Anthropogenic Global Warming is Bunk Science

Doghead

New member
Aug 14, 2008
183
0
0
realstarwalker.blogspot.com
#51
Re: And speaking of volcanos...

wow, off-topic much? Global warming doomsday cults will put us literally into a dark age... so I can guarantee you, since there won't be any more rocketry being done, at least in the civilised world, you can cease worrying about that.
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#52
Re: And speaking of volcanos...

Angelochoas:

Since we've been sending rockets/shuttles (anything to escape earth's gravity pull) to space...
is there an effect on the spin of the axis's from the thrust push over time?
Question: What axis are you asking about? The axis of the rocket or the axis of the earth? It is not clear to me. If you mean the spin of the earth on its axis, the answer is any effect that a rocket's thrust would have on the spin of the earth is infinitesmally small (and not additive from one launch to another). And it would only come from thrust misalignment. Because this force only acts upon the earth for a very brief time... the time it takes for the rocket plume to cease to impinge upon the earth. After that time it is only pushing against the atmosphere (like any jet engine does). Moreover, during this time that it is impinging upon the earth, ideally you would like it to be acting directly perpendicular to the surface of the earth (and thus through the CG of the earth). Hence, that would produce no net torque on the earth, and thus would not induce a change in the earth's spin.

But this is off topic from this thread, as Doghead has pointed out. If you want to discuss this further, could you start another thread?

RMT
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#53
Re: And speaking of volcanos...

Einstein2087:

Here is a report on that ice core data I was telling you about in the last few posts. I would appreciate you owning-up that this casts serious doubt on the AGW claims put forth. If you can not own-up to this, then I expect you can refute this data with data that carries more weight that these direct observations.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php

For the past two decades or more, we have heard much about the global warming of the 20th century being caused by the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration that is generally attributed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This story, however, has always been controversial [see Smagorinsky et al. (1982) and Idso (1982) for early pro/con positions on the issue]; and with the retrieval and preliminary analysis of the first long ice core from Vostok, Antarctica -- which provided a 150,000-year history of both surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration -- the debate became even more intense, as the close associations of the ups and downs of atmospheric CO2 and temperature that were evident during glacial terminations and inceptions in that record, as well as in subsequent records of even greater length, led many climate alarmists to claim that those observations actually proved that anthropogenic CO2 emissions were responsible for 20th-century global warming.

This contention was challenged by Idso (1989), who wrote -- in reference to the very data that were used to support the claim -- that "changes in atmospheric CO2 content never precede changes in air temperature, when going from glacial to interglacial conditions; and when going from interglacial to glacial conditions, the change in CO2 concentration actually lags the change in air temperature (Genthon et al., 1987)." Hence, he concluded that "changes in CO2 concentration cannot be claimed to be the cause of changes in air temperature, for the appropriate sequence of events (temperature change following CO2 change) is not only never present, it is actually violated in [at least] half of the record (Idso, 1988)."


That is science, with all the references you need to check it out. Let's see what else the data are saying about CO2 as the driver for global warming:

Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years"

snip

On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years.


That is a lot of falsifying data... I presume you understand that since the CO2 rise lags the temperature rise, that this means it is the effect, and not the cause of the temperature rise? Finally:

This finding, in the words of Caillon et al., "confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation." Nevertheless, they and many others continue to hold to the view that the subsequent increase in atmospheric CO2 -- which is believed to be due to warming-induced CO2 outgassing from the world's oceans -- serves to amplify the warming that is caused by whatever prompts the temperature to rise in the first place. This belief, however, is founded on unproven assumptions about the strength of CO2-induced warming and is applied without any regard for biologically-induced negative climate feedbacks that may occur in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Also, there is no way to objectively determine the strength of the proposed amplification from the ice core data.

This smacks of bad science all around: They admit that their data confirms that CO2 is not forcing the temperature rises that cause deglaciation...and yet even though they admit this, they still cling to their theory but cannot show objective evidence to support it. But I have to give them credit, because right now all the AGW "true believers" are totally ignoring this data and not even trying to explain it away. Ignoring data that falsifies your belief is the definition of confirmation bias.

