Propaganda movie "Big Global warming swindle" ANSWERED

[Optatron]

YouTube - The Big Swindle Movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk)

next?

[coyote_sprit]

Well I guess I better give into Al Gore's demands then.

[Optatron]

Well I guess I better give into Al Gore's demands then.

NO, didn't say that

I actually asked the movie maker myself, and he disagreed with Gore's tactics and conclusions

[anaconda]

There seems to be a difference of opinion in these threads. Here are a few:

1. Is the globe currently warming or cooling?

2. What is the relative strength of the effects of sun spots vs. man made greenhouse gases?

3. Do we need to pay more attention to the purported lead and lag times for purported indicators? For example, if CO2 lags temperature we need to know by how much. If temperature lags sun spot activity, we need to know by how much. For example, if a deep freeze descends upon us over the next few years it will seem to have vindicated the sun spot theory. I believe Optatron's position is that the globe is currently in a warming trend, despite a dramatic reduction in sun spots recently.

[Optatron]

There seems to be a difference of opinion in these threads. Here are a few:

1. Is the globe currently warming or cooling?


Good question, Swindle which omitts 30 years of data won't help.

I'd like to see data either way.



2. What is the relative strength of the effects of sun spots vs. man made greenhouse gases?


According to my video, greenhouse gases has more effect



3. Do we need to pay more attention to the purported lead and lag times for purported indicators? For example, if CO2 lags temperature we need to know by how much. If temperature lags sun spot activity, we need to know by how much. For example, if a deep freeze descends upon us over the next few years it will seem to have vindicated the sun spot theory.


good point




I believe Optatron's position is that the globe is currently in a warming trend.

yes, and I am open to being wrong.

Just because I believe we're warming and it's caused by CO2 does not mean I agree with certain policies being proposed, but we shouldn't deny facts just because we're afraid of it's possibly political conclusions.

(just because guns kill people doesn't mean we should teach that guns don't kill people)

[anaconda]

Good question, Swindle which omitts 30 years of data won't help.


But the thousand years of data are very compelling.

[anaconda]

According to my video, greenhouse gases has more effect

Not necessarily. The lag time for sun spot activity might be more delayed (in fact, I believe it is..) and then it might absolutely overwhelm any man made greenhouse gases.

[anaconda]

Just because I believe we're warming and it's caused by CO2 does not mean I agree with certain policies being proposed, but we shouldn't deny facts just because we're afraid of it's possibly political conclusions.

Well said.

[Vessol]

Well said.

Agreed. I try to stay away from both sides of the argument.

[Stary Hickory]

All I see in this video is another Global Warming nutjob referring to the info he wants to use. Putting US in front of a survey and calling it proof certainly means nothing. This is the problem with global warming nutjobs, they have no proof.

When the globe is cooling, it's global cooling, when it's warming it's global warming. And now they simply say climate change...so that no matter what happens it's humans fault. And all of this on NO evidence whatsoever.

[Stary Hickory]

In short referencing government agencies, sites, or information is suspect at best.

[Optatron]

But the thousand years of data are very compelling.

CO2 hasn't accumulated as fast the past thousand years

and solar activity has been in short cycles

also, we're talking about here and now

not to ignore the past

[Stary Hickory]

History has shown climate change throughout....in fact comparatively our .4 degree temperature change is nothing compared to what has happened already on this planet. So for someone to say they are worried about climate change it's like saying they are worried about the sun rising tomorrow.

It's going to happen, and we have seen and recorded warming and cooling trends ourselves. The CO2 nonsense is already debunked, any compelling evidence becomes much less compelling under scrutiny.

[Optatron]

History has shown climate change throughout....in fact comparatively our .4 degree temperature change is nothing compared to what has happened already on this planet. So for someone to say they are worried about climate change it's like saying they are worried about the sun rising tomorrow.

It's going to happen, and we have seen and recorded warming and cooling trends ourselves. The CO2 nonsense is already debunked, any compelling evidence becomes much less compelling under scrutiny.

point me to data please, PEER REVIEWED

[Stary Hickory]

point me to data please, PEER REVIEWED

you first, you are the one predicting unnatural warming. This is the root of the problem. There is no evidence. In fact you would have to be some kind of naive fool to think that the climate should not change. Ultimately the sun is going to explode and we are all going to die.

Christ, the continents have broken apart already, we have had a few mass extinctions, numerous ice ages, and other phenomena. To believe we live on a "magical" floating sphere that maintains equilibrium perfectly so that mankind can coexist in harmony is silly.

We are sitting on a spinning top, where the moon drifts away each year more and more, and the sun is literally exploding in slow motion. I mean we live in a super minute instance of time. So like I have said the burden of proof is on environmental wackos. And there never is any...it gets debunked or it simply waters down to, there is climate change sometimes...yeah duh we live in reality, not some fairytale land.

[pcosmar]

Flood of scientists continue to sign petition opposed to global warming alarmism, says Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
As the Senate prepares for floor debate on global warming legislation, the list of scientist signatories to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s petition against global warming alarmism is growing by about 35 signatures every day, announced OISM’s Art Robinson.

On May 19, 2008, OISM announced that over 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with PhDs, signed a petition that states, “… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate...”

Signatories include such luminaries as theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, MIT’s atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen and first National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz. More than 40 signatories are members of the prestigious national Academy of Sciences.

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
http://www.classbrain.com/artteensb/publish/scientist_petition_global_warming.shtml

SATELLITE INDICATES 23-YEAR GLOBAL COOLING
http://www.cgfi.org/2008/05/05/satellite-indicates-23-year-global-cooling/

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm

[muh_roads]

http://www.classbrain.com/artteensb/publish/scientist_petition_global_warming.shtml

SATELLITE INDICATES 23-YEAR GLOBAL COOLING
http://www.cgfi.org/2008/05/05/satellite-indicates-23-year-global-cooling/

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm

I was just about to link this.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

[anaconda]

you first, you are the one predicting unnatural warming. This is the root of the problem. There is no evidence. In fact you would have to be some kind of naive fool to think that the climate should not change. Ultimately the sun is going to explode and we are all going to die.

Christ, the continents have broken apart already, we have had a few mass extinctions, numerous ice ages, and other phenomena. To believe we live on a "magical" floating sphere that maintains equilibrium perfectly so that mankind can coexist in harmony is silly.

We are sitting on a spinning top, where the moon drifts away each year more and more, and the sun is literally exploding in slow motion. I mean we live in a super minute instance of time. So like I have said the burden of proof is on environmental wackos. And there never is any...it gets debunked or it simply waters down to, there is climate change sometimes...yeah duh we live in reality, not some fairytale land.

Nicely done.

[Optatron]

you first, you are the one predicting unnatural warming. This is the root of the problem. There is no evidence. In fact you would have to be some kind of naive fool to think that the climate should not change. Ultimately the sun is going to explode and we are all going to die.


I never said such things, I'm open to being wrong.





Christ, the continents have broken apart already, we have had a few mass extinctions, numerous ice ages, and other phenomena. To believe we live on a "magical" floating sphere that maintains equilibrium perfectly so that mankind can coexist in harmony is silly.


I'm all for the extinction of the human race, you didn't know that?




We are sitting on a spinning top, where the moon drifts away each year more and more, and the sun is literally exploding in slow motion. I mean we live in a super minute instance of time. So like I have said the burden of proof is on environmental wackos. And there never is any...it gets debunked or it simply waters down to, there is climate change sometimes...yeah duh we live in reality, not some fairytale land.

I'm not environmental, I'm for scientific data.

