Page 84 of 161 FirstFirst ... 347480818283848586878894134 ... LastLast
Results 2,076 to 2,100 of 4001
  1. #2076
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    The main reason the sheeple might doubt global warming and might dislike ACA is the non-stop slander, lies, disinformation by the VRWC/UCA and their Fox/Repug hired s.
    boutons_deux is offline

  2. #2077
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    As I see it, there are several reasons the general public have lost faith in this movement:

    Al Gore's scifi docudrama
    Catastrophic model predictions that don't comport with reality
    Climategate
    Shouting down legitimate skepticism (e.g. This thead)


    Good day
    The public has lost faith?

    Care to show some polling or you just pulling your normal bull as inserting your own beliefs for the beliefs of others?

    It has been demonstrated how you will lie and misrepresent as a matter of course.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  3. #2078
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    DarrinS is offline

  4. #2079
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Americans have lost faith because there are a bunch of idiots walking around like Darrin. In countries with higher scientific literacy we don't see this. Furthermore, do a search while you're on Gallup on evolution. There's a reason that is low in the US as well.
    MannyIsGod is online now

  5. #2080
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Look at the 2nd category. Why is the US so much higher than anyone else?

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/147242/Wo...ls-Humans.aspx

    People nearly everywhere are more likely to believe humans cause global warming. In the United States, where residents are less likely to blame humans for global warming and to see it as a threat, residents could potentially feel less empowered to act as stewards of the environment in the future.
    You can thank the GOP and its war on science.

    I have stated that I don't like Al Gore, but I think you're completely wrong attributing this drop on his movie. For one, I doubt you will find any coloration between the release of his movie and the drop in those polls. In actuality, I bet you would see the exact opposite.
    MannyIsGod is online now

  6. #2081
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Look at the 2nd category. Why is the US so much higher than anyone else?

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/147242/Wo...ls-Humans.aspx
    American sheeple, poorly educated, TV-dumbed-down, infantile, self-diseased fatties, are lost in the science-denying, doctrinaire/ideological/religious Dark Ages ushered in by VRWC and their social/religious "Christian" Taleban.
    boutons_deux is offline

  7. #2082
    Veteran jack sommerset's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    9,221
    The bible tells us at Job 37:3-13 that God controls the wind, heat, cold, clouds, sun, rain, lightening, thunder, snow, ice, and tempests. There is no passage in the Scriptures that says or implies that God gave up control of the weather to humans in the Old or New Testament. It's all good. God bless.
    jack sommerset is offline

  8. #2083
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    The bible tells us at Job 37:3-13 that God controls the wind, heat, cold, clouds, sun, rain, lightening, thunder, snow, ice, and tempests. There is no passage in the Scriptures that says or implies that God gave up control of the weather to humans in the Old or New Testament. It's all good. God bless.
    Perfect explanation as to why Americans poll the way they do.
    MannyIsGod is online now

  9. #2084
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Jack, WC, etc, self-ridiculers extraordinaire. Bible-thumping beats thinking any day.
    boutons_deux is offline

  10. #2085
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    This is precious. Warming cultists now have their own version of AttackWatch.

    Climate Science Rapid Response Team



    http://www.climaterapidresponse.org/
    What I find interesting about their propaganda is this:

    The
    Scientific Guide
    to Global Warming
    Skepticism


    Page four has a graph that claims the oceans have 200 x 10^21 (2.00 x 10^23) more joules of energy since 1950. I don't disagree with that, but they are saying it only took 50 years for the extra greenhouse effect to add that much energy. I find that laughable since water will reflect and re-emit energy it gets at the surface. It's the deeper energy that penetrates the vibrational capturing. IR will stay at the surface and be re-emitted, but the power from the sun at other wavelengths penetrate the ocean deep. This is where most of the extra energy comes from. The IPCC claims in AR4 are based from 1750 to 2004. During this period, the amount of extra energy from the sun has increased by 0.18%. The increase in energy hitting the surface of the earth is about 1.26 x 10^23 joules annually, more than half of which is captured in the ocean waters beyond just the surface.

    That's just one of several false claims they make.

    Granted, I used 1750 to 2004 IPCC numbers. Still, we had a nice rise from about 1900 to 1950 in solar energy, and the warmer water takes time to circulate.