Will you continue to deny this and do you still claim AGW is based on "sound science"?
RMT
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#54
The Definitive Timeline of AGW Scam

I have not updated this thread since the ClimateGate emails broke in mid-November 2009.

If anyone out there still actually believes Anthropogenic Global Warming "science is settled", instead of it being nothing more than a corruption of science for political objectives on a literally GLOBAL scale, then the following timeline (in PDF) should convince you of just what has been going on. It is a fantastic piece of work, and hard to argue with the facts it presents.

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/climategate/history/2009.12.23_climategate_30_years_in_the_making_banner.pdf

And I will make a prediction right now (and I again admit I am NOT a time traveler):

If Barack Obama continues to blindly act as the mouthpiece and political actor for Al Gore and his corruption of science for his own political power grab, then there is absolutely no way he will be elected to a second term.

This story is just "warming up" if you pardon the pun. I am quite sure there is going to be a lot more dog doo-doo coming out and hitting the proverbial fan. People are going down.

RMT
 
Jul 27, 2009
1,178
1
0
A Comfy Armchair
#55
Re: The Definitive Timeline of AGW Scam

I think it's quite right to be sceptical of the global warming 'evidence'. We are, sometimes quite dogmatically, being presented with 'science' that in some cases is nothing of the sort.

The KEY issue for me is.......global warming compared with what ? Even a cursory glance at climate records of the past shows huge variation.

What I dislike most about the whole global warming bandwaggon is this notion that there's somehow some 'pristine' garden of Eden type 'just right' condition for the Earth....and we are wrecking it. Never mind that 10,000 years ago.....half of Europe and the US was under a mile of ice. Sea levels rose 400 feet after the last ice age, compared with which a rise of 2 feet is pathetic.

The trouble is that the whole Gaia lobby has gotten on board the climate bandwaggon too. Poor old 'Mother Earth' is straining under the load of us intelligent apes. Never mind that nature itself has half a dozen times produce events that wiped out 90% of all life. Never mind that there was 1/3 more CO2 150 milion years ago and there were virtually no polar ice caps at all. Never mind all the vast evidence that shows HUGE natural changes without a single intelligent ape even on the planet.

I would expect CO2 to have a warming effect. That much is really not in dispute. But the extent of it is impossible to verify unless one knows what the underlying trend would otherwise be. If mankind is responsible for 'global warming'.....then who was responsible for the Little Ice Age, where temperatures were dramatically lower than today. And howcome the Little Ice Age corresponds remarkably well with the Maunder Minimum of sunspot activity ?

I think it's absolutely criminal that scientists attempting to show a link with solar activity have been marginalised..........specifically by those with vested interests in the whole CO2 reduction business. 10 years ago....any notion that solar activity might affect the climate drastically was widely dismissed, largely because nobody knew what the mechanism might be.

We're not talking about the sun getting hotter or colder, but changes to solar wind. Only recently, in the past few years, has it been shown that solar wind and the Sun's magnetic field CAN affect the climate considerably. There is a direct link to cosmic rays...which somehow seem to be involved in the generation of clouds. When the sun is more active fewer cosmic rays get through.....and cloud generation in the atmosphere is reduced.

Well, now that it is admitted that the Sun DOES have an impact, the CO2 bandwaggon now try to argue the effect is minimal. But, once again, the data is accumulating that this is not true, and that the impact may be considerable.