[literatim]

I'm not environmental, I'm for scientific data.

Says the person who conveniently skips...


http://www.classbrain.com/artteensb/publish/scientist_petition_global_warming.shtml

SATELLITE INDICATES 23-YEAR GLOBAL COOLING
http://www.cgfi.org/2008/05/05/satellite-indicates-23-year-global-cooling/

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm


I'll add these for good measure.


Ice shelves stable over six years (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25648336-30417,00.html)

Crops under stress as temperatures fall (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5525933/Crops-under-stress-as-temperatures-fall.html)

[Optatron]

Says the person who conveniently skips...


I didn't skip it, I was still looking




I'll add these for good measure.


Ice shelves stable over six years (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25648336-30417,00.html)

Crops under stress as temperatures fall (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5525933/Crops-under-stress-as-temperatures-fall.html)

thanks

[aravoth]

I'm not environmental, I'm for scientific data.

Then how could you possibly claim that CO2 has a bigger effect on planetary temperature than the 12,000 degree ball of burning plasma that is 865000 miles in diameter and accounts for 99% of the mass in the entire Solar System?

Serioulsy, you think this...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Sun_Earth_Comparison.png

Doesn't have an observable effect on planetary temperature? You do know that the sun has it's seasons also, And during it's maximum, it burns hotter and more violent? And you don't think that matters?

That's like saying your apple pie in the oven won't get more hot and burn if you crank the temperature up to 500 degrees.

This entire argument that a gas, that only projects the same temperature of the environment it is in, is responsible for warming the planet is beyond stupid.

[muh_roads]

Politicizing the weather is retarded.

[jrkotrla]

Today's Weather forecast brought to you by Ford:

If you are a registered Democrat, there will be severe storms due to increased emissions of greenhouse gasses causing global warming.
If you are a registered Republican, there will be severe storms due to increased sun-spot activity causing global warming.
If you are not a registered party member, please remember that you are required to supply your own oxygen and you are not allowed to use the Democrat or Republican gravity.

[Ninja Homer]

I'm not too good with graphs, so maybe somebody could explain this one to me? ;)
http://www.oldthinkernews.com/Articles/210308graph2.jpg

Or how about this one:
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/GraphCO2vsLTTemp.JPG

Certainly it must mean something when there's a temperature spike for the 1998 El Nino and then there's a matching spike for the amount of CO2 3 months later. Does that mean that when temperature starts increasing people wait 3 months and then start putting out more CO2, and then when temperature decreases people wait 3 months and then start putting out less CO2? :D

Here's a couple articles I found interesting:
Stupid ocean buoys fail to support global warming (http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=8c21e2dd-1945-43be-b04d-217c415f5a6b)
Stupid Antarctica keeps expanding ice despite global warming (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html)

[mediahasyou]

both sides are a fraud. im not suprised. when it comes down to gaining political control, people dont do it morally.

al gore wont show you this graph:

http://static.squidoo.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/draft_lens4019722module27015082photo_1239563544pal eocarbon.gif

[Ninja Homer]

both sides are a fraud. im not suprised. when it comes down to gaining political control, people dont do it morally.


Yep... I believe Margaret Thatcher was the first to use global climate change scare tactics to gain office.

[Optatron]

Then how could you possibly claim that CO2 has a bigger effect on planetary temperature than the 12,000 degree ball of burning plasma that is 865000 miles in diameter and accounts for 99% of the mass in the entire Solar System?


because I consider other factors

greenhouse effect
multiple atomospheric layers
distance from the sun
% of change in the sun's temperature
radiation filtering
thermodynamics.

if it were as simple as "look how big this ball is" we wouldn't be having this discussion




Serioulsy, you think this...


Doesn't have an observable effect on planetary temperature?


never said "doesn't have an observable effect".



You do know that the sun has it's seasons also, And during it's maximum, it burns hotter and more violent? And you don't think that matters?


I DO think it matters.




That's like saying your apple pie in the oven won't get more hot and burn if you crank the temperature up to 500 degrees.

This entire argument that a gas, that only projects the same temperature of the environment it is in, is responsible for warming the planet is beyond stupid.

beyond stupid? Ok, if you say so, you must know it all.

I've already said I'm willing to be wrong and I try to listen to both sides, but I ask data be through peer review.

[Optatron]

I'm not too good with graphs, so maybe somebody could explain this one to me? ;)
http://www.oldthinkernews.com/Articles/210308graph2.jpg


DO you realize the temperature's units?



Or how about this one:
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/GraphCO2vsLTTemp.JPG


Looks like a little correlation to me, but we can take a closer look




Certainly it must mean something when there's a temperature spike for the 1998 El Nino and then there's a matching spike for the amount of CO2 3 months later. Does that mean that when temperature starts increasing people wait 3 months and then start putting out more CO2, and then when temperature decreases people wait 3 months and then start putting out less CO2? :D

Here's a couple articles I found interesting:
Stupid ocean buoys fail to support global warming (http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=8c21e2dd-1945-43be-b04d-217c415f5a6b)
Stupid Antarctica keeps expanding ice despite global warming (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html)

no need for silly conspiracy theories, please.

[Optatron]

both sides are a fraud. im not suprised. when it comes down to gaining political control, people dont do it morally.

al gore wont show you this graph:

http://static.squidoo.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/draft_lens4019722module27015082photo_1239563544pal eocarbon.gif

pale, meso what??????

I thought the world was only 6000 years old!

[Bman]

thermodynamics.


Then I assume you understand that for every action their is an equal and opposite action. If something is gettin gwarmer something is getting cooler. So what is getting cooler?

[Dr.3D]

pale, meso what??????

I thought the world was only 6000 years old!

If you really believed that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Optatron]

Then I assume you understand that for every action their is an equal and opposite action. If something is gettin gwarmer something is getting cooler. So what is getting cooler?

you're kidding me right?

if you rub two woods to make fire, what gets cooler?

NEITHER, energy transferred from your hands to wood, turning movement into heat. Your hands may lose energy, but not necessarily getting cooler.

If the globe is getting warmer, what can we attribute it to?
1. the sun getting hotter, sending more heat to us
2. heat being trapped inside the troposphere, meaning the rest of the layers (and the universe) get less heat

But in both cases, you will not see "cooling" to couple the heating, as the solar system is VERY huge. This is not ad hoc, it's simply one of many reasons something isn't as simple as "just add, doesn't add up, you're all wrong"

[Immortal Technique]

yep its humans fault for the ice ages & deserts, hell why not blame us for sun spots to :P

[Optatron]

yep its humans fault for the ice ages & deserts, hell why not blame us for sun spots to :P

it might not be our fault, but it can be our choice if there's anything to do to survive

[1000-points-of-fright]

it might not be our fault, but it can be our choice if there's anything to do to survive

There is something we can do to survive. It's the same thing life has done for millions of years. Adapt. Can't stop a volcano from erupting, but we can adapt by not living next to a volcano. Can't stop hurricanes from flooding New Orleans but we can adapt by NOT LIVING IN NEW ORLEANS.

If the earth is warming, we'll learn to live with it like our ancestors did. If it cools, ditto.

Besides, what if whatever we do to stop global warming ends up making things worse in ways we didn't even consider? Say we manage to lessen the warming, but then the earth goes into a cooling period, however it's much colder than it would have been because of what we did to stop the warming.

Blowback.

