AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?


Scott Free
#241
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

So your contention is that they are losing funding? How does Roger Pielke Sr. get 460 citations, the 68th most cited climatologist if he has no funding?

He doesn't seem to have any hardship publishing.

I made a general claim not a specific one. Try again.
 
L Gilbert
#242
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

Any argument must be logical to be valid. No knowledge whatever is needed to check the logic of an argument (except the knowledge of how to test the logic).

Gibberish.
If you have the knowledge that a hotplate on a stove is hot, you logically won't put your hand on it. Logic doesn't do you any good in that case if you don't know the hotplate is hot.
Logic is just a tool to manipulate knowledge with. No knowledge renders logic useless.

Quote:

If an argument is logical it doesn't follow that it is correct, but only that it could be.

Yes. Usually what makes it fail is an unseen variable.

Quote:

If an argument is not logical it does follow that its conclusion was arrived at improperly. That doesn't mean the conclusion is false (though it likely is) but that the conclusion was arrived at by some other means than logic.

So, basically you are parroting 3 times over what I said once a few posts ago.




Quote:

1) Humans have contributed a tiny fraction of the carbon in the atmosphere (0.24%)

Among other substances. Didja know that a quarter of a percent of a stream can make a new water channel?

BTW,


Quote:

2) The atmosphere is already saturated. More carbon does not equal more heat.

Miskolczi 's saturation hypothesis has been debunked, Sorry.

Quote:

3) The atmospheric carbon isn't a heat source. The sun is the heat source. Therefore it is the sun that causes warming.

Ya think, Sherlock? That's what I said in my first post on this page.
 
Tonington
#243
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

I made a general claim not a specific one. Try again.

You said: "No one is trounced. Skeptics just lose their funding and get black listed by their peers."

'Just' is not general.

I wonder how many are trounced because...their work isn't very good, because it's not consistent with reality or good methodology?

There was a paper last year, by McLean de Freitas and Carter (MFC). They claimed things in the press like:

If the SOI accounts for short-term variation then logically it also accounts for long-term variation.
(external - login to view)

Which is completely nutso. Place a thermometer outside. The short term variation likely follows a pattern, due to earth's rotation. That's the diurnal signal. Does that mean that the rotation of the diurnal signal also accounts for the change from say December to August? That is a logical fail.

What they did in this paper (external - login to view) is filter out the long term variation from temperature, and then they analyze what's left, and proclaim that the El Nino/Sothern Oscillation accounts for 72% of the global tropospheric temperature anomaly. Then they make claims about this explaining the long-term trend in temperatures.

Well what's wrong with that? They removed the long-term trend before making an analysis of ENSO's effects on temperature.

A comment appeared (external - login to view) in JGR, but MFC could not pull together a response to the comment. Today, there is still not a single citation for this paper by MFC.

That's not because they were black listed, or because they lost funding. It's because the paper was rubbish, and probably shouldn't have been published. Mistakes happen. That's why there is a comment, addendum, response function for journals. Sometimes peer review fails.
 
captain morgan
#244
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Oh no no no no. This isn't fully fascism, it's all the Marxist idealisms combined. This is a global liquidation of billions of people all in the name of " I don't giive a ****, I want more and I'm not going to share with anyone not the right colour AND class".

Pollution and alleged resource shortages stops in it's tracks with 80% of the people gone.

Greenocide

Tired of Red or Blue? Try NEW Soylent Green!!!

I stand corrected.

BTW, congratulations (sincerely). There are very few individuals that have the courage to fly in the face of political correctness and identify the absolute root of this issue (assuming that AGW is an issue) and you've nailed it dead on.

The Al Gore's, Suzukis and the eco-tards are too frightened to point out that anthropogenic CO2 is produced by... (wait for it)... Humans!

But that point is irrelevant to the far left and eco-fringe... It's easier to assess arbitrary blame on "the haves".

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

No, and this is the part you and he both seem to have problems with. Science is falsifiable. You can post a link to a study which finds contradicting evidence to that I posted, or that refutes a portion of the study which renders it's conclusions in err. If you can't, well then in the face of evidence to the contrary, it is misinformation to continue to state such things...