This is a variable that simply has not been taken into account AT ALL in climate models of the CO2 advocates. But.....one may find that changes, as the Sun's recent exceptionally low activity has corresponded exactly with the failure of temperatures to rise in the past decade, that Rainman illustrates.
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#56
Re: The Definitive Timeline of AGW Scam

We are, sometimes quite dogmatically, being presented with 'science' that in some cases is nothing of the sort.
The scientific method is very clear on such attempts to force a belief when falsifying evidence exists. Once evidence is identified that falsifies ANY prediction of a given theory, that theory can no longer be considered scientific truth. Simple as that. And there is certainly more than one bit of evidence that falsifies the AGW theory, with the strongest being the defacto temperature records of the past 10 years. All by themselves, these data falsify the global temperature predictions made in 1998 by "The Team". Hence, their theory is no longer considered even viable by the scientific method. Of course, because The Team are nothing more than religious zealots in this regard (certainly they are not acting like scientists), they will simply never admit that their theory is no longer considered viable science.

What I dislike most about the whole global warming bandwaggon is this notion that there's somehow some 'pristine' garden of Eden type 'just right' condition for the Earth....and we are wrecking it. Never mind that 10,000 years ago.....half of Europe and the US was under a mile of ice.
You are being too kind, Twighlight. The evidence is much worse than even this! The ice core records show us that ice ages are the norm, not the climate we have lived in since around 10,000 BC. Here:


When you look at the temperature anomaly on this timescale, it is clear that the climate spends much more time in a very cold state (below -2 Deg. C temperature anomaly) than it does in a human-friendly warm state. This data makes it abundantly clear that it is NOT warming we have to worry about, but the opposite. Whether or not mankind can muster enough thermodynamic power to affect the natural thermodynamic system of the earth is a whole different question with an answer equally disturbing to those who think we can control the climate.

I think it's absolutely criminal that scientists attempting to show a link with solar activity have been marginalised..........
As we are seeing as Climategate pulls back the curtain on the activities of the AGW high priests (alleged scientists), there has been quite a bit of criminal activity going on. They are guilty of extreme fraud.

Well, now that it is admitted that the Sun DOES have an impact, the CO2 bandwaggon now try to argue the effect is minimal. But, once again, the data is accumulating that this is not true, and that the impact may be considerable.
Yes. This is yet another angle of the AGW hoax that is being falsified. By my reading, their theory is already in tatters. But they are too "religious" in their zeal to admit it, and their political handlers are ignoring every bit of evidence that shows the king has no clothes.

Many of us now see that the day of reckoning has arrived for these crooks who have abused science for political reasons. It is time for those of us who know and apply the scientific method to partake in the doling out of justice to these criminals.

RMT
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#57
Re: The Definitive Timeline of AGW Scam

Here we see yet MORE evidence that the "peer reviewed science" being force-fed to us by a bunch of UN bureaucrats (IPCC) is neither, necessarily, peer-reviewed nor science for that matter!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

"A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi."


Read the entire article, and if you STILL have an overt tendency to believe the IPCC and its AGW Alarmist agenda is reality, then you had best just go ahead and join the Democratic Party and live in a fantasy world with the rest of your ilk. :D

RMT
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#58
House of Cards Coming Crashing Down!

The doo-doo is really hitting the fan now!

If you think one little false-fact about glaciers (that was not from a peer-reviewed source) is troublesome, you'd better hold onto your hats. The IPCC (and perhaps thereby the AGW scam) is going to find it hard to continue to prop-up its story when the PLETHORA of non-peer reviewed source items sees more light of day. As always, I encourage you all to keep an eye on Watts Up With That?


UN IPCC Admission of non-peer-reviewed data!

'Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report's chapter on Asia, said: 'It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. (snip)
Dr Lal said: 'We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was 'grey literature' [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.''


This is bombshell material to those of us who actually understand how science is supposed to work. This is an admission that (1) They used unverified information, which was clearly not peer-reviewed per their standards, and tried to pass them off as verified facts, but worse is (2) They admit that they knew it was not peer-reviewed, and most damaging of all (3) They admit using non-peer reviewed material for the purposes of influencing government to do something. And now hearken back to all their noise of the IPCC's work being 'politically-neutral'. (As if ANYONE could ever believe anything fronted by the UN is politicall-neutral!)