[gb13]

I've already said I'm willing to be wrong and I try to listen to both sides, but I ask data be through peer review. (emphasis added -gb13)

Here's a crapload of peer-reviewed articles for you (abstracts can be read for free):

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html


As a side note, I love how my thread was moved to Hot Topics, yet this thread (on the same subject) remains in General Politics...:rolleyes:

[Optatron]

Here's a crapload of peer-reviewed articles for you (abstracts can be read for free):

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html


As a side note, I love how my thread was moved to Hot Topics, yet this thread (on the same subject) remains in General Politics...:rolleyes:

thanks for the link, I'll try to read them one by one.

I didn't post here for any reason than as a response to your thread.

I dont care otherwise where it's posted or how many response, I'd actually much rather it have no responses.

[gb13]

Here's a cool study: 53 million-year-old high Arctic mammals wintered in darkness (http://www.physorg.com/news163081573.html)

SUMMARY: Ancestors of tapirs and ancient cousins of rhinos living above the Arctic Circle 53 million years ago endured six months of darkness each year in a far milder climate than today that featured lush, swampy forests, according to a new study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder.

[gb13]

thanks for the link, I'll try to read them one by one.

I didn't post here for any reason than as a response to your thread.

I dont care otherwise where it's posted or how many response, I'd actually much rather it have no responses.

Oh, I Know... No worries. My comment was directed to the mods, not you.:cool:

[aravoth]

because I consider other factors

greenhouse effect
Always there, in fact we'd all be dead without it. It's why one half of the earth does not drop down to minus 200 degrees when the sun sets.



multiple atomospheric layers
Not sure what this has to do with solar activity, other than nothing.



distance from the sun
A near constant with various changes in regards to earth seasons. And the occasional giant asteroid impact that sends us flying out into the far reaches space:D



% of change in the sun's temperature
This is what you should be learning about


radiation filtering
Have you even looked at what our magnetic feild has been doing over the last few years?


thermodynamics.
For christs sake........


if it were as simple as "look how big this ball is" we wouldn't be having this discussion

Well it kind of is, A bonfire produces more heat than a candle. A nuclear Bomb generates more heat than a firecracker, and the Sun produces more heat than every nuclear bomb, bonfire, matchstick, volcanic eruption, firecracker, baseboard heater, and SUV that ever exploded or existed in all of human history.


never said "doesn't have an observable effect".
You are trying to tell me that CO2 heats up the planet, and that the Sun doesn't. What the hell?


I DO think it matters.
We have progress





beyond stupid? Ok, if you say so, you must know it all.
No, not all, I'm just not stupid enough to believe that a Naturally occuring gas, which is essential to the survival of plant life, which is essential to the survival of animal life, is going to kill us all.


I've already said I'm willing to be wrong and I try to listen to both sides, but I ask data be through peer review.

If you really need a peer reviewed peice of paper to tell you that the sun is hot as hell, and is responisible for the seasonal weather patterns, and was responsible for cooling and warming periods since the dawn of the solar system I really don't know what to tell you.

Hopefully earth gets whacked with a series of nice big Coronal Mass Ejections, that would single handedly put a fracken stop to all this man made global warming bullshit, of course it would literally put a stop to just about everything else, but I think I'd enjoy that. Then the propaganda on this, and every other stupid ass issue out there would cease permanetly.

[Optatron]

Always there, in fact we'd all be dead without it. It's why one half of the earth does not drop down to minus 200 degrees when the sun sets.


Always there yes, just varying degrees of which it's suitable for living



Not sure what this has to do with solar activity, other than nothing.


What ignorance. it's because we have multiple layers, of which have different composition of gases, which we can say whether temperature change is due to solar activity alone.



A near constant with various changes in regards to earth seasons. And the occasional giant asteroid impact that sends us flying out into the far reaches space:D


solar activity what?



This is what you should be learning about

Yes, I indeed should, help me if you know



Have you even looked at what our magnetic feild has been doing over the last few years?


No, what's that got to do with radiation of the sun??



For christs sake........

Thermodynamics for christ's sake? What's your problem ?



Well it kind of is, A bonfire produces more heat than a candle. A nuclear Bomb generates more heat than a firecracker, and the Sun produces more heat than every nuclear bomb, bonfire, matchstick, volcanic eruption, firecracker, baseboard heater, and SUV that ever exploded or existed in all of human history.


But a nuclear bomb exploding can destroy enough of life on earth which can't as easily be achieved by the sun.



You are trying to tell me that CO2 heats up the planet, and that the Sun doesn't. What the hell?


NEVER SAID THAT, don't put words in my mouth and then say I'm wrong.



We have progress


Because you're not paying attention, never denied it.





No, not all, I'm just not stupid enough to believe that a Naturally occuring gas, which is essential to the survival of plant life, which is essential to the survival of animal life, is going to kill us all.


Never said that either. But not untrue to a certain degree, I guess you never heard that you can die from hyperhydration and hyperventilation too?



If you really need a peer reviewed peice of paper to tell you that the sun is hot as hell, and is responisible for the seasonal weather patterns, and was responsible for cooling and warming periods since the dawn of the solar system I really don't know what to tell you.


I know the sun is hot as hell *not literally*, that doesn't mean it's the sole cause of recent (by recent I mean within a century) warming if solar activity has decrease the past 30 years (I will keep looking)

You don't know what to tell me? I dont think you'd have anything since you've just shown how much you know about thermodynamics and physiology.




Hopefully earth gets whacked with a series of nice big Coronal Mass Ejections, that would single handedly put a fracken stop to all this man made global warming bullshit, of course it would literally put a stop to just about everything else, but I think I'd enjoy that. Then the propaganda on this, and every other stupid ass issue out there would cease permanetly.

yes, and where did you hear me say that global warming and human extinction was a bad thing? Why do you keep talking like (you know) I disagree with you?

[aravoth]

What ignorance. it's because we have multiple layers, of which have different composition of gases, which we can say whether temperature change is due to solar activity alone.

So lets just flip the switch and turn off the sun, we'll pump nothing but CO2 in the Atmosphere, that should keep it plenty warm.


No, what's that got to do with radiation of the sun??
Look at a picture of Earth, then Look at a picture of Mars. One planet has a Magnetic Feild that protects it from solar radiation, one does not. It doesn't take a lot of guess work to figure out which one is without.

Our magnetic feild has been behaving odd in recent years. Large gaps opening, huge amounts of bowshock etc. One day it's fine, the next day it freaks out, and no one really knows why. But they do know, that it has nothing to do with "greenhouse" gasses. The weaker the Magnetic feild gets, the more supercharged solar particles come blasting through, blowing huge holes in places like the Ozone Layer.



But a nuclear bomb exploding can destroy enough of life on earth which can't as easily be achieved by the sun.
Yes actually, it can.


NEVER SAID THAT, don't put words in my mouth and then say I'm wrong.

When you say CO2 is the reason the planet is warming up, what am I supposed to think?


I dont think you'd have anything since you've just shown how much you know about thermodynamics and physiology.
:rolleyes:
k

[Optatron]

So lets just flip the switch and turn off the sun, we'll pump nothing but CO2 in the Atmosphere, that should keep it plenty warm.


never said that.

CO2 isn't CAUSING WARMING, it's at best causing the sun's heat to RETAIN.



Look at a picture of Earth, then Look at a picture of Mars. One planet has a Magnetic Feild that protects it from solar radiation, one does not. It doesn't take a lot of guess work to figure out which one is without.

Our magnetic feild has been behaving odd in recent years. Large gaps opening, huge amounts of bowshock etc. One day it's fine, the next day it freaks out, and no one really knows why. But they do know, that it has nothing to do with "greenhouse" gasses. The weaker the Magnetic feild gets, the more supercharged solar particles come blasting through, blowing huge holes in places like the Ozone Layer.


magnetic feild has nothing to do with gases, I can take that.

but magnetic field filtering radiation, didn't know.

are humans responsible for O3 depletion?




