call me a hypocrit. You don't explain what I am being hypocritical about. For good measure, you throw in Obama, who had nothing to do with the discussion. I ask for clarification as to my crime of hypocrisy....you gave none. I provide fact based evidence that the Obama White House claim of Fox bias is true....you ignore that and repeat your claim. So when I rightly point out that you're just acting like a neocon parrot....changing the subject and repeating accusations while ignoring information provided, you now change the subject yet again to make it about you not acting like a neocon...despite my pointing out that you are mimicking the exact debate "tactics" of such luminaries as USfreedumb (or LoyalEnd, or Tutu Blabba, etc., etc.).

So when all is said and done, the recorded posts show that you are not really interested in a logical discussion on any subject with me here...but are instead intent upon slander....using convoluted logic in your attack. Why, I don't know....but clearly you've got a range of topics that you just can't stand having your personal beliefs challenged on. Tough donuts bunky....you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Or you could ban me from the site and make all the accusations you want.....which would cement your status as "fair and balanced", like Fox News.

Carry on.


About what? [COLOR="Red"]Go back and read EVERYTHING...and stop pretending you don't comprehend what you read.

Jeebus... Yeah, your deterioration to these lame ass tactics does elicit expressions in frustration.

1. It all starts with the RL statement from the Obama Administration, "Fox News isn't real news." Which had NOTHING to do with the discussion I was having with Asshat and Tinfoil. This was another topic YOU injected, possibly to detract from the fact that the aforementioned clowns couldn't factually refute what I posted and linked. Only YOU can explain your actions, but the chronology of the posts prove me out on this.

2. Couple days later in a thread with Taichi someone says half-mockingly, "MSNBC isn't real news." And obviously you weren't paying attention to the what had transpired. I used a link to MSNBC that covered a story regarding DEFORESTATION AND GLOBAL WARMING.

3. Taichi tries to defend MSNBC by making a "translation" of that statement. And had you comprehended the response, you would have noted that I pointed out how Asshat (or was it Tinfoil? Their mindsets are so alike.) does the classic Rove inspired neocon response...when he can't disprove the content, he just demonizes the source and avoids the content. The subject was global warming, the material reported on was valid.

4. Damocles sees this and points out that if the MSNBC statement should be translated this way, wouldn't you agree the Obama Admin's statements should be translated the same or are you a hypocrite?

Actually, you just called me a hypocrit with little to no explanation. I asked you TWICE to explain...and until now you didn't. Again, MSNBC was REPORTING on a news story about global warming....NOT about the political machinations of Obama. What you've done is jump on the Asshat dodge wagon...which is your perrogative, but is still a BS dodge none the less.

5. Taichi says, "You're a neocon!" to Damocles. No, I pointed out that you were utilizing the tactics of the neocon clowns (see above). You also leave out the little detail of how I gave fact based proof of Fox's bias against Obama in January of 2009....which quickly settled the dodge you and Asshat want to indulge in.

6. Damocles says, "How would that make me a neocon, it doesn't fit any definition of neocon I've ever seen? And it also appears as if you selected the 'hypocrite' choice of those two."

All one has to do is check the chronology of the posts to see that is NOT what you said. And since I already explained how your tactics fit into the neocon dodge routine, your pretending otherwise is just a waste of space to indulge your delusions.

7. Taichi says, "You're a neocon!" See above responses.

8. Repeat as necessary. See above responses.

I asked you in what way, even if you were "right", that I would be a "neocon" therefore. What do you mean I didn't "explain"... I quoted the post with your defense of MSNBC using the same statements (almost exactly) as conservatives do when talking about Obama's war on FOX News...

Oh stop lying Damo....the chronological posts don't support your BS. As ususal, you just go off the deep end whenever someone proves you flat out wrong...or says something you don't like but you can't refute. Grow up, will ya?

So far all you've done is take the long winded approach of what you attempt to hypocritically accuse me of here, just saying you are "right" with no capacity to back it up. You are unable to find one iota of information that shows only neocons disagree with the hypocrite Taichi, and you won't be able to.

Amazing...you lie, then you build on the lie as if there aren't posts that clearly contradict what you say. Get a grip, man!

Plus, nobody is going to ban you. It was a suggestion to you, genius. Since you obviously lose touch with reality whenever someone pokes a hole in that inflated ego of yours. You can't prove what I said to Asshat and Tinfoil is wrong...you can't disprove the information in my links, and you can't salvage the painfully obvious flaws in Monckton's answers...so you waste a LOT of space constructing this delusional BS of yours...so much more to pity you. You aren't a victim. Never claimed to be one....it's amazing how your mind warps things to fit your ego. You need therapy, man. Quit being deliberately ignorant and begin to do what you so constantly say you want others to do actually make arguments from facts rather than begin a dialogue with "You are a neocon" Folks, look what I previously wrote, how I responded to this fool, and the chronological posts that preceded this. The man is pathetic.

You constantly make me embarrassed for you. I don't like feeling empathy towards stupid.

What's the matter bunky? You're little ego gets bruised easily because you can logically win an argument or disprove what you don't like? TFB....grow the hell up and stop believing the warped image you see in the mirror. All you'll do now is just repeat your BS 6 ways to Sunday.....just like every other intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot on these boards. Carry on, I'm done kicking your sorry ass here. See ya around.

Taichiliberal
10-25-2009, 05:57 PM
I swear, you are just plain ignorant. Does the Yamal cherry picking of 12 trees to base the global record on give you any concern? Science? LOL



12 trees were used to build the hockey stick graph.
It's a joke

Go back and read what I wrote, you chuckling buffoon! I swear, you neocon numbskulls either failed grade school reading comprehension or are fucking stupid enough to try and lie when proof to the contrary exists.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?" (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=541238&postcount=122)

tinfoil
10-25-2009, 07:10 PM
You moron. I showed you the evidnece that CO2 forcing has been overstated and you come back with more links about CO2. LOL What a dumbass

Lowaicue
10-25-2009, 08:01 PM
You moron. I showed you the evidnece that CO2 forcing has been overstated and you come back with more links about CO2. LOL What a dumbass

I wonder if I might interject here with a couple of questions that I am sure you might have answered previously. Of course, you are under no obligation to respond.

1. Do you think that CO2 emmissions have made, make or might make a difference to our climate?
2. Do you think that man has had a part of that (the emissions and/or climate change)?
3. Do you consider yourself to be totally free of obligation towards the husbandry of this planet?
They are all yes/no questions and require no more than a second or two thought.

Hermes Thoth
10-25-2009, 08:17 PM
I wonder if I might interject here with a couple of questions that I am sure you might have answered previously. Of course, you are under no obligation to respond.

1. Do you think that CO2 emmissions have made, make or might make a difference to our climate?
2. Do you think that man has had a part of that (the emissions and/or climate change)?
3. Do you consider yourself to be totally free of obligation towards the husbandry of this planet?
They are all yes/no questions and require no more than a second or two thought.


All low iq does is ask what he thinks are deep and probing questions.

Really, he's just moronic.

Hermes Thoth
10-25-2009, 08:18 PM
Plants need c02. Decreasing co2 is a ploy to defoliate the planet so people will starve.

Lowaicue
10-25-2009, 08:26 PM
All low iq does is ask what he thinks are deep and probing questions.

Really, he's just moronic.

You could well be right.

Taichiliberal
10-25-2009, 09:02 PM
You moron. I showed you the evidnece that CO2 forcing has been overstated and you come back with more links about CO2. LOL What a dumbass

Hey chuckles, if you'd bothered to read your information, you'll note that it is NOT covering every aspect of what contributes to global warming. I pointed this out, and you're just either too stubborn or dumb to see that. Hell, I even conceded your point. Pull your head out of your neocon ass and READ before you type. Also, understand that deforestation is ANOTHER ASPECT OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY HAPPENING TO THE PLANET.
Got that, bunky?

Taichiliberal
10-25-2009, 09:04 PM
Plants need c02. Decreasing co2 is a ploy to defoliate the planet so people will starve.

But if you continue the rate of deforestation and urbanization, you won't have the plants to handle the increase in CO2 out put by industrialization, you nit!

That's been my point all along.

tinfoil
10-25-2009, 10:23 PM
I wonder if I might interject here with a couple of questions that I am sure you might have answered previously. Of course, you are under no obligation to respond.

1. Do you think that CO2 emmissions have made, make or might make a difference to our climate?
2. Do you think that man has had a part of that (the emissions and/or climate change)?
3. Do you consider yourself to be totally free of obligation towards the husbandry of this planet?
They are all yes/no questions and require no more than a second or two thought.

1) yes, a miniscule amount of forcing is been produced by humans. The increased 3% of CO2 (97% is naturally occuring) humans contribute amounts to very little extra forcing. The greater the concentration of CO2, the less effect additional CO2 has on overall forcing.

The first 80% of the greenhouse effect forcing is achieved at 10ppm

10 parts per million!!!

Do you get it?


Do you consider yourself to be totally free of obligation towards the husbandry of this planet?

Yes. I'm an insignificant carbon footprint in a world of carbon trails.

Besides, CO2 forcing HAS BEEN OVERSTATED AND IS NOT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING OR CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!!!!!


How long are you going to believe the lies? The stats were fraudulent. Don't expect the governemnt to tell you that. They want to tax you.

Lowaicue
10-25-2009, 10:42 PM
1) yes, a miniscule amount of forcing is been produced by humans. The increased 3% of CO2 (97% is naturally occuring) humans contribute amounts to very little extra forcing. The greater the concentration of CO2, the less effect additional CO2 has on overall forcing.

The first 80% of the greenhouse effect forcing is achieved at 10ppm

10 parts per million!!!

Do you get it?


Do you consider yourself to be totally free of obligation towards the husbandry of this planet?

Yes. I'm an insignificant carbon footprint in a world of carbon trails.

Besides, CO2 forcing HAS BEEN OVERSTATED AND IS NOT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING OR CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!!!!!


How long are you going to believe the lies? The stats were fraudulent. Don't expect the governemnt to tell you that. They want to tax you.

The statistics are/were not fraudulent. The interpretation of those statistics might, in the course of time, be subject to criticism.
You mention your carbon footprint. A measure you have clearly investigated and to which you have supplied data. I would suggest that this might indicate a level of concern on your part. You have used it to exonerate yourself instead of extrapolating the data to cover the whole country or even just your street and understanding the possible consequences.
Even if you are squeaky clean you are not excused from concern about the behaviour of others. I can almost guarantee that my family's carbon footprint is lower than 90% of Americans'. It does not let me off the hook. But, as what you might pejoratively term, a liberal, I see myself as having a shared responsibilty to do what I can not to screw up the planet.
Why dont you?
For an intelligent man you appear quite irresponsible. The big strong shoutin' and shootin' yank is no longer to be admired, for we know that it, all too often, means he is somewhat short in the wedding tackle department.

Taichiliberal
10-25-2009, 10:51 PM
1) yes, a miniscule amount of forcing is been produced by humans. The increased 3% of CO2 (97% is naturally occuring) humans contribute amounts to very little extra forcing. The greater the concentration of CO2, the less effect additional CO2 has on overall forcing.

The first 80% of the greenhouse effect forcing is achieved at 10ppm

10 parts per million!!!

Do you get it?


Do you consider yourself to be totally free of obligation towards the husbandry of this planet?

Yes. I'm an insignificant carbon footprint in a world of carbon trails.

Besides, CO2 forcing HAS BEEN OVERSTATED AND IS NOT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING OR CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!!!!!


How long are you going to believe the lies? The stats were fraudulent. Don't expect the governemnt to tell you that. They want to tax you.

Right....because reducing the Amazon Rain Forest to about a third of what it was less than a century ago has only a negligible effect....combined with the urbanization across the globe that replaces forests and grasslands with heat reflective concrete and steel....let alone the countless millions of automobiles, thousands of factories. Yep, all that smog over major cities around the globe is just a pittance in the scheme of things.

You need to get your head out of the Hieb brothers butts and THINK beyond what you like to hear.

USFREEDOM911
10-25-2009, 11:37 PM
As you are well aware, oh boy of little brain, I am instructed by my masters to say such things with the threat of having my finger nails extracted and being condemned to listen to arseholes like you for eternity.
Can you make a well known phrase or saying from the words : OFF FUCK

DAMN, your masters must have really gotten to you.
A well know phrase of saying??