I wouldn't think that this even needs explaining.


I've observed your treatment of contradictory evidence. Generally speaking, your rebuttal is centered on attacking the author and the remainder relies on the element of profiling that opposing opinion as that of a "denier".
 
L Gilbert
#245
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I stand corrected.

BTW, congratulations (sincerely). There are very few individuals that have the courage to fly in the face of political correctness and identify the absolute root of this issue (assuming that AGW is an issue) and you've nailed it dead on.

So you're saying even if AGW is real, the root of it is Marxism? roflmao

Quote:

The Al Gore's, Suzukis and the eco-tards are too frightened to point out that anthropogenic CO2 is produced by... (wait for it)... Humans!

Excuse me? It seems to me that's what they voice the loudest and most often.

Quote:

But that point is irrelevant to the far left and eco-fringe... It's easier to assess arbitrary blame on "the haves".

The haves being the ones that pollute the most? Yeah, it is easiest.




Quote:

I've observed your treatment of contradictory evidence. Generally speaking, your rebuttal is centered on attacking the author and the remainder relies on the element of profiling that opposing opinion as that of a "denier".

I think you've missed the majority of his posts then.
 
captain morgan
#246
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

So you're saying even if AGW is real, the root of it is Marxism? roflmao

Petros introduced the Marxist element, why don't you ask him... However, if you insist on deliberately misconstruing the sentiment, then we shouldn't waste any more time exchanging.

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Excuse me? It seems to me that's what they voice the loudest and most often.


Have you even listened to what they are saying?.. The fact that they aren't identifying this component reeks of an agenda.


Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

The haves being the ones that pollute the most? Yeah, it is easiest.


Really?... I suppose the 500 new coal-fired electricity generation stations being built in China are there to serve the upper class in that nation?


Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I think you've missed the majority of his posts then.

Wrong... My analysis is spot-on.
 
L Gilbert
#247
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Petros introduced the Marxist element, why don't you ask him... However, if you insist on deliberately misconstruing the sentiment, then we shouldn't waste any more time exchanging.

It's what you said between the two of you.

Quote:

Have you even listened to what they are saying?.. The fact that they aren't identifying this component reeks of an agenda.

So instead of blaming humans, Bore and Snoozuki claim AGW is brought on by what else?

Quote:

Really?... I suppose the 500 new coal-fired electricity generation stations being built in China are there to serve the upper class in that nation?

rofl The purpose isn't to give electricity away to the poor, it's to make money for the rich.

Quote:

Wrong... My analysis is spot-on.

If one ignores the facts.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I've observed your treatment of contradictory evidence. Generally speaking, your rebuttal is centered on attacking the author and the remainder relies on the element of profiling that opposing opinion as that of a "denier".

How is the following fit into your goofy little theory that I quoted?

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

You said: "No one is trounced. Skeptics just lose their funding and get black listed by their peers."

'Just' is not general.

I wonder how many are trounced because...their work isn't very good, because it's not consistent with reality or good methodology?

There was a paper last year, by McLean de Freitas and Carter (MFC). They claimed things in the press like:

If the SOI accounts for short-term variation then logically it also accounts for long-term variation.
(external - login to view)

Which is completely nutso. Place a thermometer outside. The short term variation likely follows a pattern, due to earth's rotation. That's the diurnal signal. Does that mean that the rotation of the diurnal signal also accounts for the change from say December to August? That is a logical fail.

What they did in this paper (external - login to view) is filter out the long term variation from temperature, and then they analyze what's left, and proclaim that the El Nino/Sothern Oscillation accounts for 72% of the global tropospheric temperature anomaly. Then they make claims about this explaining the long-term trend in temperatures.

Well what's wrong with that? They removed the long-term trend before making an analysis of ENSO's effects on temperature.

A comment appeared (external - login to view) in JGR, but MFC could not pull together a response to the comment. Today, there is still not a single citation for this paper by MFC.