    From 1900 to present is only about a 0.1% increase. That's still 7.03 x 10^22 joules more annual energy today, than in 1900.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-25-2012 at 07:13 PM.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  11. #2086
    selbstverständlich Agloco's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    9,013
    You're joking, right?
    No. I want an explanation of this reaction would proceed. Please include the balanced chemical formula and free energy released with your proposed mechanism.


    The thermosphere reaches temperatures as high as 2500C. Hydrogen will easily have chemical reactions with oxygen at those temperatures.
    Easily? What's the reaction threshold? What about the thermosphere today? Does it still reach 2500C?

    Care to detail how I'm wrong? Don't forget the intensity of solar radiation to help.
    Your assertion, your proof. I'd like to see you detail how you're correct for once.
    Agloco is offline

  12. #2087
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Americans have lost faith because there are a bunch of idiots walking around like Darrin. In countries with higher scientific literacy we don't see this. Furthermore, do a search while you're on Gallup on evolution. There's a reason that is low in the US as well.
    A bunch of idiots given propaganda fueled in no small part by some rather pointed special interests with little incentive to admit their product might be in some way harmful.
    RandomGuy is offline

  13. #2088
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Michael Mann's TEDxPSU presentation

    Very short on science, but long on conspiracy and politics (as he es about the politicization of science -- lol).


    It's interesting that the graphs that show "the models have been validated" don't include data past 2005. I wonder why? I guess he can present those with a straight face.


    DarrinS is offline

  14. #2089
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    What I find interesting about their propaganda is this:

    The
    Scientific Guide
    to Global Warming
    Skepticism
    That's just one of several false claims they make.
    Oh do tell.

    The linked pdf pretty fairly addresses most lines of attack you have used.
    Less heat is escaping
    out to space
    Satellites measure infrared radiation as it escapes
    out to space, clearly observing the greenhouse
    effect. A comparison between satellite data from
    1970 to 1996 found that even less energy is
    escaping to space at the wavelengths that
    greenhouse gases absorb energy. Researchers
    described this result as
    .
    This has since been confirmed by subsequent
    measurements from several different satellites.
    “direct experimental
    evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s
    greenhouse effect
    An increased greenhouse effect means nights
    should warm faster than days. During the day, the
    sun warms the Earth’s surface. At nighttime, the
    surface cools by radiating its heat out to space.
    Greenhouse gases slow down this cooling process.
    If global warming was caused by the sun, we would
    expect the warming trend to be greatest in daytime.
    Instead, what we see is the number of warm nights
    increasing faster than the number of warm days.
    Alexander, L. V., Zhang, X., Peterson, T. C., Caesar, J., Gleason, B., Tank,
    A. M. G. K., Haylock, M., Collins, D., Trewin, B., Rahimzadeh, F., Tagipour,
    A., Kumar, K. R., Revadekar, J., Griffiths, G., Vincent, L., Stephenson, D.
    B., Burn, J., Aguilar, E., Brunet, M., Taylor, M., New, M., Zhai, P., Rusticucci,
    M., and Vazquez-Aguirre, J. L. (2006), Global observed changes in daily
    climate extremes of temperature and precipitation. Journal of Geophysical Research
    , 111(D5)05109+.

    The author of the paper cited no fewer than 68 different research papers, the vast majority of which were from the last decade or so.

    You go wit' yo' bad self trying to refute all of that.

    Let me know when anything you assert gets backed up by something you yourself publish for any kind of review.
    RandomGuy is offline

  15. #2090
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Michael Mann's TEDxPSU presentation

    Very short on science, but long on conspiracy and politics (as he es about the politicization of science -- lol).

    It's interesting that the graphs that show "the models have been validated" don't include data past 2005. I wonder why? I guess he can present those with a straight face.
    "long on conspiracy".

    Do you want me to post links to the posts where you mention "climategate"?

    I stopped counting the number of times you allude to some massive conspiracy of scientists to keep "the real truth" from the public.

    He was entirely right about the way people like you are making what should be a scientific debate into a political one.

    Rather than go out and do real science it is easier to shoot the messanger I guess.
    RandomGuy is offline

  16. #2091
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Well, unlike Fakegate, the Climategate scientists did conspire to skirt FOIA laws and corrupt the peer-review process.

    No thoughts on why Mann would omit >2005 data in a presentation given in late 2011?
    DarrinS is offline

  17. #2092
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Oh do tell.