Let's see; how about: NoIQ can fuck off. :good4u:

Damocles
10-25-2009, 11:56 PM
What's the matter bunky? You're little ego gets bruised easily because you can logically win an argument or disprove what you don't like? TFB....grow the hell up and stop believing the warped image you see in the mirror. All you'll do now is just repeat your BS 6 ways to Sunday.....just like every other intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot on these boards. Carry on, I'm done kicking your sorry ass here. See ya around.
*sigh*

And still you cannot define how I could possibly be considered a neocon by pointing out your hypocrisy. That was one long and worthless read without substance or facts. I ask a simple question, I get vowel movement from the spin factory.

So, I'll point it out again.

Somebody said, while mocking Obama, that MSNBC is not a "real news organization"...

You translated that into some inanity.

I pointed out that if the one is translated that way, then Obama must also be (as they were mocking Obama to begin with) or you are a huge hypocrite.

You said, instead of providing any information that would suggest any differently, "You are a neocon!"

I asked, "Please define it so we can determine how you could possibly say that pointing out your hypocrisy is the same thing as being a "neocon"...

You have since, in very, very long posts tried to distract from the question and have yet to answer it.

Please, just post a definition of neocon, the one that suggests pointing out Taichi's hypocrisy is part of the definition... or just move on. Walls of text mean nothing when there is no substance to them.

Taichiliberal
10-26-2009, 04:26 PM
*sigh*

And still you cannot define how I could possibly be considered a neocon by pointing out your hypocrisy. That was one long and worthless read without substance or facts. I ask a simple question, I get vowel movement from the spin factory.

So, I'll point it out again.

Somebody said, while mocking Obama, that MSNBC is not a "real news organization"...

You translated that into some inanity.

I pointed out that if the one is translated that way, then Obama must also be (as they were mocking Obama to begin with) or you are a huge hypocrite.

You said, instead of providing any information that would suggest any differently, "You are a neocon!"

I asked, "Please define it so we can determine how you could possibly say that pointing out your hypocrisy is the same thing as being a "neocon"...

You have since, in very, very long posts tried to distract from the question and have yet to answer it.

Please, just post a definition of neocon, the one that suggests pointing out Taichi's hypocrisy is part of the definition... or just move on. Walls of text mean nothing when there is no substance to them.

Damo, you're a liar....plain and simple. I detest liars. You throw a hissy fit every blessed time you're proven wrong. Grow up...or have the last disproven, repetitive word as it means so much to you.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"

tinfoil
10-26-2009, 05:04 PM
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/briffa_single_tree_yad061.png?w=474&h=531

One tree skewed the entire climate record.

SCIENCE!!!

Taichiliberal
10-26-2009, 05:11 PM
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/briffa_single_tree_yad061.png?w=474&h=531

One tree skewed the entire climate record.

SCIENCE!!!

MORE SCIENCE!

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/EN/news/2006/1000385/index.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Tropical-Deforestation-Basics.pdf

Good Luck
10-26-2009, 05:47 PM
All I see is two articles making the same unsupported claims about deforestation being related to global warming.

What those claims ignore is the fact that of photosynthetic plant life (ie: life that converts CO2 into oxygen) the tropical forests comprise less than 3% of the total biomass. The vast majority of photosynthetic life resides in the ocean, and most of that is phytoplankton. Though one would think a forest full of very large trees would result in more photosynthesis than a bunch of phytoplankton and algae, the truth is different. For one thing, for all it's size, only a small portion -specifically the leaves - of a tree are actually engaged in photosynthesis. With algae, 100% of the plant is engaged. So a mass of algae weighing less than 1/50th of a large tree would actually absorb more CO2 and release more oxygen. Add that to the facts that tropical forest only cover less than 8% of the surface of Earth, while water bearing phytoplankton and/or algae covers almost 75% of the surface, and the result is, for all the ballyhoo by the brain dead, deforestation (while not a good thing) cannot be held to be a contributor to atmospheric CO2 fluctuations.

In short, the articles are full of shit.

tinfoil
10-26-2009, 06:44 PM
All I see is two articles making the same unsupported claims about deforestation being related to global warming.

What those claims ignore is the fact that of photosynthetic plant life (ie: life that converts CO2 into oxygen) the tropical forests comprise less than 3% of the total biomass. The vast majority of photosynthetic life resides in the ocean, and most of that is phytoplankton. Though one would think a forest full of very large trees would result in more photosynthesis than a bunch of phytoplankton and algae, the truth is different. For one thing, for all it's size, only a small portion -specifically the leaves - of a tree are actually engaged in photosynthesis. With algae, 100% of the plant is engaged. So a mass of algae weighing less than 1/50th of a large tree would actually absorb more CO2 and release more oxygen. Add that to the facts that tropical forest only cover less than 8% of the surface of Earth, while water bearing phytoplankton and/or algae covers almost 75% of the surface, and the result is, for all the ballyhoo by the brain dead, deforestation (while not a good thing) cannot be held to be a contributor to atmospheric CO2 fluctuations.

In short, the articles are full of shit.

Thst's what he seems to not be able to gleen from our posts. You can lead a horse to water...

tinfoil
10-26-2009, 07:05 PM
我喜歡被控制

Taichiliberal
10-26-2009, 07:28 PM
All I see is two articles making the same unsupported claims about deforestation being related to global warming.

You're a liar....the articles are documented and supported.....you just don't like the conclusions. Grow up.

What those claims ignore is the fact that of photosynthetic plant life (ie: life that converts CO2 into oxygen) the tropical forests comprise less than 3% of the total biomass. The vast majority of photosynthetic life resides in the ocean, and most of that is phytoplankton. Though one would think a forest full of very large trees would result in more photosynthesis than a bunch of phytoplankton and algae, the truth is different. For one thing, for all it's size, only a small portion -specifically the leaves - of a tree are actually engaged in photosynthesis. With algae, 100% of the plant is engaged. So a mass of algae weighing less than 1/50th of a large tree would actually absorb more CO2 and release more oxygen. Add that to the facts that tropical forest only cover less than 8% of the surface of Earth, while water bearing phytoplankton and/or algae covers almost 75% of the surface, and the result is, for all the ballyhoo by the brain dead, deforestation (while not a good thing) cannot be held to be a contributor to atmospheric CO2 fluctuations.

In short, the articles are full of shit.

Your myopic ramblings mean nothing. Why don't I remove 3% of your lung capacity so you can tell me how negligible it is?

And then, I'll increase the number of people who smoke in your place of residence about one every 2 years. No problem, right?

Oh, and if you have any plants on your property, I'll just add a little acid rain, which will kill out some of them....absolutely negligible, right? You'll be relatively okay.

And when you go down to the beach or lake for some relief, I'll just direct the sewage treatment plants to dump in the general vicinity, and then dicker about who dumps what gargbage where. Then I'll direct all the run off of pesticides, etc. to that area. Shouldn't have any effect on the algae and plankton....or will it? http://users.rowan.edu/~wagnerf/efgb/pollution.pdf

But hey, you just keep juggling the numbers and stats and ignore what you don't like. It'll all work out for you, right? I mean, what's facts and reality have to do with it, right bunky? Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

Taichiliberal
10-26-2009, 07:30 PM
Thst's what he seems to not be able to gleen from our posts. You can lead a horse to water...

Like you...he just ignores what he doesn't like and tries to isolate some facts and numbers. :rolleyes: And I can't get two jackasses to move....

tinfoil
10-26-2009, 08:00 PM
I posted data and charts with references. what did you post?

tinfoil
10-26-2009, 08:01 PM
Your myopic ramblings mean nothing. Why don't I remove 3% of your lung capacity so you can tell me how negligible it is?

And then, I'll increase the number of people who smoke in your place of residence about one every 2 years. No problem, right?

Oh, and if you have any plants on your property, I'll just add a little acid rain, which will kill out some of them....absolutely negligible, right? You'll be relatively okay.

And when you go down to the beach or lake for some relief, I'll just direct the sewage treatment plants to dump in the general vicinity, and then dicker about who dumps what gargbage where. Then I'll direct all the run off of pesticides, etc. to that area. Shouldn't have any effect on the algae and plankton....or will it? http://users.rowan.edu/~wagnerf/efgb/pollution.pdf

But hey, you just keep juggling the numbers and stats and ignore what you don't like. It'll all work out for you, right? I mean, what's facts and reality have to do with it, right bunky? Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

You idiot, pollution has nothing to do with the faulty theory of CO2 concentration controlling climate changes.

WTF is wrong with you that you can't follow what the argument is about?

Good Luck
10-26-2009, 10:07 PM
Your myopic ramblings mean nothing. Why don't I remove 3% of your lung capacity so you can tell me how negligible it is?

And then, I'll increase the number of people who smoke in your place of residence about one every 2 years. No problem, right?

Oh, and if you have any plants on your property, I'll just add a little acid rain, which will kill out some of them....absolutely negligible, right? You'll be relatively okay.

And when you go down to the beach or lake for some relief, I'll just direct the sewage treatment plants to dump in the general vicinity, and then dicker about who dumps what gargbage where. Then I'll direct all the run off of pesticides, etc. to that area. Shouldn't have any effect on the algae and plankton....or will it? http://users.rowan.edu/~wagnerf/efgb/pollution.pdf

But hey, you just keep juggling the numbers and stats and ignore what you don't like. It'll all work out for you, right? I mean, what's facts and reality have to do with it, right bunky? Good luck with that. :rolleyes:
Neither the web page, nor the .pdf file have any references posted. Where is the documentation? Where are the references to the scientific studies that support these conclusions.

All you have is a bunch of equally narrow minded idiots writing crapo for their charities (I wonder why?) about how deforestation is a primary cause of global warming. Nothing is, as you claim, "documented".

Try pulling up the documentation showing deforestation reduces photosynthesis enough to make a difference in total atmospheric CO2, instead of the bunch of unsupported rhetoric you like so well to post and claim as fact, and maybe you'll have a leg to stand on. Meanwhile you're just another sqealing mindless blowhard.

BTW: tropical forests, world wide, comprise about 3% of total photosynthesis on the planet. Unless you want to claim we have cut them all down, 3% is not what has been diminished. It's actually closer to 0.3% total diminished capacity in the tropical forests.

EXCEPT, mankind has greatly INCREASED photosynthesis with greatly enhanced domesticated crops, which grow 3-5 times as fast as wild plants would in the same area. 3-5 times as much growth means 3-5 times as much CO2 exchange. Since only about 5% of the tropical forest's biomass is involved with photosynthesis, and most (not all, but most) of that biomass is replaced with cropland, composed of much-more rapidly growing plants (therefore much more photosynthesis) the total is, at worst, a trade-off, if not an actual gain in CO2 exchange. Add in growth-enhanced crops in lands that used to grow weeds and sagebrush, and human activity, if analyzed truthfully, has increased CO2 exchange through photosynthesis.

And, while we're at it, let's look at what is done with much of that biomass. While a good deal of it is burned off as waste (which, BTW, also happens in naturally occurring forest fires) most of the wood is made into lumber, which is then turned in a variety of human constructions. A tree which dies naturally simply decays and releases its carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2 and methane. The wood of a tree made into a house can last several hundred years beyond the lifetime of the trees from which it is made. Indirectly, making houses (and other long-lasting constructs) out of wood ends up sequestering carbon.

As for pollution, that is a different topic. This topic is about human contribution to the observed phenomenon of global climate change (which used to be called global warming until their statistical analyses started blowing up in their faces). As such, all your whining like a baby without his pacifier, implying that if I don't blindly believe your AGW nonsense, then I must not care about other kinds of pollution, is a dictionary-level example of strawman argument.

One other item, which is quite amusing if you think about it, is the FAO (one of your "references") has a slogan about feeding the world's hungry, yet are railing against using tropical forest land to grow human crops (which, if you care to think instead of squeal mindlessly) FEEDS people.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-26-2009, 10:15 PM
EXCEPT, mankind has greatly INCREASED photosynthesis with greatly enhanced domesticated crops, which grow 3-5 times as fast as wild plants would in the same area. 3-5 times as much growth means 3-5 times as much CO2 exchange.

The amount of CO2 taken in is proportional to the amount of time the plant exists, whether its a new plant or not.