That's not because they were black listed, or because they lost funding. It's because the paper was rubbish, and probably shouldn't have been published. Mistakes happen. That's why there is a comment, addendum, response function for journals. Sometimes peer review fails.

 
Tonington
#248
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I've observed your treatment of contradictory evidence. Generally speaking, your rebuttal is centered on attacking the author and the remainder relies on the element of profiling that opposing opinion as that of a "denier".

What contradictory evidence?

I call you guys deniers, because that is exactly what you do...I gave Scott Free a reference that discusses the effects of collisions between molecules on the spectra, and he continues to say that the atmosphere is saturated. Based on what? He's denying established science.

So quit whining about your treatment. I'm not your mother and you're old enough that you shouldn't need coddling.

EDIT

Oh here we go. How did those scientists miss that? The computer models and instruments are programmed with Marxist code and validated with Marxist methodology to produce data and simulations that conforms to some kind of Marxist agenda...Yeah, I get it now...what a bunch of crap.

Well, plenty of us are advocating for market approaches to the what the physics is telling us, but we get lumped in with Marxists. Ahh well. Maybe if I cry about it some more it will go away.

 
L Gilbert
#249
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

What contradictory evidence?

I call you guys deniers, because that is exactly what you do...I gave Scott Free a reference that discusses the effects of collisions between molecules on the spectra, and he continues to say that the atmosphere is saturated. Based on what? He's denying established science.

So quit whining about your treatment. I'm not your mother and you're old enough that you shouldn't need coddling.

Pretty much. All I did was google "debunk saturation myth" and got pages full of science.
 
Tonington
#250
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Pretty much. All I did was google "debunk saturation myth" and got pages full of science.

The thing is, it's not even new science. But in today's world, one can just repeat something they ran across on the internet. Goes back to that blog Avro posted. A lie spreads around the world in a day, but takes much much longer to address, and some will still believe the lie after it's been shown to be a lie.

Check this paper out, it's from 1946, and discusses pressure broadening. It's just unreal...the chutzpah some people have:
Phys. Rev. 69, 616 (1946): The Pressure Broadening of Spectral Lines (external - login to view)
 
captain morgan
#251
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

It's what you said between the two of you.

.. So, why did you bring it up then?


Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

So instead of blaming humans, Bore and Snoozuki claim AGW is brought on by what else?

Go back and read what I posted, then get back to me


Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

rofl The purpose isn't to give electricity away to the poor, it's to make money for the rich.


Would those coal-fired plants get the eco-stamp of approval if "the poor" built them?

That's some great logic there.... AGW doesn't exist if it's emitted by those in or below a certain income level.

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

If one ignores the facts.


Clearly you subscribe to the same logic as your mentor.
 
L Gilbert
#252
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

The thing is, it's not even new science. But in today's world, one can just repeat something they ran across on the internet. Goes back to that blog Avro posted. A lie spreads around the world in a day, but takes much much longer to address, and some will still believe the lie after it's been shown to be a lie.

Check this paper out, it's from 1946, and discusses pressure broadening. It's just unreal...the chutzpah some people have:
Phys. Rev. 69, 616 (1946): The Pressure Broadening of Spectral Lines (external - login to view)

Shyte! Had to dig out the old CRC handbook of chem & phys for that. lol
 
captain morgan
#253
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Pretty much. All I did was google "debunk saturation myth" and got pages full of science.

Wow.. How come the good folks at the IPCC didn't think of that. This entire argument would be settled today had someone just googled for the solution. Thanks for setting the record clear.
 
petros
#254
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

So:

1. What type of energy is in flux here?
2. What is the magnitude and direction the flux changed in? Can we estimate the forcing it imposes on our climate?
3. What kinds of predictions does this allow you to make, about the trajectory of our climate over the next few decades, and out to one century?

It's too nice to be indoors so sometime later today or this evening I'll dig up the Pentagon study waaaaay back in the early 50's under Truman's command which outlined the climatic changes and the predicted effects of the loss of dipole. If I can squeeze in time between gardening and loitering in the lane with the neighbours I'll post a few things on the reduction of the magnetospheric intensity and protective capabilities over the past century.