But wait…it gets better (worse):

IPCC used non-peer-reviewed World Wildlife Fund opinion papers as "evidence"

'Well it turns out that the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) is cited all over the IPCC AR4 report, and as you know, WWF does not produce peer reviewed science, they produce opinion papers in line with their vision. Yet IPCC's rules are such that they are supposed to rely on peer reviewed science only. It appears they've violated that rule dozens of times, all under Pachauri's watch.
A new posting authored by Donna Laframboise, the creator of NOconsensus.org (Toronto, Canada) shows what one can find in just one day of looking.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html

Here's an extensive list of documents created or co-authored by the WWF and cited by this Nobel-winning IPCC AR4 report: (long list of non-peer-reviewed opinion papers)'


But wait…we are not done yet! There is also bogus material in IPCC 2007 report AR4 which purports to blame increasing severe weather events with global warming from a source paper which had not yet completed the referee and publishing process! And what is most damning is that, had they waited until that paper finished the referee process and been published, they would see that the real conclusion about any relationship between severe weather events and man-made global warming was the exact opposite than the one they have been trying to shove down the world's throat:

IPCC used a paper that had not completed referee/publishing process!

'The problem is that the IPCC cited a study on severe weather event frequency that wasn't complete yet. When it was complete in 2008, it came to an entirely different conclusion about linkage to global warming:
The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.
When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: 'We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.'
Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.'


And finally, these bogus claims relate back to the resignation of a hurricane climatologist from the IPCC effort way back in 2005! I would highly recommend you read his letter in its entirety, because in his resignation he was warning us to the politicization of science that was going on at the IPCC in its run-up to its 2007 publishing of its AR4 report:

Chris Landsea's resignation letter from UN IPCC

I find it hard to believe that even the staunchest supporter of AGW who works in the science or engineering community can possibly still believe this BS. That the science has been highly politicized, and therefore polluted, can hardly be denied anymore. It is time for a complete purge and do-over, and I REALLY hope that the faux-scientists at NASA are shaking in their shoes this morning! Well, they may not be shaking in their shoes, but they are already actively trying to re-write their own (bad) scientific history… and not calling note to these changes. Take a look at this find by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.:

NASA changing data without telling anyone?

'The figure immediately below shows Table 5.2 as it was originally published in the Stern Review (from a web archive in PDF), and I have circled in red the order-of-magnitude error in hurricane damage that I document in my paper (the values should instead by 10 times less). (snip graphic)
Now, have a look at the figure below which shows Table 5.2 from the Stern Review Report as it now appears on the UK government archive (PDF), look carefully at the numbers circled in red: (snip another graphic)
There is no note, no acknowledgment, nothing indicating that the estimated damage for hurricanes was modified after publication by an order of magnitude. The report was quietly changed to make the error go away. Of course, even with the Table corrected, now the Stern Review math does not add up, as the total GDP impact from USA, UK and Europe does not come anywhere close to the 1% global total for developed country impacts (based on Muir-Wood), much less the higher values suggested as possible in the report's text, underscoring a key point of my 2007 paper.'


NASA's climate monger and chief AGW Pharisee, James Hansen, seems to wish to simply crawl away unnoticed. I say we don't let him get away with that!

RMT
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#59
It's official: AGW Alarmists BROKE THE LAW!

...it is just too bad for the people who deserve to be brought to justice that the law gave them a "get out of jail free card" as a loophole. I hope that loophole gets plugged so as to not protect future "data diddlers".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.
Wonder how the AGW faithful will attempt to build up apologetics and smokescreens to shade this scientific malfeasance? Oh! I know... just keep repeating the mantra: "The Science is Settled!"

Professor Phil Jones, the unit's director, stood down while an inquiry took place. The ICO's decision could make it difficult for him to resume his post.
Let's hope so...and let's also hope he never gets another job in science, for he is really just a political wonk.

In one e-mail, Professor Jones asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This is the quality of the "science" that is "settled"? Seems like a lot of people who propped-up the IPCC were a little worried that their claims could not stand-up in the face of full-on sunshine beaming on the raw data.