God you guys get more and more retarded with every passing second. Just a bunch of foolish cranks on the internet thinking they're going to disprove everything in their 15 minutes of spare time, when everyone who's taken an in-depth look at the subject is on the side of fact, rather than the side of cranks. It's like the guys who say pi is really 3.2.

tinfoil
10-26-2009, 10:17 PM
YouTube - Hitler vs AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming, ala "Man-made climate change")

FUCK THE POLICE
10-26-2009, 10:19 PM
While a good deal of it is burned off as waste (which, BTW, also happens in naturally occurring forest fires) most of the wood is made into lumber, which is then turned in a variety of human constructions. A tree which dies naturally simply decays and releases its carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2 and methane.

Which is then replaced by a tree which sequesters more CO2.


The wood of a tree made into a house can last several hundred years beyond the lifetime of the trees from which it is made. Indirectly, making houses (and other long-lasting constructs) out of wood ends up sequestering carbon.

The minute amount sequestered by this process doesn't nearly make for the mass deforestation caused by human settlement.

http://knowledge.allianz.com/nopi_downloads/images/deforestation_ms.jpg

tinfoil
10-26-2009, 10:26 PM
Trees grow back after we cut them too. Maybe not in countries with populations that are ignorant or corrupt, but that's not the fault of everyone. We aren't the world's police. We Must all take care of our resources.

And stop believing lying scientists who Mann-ufacture studies. And stop believing scientists are anymore honest than anyone else in the world... they're humans... they're gonna be dishonest

USFREEDOM911
10-26-2009, 10:39 PM
YouTube - Hitler vs AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming, ala "Man-made climate change") (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTGLpqFGyYM)


Everytime someone re-creates this segment, it gets funnier and funnier. :good4u:
I'm waiting to see the one made, when the Democrates lose in 20012.

Taichiliberal
10-26-2009, 11:12 PM
I posted data and charts with references. what did you post?

Proof that there is documentation that what I say is true...your problem is that you want to ignore it because it just places your charts and references in a proper perspective that doesn't support your beliefs. TFB, grow and learn to deal with the WHOLE truth....and stop being dazzled by charts, they only tell one story.

Taichiliberal
10-26-2009, 11:18 PM
Trees grow back after we cut them too. Maybe not in countries with populations that are ignorant or corrupt, but that's not the fault of everyone. We aren't the world's police. We Must all take care of our resources.


Are you for real? Do you know how long it takes for forests to develop? You understand that trees that are over a 100 years old are secondary products from like trees before them? And they grew WITHOUT industrial pollutants dumping on them. Do you think the sprigs stomped in the ground in the 70's have fully grown, and the surrounding eco-system as well, to the same level that took CENTURIES to develop? If you do, then there's a bridge in Brooklyn I can let you have cheap.
And stop believing lying scientists who Mann-ufacture studies. And stop believing scientists are anymore honest than anyone else in the world... they're humans... they're gonna be dishonest

Right....so anyone who has proof that contradicts your beliefs is a liar. You can't prove it beyond ONE disputed study....but that's okay for you. I note that you IGNORE that the Shrub & company SUPPRESSED any bonafide scientific research that contradicted the "business as usual" edict. But to your parrot like mind, that's not lying......Jeez, what's worse, your hypocrisy or willful ignorance?

Taichiliberal
10-26-2009, 11:24 PM
You idiot, pollution has nothing to do with the faulty theory of CO2 concentration controlling climate changes.

WTF is wrong with you that you can't follow what the argument is about?

Adjust the tinfoil hat, you simpleton. Because only a simpleton would state that pollution has nothing to do with CO2 levels.

What do you think the whole issue regarding auto emissions has been about the last 30 years, master mind?

How in the fuck do you think oxygen is a part of our atmosphere if the oceans are polluted or the forest hit with acid rain? Do you know how oxygen/CO2 is part of the plants and oceans? Didn't you read the information in the link I provided to that imbecile Good Luck regarding ocean pollutions effect on plankton and algae? Because as GL squawked, the ocean is a part of the oxygen exchange.

Tinfoil, you are a fool. Grow up and learn how to do proper research and critically think.

Hermes Thoth
10-27-2009, 06:45 AM
Adjust the tinfoil hat, you simpleton. Because only a simpleton would state that pollution has nothing to do with CO2 levels.

What do you think the whole issue regarding auto emissions has been about the last 30 years, master mind?

How in the fuck do you think oxygen is a part of our atmosphere if the oceans are polluted or the forest hit with acid rain? Do you know how oxygen/CO2 is part of the plants and oceans? Didn't you read the information in the link I provided to that imbecile Good Luck regarding ocean pollutions effect on plankton and algae? Because as GL squawked, the ocean is a part of the oxygen exchange.

Tinfoil, you are a fool. Grow up and learn how to do proper research and critically think.

Dunce. He said pollution has nothing to do with the concept of co2 controlling climate. Learn to read.

tinfoil
10-27-2009, 09:39 AM
Dude is a retard

Hermes Thoth
10-27-2009, 10:00 AM
Dude looks like a lady

Canceled1
10-27-2009, 03:15 PM
Dude looks like a lady


Must be his European Shoulder Bag he's carrying.... :p

Damocles
10-28-2009, 07:52 AM
Damo, you're a liar....plain and simple. I detest liars. You throw a hissy fit every blessed time you're proven wrong. Grow up...or have the last disproven, repetitive word as it means so much to you.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?" (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=541462&postcount=135)
LOL. I expect you'll use the "pants on fire" attack next post. :rolleyes:

You are pathetic.

And I would also note that you still have yet to give me a definition of "neocon" that fits your accusation.

cancel2 2022
10-28-2009, 11:01 AM
LOL. I expect you'll use the "pants on fire" attack next post. :rolleyes:

You are pathetic.

And I would also note that you still have yet to give me a definition of "neocon" that fits your accusation.

Neocons are mostly former Liberals who decided that preemptive military action was the only way to solve the World's problems, some of them live in Colorado.

Damocles
10-28-2009, 04:14 PM
Neocons are mostly former Liberals who decided that preemptive military action was the only way to solve the World's problems, some of them live in Colorado.
Right, I pretty much know what people define as a Neocon. Again, he needs to make it fit the accusation. Because I point out the similarity of phrases and his partisan "translation" factor I am suddenly a "neocon". I want to know what definition of that word that particular accusation fits within. It's not a difficult question I put before him. Nothing in any of my posts suggests I support preemptive war (mostly because I don't) and certainly not within the post he suddenly got all defensive about and started flinging poo like a capuchin. However, in his post and his reaction there is abundant evidence of his hacktacularly deep flowing hypocrisy.

Canceled1
10-28-2009, 05:36 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Damo, you're a liar....plain and simple. I detest liars. You throw a hissy fit every blessed time you're proven wrong. Grow up...or have the last disproven, repetitive word as it means so much to you.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"



One thing's for sure....

I'LL BET Y'ALL ARE REALLY GLAD THIS GUY WAS EXTENDED AN INVITATION TO THIS BOARD, ARENT'CHA?

Who do you need to thank for that?

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/frog-1.jpg

Taichiliberal
10-28-2009, 06:18 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Adjust the tinfoil hat, you simpleton. Because only a simpleton would state that pollution has nothing to do with CO2 levels.

What do you think the whole issue regarding auto emissions has been about the last 30 years, master mind?

How in the fuck do you think oxygen is a part of our atmosphere if the oceans are polluted or the forest hit with acid rain? Do you know how oxygen/CO2 is part of the plants and oceans? Didn't you read the information in the link I provided to that imbecile Good Luck regarding ocean pollutions effect on plankton and algae? Because as GL squawked, the ocean is a part of the oxygen exchange.

Tinfoil, you are a fool. Grow up and learn how to do proper research and critically think


Dunce. He said pollution has nothing to do with the concept of co2 controlling climate. Learn to read.

You continually live up to your screen name. THINK, stupid, THINK.....if trees exchange CO2 for oxygen, and they are removed as industrial pollution increases CO2 levels, how does that NOT effect the climate? Same with the oceans. Only a stubborn fool would insist that atmosphere change has nothing to do with climate. Repeating your BS won't make it magically come true. Grow up.

Taichiliberal
10-28-2009, 06:23 PM
Neocons are mostly former Liberals who decided that preemptive military action was the only way to solve the World's problems, some of them live in Colorado.

Damo's full of shit, Tom. He jumped in on a discussion and couldn't prove his accusation that I was a hypocrit, so he detours to another topic, and then lies about what I say or how things transpired. Now he decides that his demands are the topic of discussion. Fuck him. When he can't win on one end, he just flips the script to what he hopes will vindicate his ego. If you go back and read the posts, you'll note that I never said he was a neocon, but sure as hell duplicates their very actions. I pointed out how he does this....of which was his original accusation that he never provided proof of. You can give him six different definitions, he'll just deny any part of it. Unfortunately for him, his posts belie his assertions.

tinfoil
10-28-2009, 06:43 PM
You continually live up to your screen name. THINK, stupid, THINK.....if trees exchange CO2 for oxygen, and they are removed as industrial pollution increases CO2 levels, how does that NOT effect the climate? Same with the oceans. Only a stubborn fool would insist that atmosphere change has nothing to do with climate. Repeating your BS won't make it magically come true. Grow up.

Because the effects of CO2 forcing HAVE BEEN OVERSTATED!! AS WAS EVIDENCED BY THE HOCKEY STICK GRAPH THAT HAS BEEN DISCREDITED AND THE BRIFFA YAMAL DATA FIASCO AS WELL.

You are lacking in the science, buddy. You are working on disproven premises.

CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
maybe it will sink in one of these times
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated

Taichiliberal
10-28-2009, 09:28 PM
LOL. I expect you'll use the "pants on fire" attack next post. :rolleyes:

You are pathetic.

And I would also note that you still have yet to give me a definition of "neocon" that fits your accusation.

Obviously, you're not comprehending what has transpired here...which would explain your foolish expectations.

You're the one following me here to whine about another post ....so who's pathetic? Not only are you a liar, but you're also a sore loser as well. Grow the fuck up, will ya? No way for someone who runs a discussion board to act..I'm embarassed for you.

You are practically mimicking the idiocy of USFreedumb. Same tactics, same false claims.....that's pretty sad, man.

Taichiliberal
10-28-2009, 09:36 PM
Because the effects of CO2 forcing HAVE BEEN OVERSTATED!! AS WAS EVIDENCED BY THE HOCKEY STICK GRAPH THAT HAS BEEN DISCREDITED AND THE BRIFFA YAMAL DATA FIASCO AS WELL.

If you had bothered to actually read the source information I provided earlier, you would have noted that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH YAMAL OR THE HOCKEY STICK GRAPH. I never disputed your findings, master mind. I merely pointed out that it wasn't the be all end all regarding global warming, and I gave valid, documented evidence that proves what I earlier stated.

You are lacking in the science, buddy. You are working on disproven premises.

CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
maybe it will sink in one of these times
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated
CO2 effects have been overstated


Just as I thought...I'm dealing with an intellectually bankrupt neocon, who once given a talking point endlessly parrots it, because he's incapable and unwilling to accept any other information.


Thanks for demonstrating how fools like you can only handle one idea at a time. No wonder the Shrub & company loved you so much....when they suppressed reports from the scientific community, you just squawked louder. How sad. Carry on.

tinfoil
10-29-2009, 06:43 AM
Just as I thought...I'm dealing with an intellectually bankrupt neocon, who once given a talking point endlessly parrots it, because he's incapable and unwilling to accept any other information.


Thanks for demonstrating how fools like you can only handle one idea at a time. No wonder the Shrub & company loved you so much....when they suppressed reports from the scientific community, you just squawked louder. How sad. Carry on.

And this thread topic was about CO2 theory and not about pollution despite the fact that you can not seperate the two concepts

tinfoil
10-29-2009, 06:48 AM
Just read what Briffa himself has to say about the Yamal divergence problem.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/cautious/cautious.htm

"...we noted that the final years of the Yamal ring-width chronology (Briffa, 2000; Briffa et al., 2008) should be used cautiously on the basis that the values for the most recent part of this chronology are based on relatively few individual measurement series and this smaller available sample emphasises the faster growing trees."