Yes actually, it can.


hasn't happened, but nuclear bomb tests have been done.
how much solar activity would need to increase to match a nuke bomb?




When you say CO2 is the reason the planet is warming up, what am I supposed to think?


did I say THE ONLY?



:rolleyes:
k

[aravoth]

but magnetic field filtering radiation, didn't know.

It looks kinda like this conceptually anyway...

http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~dgirija/Coronal_Mass_Ejection_Earth_Magnetic_Filed.jpg

If you could see it with the naked eye it would probably look like this
http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/pressroom/cosmic/img/Earths_Magnetic_Field.jpg


Anyway..

Basically the whole solar system is engulfed in solar radiation, supercharged particles, and various other kinds shit that is exteremly hazordous to your health. Earth protects itself with it's magnetisphere.
http://news.softpedia.com/images/news2/Shocking-Discovery-Above-the-Earth-039-s-Surface-3.jpg

If you notice, the most vulnerable spots are at the poles. This is where charged particles make it through, and skim off the the "shallow end" of the magnetisphere produces the Northern and Southern Lights. In Doing so, it skims off layers of ozone carrrying it off with the solar wind and into space.

A weakend magentic feild offers less protection, less protection means more Solar radiation gets through, the more that gets through, the warmer it gets. It works the same in reverse as well.

[BenIsForRon]

Optatron, you're in a for rough ride here. Lots of skeptics here who are simply skeptical because they are afraid to see government interfere in industry. Here's the important part: PAY ATTENTION TO THE ARTICLES THEY POST. None of the articles have the same perspective. Some say the world is cooling, some say its warming, but not because of humans. So these debunkers are actually constantly contradicting themselves.

I totally agree with you for the record, because I look for where the general consensus is, and among climatologists, geologists, and other scientists, the vast majority support the global warming theory.

And avaroth, you just said that you can't see how CO2 can be a bad thing when we all produce it? Did you know that, even though water is a good thing, you can die if you drink too much of it? Its called water intoxication. You've gotta open your mind a little and see what your subconscious motives are for denying global warming in the face of massive scientific consensus.

[aravoth]

And avaroth, you just said that you can't see how CO2 can be a bad thing when we all produce it? Did you know that, even though water is a good thing, you can die if you drink too much of it? Its called water intoxication. You've gotta open your mind a little and see what your subconscious motives are for denying global warming in the face of massive scientific consensus.

Enough of the water example, I hear from every single supporter of the human caused theory. It's just parroting a political punchline.

I want you to understand that there is, absolutley, no such thing as a consensus in science, ever. Not, Ever. That is a bunch of shit made up by politicians. If scientists ever stop questioning, investigating, and reasearching becuase of fear that thier funding may get pulled you will wind up in a modern day dark age.

Secondly, I'm not denying Global warming, I'm denying that CO2 is causing it.

[paulitics]

Some consensus.

YouTube - Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud / John Coleman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ)

Those who claim there is a consensus are either dishonest or just parroting the MSM or al Gore, because that is where it came from. It is a biased consensus payrolled by the government and UN. This is no different than if the coal industry payrolled a consensus disproving manmade global warming.

And you should never let a so called consensus weigh heavily on your opinion for anything, esp apocolyptic media hoaxes. Just a few off the top of my head.
Global Cooling ice age B.S
Overpopulation apocolypse B.S
Killer Bees (Oh NOS) BS
Y2K BS
Swine Flu 1970s BS
Swine Flu (2009) BS

And also the food pyramid turned out to be B.S
Fats are really good for you, and carb heavy diet propagated by the food pyramid leads to disease like diabetees. Develop critical thinking skills.

[Optatron]

Optatron, you're in a for rough ride here. Lots of skeptics here who are simply skeptical because they are afraid to see government interfere in industry.


Which is morally wrong, and scientifically irresponsible.



Here's the important part: PAY ATTENTION TO THE ARTICLES THEY POST. None of the articles have the same perspective. Some say the world is cooling, some say its warming, but not because of humans. So these debunkers are actually constantly contradicting themselves.


Not quite, they just disagree on what and why, but yes, they don't have a coherent response. And they're not admitting that, yet quick to point out that "scientists" don't have a consensus on global warming.

Now, if we were to adopt new policies, I agree, the burden of proof is on the claimer of GM (man caused GM). But if we wanted data for data's sake, we should be willing to hear all sides.




I totally agree with you for the record, because I look for where the general consensus is, and among climatologists, geologists, and other scientists, the vast majority support the global warming theory.


Thanks, and I think many people are confusing scientific consensus with majority vote. Scientists don't get to offer their opinion in the same manner as others when they're writing reports (and more importantly, they're always open to being wrong if there's proper process to present other arguments).



And avaroth, you just said that you can't see how CO2 can be a bad thing when we all produce it? Did you know that, even though water is a good thing, you can die if you drink too much of it? Its called water intoxication. You've gotta open your mind a little and see what your subconscious motives are for denying global warming in the face of massive scientific consensus.

exactly what I told him!

too much O2 or water can kill you.
same with sugar, or anything else.

So it goes without saying too much of anything that's not directly beneficial to you, in extreme amounts and cases, CAN HURT YOU. (whether we are going there is another story, but to deny it's possible is ....simply ignorant).

this is not the same as saying "why can't too much marijuana kill you"
that's because (correct me if I'm wrong), THC is not concentrated enough in marijuana, so you can't get too much by smoking, but concentrated and enough THC CAN kill you.

[Optatron]

Some consensus.

YouTube - Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud / John Coleman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ)

Those who claim there is a consensus are either dishonest or just parroting the MSM or al Gore, because that is where it came from.


So it's all a media conspiracy?

Scientific consensus doesn't mean any scientists has the same opinion, by simply voting and voicing.

It means SCIENTISTS IN THE FIELD WHO HAVE PUBLISHED RELEVANT PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES BASED ON SCRUTINIZED DATA SUPPORT SUCH A THEORY.

If you think 30,000 scientists is enough to either invalidate or debunk something, take a look at Holocaust denial and evolution denial.




It is a biased consensus payrolled by the government and UN. This is no different than if the coal industry payrolled a consensus disproving manmade global warming.


I agree, there can be biased consensus, which is why we need science, not policy.



And you should never let a so called consensus weigh heavily on your opinion for anything, esp apocolyptic media hoaxes. Just a few off the top of my head.
Global Cooling ice age B.S
Overpopulation apocolypse B.S
Killer Bees (Oh NOS) BS
Y2K BS
Swine Flu 1970s BS
Swine Flu (2009) BS


Media doesn't always report what's science either.



And also the food pyramid turned out to be B.S
Fats are really good for you, and carb heavy diet propagated by the food pyrmadid lie leads to disease like diabetees. Develop critical thinking skills.

there are different types of fats
and different types of sugars (carbohydrates).
diabetes is caused by imbalance in hormones, not consumption of sugar.

[Optatron]

Enough of the water example, I hear from every single supporter of the human caused theory. It's just parroting a political punchline.


It's a simple fact, anything can kill you.



I want you to understand that there is, absolutley, no such thing as a consensus in science, ever. Not, Ever.


You must know, scientist, right?

or do you have a different idea of what scientific consensus means?



That is a bunch of shit made up by politicians. If scientists ever stop questioning, investigating, and reasearching becuase of fear that thier funding may get pulled you will wind up in a modern day dark age.


