Reply With Quote
Then you can eat fish downwind from one of the "clean" coal power plants, and drink the water from the same area.
Go on. I'll catch the fish, if you promise to eat one per day for 5 years.
Saw this quote on one of my "victim" blogs -- wish I had seen it before I posted the article 'cause I woulda stolen it.
"Global warming scientists are like OJ Jurors, looking about for unlikely conspiracies when there's a guy dripping with blood right in front of them."
He also points out the BBC spends a good part of the article trying to debunk the theory espoused in the beginning but, gives them credit for at least reporting it.
Priceless quote from the BBC piece:
"Proponents of this mechanism [solar caused global climate change] have tended to extrapolate their results beyond what is reasonable from the evidence."
Of course, it's not like Algore and company haven't spent the last several years doing the same with anthropogenic global climate change theory, is it?
Then you can eat fish downwind from one of the "clean" coal power plants, and drink the water from the same area.
Go on. I'll catch the fish, if you promise to eat one per day for 5 years.
A religion? Not quite.
Dogma, certainly.
Which is the more dogmatic statement:
"I am right, and there is no possibility that this theory is correct"
or
"The weight of evidence makes it unlikely that this theory is correct."
Perhaps Cobra can answer that one.
Actually, I eat quite a bit if fish. Mostly wild salmon, about 2 pounds a week, and I go to a Sushi bar about one a week.
Oooops... now you guys will say I'm like I am because of mercury poisoning...
I wish I noted a link I say a few days ago. It showed levels of mercury in various fish and their locations.
You are right. They are not "clean" but they are "cleaner" to some pretty decent levels.
Problem is, we still see environmental damage of things like mercury from decades past. My understanding is with the dispersal patterns of the newer technologies, we now contribute very little past natural levels that exist anyway.
Am I wrong?
There are trace levels of toxins just about everywhere in nature.
I say there is no denial that our activities do have a very minor influence on nature. Neither above statement is true. I say the alrmists are way off on their assessments. I never did hear a reliable denier say we have no impact, just that our impact is not a concern because it is too small to affect nature.
Nature heals itself. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas compared to water vapor. Still, the earth has a natural thermostat. More heat makes more clouds which in turm end up reflecting more sunlight. I would say that even at ice age levels of CO2, this natural therostat would maintain the earth between an average of 14C to 15C. Research in the last few years show that natural CO2 levels are a cause of temperature. That CO2 levels do not control the earths temperature. The levels lag by an average 800 years.
Now here is some intersting data I've been looking into...
Carbon Dioxide with only carbon 12 and oxygen 16 comprise of 98.42% of the CO2. It is near saturation for the Infared it can absorb. CO2 with Carbon 13 is at 1.106% of the CO2 mix. CO2 with one Oxygen 18 atom accounts for 0.395% of the mix, and the other 15 isopopic forms are insignificant. Current increases of these two probable increase the effect more than the most common form because they are still far from saturation. With about 380 ppm CO2, they account for about 4.2 and 1.5 ppm respectively. These levels however probably account for 0.5C (about 15%) in the 6 C to 7 C CO2 greenhouse effect even though they are only about 1.4% of the CO2. They have nearly a linear effect to about a 3 C influence. Past this point of about 40 ppm combined, their influence tapers off and becomes nearly flat at about 200 ppm each. The most common form of CO2 will at most add another 0.1 C as these levels rise. It would take about a 2-1/4% (2280 ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere before we could see a 3 C rise from CO2. To see the proper relationship with CO2, each isotopic relationship must be considered properly. Now is since these two lesser forms are nearly linear to anout the 40 ppm.
Now assuming I've reaserched this correctly, we can assume an approximate 0.16 C increase per 100 ppm of added CO2. This is right on board with my assesments that the sun changes account for about 75% of the 0.6 C change we see since the start of industrialization.
I did not try to make these numbers match. The math just panned out that way.
Here's an interesting website
http://www.surfacestations.org/
They are doing surveys of the temperature measurement stations in the US. It's amazing how many of them are in need of paint, are located near machinery, BBQ pits, urban areas, etc.
Here are a couple of pics
Yep, how true. Funny how we hear anything and everything about warming, but none of the truth that drives some of the false presumptions when they are exposed. This has been known for years, yet the alarmists refuse to acknowledge it as an issue. A very high percentage of these monitoring station have had urban growth skew their reading. They are suppose to be clear of all those items pointed out. Such station can no longer be realistically consider as valid, but they are.