Gee, Ya think? Yeah, a sample of 12 trees does seem rather tiny

You are a little behind on the recent developments in the climate world. Why don't you admit you are the ignorant one?

cancel2 2022
10-29-2009, 09:39 AM
Right, I pretty much know what people define as a Neocon. Again, he needs to make it fit the accusation. Because I point out the similarity of phrases and his partisan "translation" factor I am suddenly a "neocon". I want to know what definition of that word that particular accusation fits within. It's not a difficult question I put before him. Nothing in any of my posts suggests I support preemptive war (mostly because I don't) and certainly not within the post he suddenly got all defensive about and started flinging poo like a capuchin. However, in his post and his reaction there is abundant evidence of his hacktacularly deep flowing hypocrisy.

Are you a former Liberal?

cancel2 2022
10-29-2009, 09:46 AM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Damo, you're a liar....plain and simple. I detest liars. You throw a hissy fit every blessed time you're proven wrong. Grow up...or have the last disproven, repetitive word as it means so much to you.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"



One thing's for sure....

I'LL BET Y'ALL ARE REALLY GLAD THIS GUY WAS EXTENDED AN INVITATION TO THIS BOARD, ARENT'CHA?

Who do you need to thank for that?

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/frog-1.jpg

So what exactly has been your contribution to this board apart from dripping poison at every opportunity? Froggie is a good person and she doesn't deserve the likes of you and the other shit stirrers attacking her. Why the fuck can't you grow up, you always telling everyone how beautiful you are but if people were to judge you from your posts they would say you were nasty, vindictive and ugly to the bone.

christiefan915
10-29-2009, 09:47 AM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Damo, you're a liar....plain and simple. I detest liars. You throw a hissy fit every blessed time you're proven wrong. Grow up...or have the last disproven, repetitive word as it means so much to you.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"


One thing's for sure....

I'LL BET Y'ALL ARE REALLY GLAD THIS GUY WAS EXTENDED AN INVITATION TO THIS BOARD, ARENT'CHA?

Who do you need to thank for that?

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/frog-1.jpg

Try again, moron.

It wasn't:

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/frog-1.jpg


It was:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/customprofilepics/profilepic502_4.gif

Surprised you didn't pick that up while you were lurking.

cancel2 2022
10-29-2009, 09:53 AM
Try again, moron.

It wasn't:

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/frog-1.jpg


It was:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/customprofilepics/profilepic502_4.gif

Surprised you didn't pick that up while you were lurking.

If anyone qualifies as an evil toad then it is her.

christiefan915
10-29-2009, 11:40 AM
If anyone qualifies as an evil toad then it is her.

Jammy's always accusing others of lurking. Yet she was criticizing liberals for "harassing" a poster named Battleborne, who hasn't posted since March. Since she didn't sign up until April (at least under her old s/n), how would she know what happened in March or before if she wasn't lurking?

Canceled1
10-29-2009, 02:07 PM
So what exactly has been your contribution to this board apart from dripping poison at every opportunity? Froggie is a good person and she doesn't deserve the likes of you and the other shit stirrers attacking her. Why the fuck can't you grow up, you always telling everyone how beautiful you are but if people were to judge you from your posts they would say you were nasty, vindictive and ugly to the bone.


I call bullshit. I have never said anything about being beautiful to anyone you full of crap creep. You have absolutely zero proof that I have ever said anything like that.

You contribute some and you spew crap as well and you have been ugly, distasteful, and an instigator many, many times yourself, so save it asshole.

Froggie invited Taichi and now everyone sees him for the insufferable asshole he is. He drives the effin' liberals nutz and if you don't like that I pointed it out too effin' bad. That's a fact Jack. Deal.

Newsflash dickhead. I couldn't give two shits what you think of me, do you understand? You are a man with way too much time on his hands who ingratiates himself in the middle of women's squabbles and you look like a pathetic fool.

Damocles
10-29-2009, 07:03 PM
Obviously, you're not comprehending what has transpired here...which would explain your foolish expectations.

You're the one following me here to whine about another post ....so who's pathetic? Not only are you a liar, but you're also a sore loser as well. Grow the fuck up, will ya? No way for someone who runs a discussion board to act..I'm embarassed for you.

You are practically mimicking the idiocy of USFreedumb. Same tactics, same false claims.....that's pretty sad, man.
The only person who isn't "comprehending" something is the one who thinks my post was about what happened "here"... Other than your simpleton's accusation of "neocon" based on your direct example of hypocrisy being pointed out, what I spoke of in that post you quoted in your accusation, was a clear and direct "translation" of an equivalent statement made by Barack Obama in recent news (we talk about recent news here often, and sometimes things outside are brought into the discussion as an aside).

I asked a direct question, you attempted to divert with an accusation of "neocon".... I'm still waiting to find out how pointing out your direct and obvious partisan hypocrisy is a sign of "neocon"...

Once we get that we can start into how you think that a poster's statement here is "worse" than a branch of the government attacking the 4th institution.

Taichiliberal
10-29-2009, 07:35 PM
Jammy's always accusing others of lurking. Yet she was criticizing liberals for "harassing" a poster named Battleborne, who hasn't posted since March. Since she didn't sign up until April (at least under her old s/n), how would she know what happened in March or before if she wasn't lurking?

The Loyal End is just damned pathetic. Ever since I kicked her sorry ass on the old AOL boards, all she does his just follow me around hiding behind others and throwing rocks. She has neither the brains or the courage to honestly debate me, but like the rest of the neocon parrots, she just can't shut up. Oh well, like death and taxes, she'll always be with us.

Taichiliberal
10-29-2009, 07:57 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Obviously, you're not comprehending what has transpired here...which would explain your foolish expectations.

You're the one following me here to whine about another post ....so who's pathetic? Not only are you a liar, but you're also a sore loser as well. Grow the fuck up, will ya? No way for someone who runs a discussion board to act..I'm embarassed for you.

You are practically mimicking the idiocy of USFreedumb. Same tactics, same false claims.....that's pretty sad, man.


The only person who isn't "comprehending" something is the one who thinks my post was about what happened "here"... Will stop acting stupid? This is the EXACT BS the neocon numbskulls of the old AOL boards pulled. You can't change what I said, and you can misrepresent it, because anyone with an 8th grade education can read what I wrote and see your lame attempt at distortion to favor your lies. Grow up, man. You can't win all the time, and you're not the smartest guy on the block on every subject. Jeez. Other than your simpleton's accusation of "neocon" based on your direct example of hypocrisy being pointed out, Again, a lie. You have Yet to explain how my responses to those other idiots was "hypocritical"....YOU inserted a different venue on that conversation, and then tried to build on that. Sorry mastermind, but I deconstructed your BS then....and that has NOTHING to do with this thread NOW! So when I done with you here, you can stomp and whine all you want, but the plain, recorded fact is that you couldn't BS your way past me. what I spoke of in that post you quoted in your accusation, was a clear and direct "translation" of an equivalent statement made by Barack Obama in recent news (we talk about recent news here often, and sometimes things outside are brought into the discussion as an aside).

Sorry Damo, but your lame ass attempt to win an argument that was already settled on another thread won't fly here. You can claim all types of fantastic BS here about ANOTHER thread, but on that other thread the evidence DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR LIES. Like I told you, stop being a wussy and accept being bested on one small point...your ego is just getting the better of you, and making you look the fool. Again, YOUR INSERTION HERE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I WAS DISCUSSING ON THIS PARTICULAR THREAD.

I asked a direct question, you attempted to divert with an accusation of "neocon".... I'm still waiting to find out how pointing out your direct and obvious partisan hypocrisy is a sign of "neocon"...

See above response

Once we get that we can start into how you think that a poster's statement here is "worse" than a branch of the government attacking the 4th institution.

See above responses. Grow the fuck up, Damo.....and next time learn to express in writing what you are thinking of, as I'm not psychic. That way, you won't have to run behind me ranting about what you meant to say. :rolleyes:

Taichiliberal
10-29-2009, 08:03 PM
And this thread topic was about CO2 theory and not about pollution despite the fact that you can not seperate the two concepts


The thread is about global warming, you simp! Trees an and plants and the ocean are THE major exchangers of CO2 to oxygen. You decrease the forementioned through pollution (ever hear of acid rain, mastermind?), deforestation, urbanization and then increase (industrial waste) CO2, you have problems that combine with the natural cycles of the planet. But please, continue to try an separate one from the other...because for the life of me I just can't understand how you dumbasses defend fucking up the environment you depend on so some businessman can keep it in the black. :rolleyes:

Damocles
10-29-2009, 08:04 PM
Are you a former Liberal?
Nope.

Damocles
10-29-2009, 08:05 PM
See above responses. Grow the fuck up, Damo.....and next time learn to express in writing what you are thinking of, as I'm not psychic. That way, you won't have to run behind me ranting about what you meant to say. :rolleyes:
I have expressed clearly, you have dodged and attempted to distract from your hypocrisy.

One more time.

What part of pointing out your partisan hypocrisy makes anybody, or more particularly myself, into a "neocon"?

It is a very simple question. Just one definition that includes such in it, even if it is choice 4 or 5 will do.

Taichiliberal
10-29-2009, 08:13 PM
I have expressed clearly, you have dodged and attempted to distract from your hypocrisy.


One more time.

What part of pointing out partisan hypocrisy makes anybody, or more particularly myself, into a "neocon"?


Damo, you're pathetic. I exposed your dodgy bullshit and convoluted logic on the other thread...and like a frustrated little child not happy with being disciplined, you just keep whining the SOS. I pity you. I called you out here in the previous post...and you prove my point here again. Whatever....I'll respond on another thread when you grow up and honestly debate an issue. But I suspect you're a little grudge holder. TFB...you can't take a little bloody nose, then you shouldn't be posting. Have the last repetitive word, for all the good it will do you. Or maybe you can gain sympathy from the intellectually challenged neocon peanut gallery here (Tinfoil, the Loyal End, Freedumb, Tutu Blabba, Dixie, Southie, etc.).

Damocles
10-29-2009, 08:32 PM
Damo, you're pathetic. I exposed your dodgy bullshit and convoluted logic on the other thread...and like a frustrated little child not happy with being disciplined, you just keep whining the SOS. I pity you. I called you out here in the previous post...and you prove my point here again. Whatever....I'll respond on another thread when you grow up and honestly debate an issue. But I suspect you're a little grudge holder. TFB...you can't take a little bloody nose, then you shouldn't be posting. Have the last repetitive word, for all the good it will do you. Or maybe you can gain sympathy from the intellectually challenged neocon peanut gallery here (Tinfoil, the Loyal End, Freedumb, Tutu Blabba, Dixie, Southie, etc.).
You've exposed nothing except your propensity to dodge simple questions and attempt to distract.

Again.

What part of pointing out your hypocrisy would make any person at all, or more particularly myself, into a "neocon"?

USFREEDOM911
10-29-2009, 10:11 PM
You've exposed nothing except your propensity to dodge simple questions and attempt to distract.

Again.

What part of pointing out your hypocrisy would make any person at all, or more particularly myself, into a "neocon"?

It's the voices in his head, that make him act the way he does.

egordon0315
10-30-2009, 10:34 AM
我喜歡被控制
"I like to be controlled"?

tinfoil
10-30-2009, 10:40 AM
"I like to be controlled"?

Yes. A sarcastic quip aimed at our chinese friend who loves governemnt control of his world.

cancel2 2022
10-30-2009, 10:49 AM
Yes. A sarcastic quip aimed at our chinese friend who loves governemnt control of his world.

Low is not Chinese he is a British ex-pat living in Hong Kong.

tinfoil
10-30-2009, 02:04 PM
still fits.

Lives in hong kong and tells us how wonderful it is to be fed UN climate lies.

cancel2 2022
10-30-2009, 02:31 PM
still fits.

Lives in hong kong and tells us how wonderful it is to be fed UN climate lies.

I suggest that you would help yourself and your cause more if you didn't adopt such a triumphalist hubristic approach to the subject. If the case is good enough, I am an agnostic by the way, it will stand on its own merits eventually.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/06/cern-cloud-on-cloud-number-nine.html

Lowaicue
10-30-2009, 05:45 PM
still fits.

Lives in hong kong and tells us how wonderful it is to be fed UN climate lies.