So we should applaud creation scientists and Holocaust deniers, as well as racists, Scientologists, 9/11 truthers, because if we stop thinking about these ideas, we'd be back in the dark ages.

SCIENTISTS DO QUESTION, but not every idea gets equal respect.



Secondly, I'm not denying Global warming, I'm denying that CO2 is causing it.

I don't care if you're denying it, just don't put words in other people's mouths and be a little more willing to listen.

[Bman]

you're kidding me right?


Yes and no. I think there's lot sof observation but no complete equation on what exactly is happening. I think it's foolish to close doors on either side.

Personally, I think going green is a good idea. My wife and me have cars that get 35+ mpg. We recycle, we bring reusable bags to the grocery. At somepoint I plan on getting solar panels installed on my house.


I also have trouble accepting any data on how we're producing more co2 than we use to. All vehicles have lower emissions than they did 30 years ago. Many of the industries that once populated the U.S. are now gone. It doesn't add up.

[Optatron]

Yes and no. I think there's lot sof observation but no complete equation on what exactly is happening. I think it's foolish to close doors on either side.


It is, and I wasn't closing a door, when I ask if a person is kidding, I seriously wonder if they know what they're asking.




Personally, I think going green is a good idea. My wife and me have cars that get 35+ mpg. We recycle, we bring reusable bags to the grocery. At somepoint I plan on getting solar panels installed on my house.


I think going green is a terrible idea and I love to see the human race extinct, that doesn't mean I want global warming to be true or untrue.



I also have trouble accepting any data on how we're producing more co2 than we use to.


Good place to start, according to my video and the makers, it's primarily due to industry, not breathing. Industry doesn't always produce ONLY what is needed either.



All vehicles have lower emissions than they did 30 years ago.


Vehicles are actually not a main one, according to what I heard (and I'm still digging)



Many of the industries that once populated the U.S. are now gone. It doesn't add up.

..........they didn't just disappear, they're replaced either by other countries or better technology. it's good to ask questions, but be willing to know when you'll be satisfied.

[revolutionisnow]

Anyone know who is causing the global warming on Mars?

[aravoth]

exactly what I told him!

too much O2 or water can kill you.
same with sugar, or anything else.

So it goes without saying too much of anything that's not directly beneficial to you, in extreme amounts and cases, CAN HURT YOU. (whether we are going there is another story, but to deny it's possible is ....simply ignorant).

this is not the same as saying "why can't too much marijuana kill you"
that's because (correct me if I'm wrong), THC is not concentrated enough in marijuana, so you can't get too much by smoking, but concentrated and enough THC CAN kill you.

Have you even read anything I've wrote?

Fuck it, you people will not listen to any opposing opinion becuase it will mess up your "Consensus". You want peer reviewed articles? THEN TELL YOUR FUCKING CLIMATE CONTROL BUTT BUDDIES TO STOP PULLING FUNDING FROM PEOPLE DOING THE RESEARCH.

You won't even look into anything regarding Solar Cycles, and I'm not talking about linking a shitty BBC documentary, for christs sake you didn't even know what the Magnetosphere does! Thats third grade science man....

Then you guys come on here and act like you're enlightend becuase our mighty politicains, most of which can't spell there own fucking names, magically denoted that energy is causing global warming. Why the hell would they do that? Why would the propaganda campaign get laid on so thick I wonder......

Prolly becuase they are going to tax the holy living shit out it? Ya think? Did any Scientists that study Solar Dynamics get a shot at speaking to congress like Al Gore did?

And you swallow it up, quoting Daily KOS and political Punchlines as you go.

If one day, the Sun wakes up from it's slumber, you'll find out then what real climate change is, you'll see what crazy weather looks like, believe me.

[aravoth]

or do you have a different idea of what scientific consensus means?


It means nothing. The only thing it shows is how powerful Talismatic words are.

How many times did I hear everyone on TV say "Consensus". They did a good job of drilling that pointless phrase into your head.

[Optatron]

Have you even read anything I've wrote?

Fuck it, you people will not listen to any opposing opinion becuase it will mess up your "Consensus".


yes I will and yes I have read what you posted, nice photos and I appreciate it.



You want peer reviewed articles? THEN TELL YOUR FUCKING CLIMATE CONTROL BUTT BUDDIES TO STOP PULLING FUNDING FROM PEOPLE DOING THE RESEARCH.


I have no buddies, chill



You won't even look into anything regarding Solar Cycles, and I'm not talking about linking a shitty BBC documentary, for christs sake you didn't even know what the Magnetosphere does! Thats third grade science man....


yes I have looked into solar cycles.

I didn't know magnetosphere has any effect on radiation



Then you guys come on here and act like you're enlightend becuase our mighty politicains


Nope, that's your own accusation.

I never showed any respect for Al Gore.



, most of which can't spell there own fucking names, magically denoted that energy is causing global warming. Why the hell would they do that? Why would the propaganda campaign get laid on so thick I wonder......

Prolly becuase they are going to tax the holy living shit out it? Ya think? Did any Scientists that study Solar Dynamics get a shot at speaking to congress like Al Gore did?


man, you're a piece of work, getting all angry and riled up with your conspiracies.




And you swallow it up, quoting Daily KOS and political Punchlines as you go.


Never read dailykos actually, but sorry if the "too much O2, too much h2o" is too hard to swallow (no pun intended).




If one day, the Sun wakes up from it's slumber, you'll find out then what real climate change is, you'll see what crazy weather looks like, believe me.

I'm sure I would, so what?

[Bman]

I think going green is a terrible idea and I love to see the human race extinct, that doesn't mean I want global warming to be true or untrue.


Ouch, sounds like a lot of self hate.:eek:

[Optatron]

It means nothing. The only thing it shows is how powerful Talismatic words are.


It means nothing to somebody who doesn't know it, fair enough!




How many times did I hear everyone on TV say "Consensus". They did a good job of drilling that pointless phrase into your head.
I don't care how many times you heard it, just like I don't care how many times you saw Jesus or failed in school.

I didn't get it from TV, so quit with your assumptions, accusations and conspiracies. I don't listen to policitians either, you think anybody who disagrees with you is Gorehound or socialist....sad!

[Optatron]

Anyone know who is causing the global warming on Mars?

good question, has mars been warming while the sun is cooling?

[aravoth]

man, you're a piece of work, getting all angry and riled up with your conspiracies.

Rofl, Yeah.... Cap and trade is a myth, lmao, you're kinda retarded

[aravoth]

I don't care how many times you heard it, just like I don't care how many times you saw Jesus or failed in school.


Speaking of assumptions

[Optatron]

Rofl, Yeah.... Cap and trade is a myth, lmao, you're kinda retarded

i supported cap & trade?

[Optatron]

Speaking of assumptions

I said, I don't care about YOU, or your experience, what is true to you doesn't mean it's what happened to me. YOU are the one making these stupid assumptions as if nobody can arrive at the same conclusion without taking the same path.

[aravoth]

i supported cap & trade?

No you said politicians taxing energy was a conspiracy

[Optatron]

No you said politicians taxing energy was a conspiracy

no I said you think (as you sounded like)

only politicians are claiming there's man caused global warming, as if you need an agenda or goal to make a claim or it's completely meaningless.

or,
only if people blindly follow the media and politicians can they believe in human caused global warming, no other way.

or,
anybody who does must be in on a conspiracy

[Danke]

Rofl, Yeah.... Cap and trade is a myth, lmao, you're kinda retarded

Careful, calling Josh_LA that can get you some time off. See what happened to one of RPFs most valuable contributors:


You are mentally retarded.

[Mod Note: Ok, that's enough. I have warned you and warned you. You are now temp-banned for 1 week.]



LE, was that U? Kade has continually gotten away with worse, but somehow he keeps getting a pass.

[Optatron]

Careful, calling Josh_LA that can get you some time off. See what happened to one of RPFs most valuable contributors:



LE, was that U? Kade has continually gotten away with worse, but somehow he keeps getting a pass.

Josh_LA? Kade?

[Kade]

Careful, calling Josh_LA that can get you some time off. See what happened to one of RPFs most valuable contributors:



LE, was that U? Kade has continually gotten away with worse, but somehow he keeps getting a pass.

Honestly, I haven't. I don't tend to stack warnings too much either...

All of my insults are responses, and rare ones at that. I prefer sweeping generalizations.

[Optatron]

Honestly, I haven't. I don't tend to stack warnings too much either...

All of my insults are responses, and rare ones at that. I prefer sweeping generalizations.

I dont mind insults anyway, especially if they're responses.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

in the face of massive scientific consensus.

Consensus is synonymous with Orthodoxy. Its religion in another guise. Also known as Bullshit.

Its just as fucking stupid as the dumbassed Gravity-based Cosmologists screaming that 'the consensus disproves that' when Plasma Cosmologists point out that space is filled with electrically charged plasma. Science is SUPPOSED to be based on Imperical Evidence, not fucking unfalsifiable abstract mathematical models.

The fact that the AGW Peer Review crowd happens to coincidentally be in with the Gravity Cosmology Peer Review crowd should give everyone pause. People that don't tout the party line in their beliefs in Anthropogenic Global Warming and/or Gravity-based Cosmology find themselves without funding and under a constant stream of ad hominem and straw man attacks. This despite the increasing tenuousness of such theories as CO2 forcing, black holes, dark matter etc etc ad endless fucking nauseum.

[Kade]

Consensus is synonymous with Orthodoxy. Its religion in another guise. Also known as Bullshit.



The Consensus of learned men is ignored with peril, and almost always available freely.

Orthodoxy should always be ignored.

I would rather listen to the words of the South American tribesmen on fishing, and ignore the advice on how to cure malaria.

[Optatron]

Consensus is synonymous with Orthodoxy. Its religion in another guise. Also known as Bullshit.


If that's what consensus means to you, then NO, SCIENCE DOES NOT HAVE CONSENSUS (not even on gravity)

Scientific consensus means quite differently, and quite importantly based on peer review, scrutiny and testability and falsifiability.



Its just as fucking stupid as the dumbassed Gravity-based Cosmologists screaming that 'the consensus disproves that' when Plasma Cosmologists point out that space is filled with electrically charged plasma. Science is SUPPOSED to be based on Imperical Evidence, not fucking unfalsifiable abstract mathematical models.


Not mathematical models? only empirical evidence?




The fact that the AGW Peer Review crowd happens to coincidentally be in with the Gravity Cosmology Peer Review crowd should give everyone pause. People that don't tout the party line in their beliefs in Anthropogenic Global Warming and/or Gravity-based Cosmology find themselves without funding and under a constant stream of ad hominem and straw man attacks.


so there can't be any reasonable attack on those who question AGW?




This despite the increasing tenuousness of such theories as CO2 forcing, black holes, dark matter etc etc ad endless fucking nauseum.

[aravoth]

Consensus is synonymous with Orthodoxy. Its religion in another guise. Also known as Bullshit.

Its just as fucking stupid as the dumbassed Gravity-based Cosmologists screaming that 'the consensus disproves that' when Plasma Cosmologists point out that space is filled with electrically charged plasma. Science is SUPPOSED to be based on Imperical Evidence, not fucking unfalsifiable abstract mathematical models.

The fact that the AGW Peer Review crowd happens to coincidentally be in with the Gravity Cosmology Peer Review crowd should give everyone pause. People that don't tout the party line in their beliefs in Anthropogenic Global Warming and/or Gravity-based Cosmology find themselves without funding and under a constant stream of ad hominem and straw man attacks. This despite the increasing tenuousness of such theories as CO2 forcing, black holes, dark matter etc etc ad endless fucking nauseum.

Exactly

Edit : Hi Kade

[Kade]

Edit : Hi Kade

Hi.

[BenIsForRon]

Consensus is synonymous with Orthodoxy. Its religion in another guise. Also known as Bullshit.

Its just as fucking stupid as the dumbassed Gravity-based Cosmologists screaming that 'the consensus disproves that' when Plasma Cosmologists point out that space is filled with electrically charged plasma. Science is SUPPOSED to be based on Imperical Evidence, not fucking unfalsifiable abstract mathematical models.

The fact that the AGW Peer Review crowd happens to coincidentally be in with the Gravity Cosmology Peer Review crowd should give everyone pause. People that don't tout the party line in their beliefs in Anthropogenic Global Warming and/or Gravity-based Cosmology find themselves without funding and under a constant stream of ad hominem and straw man attacks. This despite the increasing tenuousness of such theories as CO2 forcing, black holes, dark matter etc etc ad endless fucking nauseum.

You know that oil companies have been funding studies that "debunk" global warming. Also, GW Bush had the EPA modify internal documents to remove language that suggested global climate change could be a problem. It's only when they saw the controlling potential of climate change law that they changed their tune.

It seriously seems to me that many of you are former FOX viewers that are unwilling to let go of some of your former beliefs. I think the reason that you're grasping for straws on this global warming thing is that you are afraid that maybe nature has imposed a limit to human growth that you don't want to recognize. We will have to change the way we do industry if we want to preserve our ecosystem, but you don't want to recognize that because it appears anti free-market. In reality, these environmental problems have just revealed to us that there are costs in trade that can't always be quantified in economic capital.

In other words, markets are about more than simply the production and trade of goods and services, there are externalized costs that we have been ignoring for all of human history.

[aravoth]

It seriously seems to me that many of you are former FOX viewers that are unwilling to let go of some of your former beliefs.

Why are you ignoring The Sun, the Magnetosphere, and the Heliosphere? I do not understand why these are being ignored. This has nothing to do with FOX news, I don't even have cable dude. I know blaming all this on CO2 is easy, but it's not intelligent. 90% of the "global warming" equation is missing because people refuse to acknowledge the effect of Solar Weather patterns within the Heliosphere. Which is pretty stupid if you ask me.

You either look at ALL data, or don't look at all. Global warming is not limited to SUV's and Coal Plants. If you fail to realize the relationship between the Earth and the rest of the Solar System, nothing we do will ever make a difference.

The only thing Carbon Taxes will do, is limit growth in third world Nations, and kill even more people through starvation. All because people thought that mankind was more powerful than the Solar winds.

[Bossobass]

I've been reading the ACES bill. I'm up to page 300 of 1200 and it already has created the following bureaucracy:

Clean Energy Innovation Centers
Building Assessment Centers
Industrial Research and Assessment Centers
Centers for Environmental Knowledge and Outreach
Clean Energy Applications Centers
Incentives for Innovative Technologies Fund
Clean Energy Deployment Administration
Energy Technology Advisory Council
Clean Energy Investment Fund
Offshore Renewable Energy Facilities
National Bioenergy Partnership
Office of Consumer Advocacy

If they really believe CO2 emissions imperil the globe, why don't they just mandate that US average fleet mpg equal European average fleet mpg, which is more than twice the US average fleet mpg?

Why is it that the 30 top electric car manufacturers were not able to find a single dollar of investment capital, government grants, IPOs, etc.?