The answer to our future is in the past but it's going to take all the sciences working together to paint the real picture.

The geophysical changes are undeniable and cyclical. They make far more sense than the anthro angle.

Then there is the most recent discovery that our sun has a comet like tail and that tail passes through the eliptic as the sun competes it's own year around our portion of the galaxy. That can't be happy times for the magnetosphere or the inhabitants of earth.

Ever read the minutes of the very first Earth Summit? Have a read sometime. It'll make you go hmm and rattle your beliefs a little.
 
Tonington
#255
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Wow.. How come the good folks at the IPCC didn't think of that.

Because they didn't need to think of that. Nobody in WG1 needs a lesson in introductory atmospheric physics.
 
captain morgan
#256
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

What contradictory evidence?

I call you guys deniers, because that is exactly what you do...I gave Scott Free a reference that discusses the effects of collisions between molecules on the spectra, and he continues to say that the atmosphere is saturated. Based on what? He's denying established science.

So quit whining about your treatment. I'm not your mother and you're old enough that you shouldn't need coddling.


I couldn't have asked for a stronger example of your myopic view...

There is no contradictory evidence (that passes your scrutiny), therefore, all who oppose are "deniers".

Say Hi to Dear Leader for me next time you go to his altar.
 
L Gilbert
#257
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

.. So, why did you bring it up then?

I didn't. Petrus brought it up, you agreed and I thought it was funny so I posted a condensed version of it. And then you whined about my joke.

Quote:

Go back and read what I posted, then get back to me

You said
Quote:

The Al Gore's, Suzukis and the eco-tards are too frightened to point out that anthropogenic CO2 is produced by... (wait for it)... Humans!

And I said, it seems to me they've been squawking about humans causing AGW (and CO2) since day 1.

Quote:

Would those coal-fired plants get the eco-stamp of approval if "the poor" built them?

I doubt it, but what difference does that make? They aren't being built for anyone's benefit but whoever is building them.

Quote:

That's some great logic there.... AGW doesn't exist if it's emitted by those in or below a certain income level.

lol How many poor do you know go flying around the globe, building factories, running factories, taking cruise ship tours, etc.?

Quote:

Clearly you subscribe to the same logic as your mentor.

I can still out think you, though. And that's without resorting to insults, which is something you accused Tonington of doing. But it's ok if you insult people, though, huh, just not anyone else?
Last edited by L Gilbert; Jul 4th, 2010 at 05:22 PM..
 
Tonington
#258
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post


There is no contradictory evidence (that passes your scrutiny), therefore, all who oppose are "deniers".

No, you misunderstand. What contradictory evidence has been presented here? That is my question. You brought it up. So, which evidence am I not responding to? Which evidence am I not addressing? You say my treatment is to bash the poster and then call them a denier. I bash the idea, give a link or two, or whatever is necessary, and then when you guys continue to say these things I call you ignorant and a denier.

A spade is a spade.
 
petros
#259
Quote:

No, you misunderstand. What contradictory evidence has been presented here? That is my question. You brought it up.

I've been waiting years for him to post something substancial. I think he has a fetish for fuzzy haired bananas and middle aged fembots just because they are the only names he knows.

Speaking of aging Japs with fuzzy hair....

YouTube - 2012 Leaks Found in Earths Magnetic Field



Geological Survey of Canada
Geomagnetism
Long Term Movement of the North Magnetic Pole
Introduction
See also: In-depth (external - login to view)

The accompanying figure shows the path of the North Magnetic Pole since its discovery in 1831 to the last observed position in 2001. During the last century the Pole has moved a remarkable 1100 km. What is more, since about 1970 the NMP has accelerated and is now moving at more than 40 km per year. If the NMP maintains its present speed and direction it will reach Siberia in about 50 years. Such an extrapolation is, however, tenuous. It is quite possible that the Pole will veer from its present course, and it is also possible that the pole will slow down sometime in the next half century.