My stand is and has always been, that whether or not we/you believe the planet is getting warmer, the climate is certainly changing. Whether or not man has had an effect upon that change is immaterial to the fact that we, as a species, should be more responsible in the way we care for the planet. We should all, and that includes people like you for whom the world is divided between black and white, good and bad, your politics or mine, have an increasing responsibility for the planet.
Now if you think that that can be encapsulated within your little bit of babelfish is entirely up to you.
Personally I think that people who are as narrow minded as you appear to be, need to go back to school and endeavour, by better education, to be un americanised because it seems that simply being American puts you deep in the trough of ignorance.
Anyway, its up to you in the end.

USFREEDOM911
10-30-2009, 05:49 PM
My stand is and has always been, that whether or not we/you believe the planet is getting warmer, the climate is certainly changing. Whether or not man has had an effect upon that change is immaterial to the fact that we, as a species, should be more responsible in the way we care for the planet. We should all, and that includes people like you for whom the world is divided between black and white, good and bad, your politics or mine, have an increasing responsibility for the planet.
Now if you think that that can be encapsulated within your little bit of babelfish is entirely up to you.
Personally I think that people who are as narrow minded as you appear to be, need to go back to school and endeavour, by better education, to be un americanised because it seems that simply being American puts you deep in the trough of ignorance.
Anyway, its up to you in the end.


You should petition your Chinese masters to stop burning all that coal.
It would certainly help.

tinfoil
10-30-2009, 07:47 PM
My stand is and has always been, that whether or not we/you believe the planet is getting warmer, the climate is certainly changing. Whether or not man has had an effect upon that change is immaterial to the fact that we, as a species, should be more responsible in the way we care for the planet. We should all, and that includes people like you for whom the world is divided between black and white, good and bad, your politics or mine, have an increasing responsibility for the planet.
Now if you think that that can be encapsulated within your little bit of babelfish is entirely up to you.
Personally I think that people who are as narrow minded as you appear to be, need to go back to school and endeavour, by better education, to be un americanised because it seems that simply being American puts you deep in the trough of ignorance.
Anyway, its up to you in the end.

LOL this from the guy who can't keep track of the argument.

For the record, I have NOT condoned pollution and destruction of the planet. That's a lame strawman argument.

I have a problem with science being used to scam people. That's all!!
now STFU and go eat some rice

Lowaicue
10-30-2009, 10:12 PM
LOL this from the guy who can't keep track of the argument.

For the record, I have NOT condoned pollution and destruction of the planet. That's a lame strawman argument.

I have a problem with science being used to scam people. That's all!!
now STFU and go eat some rice

You are beginning to sound like a bloody fool. I am not arguing with you (how very disappointing for you). I am not accusing you of anything (how very disappointing for you). I am simply making a case for more responsibilty from everyone.
I realise that, as a product of the American system of education and an up-bringing based upon confrontation, is difficult for you to grasp, but your difficulties are nothing to do with me. Now you STFU and go eat some grits.

Lowaicue
10-30-2009, 10:13 PM
You should petition your Chinese masters to stop burning all that coal.
It would certainly help.

Yes, I will.

Hermes Thoth
10-31-2009, 07:05 AM
You are beginning to sound like a bloody fool. I am not arguing with you (how very disappointing for you). I am not accusing you of anything (how very disappointing for you). I am simply making a case for more responsibilty from everyone.
I realise that, as a product of the American system of education and an up-bringing based upon confrontation, is difficult for you to grasp, but your difficulties are nothing to do with me. Now you STFU and go eat some grits.

You're moronic. Only fools believe Al gore's climate alarmism.

tinfoil
10-31-2009, 09:49 AM
You are beginning to sound like a bloody fool. I am not arguing with you (how very disappointing for you). I am not accusing you of anything (how very disappointing for you). I am simply making a case for more responsibilty from everyone.
I realise that, as a product of the American system of education and an up-bringing based upon confrontation, is difficult for you to grasp, but your difficulties are nothing to do with me. Now you STFU and go eat some grits.

In this thread, I've linked the relevent scientific evidence that casts doubt on climate models which have used proxy data(which has been shown to be woefully inadequate to meet statistical and scientific standars) to make the case for unprecedented climate change.

What did you do? You posted a story about pollution.

tinfoil
10-31-2009, 09:52 AM
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

LOL hurricanes will be more frequent and more powerful!!

tinfoil
10-31-2009, 09:55 AM
According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR4), it is “more likely than not” (better than even odds) that there is a human contribution to the observed trend of hurricane intensification since the 1970s. In the future, “it is likely [better than 2 to 1 odds] that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical [sea surface temperatures].”

tinfoil
10-31-2009, 09:59 AM
New MIT study validates hurricane prediction
Provides confirmation that climate change intensifies storms
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/emanuel-paper-0417.html
Hurricanes in some areas, including the North Atlantic, are likely to become more intense as a result of global warming...

SCIENCE!!!

Hermes Thoth
10-31-2009, 12:19 PM
More likely than not?

That's ironclad!

Kill humanity now!

USFREEDOM911
10-31-2009, 12:23 PM
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

LOL hurricanes will be more frequent and more powerful!!

That's why the weak-kneed scardy-cats have changed their "rant-du-jour" to CLIMATE CHANGE.

But then, doesn't the climate always change??

Lowaicue
10-31-2009, 05:09 PM
You're moronic. Only fools believe Al gore's climate alarmism.

Who is Al Gore?
Isnt he a yank? As such I would not listen to a word he says. The arguments for and against climate change, global warming, pollution, etc etc exist and have existed long before some failed yank politico decided he could make a few bucks from it.
You need to get your head out of your fat yank arse, buddy.

Hermes Thoth
10-31-2009, 05:12 PM
Who is Al Gore?
Isnt he a yank? As such I would not listen to a word he says. The arguments for and against climate change, global warming, pollution, etc etc exist and have existed long before some failed yank politico decided he could make a few bucks from it.
You need to get your head out of your fat yank arse, buddy.

Right. The global warming lie and enivronmental alarmism goes back to before the AL gore days. You get your head out of a monkey's ass.

USFREEDOM911
10-31-2009, 07:27 PM
Right. The global warming lie and enivronmental alarmism goes back to before the AL gore days. You get your head out of a monkey's ass.

If his Chinese masters tell him to stick his head in a monkey's ass, then that's what he will need to do.

Hermes Thoth
11-01-2009, 08:41 AM
If his Chinese masters tell him to stick his head in a monkey's ass, then that's what he will need to do.

Indeed, he fills his subservient role as if it were a well worn suit of comfortable flannel pajamas.

Some people are cut out for freedom, some just aren't.

cancel2 2022
11-03-2009, 07:07 AM
Fascinating article in the WSJ about the growing number of scientists who no longer believe in man-made global warming.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

tinfoil
11-03-2009, 09:04 AM
the JPP warmers are as quiet as the sun.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/swpc_sunspot_combined_080509.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/swpc_sunspot_combined_080509.png

tinfoil
11-03-2009, 09:35 AM
I forgot about a little script I wrote to graph NOAA data
http://stirfrydesign.110mb.com/climatemetrics/sunspots.html

works in firefox only I think. Don't click if you're using internet explorer because it won't work.

Taichiliberal
11-03-2009, 05:55 PM
March 15, 2001 * 19 comments

More Proof of Global Warming
By Harald Franzen

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=more-proof-of-global-warm


In developing new sources for oil and gas, which of the following do you favor most?
Carbon tax Cap-and-trade agreements
International energy efficiency & fuel performance standards


Although most scientists are convinced that global warming is very real, a few still harbor doubts. But a new report, based on an analysis of infrared long-wave radiation data from two different space missions, may change their minds. "These unique satellite spectrometer data collected 27 years apart show for the first time that real spectral differences have been observed, and that they can be attributed to changes in greenhouse gases over a long time period," says John Harries, a professor at Imperial College in London and lead author of the study published today in Nature.

As the sun's radiation hits the earth's surface, it is reemitted as infrared radiation. This radiation is then partly trapped by the so-called greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)�as well as water vapor. Satellites can measure changes in the infrared radiation spectrum, allowing scientists to detect changes in the earth's natural greenhouse effect and to deduce which greenhouse gas concentrations have changed.

The researchers looked at the infrared spectrum of long-wave radiation from a region over the Pacific Ocean, as well as from the entire globe. The data came from two different spacecraft�the NASA's Nimbus 4 spacecraft, which surveyed the planet with an Infrared Interferometric Spectrometer (IRIS) between April 1970 and January 1971, and the Japanese ADEO satellite, which utilized the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG) instrument, starting in 1996. To ensure that the data were reliable and comparable, the team looked only at readings from the same three-month period of the year (April to June) and adjusted them to eliminate the effects of cloud cover. The findings indicated long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2, ozone (O3) and CFC 11 and 12 concentrations and, consequently, a significant increase in the earth's greenhouse effect

tinfoil
11-03-2009, 07:11 PM
LOL WUT?

How does your link establish humans causing catastrophic climate change?

Taichiliberal
11-04-2009, 12:09 AM
LOL WUT?

How does your link establish humans causing catastrophic climate change?

Pay attention to what you read, you chuckling chowderhead....it just gives yet another aspect of global warming....that humans CONTRIBUTE to global warming....or are you so fucking ignorant of the subject matter that you think CFCs are one of nature's by products? :rolleyes:

Hermes Thoth
11-04-2009, 07:10 AM
Pay attention to what you read, you chuckling chowderhead....it just gives yet another aspect of global warming....that humans CONTRIBUTE to global warming....or are you so fucking ignorant of the subject matter that you think CFCs are one of nature's by products? :rolleyes:

Translation: My link proves nothing and I know it.

tinfoil
11-04-2009, 07:55 AM
Pay attention to what you read, you chuckling chowderhead....it just gives yet another aspect of global warming....that humans CONTRIBUTE to global warming....or are you so fucking ignorant of the subject matter that you think CFCs are one of nature's by products? :rolleyes:


the topic is this: CO2 theory and how it's been misrepresented as proven theory.

I don't dispute the greenhouse effect... just the role it plays in climate change.. which has been overstated.

I have given examples of natural forcing cycles that prove the warming trend we are in is a natural event.


learn what the argument is about. Citing other types of forcing makes no sense in this context and only serves to show you do not undersatand what I'm saying.

Taichiliberal
11-05-2009, 04:57 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Pay attention to what you read, you chuckling chowderhead....it just gives yet another aspect of global warming....that humans CONTRIBUTE to global warming....or are you so fucking ignorant of the subject matter that you think CFCs are one of nature's by products?


the topic is this: CO2 theory and how it's been misrepresented as proven theory. Of which you gave only ONE SIDE of that issue. When I presented other sides with equal scientifice backing, you just threw every article you could find on different aspects of the global warming issue. The last article I presented was in answer to your postings....and as is plainly evident here, you didn't read it carefully and comprehensively, thereby making a blunder regarding man made contributions to the problem of the atmosphere trapping green house gases...WHICH INCLUDE CO2.

I don't dispute the greenhouse effect... just the role it plays in climate change.. which has been overstated.

By all the posts you put forth, you imply that there is NO part of green house effect that mankind markedly affects. The last article I linked shows quite the opposite(part of the "global warming" issue).

I have given examples of natural forcing cycles that prove the warming trend we are in is a natural event. Ahhh, but what your articles always seem to leave out is the ADDITIONAL problems caused when you throw in industrial air pollution, deforestation and water/ocean pollution. Combine that with mother nature's natural cycle, and you have the global warming effect. That is what you so desperately want to ignore and try to magically separate from the discussion. I've given scientific FACTS and PROOF of this....that you chose to ignore it and stubbornly repeat yourself is irrelevent.


learn what the argument is about. Practice what you preach here, genius. Learn to read carefully and comprehensively. Citing other types of forcing makes no sense in this context and only serves to show you do not undersatand what I'm saying. That you claim that marked reduction and pollution of the vary things nature uses to CHANGE CO2
TO OXYGEN coupled with a marked increase in man made CO2 and other pollutants is out of context of the discussion displays your insipid stubborness on the issue...either that or a fantastic inability to grasp a simple concept of reality.

Taichiliberal
11-05-2009, 04:59 PM
Translation: My link proves nothing and I know it.

And of course, you can answer the question that your compadre lacks the courage or intelligence to answer?

Once again, you have earned your screen name.

tinfoil
11-05-2009, 09:06 PM
T

the "other side"?

I posted the critque of the statisitical use of data upon which the "other side" rests the case of and uses as proof of CO2 theory by way of attempting to demonstrate tree ring growth rates as a proxy for CO2 concentration. These assumptions, the tree ring data correlations established by the Yamal data set sample which contained only 12 trees, were used to formulate the CO2 concentrations from other tree ring data sets from around the world in statistical modeling of past climates.