Why was GMs EV-1 fleet recalled and shredded a decade ago? Was it really as they said, that no one wanted to buy one? If that's really the sole reason, why is the ACES bill rife with impositions, regardless of what people want?

IF the planet is warming, it has nothing to do with human activity.

OTOH, man made chemicals appear at a rate of over 3 a day for decades. They appear in our bodies, drinking water, air and food chain. They number in the thousands, but the EPA has tests for only a few hundred.

Who gives a flying fuck what the temperature is when you're dying of cancer (the number ONE cause of death in the US) from chemicals and poisonous by products?

Why is there no mention of war and military build up and conquest in the ACES bill? How many tons of CO2 does the US military emit, and how many people do they kill, directly and indirectly?

Why isn't the Afghanistan segment of the Caspian Sea pipeline mentioned? It has been given such a high strategic priority that Congress just appropriated another $106 billion to keep those lousy terrorists away from it.

At the same time, the Climate Nazis prefer to inspect our light bulbs to save the planet, while Exxon, Monsanto, DuPont, ADM, Phizer, Baxter, Halliburton, KBR, Lockheed, Boeing, etc., etc., get to continue murdering and poisoning all of us.

"Climate deniers"? Fucking hilarious.

Bosso

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

You know that oil companies have been funding studies that "debunk" global warming.

What the fuck does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Are you fucking serious? Guilt by association is a fallacious debate tactic.


Also, GW Bush had the EPA modify internal documents to remove language that suggested global climate change could be a problem.

Climate change? What the fuck happened to Man-made Global Warming? Are you fucking kidding me?


It's only when they saw the controlling potential of climate change law that they changed their tune.

So fucking what? I didn't say shit about GW Bush, you did. I could care less if you think he sucked donkey cock for his stand on Anthropogenic Global Warming as that has not one goddamn thing to do with what I have stated.


It seriously seems to me that many of you are former FOX viewers that are unwilling to let go of some of your former beliefs.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?


I think the reason that you're grasping for straws on this global warming thing is that you are afraid that maybe nature has imposed a limit to human growth that you don't want to recognize.

:rolleyes:

I'm going to go puke my eyes out now. What the fuck does this have to do with anything?


We will have to change the way we do industry if we want to preserve our ecosystem, but you don't want to recognize that because it appears anti free-market.

You have no fucking clue what the fuck you are talking about. You don't know me and you don't know my beliefs, so kindly shut the fuck up about them.


In reality, these environmental problems have just revealed to us that there are costs in trade that can't always be quantified in economic capital.

Where the fuck does this crap come from? Do you even understand what the hell it is you wrote?


In other words, markets are about more than simply the production and trade of goods and services, there are externalized costs that we have been ignoring for all of human history.

:rolleyes:

[axiomata]

http://www.oldthinkernews.com/Articles/210308graph2.jpgDO you realize the temperature's units?


It looks like the same data used in the recently censored report (http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/cei-releases-global-warming-study-censored-epa) from a EPA researcher.

Be sure to check out the leaked internal memos where the researcher is asking his boss to release his draft report.


“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

Anyway, in regards to the chart, the Y-axis is temperature anomaly in degrees Celsius. So positive numbers indicate a temperature increase over some base period, often 1900-1910. However, a downward sloping line over the period since 2003 indicates a decrease in temperatures in that time frame.

It doesn't discount the significant warming we have experienced in the last 30 years, but it certainly raises concerns about the correlation between CO2 and global warming over the least 8 years, where no statistically significant warming has occurred while CO2 concentrations have continued to rise.

[aravoth]

Today about a dozen new sunspots appeared, and they fired off a barrage of class B solar flares. I am willing to bet that some crazy weather will follow if those sunspots continue firing off flares and continue increasing in strength.

[BenIsForRon]

Where the fuck does this crap come from? Do you even understand what the hell it is you wrote?

I'm saying that you would rather not acknowledge global warming, because you have a simple view of the world that we can all pursue our own interests without having to worry about our effects on other people/the environment. The fact is, everything we do effects other people in one way or another.

Global climate change is mostly a result of human energy consumption, and none of your favorite economic theories account for things such as that. So, because it makes your brain hurt, you choose to pretend like its not happenning.

And just for the record, dropping the F bomb fifty times doesn't make you look smarter.

[aravoth]

Global climate change is mostly a result of human energy consumption, and none of your favorite economic theories account for things such as that. So, because it makes your brain hurt, you choose to pretend like its not happenning.



Global climate change is not a result of human energy consumption. The climate always changes, in the 70's your kind screamed for years about global cooling, then global warming, and because none of you know what the hell your talking about, you just call it climate change, that way no matter what happens you can distort it to support your agenda.

[specsaregood]

Global climate change is not a result of human energy consumption. The climate always changes, in the 70's your kind screamed for years about global cooling, then global warming, and because none of you know what the hell your talking about, you just call it climate change, that way no matter what happens you can distort it to support your agenda.

^Concise, Clear, True. Saying "Global climate change is mostly a result of human energy consumption" completely ignores the fact that the climate is always changing even when humans were still burning twigs and downed timber as the primary source of energy and earlier....

[anaconda]

Agreed. I try to stay away from both sides of the argument.

I didn't say that..:eek:

[puppetmaster]

Global climate change is not a result of human energy consumption. The climate always changes, in the 70's your kind screamed for years about global cooling, then global warming, and because none of you know what the hell your talking about, you just call it climate change, that way no matter what happens you can distort it to support your agenda.

+1

[Brassmouth]

The free market is the most efficient means of eliminating any climate crises. That's assuming the market participants care, of course. A market is simply the voluntary transactions of individual actors.

That said, I don't buy into the global warming hysteria. It's farrrrrrrrrrrr too convenient for those in power. Plus, I find that when you spend endless amounts of money to fund studies, the researchers tend to give you the results and conclusions that you want. So many people are cashing in on the global warming hype it's disgusting. People have a vested interest in keeping the lie alive. Truth is an afterthought.

I may not be a scientist but I know red flags when I see them. Global warming is covered in red, in more ways than one.

My point is that even if global warming were true, you guys won't get anywhere by simply denying it. You have to advocate the free market. The State can't even run the post office, yet people want them to stave off a coming apocalypse?

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I'm saying that you would rather not acknowledge global warming, because you have a simple view of the world that we can all pursue our own interests without having to worry about our effects on other people/the environment. The fact is, everything we do effects other people in one way or another.

:rolleyes:

Again, you have no fucking clue what I believe in, so once again I ask you to kindly shut the fuck up about it.


Global climate change is mostly a result of human energy consumption, and none of your favorite economic theories account for things such as that. So, because it makes your brain hurt, you choose to pretend like its not happenning.

Bullshit. Maybe its your brain that is hurting when people like myself and others talk about the fact we are part of the Sun's environment and that Mother Nature is a viscious and cruel bitch. Maybe the fact that the Space Age has shown that we are suspended in a universe full of electricity hurts your brain. Maybe your disconnected anthropogenic view is whats wrong.


And just for the record, dropping the F bomb fifty times doesn't make you look smarter.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v242/wildeyedliberal/jerkitsmiley.gif

[Optatron]

The free market is the most efficient means of eliminating any climate crises. That's assuming the market participants care, of course.

no shit

[Optatron]

I've been reading the ACES bill. I'm up to page 300 of 1200 and it already has created the following bureaucracy:

Clean Energy Innovation Centers
Building Assessment Centers
Industrial Research and Assessment Centers
Centers for Environmental Knowledge and Outreach
Clean Energy Applications Centers
Incentives for Innovative Technologies Fund
Clean Energy Deployment Administration
Energy Technology Advisory Council
Clean Energy Investment Fund
Offshore Renewable Energy Facilities
National Bioenergy Partnership
Office of Consumer Advocacy


The fact you oppose bureaucracy is no excuse to deny the facts of climate change if science has any support for it.



If they really believe CO2 emissions imperil the globe, why don't they just mandate that US average fleet mpg equal European average fleet mpg, which is more than twice the US average fleet mpg?


If they did, would it shut you up?



Why is it that the 30 top electric car manufacturers were not able to find a single dollar of investment capital, government grants, IPOs, etc.?


if they did, you'd cry another anti-employment conspiracy or some sort, whatever is wrong is the problem of corporations and government.



Why was GMs EV-1 fleet recalled and shredded a decade ago? Was it really as they said, that no one wanted to buy one? If that's really the sole reason, why is the ACES bill rife with impositions, regardless of what people want?

IF the planet is warming, it has nothing to do with human activity.


What evidence would it take to convince you it's from human activity?



OTOH, man made chemicals appear at a rate of over 3 a day for decades. They appear in our bodies, drinking water, air and food chain. They number in the thousands, but the EPA has tests for only a few hundred.


is the number hundreds/thousands referring to chemicals or sources/locations?



Who gives a flying fuck what the temperature is when you're dying of cancer (the number ONE cause of death in the US) from chemicals and poisonous by products?


so you have your priorities.



Why is there no mention of war and military build up and conquest in the ACES bill? How many tons of CO2 does the US military emit, and how many people do they kill, directly and indirectly?


Good question, I never said I like policies, but I don't deny facts about climate just because they may lead to abuse of political power.




Why isn't the Afghanistan segment of the Caspian Sea pipeline mentioned? It has been given such a high strategic priority that Congress just appropriated another $106 billion to keep those lousy terrorists away from it.

At the same time, the Climate Nazis prefer to inspect our light bulbs to save the planet, while Exxon, Monsanto, DuPont, ADM, Phizer, Baxter, Halliburton, KBR, Lockheed, Boeing, etc., etc., get to continue murdering and poisoning all of us.

"Climate deniers"? Fucking hilarious.

Bosso

I agree there's lots of hypocrisy between politicians and corporations, Al Gore alone was able to convince me he's not serious about climate change.

Whether we can do anything to stop climate change is one thing,but to deny what's happening, making up false data and false interpretations is another kind of immorality to say the least.

[Optatron]

Global climate change is not a result of human energy consumption. The climate always changes, in the 70's your kind screamed for years about global cooling, then global warming, and because none of you know what the hell your talking about, you just call it climate change, that way no matter what happens you can distort it to support your agenda.

yeah, OUR KIND, so what would ever get YOUR KIND to admit humans are causing global warming via increased CO2 emission ?

[Dr.3D]

psssst...... look over here.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=198757

[aravoth]

yeah, OUR KIND, so what would ever get YOUR KIND to admit humans are causing global warming via increased CO2 emission ?

How about proof?, not fear mongering internet links.

How about analysis?, not shitty computer models that tell us we're all going to die.

Do NOT show me a fucking graph from that retarded movie either. I am tired of that stupid shit, people posting a graph they can't even read right, then they say, "oh look the red line goes this way, the blue line goes this way, so you see, we are killing the earth". Simplistic bullshit from weak minded fools falling for the biggest scam of all eternity.

[Dr.3D]

yeah, OUR KIND, so what would ever get YOUR KIND to admit humans are causing global warming via increased CO2 emission ?

It is pretty interesting to see the chart of the increasing CO2 levels and how it correlates with the decrease in temperatures in this video.

YouTube - Beck on the Suppressed EPA Report (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJNRbpGNAj0)

[Optatron]

How about proof?, not fear mongering internet links.


What kind of proof? First hand? Government free?



How about analysis?, not shitty computer models that tell us we're all going to die.


I wonder what standard of analysis would make it.



Do NOT show me a fucking graph from that retarded movie either. I am tired of that stupid shit, people posting a graph they can't even read right, then they say, "oh look the red line goes this way, the blue line goes this way, so you see, we are killing the earth". Simplistic bullshit from weak minded fools falling for the biggest scam of all eternity.

I never said I bought it, I'm just looking for scientific responses to it.
I'm actually hoping that video to be wrong.

[Optatron]

It is pretty interesting to see the chart of the increasing CO2 levels and how it correlates with the decrease in temperatures in this video.

YouTube - Beck on the Suppressed EPA Report (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJNRbpGNAj0)

thanks, I'll take a closer look at this guy's data and analysis.

is it possible his analysis was simply scrutinized, questioned, rather than suppressed by agenda?

[Dr.3D]

thanks, I'll take a closer look at this guy's data and analysis.

is it possible his analysis was simply scrutinized, questioned, rather than suppressed by agenda?

If it was not being suppressed, wouldn't he have been able to present his data?

[Optatron]

If it was not being suppressed, wouldn't he have been able to present his data?

depending on to who, as what.

he's obviously not suppressed enough or he'd not be on Glenn Beck, there are different levels of suppression, different reasons too.

[Dr.3D]

Here is more on the report in question.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/

[Dr.3D]

Here is a link to the report in question.

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

[axiomata]

thanks, I'll take a closer look at this guy's data and analysis.

is it possible his analysis was simply scrutinized, questioned, rather than suppressed by agenda?

It is never a good idea to skim over my posts (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2196158&postcount=80). ;)

[Bossobass]

The fact you oppose bureaucracy is no excuse to deny the facts of climate change if science has any support for it.

The fact that I oppose "Man Made Climate Change" Bureaucracy has everything to do with the fact that I know there is no such thing.


If they did, would it shut you up?

If they don't, will it make you happy?


if they did, you'd cry another anti-employment conspiracy or some sort, whatever is wrong is the problem of corporations and government.


When they do, I'll let you know.


What evidence would it take to convince you it's from human activity?

You keep asking this ridiculous question. There is no evidence that I haven't seen. If you feel there is, post it and i'll let you know what i think, otherwise, stupid questions usually don't get answered.

In the meanwhile...


Madam Speaker, before voting on the "cap-and-trade'' legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''

...you could begin by refuting these 31,478 American scientists, one by one, and bringing me back their changed opinions for review.


is the number hundreds/thousands referring to chemicals or sources/locations?

Chemicals.



This comes from an EPA project. The document was issued in April 2002:

"It has been estimated that there are approximately 100,000 chemicals
in commercial use. Of these, approximately 40,000 are used in the
Great Lakes Basin. Approximately 2,300 new chemicals are submitted to
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) each year..."


so you have your priorities.

One of them not being placating your fantasies.


Good question, I never said I like policies, but I don't deny facts about climate just because they may lead to abuse of political power.

You apparently deny the vast majority of facts about climate.


I agree there's lots of hypocrisy between politicians and corporations, Al Gore alone was able to convince me he's not serious about climate change.

Whether we can do anything to stop climate change is one thing,but to deny what's happening, making up false data and false interpretations is another kind of immorality to say the least.

Again, you accuse at least 31,000 American scientists of making up data and of false interpretations of data. The onus of proof is on the postulator. These scientists aren't claiming man made climate change, you are.

That makes you an "Anthropogenic Climate Change is Bullshit" denier.

Call you Senators and follow up with e-mails every day to voice opposition to the ACES bill or you'll regret not doing so for a long, long time.

Bosso