For the last two days, I heard on two different radio programs that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" used computer aided graphics stolen from "The Day After Tomorrow." Anyone have both movies to compare and find this? I have Al Gore's PoS, but I don't have the rediculous movie. Write-up in Neal Boortz's site:
April 23, 2008 Archives:
I was hoping for a more substantial link. I get too many hits to narrow it down well.AL GORE FAKES IT
Ok global warming cultists – Al Gore fans – you really need to sit down on this one. We don't want you to get too upset. This is about his Oscar winning film on global warming "An Inconvenient Truth." There's a scene in that movie that shows the Antarctic ice shelf breaking up and virtually disintegrating. The problem is that wasn't ice. That was Styrofoam. ABC News is reporting that Al Gore took that footage from the fictional movie "The Day After Tomorrow" and used it in his do entary. Way to go Al. That ice is just about as fake as you are.
Before we go on this day after Earth Day stuff ... you will be interested in knowing that only about 35% of the people in this country are all that concerned about global warming. That is about the same percentage as about 20 years ago. At least our collective ignorance hasn't increased all that much on this issue.
And while we're learning that Al Gore used Styrofoam in his movie to depict his dream of melting ice caps, here we have some sort of think tank in the UK saying that climate change (the newest term for global warming) could lead to centuries of world war. Read into the story and you'll find that the chief author of the report from what is termed a "defense think tank" is also the head of an environmental group. These people have an investment in so-called "climate change." When we all realize that this climate change is part of a normal cycle that has been going on for millions of years what are the environmental groups going to do to raise money?
Not only the urban heat island effect, but also some of the units that contain the instrumentation are in bad need of fresh paint. Without a good coat of paint, these units are much like your car in a parking lot on a hot day.
Here's another one that cracks me up.
And another
Gee, I wonder if this one might read high
How does the paint on the Stevenson screens affect reading? (Stevenson screens are the enclosures for the instrumentation)
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com...en-paint-test/
I noticed you dodged the question here too. I thought I remembered your dumb ass from somewhere.I say there is no denial that our activities do have a very minor influence on nature. Neither above statement is true. I say the alrmists are way off on their assessments. I never did hear a reliable denier say we have no impact, just that our impact is not a concern because it is too small to affect nature.
Nature heals itself. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas compared to water vapor. Still, the earth has a natural thermostat. More heat makes more clouds which in turm end up reflecting more sunlight. I would say that even at ice age levels of CO2, this natural therostat would maintain the earth between an average of 14C to 15C. Research in the last few years show that natural CO2 levels are a cause of temperature. That CO2 levels do not control the earths temperature. The levels lag by an average 800 years.
Now here is some intersting data I've been looking into...
Carbon Dioxide with only carbon 12 and oxygen 16 comprise of 98.42% of the CO2. It is near saturation for the Infared it can absorb. CO2 with Carbon 13 is at 1.106% of the CO2 mix. CO2 with one Oxygen 18 atom accounts for 0.395% of the mix, and the other 15 isopopic forms are insignificant. Current increases of these two probable increase the effect more than the most common form because they are still far from saturation. With about 380 ppm CO2, they account for about 4.2 and 1.5 ppm respectively. These levels however probably account for 0.5C (about 15%) in the 6 C to 7 C CO2 greenhouse effect even though they are only about 1.4% of the CO2. They have nearly a linear effect to about a 3 C influence. Past this point of about 40 ppm combined, their influence tapers off and becomes nearly flat at about 200 ppm each. The most common form of CO2 will at most add another 0.1 C as these levels rise. It would take about a 2-1/4% (2280 ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere before we could see a 3 C rise from CO2. To see the proper relationship with CO2, each isotopic relationship must be considered properly. Now is since these two lesser forms are nearly linear to anout the 40 ppm.
Now assuming I've reaserched this correctly, we can assume an approximate 0.16 C increase per 100 ppm of added CO2. This is right on board with my assesments that the sun changes account for about 75% of the 0.6 C change we see since the start of industrialization.
I did not try to make these numbers match. The math just panned out that way.
Which is the more dogmatic statement, brain-trust?
I didn't dodge the question. I'm sorry you fail to understand my answer. You could at least tell me what part doesn't make sense so I can simplify it for you.
If you consider not picking a statement a dodge, then fine. Both can be considered dogma, but the first more so. Depends on the level of blind faith involved. Deniers do not use blind faith on the subject. It is not a preached viewpoint. The preached viewpoint is "I am right, and this theory is correct" by the alarmist. They do not adequately back up their theory. If they have, I would agree with the facts. You can find snippets of deniers saying there is no manmade global warming, but all that are respected say there is a very small effect by us.
Like those who are alarmists, here are some deniers that take idiotic positions. This isn't an all or nothing argument. It shouldn't be. When talking in general terms, we have no measurable effect outside of probable scientific error. This truth is on the side of the deniers. It is opposite for the alarmists. Their claim is outside of probable scientific error. I know, their papers say otherwise, but look at the factors they ignore. Especially solar variations. When they address it, they downplay this below measurable facts.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-29-2008 at 08:14 PM.
Yeah, the fault is mine for not being smart enough to understand your answer to a simple either/or question.
... and you wonder why I say you have a pattern of not being able to answer straight questions?
Still not quite a straight answer, but close enough.
Both can be considered dogma, but the first more so.
I would point out that both sliced turkey and dog can be considered good sandwich fixin's, but the first, more so.
At least we can agree what is more dogmatic.
Now let's move on to a better question.
Which is the more dogmatic statement:
"They do not adequately back up their theory."
or
"In my opinion, they do not adequately back up their theory."?
Let's rearrange this last statement and add in the implication.
What Wild Cobra essentially and fairly said:
"There is no possibility that the theory of man-made global warming is correct."
He didn't say,
"The weight of evidence makes it unlikely that the theory of man-made global warming is correct."
Now who exactly is being more dogmatic again?
The guy who can't admit the possibility that he is wrong, or the guy who can?
I fully, positively, acknowledge the possibility that the theory man-made global warming could be wrong.
The measurement stations crack me up.
(I've decided to stop being bitter and pissed off at the government, policy makers and every other manipulator or useful idiot out there - can't change anything, after all; however, for entertainment value, their existence is invaluable.)
Now I'm gonna get drunk and read the tax code.
See, man thinks that at some point they can "control" ol' Mother Nature. Man is an egotistical beast. But like the dinosaurs that once ruled the earth, mankind will also perish. Some day, Some time. It will be a "planet void of people".
RG, I'm getting tired of your waste of cyberspace (in my opinion,) But I'll humor you.
Neither of those is dogmatic. The first can be said by seeing evidence not considered within the theory. Evidence that must be included for valid results.
The second is just that. Opinion.
Dogma comes in play when a result is based upon the faith of someone else's word. Someone's word that cannot be backed up.
Now you'll call my word dogma. Problem is, I can show why the alarmists are wrong, yet I have seen nothing to show many of my points they ignore shown otherwise. Call it dogma if you must. After all, there is a fine line between faith and science.
yes it is a religion too...even the pope is writing enviromentalism into their wacko theolgy...it is fringe science with absolutely no proof....except some computer graphs
Global warming is a hoax, a rip off. It is just another way for
the busy bodies of the world to run things their way.
Think about those environmentalist the next time you fill up your
gas tank or try watering your lawn or your congressman votes to
protect some species that has existed for eons.
Yeah, we are doomed, but not by global warming. But by idiots
who buy into the wacko world. Or use it to gain power. o
AlGore.
dubya's Repug/anti-science/pro-business/neo- political goons have been censoring NASA climate science:
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/nasa-...ata-16611.html
Your word is not the dogma, re .
The dogma is in your inability to admit the possibility that you could be wrong about man-made global warming.
That makes your denial of the theory less science and more faith, hence the term "dogmatic belief".
The fact that you aren't intellectually honest or smart enough to recognize that, says volumes about how much stock anybody should put in the bull that springs forth from your keyboard.
But I'm not wrong. I acknowledge that anthropogenic warming can be as much as 1/3rd of what is claimed. The rest is Mother Nature.
I don't care that you don't understand the nuances in physics and chemistry on the subject. Enough of the math is simple and clear when applied to the data. Not just cherry picked data.
That's what I meant by you saying my word would be dogma. So I stated it wrong. Problem is, the math doesn't lie.
Would you please stop talking to yourself in a mirror...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