The strength and direction of the Earth's magnetic field slowly change with time – a phenomenon referred to as secular change or secular variation. The cause of secular variation is related to the process by which the magnetic field is generated. Secular change occurs everywhere on Earth, but the magnitude of the change varies from place to place and also with time.

The magnetic field in the region of North Magnetic Pole experiences secular variation just like the magnetic field at any other location on the Earth's surface. To illustrate how this leads to the movement of the Magnetic Pole, consider Observer A , standing at the North Magnetic Pole on January 1. On that day he observes that the inclination is exactly 90°, as expected. Repeat observations made at exactly the same spot during the year show that the inclination is slowly decreasing. On January 1 of the following year he observes an inclination of 89° 57'. During the same time interval, Observer B, who is standing 40 km northwest of Observer A notices that the inclination has increased to 90°. He is now at the North Magnetic Pole. So the slow motion of the Magnetic Pole across the Arctic is due to the secular variation of the magnetic field, a process that originates in the outer core of the Earth, approximately 3000 km below the surface.

Geomagnetism
Long Term Movement of the North Magnetic Pole
In-depth
See also: Introduction (external - login to view)
The change in velocity of the North Magnetic Pole since the early 1970s has been remarkable – 9 km/yr to 41 km/yr. This is clearly seen in the accompanying plot which shows the average rate of motion between observations as a function of time. The acceleration has also increased from 0.22 km/yr2 to 2.21 km/yr2. A change in the velocity of the North Magnetic Pole must be reflected in a corresponding change in both the inclination and the horizontal component of the magnetic field (H). Data from Resolute Bay Observatory (external - login to view), the nearest to the North Magnetic Pole, show that the annual change in H has increased from roughly -10 nT/yr to almost 70 nT/yr during the past half century (top panel of diagram). The increase has not been uniform, but as a series of steps that have occurred in approximately 1970, 1979 and 1990.

Changes in the magnetic field characterized by an abrupt change in the secular variation have been named "(geo)magnetic jerks" or "geomagnetic impulses". Six jerks of global extent have occurred during the past century: in 1901, 1913, 1925, 1969, 1978 and 1992. The last three jerks can be seen clearly as abrupt changes in the slope of the annual change in H at Resolute Bay. The 1969 jerk corresponds to the start of the increase in the speed of the NMP and the two subsequent jerks, especially that near 1992, appear to correlate with additional increases in the speed.
In contrast to its present-day acceleration, the Magnetic Pole showed little apparent motion between 1831 and 1904. It seems highly unlikely that the Pole actually remained stationary for 73 years, but there are no direct observations from which we can determine its motion during that time period. However, we can use spherical harmonic models produced for this time period to infer the track of the North Magnetic Pole. The accompanying plot shows North Magnetic Pole positions at 20 year intervals between 1820 and 1920 calculated from the spherical harmonic models produced by Jackson and colleagues. The model positions are slightly displaced to the north-west of the observed positions. If we adjust the track to best match the observed positions we find that the Magnetic Pole reached its southernmost latitude, 68.8°, in 1860. The year is significant since 1860 is the year of a possible magnetic jerk.

Spherical harmonic models can also be used to estimate the position of the North Magnetic Pole back to approximately 1600. Prior to that time there were too few observations from which reliable models can be produced. It appears that the North Magnetic Pole moved southeast a distance of approximately 860 km between 1760 to 1860. Prior to that is was located in a relatively confined area near 75° N, 110° W.

Geological Survey of Canada
Geomagnetism
Magnetic field reversals
The Earth's magnetic field is aligned roughly along the spin axis and has an approximate dipole shape, similar to that of a bar magnet, with north and south magnetic poles. This is the normal state of affairs, but occasionally the magnetic field switches polarity, the north and south magnetic poles reverse, and the field settles down in the opposite state. The process goes by several names – "magnetic field reversal" and "polarity transition" are the most common.
Reversals have been documented as far back as 330 million years. During that time more than 400 reversals have taken place, one roughly every 700,000 years on average. However, the time between reversals is not constant, varying from less than 100,000 years, to tens of millions of years. In recent geological times reversals have been occurring on average once every 200,000 years, but the last reversal occurred 780,000 years ago. At that time the magnetic field underwent a transition from a "reversed" state to its present "normal state".