In addition, there are new studies which show cosmic ray flux may be respopnsible for cycles in tree ring growth. Imagine the plants reacting to cosmic rays? Ludicrous, you say? Hardly. I think I linked a study earlier.

The methane news of late means that CO2 once again has been overstated, since more forcing by methane means less unknown forcing getting attributed to CO2 humans have contributed.

Now you must stop assuming I reject science. I embrace science. That's why I bring you qualified links. Early on here at the series of sites this crowd has followed, I was indeed an ignorant parrot spouting off Rush Limbaugh drivel, but I've grown and shed myself of the party label. I don't have the intense hatred of obama like I would have if I were the same person. I spent countless hours reading the science for myself. I have tons of links if you want me to create a page of links. Not articles, but actual studies.

I'm aware you believe the IPCC is infallible. However, you must come to understand they were either duped by or were implicit in statistical fraud. Science demands you to be critical of their body of work.

Taichiliberal
11-06-2009, 09:18 PM
T

the "other side"? Other information that you supplied that is pertinent to the discussion at hand...information that you consistently ignore (or try to).

I posted the critque of the statisitical use of data upon which the "other side" rests the case of and uses as proof of CO2 theory by way of attempting to demonstrate tree ring growth rates as a proxy for CO2 concentration. These assumptions, the tree ring data correlations established by the Yamal data set sample which contained only 12 trees, were used to formulate the CO2 concentrations from other tree ring data sets from around the world in statistical modeling of past climates.

Actually you used information that deals with JUST ONE aspect as to the relevence of CO2 to the global warming issue. I didn't contest your findings or that of the article, I just pointed out that it is disingenuous at best to use this as the be all, end all conclusion as to global warming (or climate change, is you're so inclined) when there is clearly other evidence available.

In addition, there are new studies which show cosmic ray flux may be respopnsible for cycles in tree ring growth. Imagine the plants reacting to cosmic rays? Ludicrous, you say? Hardly. I think I linked a study earlier. You advocate belief in the theoretical, at best. What I linked is certifiable FACT that is CURRENT. Big difference.

The methane news of late means that CO2 once again has been overstated, since more forcing by methane means less unknown forcing getting attributed to CO2 humans have contributed. Again, theory......you STILL cannot logically refute or disprove the links I posted. All you're doing is just throwing everything and the kitchen sink in hopes that it will diminish the information and statements I put forth....you have failed to this.

Now you must stop assuming I reject science. I never said or insinuated that you did....I just pointed out that you are closing your mind to scientific information that contradicts your beliefs. I embrace science. That's why I bring you qualified links. Early on here at the series of sites this crowd has followed, I was indeed an ignorant parrot spouting off Rush Limbaugh drivel, but I've grown and shed myself of the party label. I don't have the intense hatred of obama like I would have if I were the same person. I spent countless hours reading the science for myself. I have tons of links if you want me to create a page of links. Not articles, but actual studies. Again, what you've put forth here is just ONE ASPECT of the equation....you just close your mind to what contradicts your beliefs and personal conclusions. The links I gave were NOT just articles, as they contained studies and links references to scientific studies. The short of it is you keep repeating yourself in various ways and then spamming with all types of articles while ingoring what you don't like. That I was able to point out in the last exchange how you DID NOT read carefully and comprehensively the contents of the last links speaks volumes of your mindset on this subject.

I'm aware you believe the IPCC is infallible. Which demonstrates your myopic and biased mindset on this subject. No where or no time did I state, allude, insinuate what you claim here. That is how YOU perceive things....challenge equates denial of facts. As the chronology of the posts shows, that is NOT how I operate...or what I presented. Go back and check. However, you must come to understand they were either duped by or were implicit in statistical fraud. Science demands you to be critical of their body of work.

See above responses.

Good Luck
11-06-2009, 10:11 PM
RE: Scientific American article

Where is the study that establishes the link making global warming a consequence of long term increases in these gasses? Any dough head can simply assume - as have the majority of AGW proponents - that measuring increases in GHGs proves global warming. That is NOT the way science works. Studies of paloegeologic data shows a CORRELATION between GHGs and warmer periods. However, the actual cause/effect relationship between GHG ratios and mean global temperatures has NOT been established by a long shot. In fact, most planetary models indicate that carbon forcing of CO2 and CH4 does not take place at the concentrations being measured on Earth:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WK8-4PPMXX4-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1081727994&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ba13432389dabfd1253e8b7b8a8b702b

whereas solar forcing does indicate a cause/effect relationship:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3S-4BBMSV3-K&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1081733288&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4569107e970b157f8d4e23a920ad0792

As such, concerns over man made GHGs as a factor in global warming (or climate change, which ever term is the current politically correct one) cannot be shown through modeling of carbon forcing, while measurements of solar flux, and their effect on Earth and the other solar planets has been proven as a cause/effect relationship.

Taichiliberal
11-06-2009, 10:36 PM
RE: Scientific American article

Where is the study that establishes the link making global warming a consequence of long term increases in these gasses? Any dough head can simply assume - as have the majority of AGW proponents - that measuring increases in GHGs proves global warming. That is NOT the way science works. Studies of paloegeologic data shows a CORRELATION between GHGs and warmer periods. However, the actual cause/effect relationship between GHG ratios and mean global temperatures has NOT been established by a long shot. In fact, most planetary models indicate that carbon forcing of CO2 and CH4 does not take place at the concentrations being measured on Earth:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WK8-4PPMXX4-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1081727994&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ba13432389dabfd1253e8b7b8a8b702b

whereas solar forcing does indicate a cause/effect relationship:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3S-4BBMSV3-K&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1081733288&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4569107e970b157f8d4e23a920ad0792

As such, concerns over man made GHGs as a factor in global warming (or climate change, which ever term is the current politically correct one) cannot be shown through modeling of carbon forcing, while measurements of solar flux, and their effect on Earth and the other solar planets has been proven as a cause/effect relationship.


All your links DO NOT take into account the reduction in oxygen producing elements of our planet and an increase in ARTIFICIALLY produced pollutants into our air and oceans.

Any "dough head" can pretend that unless someone spells it out for them, the links and correlations do not exists.

Good Luck
11-07-2009, 01:58 PM
All your links DO NOT take into account the reduction in oxygen producing elements of our planet and an increase in ARTIFICIALLY produced pollutants into our air and oceans.

Any "dough head" can pretend that unless someone spells it out for them, the links and correlations do not exists.
Already been over the "reduction in oxygen producing elements" bullshit. The amount of photosynthesis reduced through deforestation (which is minimal considering the vast majority of photosynthesis occurs in the oceans and other bodies of water) is more than made up for by increased plant activity of domesticated plants.

As for artificially produced pollutants, they are in the same boat as CO2, as there is no study that even indicates, let alone proves a cause/effect relationship between their introduction and mean global temperatures. This despite the millions of dollars thrown at AGW "scientists" to do such studies. All you have is guesswork and innuendo. "These compounds tend to retain heat. The Earth is in a warming trend. Therefore these compounds are causing the warming trend." simply is NOT good science, even if the logic appears sound. Science is about PROVING logical assumptions, not relying on them.

Good Luck
11-07-2009, 02:06 PM
BTW: I never once denied a link, or correlation between GHGs and mean global temperatures. That relationship is well established. What is NOT established is whether GHGs CAUSE mean global temperatures to rise, or if they are an EFFECT of a mean global temperature increase. All tests conducted using concentrations contained in our atmosphere which examine the cause/effect relationship point more toward temperatures driving GHG concentrations rather than the other way around. It's not until you get to concentrations 100 times or more greater (effectively making our atmosphere unbreatheable anyway) that GHGs actually end up driving further temperature increases.

You DO understand the difference between correlation and cause/effect, don't you?

Taichiliberal
11-07-2009, 02:24 PM
Already been over the "reduction in oxygen producing elements" bullshit. The amount of photosynthesis reduced through deforestation (which is minimal considering the vast majority of photosynthesis occurs in the oceans and other bodies of water) is more than made up for by increased plant activity of domesticated plants.

Says who? How in the hell can more oxygen be exchanged for CO2 if you remove large amounts the plants? That not only doesn't make mathematical sense, it doesnt' make scientific sense....hell, it doesn't make common sense. You remove half a forest and replace the area with concrete and steel, you've got only half a forest to exchange the CO2....period.

As for artificially produced pollutants, they are in the same boat as CO2, as there is no study that even indicates, let alone proves a cause/effect relationship between their introduction and mean global temperatures. This despite the millions of dollars thrown at AGW "scientists" to do such studies. All you have is guesswork and innuendo. "These compounds tend to retain heat. The Earth is in a warming trend. Therefore these compounds are causing the warming trend." simply is NOT good science, even if the logic appears sound. Science is about PROVING logical assumptions, not relying on them.

Wrong....the last link I gave shows how CFC's are mixing in with particles that are screwing up the ozone layer and other such nasties. And if you REALLY want to get educated on the subject, do a little research regarding "acid rain".

As usual, you ignore what you don't like and then give a false representation as to what is presented. Fortunately, the recorded posts are there to expose your folly.

Taichiliberal
11-07-2009, 02:35 PM
BTW: I never once denied a link, or correlation between GHGs and mean global temperatures. That relationship is well established. What is NOT established is whether GHGs CAUSE mean global temperatures to rise, or if they are an EFFECT of a mean global temperature increase. All tests conducted using concentrations contained in our atmosphere which examine the cause/effect relationship point more toward temperatures driving GHG concentrations rather than the other way around. It's not until you get to concentrations 100 times or more greater (effectively making our atmosphere unbreatheable anyway) that GHGs actually end up driving further temperature increases.

You DO understand the difference between correlation and cause/effect, don't you?

You do understand that no matter how many ways you try to deny the facts, they won't go away. Cause: deforestation, pollution, urbanization.
Effect: smog and "poor air quality" days over major cities throughout the world, acid rain killed lakes, dead rivers, diminished plant life, dead zones of various shore line areas across the world. Concentrations of pollutants, including CO2 from auto emissions and factory smoke stacks, found in upper atmosphere, increase in melting of ice pack areas at both poles, levels of man made pollutants, CO2 found increasing over years in ice core samples.

Conclusion: Bad habits by mankind add to and accelerate effects of natural climate changes...the enhancement labled "global warming".

Got that bunky?

Good Luck
11-07-2009, 08:38 PM
You do understand that no matter how many ways you try to deny the facts, they won't go away. Cause: deforestation, pollution, urbanization.
Effect: smog and "poor air quality" days over major cities throughout the world, acid rain killed lakes, dead rivers, diminished plant life, dead zones of various shore line areas across the world. Concentrations of pollutants, including CO2 from auto emissions and factory smoke stacks, found in upper atmosphere, increase in melting of ice pack areas at both poles, levels of man made pollutants, CO2 found increasing over years in ice core samples.

Conclusion: Bad habits by mankind add to and accelerate effects of natural climate changes...the enhancement labled "global warming".

Got that bunky?
Obviously you do NOT realize that no matter how often you repeat the lies of the far left, it does not make their claims true. Deforestation - with regards to global warming is boogie. The plants of human agriculture provide more photosynthesis per acre than the forests. (with regards to the diminished habitat of a large number of species - a whole different topic.

Acid rain, CFCs, other pollutants and their effect on ecosystems? Not what we are talking about, is it? Want to talk about the negative effects of pollution in general, start another thread, and we'd probably be on the same side. I am all for diminished use of petroleum as an energy source, more stringent requirements for reprocessing of industrial wastes, etc.

But as a factor in global warming, climate change, no. There is no scientific evidence the two are linked in a cause/effect relationship. Once more for the learning impaired: a logical conclusion, whether one uses deductive or inductive logic, is NOT a scientific conclusion. At best it is the basis around which a testable hypothesis may be formed. When it comes to SCIENTIFIC evidence, the data points the other direction. CO2 and CH4 increases are the result of, not the cause of warming temperatures. Also, according the the REAL scientific studies (as opposed to politically motivated pseudoscience derived from movies) man made pollutants, while undeniably harmful in other ways, are not found in high enough concentrations to produce or contribute to a greenhouse effect. Additionally, neither CO2 nor CH4 are found in concentrations high enough to contribute significantly to a greenhouse effect. According to that first study I linked you to, the TOTAL concentrations of both CO2 and CH4 COMBINED in our atmosphere cannot be linked to a measurable greenhouse effect. GHGs of all kinds simply must be much higher to actually cause a greenhouse effect. In laboratory studies the concentrations have to be literally hundreds of times higher before their greenhouse effect actually makes a difference in re-radiated heat. Other factors - like simple cloud cover - so outweigh CO2 or CH4 contributions they are statistically negligible, and realistically non-existent.

Conclusions:

1) While it is desirable for us to significantly reduce the amount of pollutants we release into our ecosystems, many desirable alternatives, such as using liquifaction of coal for fuel, are unnecessarily eliminated from consideration with the whole AGW scare. AGW is a boogie, and more evidence against its claims are being mounted on a constant basis.

2) According to paleogeologic data, we are in a warming trend. That warming trend could well continue - as did the previous period of interglaciation - until our icecaps are half their current size. Instead of focussing on bogus AGW claims and thereby spending a whole ton of irreplaceable resources combating what has been going on for over a million years, it would be far better to spend those resources preparing ourselves for the coming changes.

Taichiliberal
11-07-2009, 09:12 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You do understand that no matter how many ways you try to deny the facts, they won't go away. Cause: deforestation, pollution, urbanization.
Effect: smog and "poor air quality" days over major cities throughout the world, acid rain killed lakes, dead rivers, diminished plant life, dead zones of various shore line areas across the world. Concentrations of pollutants, including CO2 from auto emissions and factory smoke stacks, found in upper atmosphere, increase in melting of ice pack areas at both poles, levels of man made pollutants, CO2 found increasing over years in ice core samples.

Conclusion: Bad habits by mankind add to and accelerate effects of natural climate changes...the enhancement labled "global warming".

Got that bunky?


Obviously you do NOT realize that no matter how often you repeat the lies of the far left, it does not make their claims true. Deforestation - with regards to global warming is boogie. The plants of human agriculture provide more photosynthesis per acre than the forests. (with regards to the diminished habitat of a large number of species - a whole different topic.

Deforestation is a left wing lie, according to you? Acid rain killing lakes and damaging forests is a left wing lie, according to you? Industrial pollution of our ocean shores, is a left wing lie, according to you? Industrial pollution of the air we breath is a left wing lie, according to you? The smog that hangs over the vast urban sprawll is a left wing lie, according to you? And all of this, which occurs ACROSS THE GLOBE and has increased over the last century, has negligible effect on the planet, according to you? Man, you are in a world of denial!

Acid rain, CFCs, other pollutants and their effect on ecosystems? Not what we are talking about, is it? Want to talk about the negative effects of pollution in general, start another thread, and we'd probably be on the same side. I am all for diminished use of petroleum as an energy source, more stringent requirements for reprocessing of industrial wastes, etc.Yeah, it's part of it, because in some absurd defense of the the industrial status quo, it's vital to deny industrial pollutants. If CFC's and other man made pollutants clog our atmosphere, they damage, the flora and fauna and water. You're talking about the very system that exchanges CO2 for oxygen...forests, oceans, etc. Diminish and damage them, you increase CO2 in the atmosphere when you have such things as smokestacks and car exhaust adding daily around the clock at an increasing rate for a century. It's all connected, and despite the little games of myopic analysis and out of context points of view, they always will be.

But as a factor in global warming, climate change, no. There is no scientific evidence the two are linked in a cause/effect relationship. Once more for the learning impaired: a logical conclusion, whether one uses deductive or inductive logic, is NOT a scientific conclusion. At best it is the basis around which a testable hypothesis may be formed. When it comes to SCIENTIFIC evidence, the data points the other direction. CO2 and CH4 increases are the result of, not the cause of warming temperatures. Also, according the the REAL scientific studies (as opposed to politically motivated pseudoscience derived from movies) man made pollutants, while undeniably harmful in other ways, are not found in high enough concentrations to produce or contribute to a greenhouse effect. Additionally, neither CO2 nor CH4 are found in concentrations high enough to contribute significantly to a greenhouse effect. According to that first study I linked you to, the TOTAL concentrations of both CO2 and CH4 COMBINED in our atmosphere cannot be linked to a measurable greenhouse effect. GHGs of all kinds simply must be much higher to actually cause a greenhouse effect. In laboratory studies the concentrations have to be literally hundreds of times higher before their greenhouse effect actually makes a difference in re-radiated heat. Other factors - like simple cloud cover - so outweigh CO2 or CH4 contributions they are statistically negligible, and realistically non-existent.

Conclusions:

1) While it is desirable for us to significantly reduce the amount of pollutants we release into our ecosystems, many desirable alternatives, such as using liquifaction of coal for fuel, are unnecessarily eliminated from consideration with the whole AGW scare. AGW is a boogie, and more evidence against its claims are being mounted on a constant basis.

2) According to paleogeologic data, we are in a warming trend. That warming trend could well continue - as did the previous period of interglaciation - until our icecaps are half their current size. Instead of focussing on bogus AGW claims and thereby spending a whole ton of irreplaceable resources combating what has been going on for over a million years, it would be far better to spend those resources preparing ourselves for the coming changes.

You can repeat all this six ways to Sunday until dooms day (I've addressed all this before in previous posts, you lacing it with nothing but the standard supposition and conjecture and accusatory opinion non-withstanding) but you cannot dismiss or disprove the FACTS I produced in my links or their logical conclusions.

Good Luck
11-09-2009, 11:48 PM
You can repeat all this six ways to Sunday until dooms day (I've addressed all this before in previous posts, you lacing it with nothing but the standard supposition and conjecture and accusatory opinion non-withstanding) but you cannot dismiss or disprove the FACTS I produced in my links or their logical conclusions.
The problem is, Twinkey, you have not "proven" a damned thing. As has been repeatedly pointed out, time after time, thread after thread after thread, posting the unsupported conclusions of others is NOT proof. And I will repeat one more time, for you are obviously without the ability to learn quickly, "logical conclusions" are NOT facts!! Logic is a process by which one can arrive at the wrong conclusion with confidence.

LEARN what the fucking scientific method is, and where "logical conclusions" fall in that process, and MAYBE you can actually discuss the issue from a level beyond what your political masters tell you to think.

No where have I denied that industrial pollution is harming the ecosystems. EXCEPT with respect to global warming, where the actual scientific evidence does not support that "logical conclusion." There is no scientific evidence that CO2 exchange rates are diminished. There is no scientific evidence that CO2, CH4, nor man made pollutants are contributing to an unprecedented greenhouse effect.

As for simply repeating myself, what the fuck are you doing? I gave you links to actual scientific studies which support what I have been saying. You give me links to articles in popular (ie: written for laymen) magazines of science about a new method confirming (a fact never denied) that CO2, CH4 and manmade pollutants have increased over the past two decades. I ask you where the evidence is for the conclusions that these measured increases are, in actuality, responsible for global warming. You give me "logic".

Come back when you can comprehend the difference between logic and scientifically derived evidence. How about producing an actual scientific STUDY that shows CO2, CH4, or CFCs are actually found in high enough contributions to have a greenhouse effect attributed to them. I gave you TWO studies showing the exact opposite. So shove you "logic" where it belongs. If you cannot produce genuine science, then it is apparent all you have is what your political masters gave you in your breakfast cereal.

Taichiliberal
11-10-2009, 07:56 PM
The problem is, Twinkey, you have not "proven" a damned thing. I don't have to "prove" what is a matter of fact and history and reality, genius. As I demonstrated in the previous post, YOU are just trying to ignore reality in order to support your myopic view point. Pretending that deforestation, pollution and such are negligible when dealing with the oxygen/CO2 system of this planet is either sheer stubborness or sheer stupidity. As has been repeatedly pointed out, time after time, thread after thread after thread, posting the unsupported conclusions of others is NOT proof. You can repeat that delusion all you want....only a fool would call what is a physical reality "unsupported". And I will repeat one more time, for you are obviously without the ability to learn quickly, "logical conclusions" are NOT facts!! Logic is a process by which one can arrive at the wrong conclusion with confidence. You can repeat your convoluted logic until doomsday, because only a complete fool would try to foister the notion that the systematic removal/damage of what exchanges CO2 to oxygen has little to no effect on the environment...only a willfully ignorant dupe would pretend that adding urbanization and industrial pollutants on all levels to this would have little to no effect on the environment. Yeah, let's just throw reality and common sense out the window because it doesn't fit in to the myopic equations that support....what? Defense of business as usual? The moronic "stop the liberals" mentality? Give me a fucking break!

LEARN what the fucking scientific method is, Oh, you mean the scientific methods that ONLY support one aspect of the problem? Yeah, you presented that already, genius. And YOU ignored or denied any other scientific method that produced a different result when taken into full concept. and where "logical conclusions" fall in that process, and MAYBE you can actually discuss the issue from a level beyond what your political masters tell you to think.

See above responses.

No where have I denied that industrial pollution is harming the ecosystems. EXCEPT with respect to global warming, where the actual scientific evidence does not support that "logical conclusion." There is no scientific evidence that CO2 exchange rates are diminished. There is no scientific evidence that CO2, CH4, nor man made pollutants are contributing to an unprecedented greenhouse effect.

We've already done this dance, as the chronological posts show....and the logical conclusions just didn't jibe with your beliefs....so like all neocon dupes, you just keep repeating yourself six ways to Sunday..hoping with each new vehemence you'll magically make all contrary facts disappear. Grow up....it won't happen on a printed medium.

As for simply repeating myself, That's all you can do, genius....that and deny/ignore any contrary facts. No big surprise. what the fuck are you doing? Just taking yet another willfully ignorant neocon buffoon with an axe to grind against the perceived "liberal threat"...and proving that when properly challenged you just parrot yourself to the point of insipidness. I gave you links to actual scientific studies which support what I have been saying. And I gave you likewise....you just ignore them, nor do you discuss them in the proper context. You give me links to articles in popular (ie: written for laymen) magazines of science about a new method confirming (a fact never denied) that CO2, CH4 and manmade pollutants have increased over the past two decades. I ask you where the evidence is for the conclusions that these measured increases are, in actuality, responsible for global warming. You give me "logic". You're a liar....you again keep taking things out of context to try and falsley portray what I was responding to and why. The recorded chronology of the posts are still there, you jackass. So lying about what happened is pointless. I detest liars, because you are NOT that fucking stupid that you don't comprehend what you read. Coward.

Come back when you can comprehend the difference between logic and scientifically derived evidence. How about producing an actual scientific STUDY that shows CO2, CH4, or CFCs are actually found in high enough contributions to have a greenhouse effect attributed to them. I gave you TWO studies showing the exact opposite. So shove you "logic" where it belongs. If you cannot produce genuine science, then it is apparent all you have is what your political masters gave you in your breakfast cereal.

There you have it folks......when you follow the chronology, you know this jackass is deliberately trying to distort responses....what was being responsed to and why. Now he does what all failed neocon debators do...establishes a distortion, repeats it ad nauseum and then bases a new challenged based on that lie...pretending that NOW the burden of proof is to prove the new lie based challenge wrong.

This asshole keeps on about political masters....yet he has yet to explain how following the status quo of deforestation, non-regulation of industrial emissions and all I've mentioned before is beneficial to the planet and it's inhabitants. His denial that what is physically happening has direct effect on the environment (yes stupid, atmosphere is part of the environment) is absurd. What is he defending? The profit motive of industry? The projected profit of all industry and business that would be devoted to compesating for problems that occur as global warming causes more damage to the eco-system. Or does the fool actually know what he's "against", as I've inquired above? Good luck with anyone trying to get the truth out of him/her on that one.

Good Luck
11-11-2009, 12:41 PM
LOL

Yes, the chronology of posts in this debate indeed shows what is going on. TaiChi makes claims about AGW. He does not support those claims with actual scientific studies, though he does link to articles which make the same kinds of unsupported conclusions. They are fact because Tai Chi, lord of all, declares them to be fact, because it is "logical" to assume so.

I'd bet he doesn't even know which method of logic he is using, let alone why it is not valid.

Scientific studies are posted, showing that CO2 concentrations at levels below 50,000 ppmv (current levels are below 400 ppmv) do not show any measurable greenhouse effect. The study also shows the same conclusion for CH4 and all GHGs which AGW claims are a problem: they would have to be found in concentrations WAY WAY higher than have been measured to show any green house activity - INCLUDING those produced by human activity.

Another scientific study is posted showing that solar flux measurements not only thoroughly account for the measured increase in mean global temperatures found through the 1990s, but also account for similar mean global temperature increases found throughout the solar system.

But genuine scientific studies make no difference to TaiChi. FACTS (because HE says they are facts?) are FACTS. They don't NEED to be proven because they are FACTS.

THEN he wants to call me an asshole, and a liar?

What a twinkey. Sponge cake for a head, with creamy filling where his brains should be. All I ask for is ONE link to ONE actual, verifiable scientific study demostrating that CO2, CH4 and CFCs are actual forcers in mean global temperatures at measured concentrations. Just one. Not an article that simply CLAIMS GHGs are responsible for increases in mean global temperatures after proving GHGs are on the rise. We all know GHGs are on the rise. No one has disputed that GHGs are on the rise, yet all we see is article after article saying GHGs are on the rise.

How about a study PROVING that GHGs are actually DOING what you CLAIM they are doing? How about a study that has actually proven that air with 300 ppmv CO2 and 1500 ppbv CH4 retains less heat over time than air with 390 ppmv CO2, 1750 ppbv CH4 and 0.5 ppbv CFCs. That SHOULD be easy to demonstrate, should it not? So why is it so hard to find a study doing exactly that?

I have posted a study which does the experiments needed to demonstrate the green house effect from these GHGs. Yet, somehow, the data comes out that the current atmosphere does NOT retain heat any more than the atmosphere of 100 years ago.

Ya up for it, Twinkey? Just one actual study.

As an aside, and as is TYPICAL of TaiChi's "debate" (and I use the term loosely) style, he comes up with the idea that because I do not follow AGW theory (and again I use the term loosely) into the intellectual shitter, then I am just fine with the other issues of deforestation, industrial pollution, etc. And on that strawman accusation, I call him either the biggest fucking idiot on the planet without any reading comprehension skills what so ever, OR the biggest LYING ASSHOLE on this entire BBS.

Taichiliberal
11-11-2009, 04:52 PM
LOL Whenever these neocon parrots cannot disprove or refute a point made, they start off with these faux hysterics to indicate a condescending attitude....then they just repeat the lies and distortions and disproven points as they have for several preceding posts. All one has to do is see how GL dodges and ignores what points I just put forth in this post

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=549252&postcount=238

And you get an idea of just how dishonest (or delusional) his mindset on this particular discussion is. I won't even bother reading his revisionist rehash below....it's all been done before in various forms in the preceding posts. Like I said folks, follow the chronology the posts and see what this joker is all about. But GL must have the last word because in his mind, telling the lie as many times as possible will make it come true. So be it...I leave him to his folly.

Yes, the chronology of posts in this debate indeed shows what is going on. TaiChi makes claims about AGW. He does not support those claims with actual scientific studies, though he does link to articles which make the same kinds of unsupported conclusions. They are fact because Tai Chi, lord of all, declares them to be fact, because it is "logical" to assume so.

I'd bet he doesn't even know which method of logic he is using, let alone why it is not valid.

Scientific studies are posted, showing that CO2 concentrations at levels below 50,000 ppmv (current levels are below 400 ppmv) do not show any measurable greenhouse effect. The study also shows the same conclusion for CH4 and all GHGs which AGW claims are a problem: they would have to be found in concentrations WAY WAY higher than have been measured to show any green house activity - INCLUDING those produced by human activity.

Another scientific study is posted showing that solar flux measurements not only thoroughly account for the measured increase in mean global temperatures found through the 1990s, but also account for similar mean global temperature increases found throughout the solar system.

But genuine scientific studies make no difference to TaiChi. FACTS (because HE says they are facts?) are FACTS. They don't NEED to be proven because they are FACTS.

THEN he wants to call me an asshole, and a liar?

What a twinkey. Sponge cake for a head, with creamy filling where his brains should be. All I ask for is ONE link to ONE actual, verifiable scientific study demostrating that CO2, CH4 and CFCs are actual forcers in mean global temperatures at measured concentrations. Just one. Not an article that simply CLAIMS GHGs are responsible for increases in mean global temperatures after proving GHGs are on the rise. We all know GHGs are on the rise. No one has disputed that GHGs are on the rise, yet all we see is article after article saying GHGs are on the rise.

How about a study PROVING that GHGs are actually DOING what you CLAIM they are doing? How about a study that has actually proven that air with 300 ppmv CO2 and 1500 ppbv CH4 retains less heat over time than air with 390 ppmv CO2, 1750 ppbv CH4 and 0.5 ppbv CFCs. That SHOULD be easy to demonstrate, should it not? So why is it so hard to find a study doing exactly that?

I have posted a study which does the experiments needed to demonstrate the green house effect from these GHGs. Yet, somehow, the data comes out that the current atmosphere does NOT retain heat any more than the atmosphere of 100 years ago.

Ya up for it, Twinkey? Just one actual study.

As an aside, and as is TYPICAL of TaiChi's "debate" (and I use the term loosely) style, he comes up with the idea that because I do not follow AGW theory (and again I use the term loosely) into the intellectual shitter, then I am just fine with the other issues of deforestation, industrial pollution, etc. And on that strawman accusation, I call him either the biggest fucking idiot on the planet without any reading comprehension skills what so ever, OR the biggest LYING ASSHOLE on this entire BBS.

See Above statement.

Good Luck
11-11-2009, 05:02 PM
Just ONE actual scientific study proving greenhouse effect of CO2, CH4 and CFCs at atmospheric concentrations. Just one.

Can't do it, can you?

Lowaicue
11-11-2009, 05:59 PM
Just ONE actual scientific study proving greenhouse effect of CO2, CH4 and CFCs at atmospheric concentrations. Just one.

Can't do it, can you?

Why are you looking for reasons not to participate in the global responsibility for the planet? Anyone can argue about the minutiae of something. There are no 'smarts' in that.
The climate of the earth is changing. Human presence is a factor in this. Whether it be CO2, or Fox news really is of little significance.
Find reasons to help not excuses to pollute.

Taichiliberal
11-11-2009, 08:04 PM
Why are you looking for reasons not to participate in the global responsibility for the planet? Anyone can argue about the minutiae of something. There are no 'smarts' in that.
The climate of the earth is changing. Human presence is a factor in this. Whether it be CO2, or Fox news really is of little significance.
Find reasons to help not excuses to pollute.

He's not even dealing with the information in the context that it was given. In fact, he's ignoring the information presented and using the usual myopic viewpoint that all defenders of the status quo do when confronted with common sense assessments.

What I don't understand is just what the hell are folks like GL trying to defend? Pollution of the air and water? urban sprawl? I mean, do they truly understand that it's just not about not letting the "lib'rals" win? Or is it the old industry vs. the new green industry?

Lowaicue
11-11-2009, 08:50 PM
He's not even dealing with the information in the context that it was given. In fact, he's ignoring the information presented and using the usual myopic viewpoint that all defenders of the status quo do when confronted with common sense assessments.

What I don't understand is just what the hell are folks like GL trying to defend? Pollution of the air and water? urban sprawl? I mean, do they truly understand that it's just not about not letting the "lib'rals" win? Or is it the old industry vs. the new green industry?

From what I can see it is ONLY about not letting lib'rals win. There can be no other explanation.

Good Luck
11-11-2009, 09:57 PM
Why are you looking for reasons not to participate in the global responsibility for the planet? Anyone can argue about the minutiae of something. There are no 'smarts' in that.
The climate of the earth is changing. Human presence is a factor in this. Whether it be CO2, or Fox news really is of little significance.
Find reasons to help not excuses to pollute.
Where have I defended pollution? Show me just ONCE where I have defended polluting this planet.

OTOH, I am not going to run around following you chicken littles just because so many oithers are. Yes, the global climnate is changing. It is ALWAYS changing. It hasx been going throough change constantly for the 4+ billion years this planet has had an atmosphere. As such, I suggest the better move is to prepare and adapt to the coming changes, not make falsified finger pointing at human activity like a bunch of children afixing blame for a natural process.

I am also not going to let hubris and shady science redefine what comprises pollution. CFCs are most definitely pollution. Sulfur compounds are also pollution. Heavy metals, too. But CO2 is NOT. THAT is what the data is saying.

The reason for looking at this so closely is naming CO2 as a POLLUTANT, using false conclusions, limits how we can respond to other problems, such as dependency on imported petroleum. We have the ability to significantly reduce our dependency on petroleum imports, but not if we follow the chicken littles in false panic.

We can drill for our own petroleum, use technologies like liquifaction of coal, etc. The advantages to the economy are enormous, and the fact that US drilling companies and refineries are held far more accountable is better (though admittedly not perfect) for the environment. Liquifaction of coal for fuel would further reduce our dependency on imported petroleum, and is als better for the environment as the fuel derived is cleaner than petroleum derived fuels, and is also cleaner than burning the coal because the liquifaction process removes most of the pollutants.

In short, I want to reduce pollution. But I also want to do it in a way that does not cause unnecessary hardship to the economy, or to individuals. The science is indicating that naming CO2 as an industrial pollutant was a misnomer. Therefore energy alternates that are based solely on reduction of carbon footprint are unnecessarily restrictive.

But the accusation that I am of the opinion that pollution is OK is a flat out lie. Tai Chi knows it is a lie, but he cannot help but be a liar. It is simply his way of debate.

Lowaicue
11-11-2009, 10:05 PM
Where have I defended pollution? Show me just ONCE where I have defended polluting this planet.

But I am also not going to let hubris and shady science redefine what comprises pollution. CFCs are most definitely pollution. Sulfur compounds are also pollution. Heavy metals, too. But CO2 is NOT. THAT is what the data is saying.

The reason for looking at this so closely is naming CO2 as a POLLUTANT using false conclusions limits how we can respond to other problems, such as dependency on imported petroleum. We have the ability to significantly reduce our dependency on petroleum imports, but not if we follow the chicken littles in false panic.

We can drill for our own petroleum, use technologies like liquifaction of coal, etc. The advantages ot the economy are enormous, and the fact that US drilling companies and refineries are held far more accountable is better (though admittedly not perfect) for the environment. Liquifaction of coal for duel would further reduce our dependency on imported petroleum, and is als better for the environment as the fuel derived is cleaner than petroleum derived fuels, and is also cleaner than burning the coal because the liquifaction process removes most of the pollutants.

In short, I want to reduce pollution. But I also want to do it in a way that does not cause unnecessary hardship to the economy, or to individuals. The science is indicating that naming CO2 as an industrial pollutant was a misnomer. Therefore energy alternates that are based solely on reduction of carbon footprint are unnecessarily restrictive.

But the accusation that I am of the opinion that pollution is OK is a flat out lie. Tai Chi knows it is a lie, but he cannot help but be a liar. It is simply his way of debate.

Stop being so silly. We all need to clean up our act. America more than anywhere. There is, was and never will be a chicken little (it was a fairy story, right?) It looks to me, quite seriously, as if you are just looking for excuses. You are trying to justify doing bugger all. I really despair of Americans. What do we have to do to make you accept your responsibilities?
Anyway, you clearly have no intention of doing anything substantial and prefer to argue semantics.
OK. The rest of us are sufficiently concerned and we cant exclude you from any good that may be done, so I guess you get a free ride. Enjoy.
Don't accuse people of lying unless you can prove that it is a lie and not an opinion you do not share. It is very immature.

Taichiliberal
11-11-2009, 10:16 PM
From what I can see it is ONLY about not letting lib'rals win. There can be no other explanation.

Yeah...here's what the fools are in denial about...along with the other stuff I put forth.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html

Good Luck
11-11-2009, 11:45 PM
Yeah...here's what the fools are in denial about...along with the other stuff I put forth.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html
And once again you link an article that proves CO2 concentrations are increasing, with implications that human activity are partially responsible for the increase.

Fine. No argument there. I have not once said CO2 is not increasing, nor have I said that human activity is not involved in at least some of the CO2 increase.

But you still have not shown CO2 is linked as a cause of global warming.

All I ask is for ONE scientific study that shows air with CO2 at 380 ppmv has a greater greenhouse effect than air with CO2 at 280 ppmv. Is that so hard to provide?