Anyone who continues to try and prop-up the UN IPCC's crap science after this revelation is really just exposing their political ideology, because the science is well on its way to being completely debunked.

Q.E.D.
Ray
 

Twighlight

New member
Jul 27, 2009
1,178
1
0
A Comfy Armchair
#60
Re: It's official: AGW Alarmists BROKE THE LAW!

The whole 'climate change' thing reminds me very much of all the anti-nuclear protests back in the 80s. Lots of bored housewives went and camped outside Greenham Common in UK.....to 'protest' about the presence of US nuclear missiles there. It was the trendy thing to do ! That was the ultimate decade of save a whale, hug a tree, and of course ban anything with the word 'nuclear'......whilst of course the 'green' people then went home to their coal fires and gas guzzling cars.

Of course, all those silly anti-nuclear protestors wouldn't have stood much of a chance up against the Red Army had it decided to walk in.
 
Jun 20, 2007
431
2
18
where a river runs north
#61
Re: It's official: AGW Alarmists BROKE THE LAW!

Global Warming was just a long term plan to create a new global currency, based in carbon units.
Nothing more.

If Al Gore or anyone was concerned with the actual environment, they would be trying to reduce the heavy pollutants of burning fossil fuel, such as nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. But those won;t create wealth as easily.

Carbon Credit = Global Currency.

That's it. That is the big secret.
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#62
Re: It's official: AGW Alarmists BROKE THE LAW!

This just in: "Scientific consensus" on global warming was manufactured by the IPCC!

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was 'only a few dozen experts,' he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

'Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous,' the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered 'the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism."


I love it when people are exposed telling lies as if they are scientific fact! Now...off to jail with the whole lot of them! :mad:

RMT
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#63
Re: It's official: AGW Alarmists BROKE THE LAW!

I could have put this in the UFO forum, but since it deals with both UFOs and the AGW scam, I figured I would tack it on here.

Retired NORAD Officer's New Book Predicts a Tentative Worldwide UFO Display on October 13, 2010

A newly-published book by a retired NORAD officer predicts October 13, 2010 as the tentative date for a fleet of extraterrestrial vehicles to hover for hours over the earth's principal cities. Author says the event to be the first in a series intended to avert a planetary catastrophe resulting from increasing levels of carbon-dioxide in the earth's atmosphere dangerously approaching a "critical mass."
Well, Web Bot certainly has not predicted this! So it cannot possibly be true! :confused:

This stuff kinda makes me believe that the entire world has turned into a 24/7 comedy channel. This story seems like something you would see on South Park!

RMT
 

TimeLord

New member
Sep 11, 2007
624
1
0
#64
Re: It's official: AGW Alarmists BROKE THE LAW!

Don't worry, Barbara Streisand will come and eat the evil UFOs and save the day. :D
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#65
Re: It's official: AGW Alarmists BROKE THE LAW!

You mean Mecha Streisand, of course! :D
RMT
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#68
Re: It's official: AGW Alarmists BROKE THE LAW!

Indeed! But with her we cannot ignore the other major threat: METHANE! ;)
RMT
 

TimeLord

New member
Sep 11, 2007
624
1
0
#69
Re: It's official: AGW Alarmists BROKE THE LAW!

That gives new meaning to the term GREENhouse gases. Hmm.. This is getting worse. lol I should stop posting on this thread for a while. :yum:
 

Darby

New member
Mar 8, 2001
5,929
179
0
#71
Re: It's official: AGW Alarmists BROKE THE LAW!

Maybe Titor had it right - Global Thermonuclear War. Kill off half of the humans (and along with them half of all mammals) and no more problem with respiratory carbon emmissions.

Idiots! Cows absorb nitrogen and carbon from plants that they eat and the air that they breathe. Viola! Nucleosynthesis. They create new nitrogen and carbon atoms from the plants in their internal nuclear reactors and belch both the initial N and C plus the newly created N and C created in their internal breeder reactors. Brilliant.