    The linked pdf pretty fairly addresses most lines of attack you have used.
    Yes, they address quite a few things. It is a joke though.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  18. #2093
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    No. I want an explanation of this reaction would proceed. Please include the balanced chemical formula and free energy released with your proposed mechanism.
    I'm not going to take that much time. As it is, the internet is often nothing but information overload when you search for something not knowing a specific le. You often get everything except what you're looking for. I found this which does explain a little, but not anywhere near what I was looking for:

    Atmospheric Chemistry @ UEA

    An increase of molecular hydrogen in the atmosphere also leads to increasing H2O in the stratosphere.
    As for showing chemistry work, I haven't done anything like that for more than 30 years. I'm a bit rusty. How about instead, you prove a CME cannot do as I say.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  19. #2094
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I guess Manny's interest in fake Heartland memos has waned.
    DarrinS is offline

  20. #2095
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    MannyIsGod is online now

  21. #2096
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    DarrinS is offline

  22. #2097
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    I guess Manny's interest in fake Heartland memos has waned.
    Well, my interest has first and foremost always been on the science. This is why you ran away with your hands up in the air like a little girl when I posted those scientific articles you asked for on Friday.

    The Heartland memo's showed clearly where the money comes from to fund these things. You choose to ignore that, but considering your track record on this "debate" I don't think anyone here is surprised.

    Remember when you found out that even people you agree with on this forum think that you are an idiot, Darrin? Ever stop to ponder, why?
    MannyIsGod is online now

  23. #2098
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Well, my interest has first and foremost always been on the science. This is why you ran away with your hands up in the air like a little girl when I posted those scientific articles you asked for on Friday.


    The Heartland memo's showed clearly where the money comes from to fund these things. You choose to ignore that, but considering your track record on this "debate" I don't think anyone here is surprised.
    Epic, ing, fail.









    http://fakegate.org/bast-on-forged-memo/



    False Claims

    The memo contains several false statements about The Heartland Ins ute’s work on climate change. Following is our refutation of some of the most damaging claims:

    ■The Charles G. Koch Foundation does not fund our climate change efforts and did not contribute $200,000 to us in 2011. The foundation has issued a statement confirming that its 2011 gift of $25,000 – its first to Heartland in ten years – was earmarked for our work on health care reform, not climate.

    ■“[D]issuading teachers from teaching science” is not and never has been our goal. As the “Fundraising Plan” clearly states, we are working with highly qualified and respected experts to create educational material on global warming suitable for K-12 students that isn’t alarmist or overtly political. We don’t believe this should be controversial.

    ■We do not seek to “undermine the official United Nation’s [sic] IPCC reports.” We have openly and repeatedly shown that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports are not peer reviewed in any meaningful sense, exaggerate the certainty of scientific understanding and forecasting abilities, and are written and promoted to serve political rather than scientific objectives. We have produced two highly regarded volumes of scientific research, part of a series led Climate Change Reconsidered, showing how peer-reviewed science rebuts many of the IPCC’s claims.

    ■ We do not pay scientists or their organizations to act as spokespersons or to “counter” anyone else in the international debate over climate change. We pay them to help write the Climate Change Reconsidered reports, in much the same way as any other “think tank” or scientific organization pays the authors of its publications.

    ■We do not try to “keep opposing voices out” of fora, such as Forbes.com, where climate policy has been debated. The truth is just the opposite: We send Heartland spokespersons to debate other experts at fora all across the country and invite persons who disagree with us to speak at our own events.

    ■We are not “cultivating more neutral voices” by reaching out specifically to Andrew Revkin or Judith Curry. I do not view Revkin as a neutral voice in the debate.
    DarrinS is offline

  24. #2099
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Congrats. Tell you what. I"ll just go ahead and admit the whole Heartland thing is a lie and doesn't prove anything.

    Pardon my epic fail.

    Ready to get back to the science now?
    MannyIsGod is online now

  25. #2100
    selbstverständlich Agloco's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    9,013
    Congrats. Tell you what. I"ll just go ahead and admit the whole Heartland thing is a lie and doesn't prove anything.

    Pardon my epic fail.

    Ready to get back to the science now?
    Of course not. He'll run around like a dog with a bone for a while.
    Agloco is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •