So much for global warming.

#126
#126
LOL at the top comment on the article that IPorange posted...it says:

I used to be a non believer so I tested the GW theory for myself. I would like to report that I have been able to duplicate the warming claimed by Gore and his followers. I first took the temperature of my home freezer, then the refrigerator, the living room and finally the oven. Oh my god, I say there is a warming trend, even worse than they thought. Send me money
 
#127
#127
Shocker0 said:
Watts Up With That? go here
Click to expand...

Who found the error?

Answer: climate scientists who do support global climate change theory. Part of the process is checking and rechecking things. An error like that doesn't blow the whole thing out of the water, no matter how badly some wish it did.



Not sure what I was supposed to see at globalwarminghoax.com. If you want me to refute something, just let me know and I will. It's all crap.
 
#128
#128
IPorange said:
Who found the error?

Answer: climate scientists who do support global climate change theory. Part of the process is checking and rechecking things. An error like that doesn't blow the whole thing out of the water, no matter how badly some wish it did.



Not sure what I was supposed to see at globalwarminghoax.com. If you want me to refute something, just let me know and I will. It's all crap.
Click to expand...

the true believers never would have gone back and found the error had the emails from Britain not been exposed.

hell, I believe that climate change exists, you'd be a fool not to. However, I do not, in any way, believe that what is going on now is caused by man's activities. Nor do I believe that CO2 is a "pollutant".
 
#129
#129
iporange said:
who found the error?

Answer: Climate scientists who do support global climate change theory. Part of the process is checking and changing things,(if they don't fit your purpose). An error like that doesn't blow the whole thing out of the water, no matter how badly some wish it did.



Not sure what i was supposed to see at globalwarminghoax.com. If you want me to refute something, just let me know and i will. It's all crap.
Click to expand...

fyp
 
#130
#130
Glacier scientists says he knew data had not been verified | Mail Online

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Click to expand...

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.

The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.
Click to expand...
 
#131
#131
Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen - Times Online

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.
Click to expand...
 
#132
#132
lawgator1 said:
I assume you guys are referring to the current cold snap.

Which only confirms your utter lack of understanding of the issue.
Click to expand...
Oh please... enlighten us on what they taught you about climate in law school. :crazy:

I'm sure you have all of the answers.
 
#133
#133
Rasputin_Vol said:
Oh please... enlighten us on what they taught you about climate in law school. :crazy:

I'm sure you have all of the answers.
Click to expand...

Haven't you heard???

LG helped get Spotted Al Bore out of a speeding ticket in FL. After they exited the courtroom, Al told him he would give him knowledge that would one day save his life. LG perplexed, turned to Al, then The Spotted One placed his hand on his head. After about two minutes, LG started to cry and cowered behind Gore and said, "Save me, my Lord". Just a few moments after, a reporter snapped a photo, that would become the poster for Al's Next Movie, "It's Damn hot in Florida in August.".
 
#134
#134
MG1968 said:
the true believers never would have gone back and found the error had the emails from Britain not been exposed.

hell, I believe that climate change exists, you'd be a fool not to. However, I do not, in any way, believe that what is going on now is caused by man's activities. Nor do I believe that CO2 is a "pollutant".
Click to expand...

The hacked emails and the glacier data are totally separate.


It kills me when someone says they "believe that climate change exists" but then mock any findings that point to climate change. I get that you just doubt it is CO2 driven, but then why dismiss everything else?
 
#136
#136
IPorange said:
You're going to call out LG for the same thing half the yahoos in this thread are doing?
Click to expand...

There is a BIG difference in common sense and understanding simple concepts, like the weather changes on a daily basis, versus, trying to convince people that they need to give their money to big government to protect them from something that can't be proven and has no consensus from scientists. In fact, just the opposite is happening, as far as the consensus is concerned. The biggest reason the global warming conspiracy exists, is the fact that some people need to be told what to believe, because they have no inclination to form an opinion of their own and need others to tell them what to believe in. Just like people vote R or D in an election, but they have no reasons why. That's the biggest reason this country is going down the crapper, people don't educate themselves in fact or fiction. They are too concerned with watching Survivor and seeing who survives to form an opinion on anything. If they do have an opinion, I hear them say, about 6-7 times out of 10, that it's just what they hear from everyone, so it must be true.
 
#138
#138
IPorange said:
The hacked emails and the glacier data are totally separate.


It kills me when someone says they "believe that climate change exists" but then mock any findings that point to climate change. I get that you just doubt it is CO2 driven, but then why dismiss everything else?
Click to expand...

you didn't bother to read the rest of what I said.. Climate change happens, but it's not anthropogenic.
 
#139
#139
g8terh8ter_eric said:
There is a BIG difference in common sense and understanding simple concepts, like the weather changes on a daily basis, versus, trying to convince people that they need to give their money to big government to protect them from something that can't be proven and has no consensus from scientists.
Click to expand...

The Iraq war is over and done with, I think it is time we drop the WMDs in Iraq issue... :whistling:
 
#140
#140
MG1968 said:
you didn't bother to read the rest of what I said.. Climate change happens, but it's not anthropogenic.
Click to expand...

I did read it, that's why I said you don't think it is driven by CO2 (because apparently you don't, since you don't think humans are the cause.) Not sure why you think I missed that. It's pretty much the basis of my question.
 
#141
#141
g8terh8ter_eric said:
There is a BIG difference in common sense and understanding simple concepts, like the weather changes on a daily basis, versus, trying to convince people that they need to give their money to big government to protect them from something that can't be proven and has no consensus from scientists. In fact, just the opposite is happening, as far as the consensus is concerned. The biggest reason the global warming conspiracy exists, is the fact that some people need to be told what to believe, because they have no inclination to form an opinion of their own and need others to tell them what to believe in. Just like people vote R or D in an election, but they have no reasons why. That's the biggest reason this country is going down the crapper, people don't educate themselves in fact or fiction. They are too concerned with watching Survivor and seeing who survives to form an opinion on anything. If they do have an opinion, I hear them say, about 6-7 times out of 10, that it's just what they hear from everyone, so it must be true.
Click to expand...

And I apply that reasoning to people who refuse to think humans can have anything to do with climate change.
 
#142
#142
IPorange said:
And I apply that reasoning to people who refuse to think humans can have anything to do with climate change.
Click to expand...

It would take 10,000ppm of CO2 to even make a dent in our daily lives. The current level is 387ppm. Come talk to me when we get to 10,000ppm and we will talk about cutting back, until then, enjoy being brainwashed by Lord Gore.
 
#143
#143
TennTradition said:
The Iraq war is over and done with, I think it is time we drop the WMDs in Iraq issue... :whistling:
Click to expand...

Considering Saddam had years to get them out before we got in there, I would say that the surrounding countries bought up most of his stock pile. BTW, not only nukes and chemical weapons are considered WMDs.
 
#144
#144
g8terh8ter_eric said:
It would take 10,000ppm of CO2 to even make a dent in our daily lives. The current level is 387ppm. Come talk to me when we get to 10,000ppm and we will talk about cutting back, until then, enjoy being brainwashed by Lord Gore.
Click to expand...

While the feedback in the models may not be entirely accurate and climate sensitivity may not be exactly correct, 10,000 ppm seems awfully high to me.
 
#145
#145
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Considering Saddam had years to get them out before we got in there, I would say that the surrounding countries bought up most of his stock pile. BTW, not only nukes and chemical weapons are considered WMDs.
Click to expand...

I was just making a joke, so I'll leave the first part alone. But, what besides biological weapons would you also include as WMDs?
 
#146
#146
TennTradition said:
I was just making a joke, so I'll leave the first part alone. But, what besides biological weapons would you also include as WMDs?
Click to expand...

This is the USA's definition of a WMD...

(1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life. This definition derives from US law, 18 U.S.C. Section 2332a[16] and the referenced 18 USC 921.[17] Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs,[18] pipe bombs,[19] shoe bombs,[20] cactus needles coated with botulin toxin,[21] etc. have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.
Click to expand...
 
#147
#147
So, is it your opinion that the US was heading into Iraq looking for grenades loaded up with more than 4 ounces of explosives?
 
#149
#149
There would be significant respiratory problems before we reached 10,000 ppm, regardless of climate concerns. And clearly you are NOT even considering CO2 as a greenhouse gas. I am not sure how you can just "decide" that, but whatever. I guess water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas, either.




On an unrelated note, some are saying the hacked emails of climategate fame may have been part of a larger organized plot:

FOXNews.com - Climate E-Mails Possibly Stolen by Spies, Say U.K. Experts
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top