Doh!
 
#72
Re: It's official: AGW Alarmists BROKE THE LAW!

Global warming is real and slowly but painfully as time goes on the effects on mankind will be devastating. Anyone that tells you global warming is not real is working for someone, somebody, or something, or is likely not able to understand real world situations and information. That type of person is also most likely hostile to people who speak the truth.

There will be droughts, famine, war, and the underground secret cities of the worlds governments will fill with their rich and powerfully connected people and bulge at the seams. In the end if mankind does not perish they will learn that earth is mother and that you don't treat your mother like a lady of night to be used and vanquished.

The reasons for this reckoning is that nature is a closed looped system. In that system one has to function by the rules of nature or perish in ones pursuits of life. Mankind may be many but we act as one upon mother earth and mother earth will act as one upon us as time moves along. You cant have 6 to 13+ billion people feeding off the earths resources and polluting the earth as if there is no tomorrow without some kind of recking. Economics, communism, dictarships all withstanding will face the force of nature. Earth in the past has gone thru extreme climate changes and will do so again in the future. The life that lives thru those climate changes is the life that adjust and copes with nature itself. If we are to master nature then that mastery has to be done with a great understanding of how nature works. Not from the riches that comes for taken from it.
 

Darby

New member
Mar 8, 2001
5,929
179
0
#73
Re: It's official: AGW Alarmists BROKE THE LAW!

Global warming is real and slowly but painfully as time goes on the effects on mankind will be devastating.
Yes it is - and so is global cooling. We will enter another hot age during the next 5000 years and it will be followed by another ice age in about 12000 years. In between we will have variations. The ice ages kill off most life. The hot ages with high atmospheric CO2 levels is when new organisms form on this planet. Without hot ages this planet would be virtually lifeless occupied only by virii, bacterium and maybe some single cell life forms.

Whether it is real or not really isn't the point. The "science" behind global warming (the manmade kind) is less science than it is politics. Every 10 years during my adult lifetime the same group of crackpots have grabbed one particular political party's attention and headlines about worldwide calamity by alternating between the impending manmade ice age and the impending manmade hot age. The tactic has grown quite old and the public is no longer buying their propoganda. The recent EPA determination that carbondioxide is an environmental pollutant splatted down with a dull thud in the arena of the public's opinion of our federal government. By simply existing we're all felons because we inhale nitrogen and oxygen and exhale carbondioxide.
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#74
Oh oh! Those scientists at NASA has better watch out what data they release, otherwise some of those AGW alarmists are going to brand them "deniers"...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...d-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.
RMT
 

Gpa

New member
Jul 2, 2010
670
129
0
#75
Love it.:lol:
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#77
Likes: Gpa

Gpa

New member
Jul 2, 2010
670
129
0
#79
Great lecture. Very revealing.
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#80
This is too damn funny not to share! Gather 'round everyone, and let us pray in the way that Our Father Al Gore has taught us to pray in his new religion:

Our Gaia, Who art in danger, Sustainable be thy name,
Thy renewable energy resources come,
Thy Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s will be done
On Earth as it is in the upper atmosphere
Give us this day our daily organic ciabatta
Forgive us our carbon emissions
Though we can’t forgive those multinationals who emit against us
Lead us not into excessive plane travel
Deliver us from genetically modified crops
For thine is the moral high ground
The onshore wind farms and the subsidies
For as long as the taxes can be raised. Amen.

http://www.thegwpf.com/a-very-pc-prayer-for-our-times/
RMT
 
Likes: Gpa

David

New member
Jul 29, 2015
38
1
0
51
#81
Here we are at the end of 2008. Take a look at the data from 4 temperature sources over the last 8 years, including a linear regression of those last 8 years:



The last 8 years of data show NO WARMING.

There is no global warming! Repeat it to yourself over and over, because it is true!

THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!

Data proves this!

Looks like your timeline ends at 2008 it does not take into account the Methane Hydride plumes of 2013, over 40 Gigatons
RMT
 
Likes: walt

creedo299

New member
Jan 26, 2002
4,238
25
0
Wash State,
#82
RMT, I don't feel it's misinterpretation of data, which would invest as a political ploy for control, however this current condition may elude to a past headline.This headline and it was made during the Bush eras, read, ( Pentagon scientist say that we're going into another ice age ).The Bushes then, let this out and I feel that this was the most correct action they had ever taken.*Notes, the gove spooks have tried to sanitize this from searches, but I think that Jeff Rense is the only one that still has a record of this national front page story.*Definition ( spook ) is also known as either a government agent, or a person placed highly, within the government ruling hierarchy.

An ice age goes into a type of planetary mechanics,.. a rung tone if you will, that's supposed to occur. I feel that this is what we're supposed to be going through now. All-be-it remember, an ice age demonstrates itself as also being a new marked level of evolution demonstrated in all animals. And I feel that we humans are starting to observe this now, by how certain kinds of animals are acting not only in their characters, however new abilities not seen in nature's settings prior to this time.

On the graph, as offered by Wiki, I had to laugh at the statement X may have nothing at all to do with Y, as portold in the equations offered. Kind-a sounds like who worry warts that were trying to place the blame, for the 911 debauchal.

Know that an ice age is a vibratory condition that is supposed to occur. This is an active edifice that is part condition and part purpose.The only issue with ice ages which remains to be seen, or to occur, is a global freeze-out. Which in spite of said weather controls, can occur at any time.

This may be one reason that I am extremely interested, as well as others, in this website.

If the condition would be centric, however still localized. Then there should be other graph by vibratory inferences, which would indicate that this would be the second case,.. which is an ice age. Part of the evidence for this new condition, may be dogs that say, "I love you".
 
Last edited:

walt

New member
Mar 13, 2016
278
69
0
#83
Then what is the so called "100" year storm forecast for if not to tell us of short as well as long term cycles?
Ever hear of a 1,000 year weather event or a 10,000 year events? Did humans cause those weather changes too?
 

creedo299

New member
Jan 26, 2002
4,238
25
0
Wash State,
#84
Then what is the so called "100" year storm forecast for if not to tell us of short as well as long term cycles?
Ever hear of a 1,000 year weather event or a 10,000 year events? Did humans cause those weather changes too?
Flavoring, but not the main event of an ice age.It will take one town or city getting totally frozen out, to where when they get back into the place, finding people frozen in similar fashion to deep freezer meat, that they will say, "Oh my' there's something particularly odd about this who stitch".

Regardless of how excellent your weather control and modification ability is, one cannot totally control nature. The condition, Ice age holds the bigger and better hand of cards and I fear that those in authority eventually will be mindful of this.
 

walt

New member
Mar 13, 2016
278
69
0
#85
I'll take that bet! I was trained by Dr. Gray many years ago and he said it was all bunk from the left headed fools like al gore.
Opinions are like butt holes as everyone has one. Total human activity equals less than 6% of green house gasses on earth.
The earth has seen about the same temperature change as has been recorder on Mars at the same time line. How may we stop the people on Mars to end their pollution problems? Chicken little lives?
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#86
BREAKING NEWS! This just in!

Old stalwart RainmanTime has returned from his time travel road tripping and has settled back in at his old TTI homestead. RMT had just one thing to say to his TTI friends and family: "Anthropogenic Global Warming is STILL BUNK SCIENCE. That is all."

:D
RMT
 

ruthless

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2007
2,648
49
48
#87
BREAKING NEWS! This just in!

Old stalwart RainmanTime has returned from his time travel road tripping and has settled back in at his old TTI homestead. RMT had just one thing to say to his TTI friends and family: "Anthropogenic Global Warming is STILL BUNK SCIENCE. That is all."

:D
RMT
Welcome back. It seems all the old hands are coming out of the woodwork. Happy days!
 
Likes: RainmanTime