We get our information about reversals from certain types of rock in which information about the direction of the magnetic field is imprinted. When igneous rocks, which may form inside the Earth or on its surface, cool and solidify they acquire a magnetization parallel to the ambient magnetic field. If the rock cools quickly, as would a lava flow, it acquires an almost instantaneous record of the magnetic field. Slowly cooling rocks, such as those that form inside the Earth, acquire a record of the magnetic field smeared over a much longer period of time. Sedimentary rocks acquire their magnetizations as each individual grain of sediment aligns itself in the direction of the magnetic field as it is deposited.


Occasionally certain rocks can tell us more than just the polarity of the magnetic field at their time of formation. Sometimes, lava flows occur frequently enough, or sediment deposition is fast enough, that we can actually determine the change in direction and field intensity during the reversal itself. These occurrences are relatively rare, and the information sometimes ambiguous, but here is what researchers have learned.
  • Although fast by geological standards, reversals are by no means quick on the human time scale. They take roughly 5,000 years, with estimates ranging from 1,000 years and 8,000 years.
  • Both the total magnetic field and its dipole component decrease substantially during a reversal to values that range from 10% to 25% of the pre-reversal strength.
  • A reversal does not proceed in a uniform fashion. Large and rapid changes in direction and intensity are punctuated by periods of little change. During some transitions the field starts to change but then rebounds to near normal before the reversal finally goes to completion.
  • The scarcity and ambiguity of observations have led to two competing theories explaining how the magnetic field pattern changes, and how the magnetic poles behave during a reversal. According to one theory, the magnetic field remains predominantly dipolar during a reversal, and the poles migrate along preferred paths from one hemisphere to the other. According to another theory, the dipole portion of the magnetic field shrinks to zero but then regrows with opposite polarity. During the interval during which there is no dipole, the non-dipole part of the field persists, and the magnetic poles would not migrate in a systematic fashion.
Although other mechanisms – such as meteor impacts – have been postulated, it is generally agreed that reversals occur because of some change in the dynamo process that generates the magnetic field. The simplest explanation is that convection in the outer core ceases, allowing the magnetic field to decay. Eventually, heat build up will start convection going again and a new field will form whose polarity will depend on the polarity of any residual field at the spot where convection restarts. The problem with this theory is that reversals take only 5,000 years, but it takes 15,000 years for the field to decay. Ultimately, the occurrence of reversals must be related to changes in the fluid flow in the outer core. In fact, there is evidence, borne out by computer simulations, that fluid motions try to reverse the field every few thousand years, but that the inner core acts to prevent reversals because the field cannot diffuse as rapidly in the inner core as it can in the fluid outer core. Only on rare occasions can the thermodynamics, the fluid motion and the magnetic field all evolve in a compatible manner that allows for the original field to diffuse completely out of the inner core so that the new dipole polarity can diffuse in and establish a reversed field.
Many authors have pointed out that the dipole part of the magnetic field has been weakening during historic times, and that if the present trend continues, the dipole field will go to zero in roughly 1500 years. Some people take this to mean that we are entering a reversal. Although this possibility cannot be discounted, many investigators believe that the trend will not continue and that the field will regain its strength, as it has many times in the past.

Geomagnetism
Daily Movement of the North Magnetic Pole
It is important to realize that the position of the North Magnetic Pole given for a particular year is an average position. The Magnetic Pole wanders daily around this average position and, on days when the magnetic field is disturbed, may be displaced by 80 km or more. Although the North Magnetic Pole's motion on any given day is irregular, the average path forms a well-defined oval. The diagram shows the average path on disturbed days.

The cause of the North Magnetic Pole's diurnal motion is quite different than that of its secular motion. If we measure the Earth's magnetic field continually, such as is done at a magnetic observatory (external - login to view), we will see that it changes during the course of a day (external - login to view) - sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly. The ultimate cause of these fluctuations is the Sun. The Sun constantly emits charged particles that, on encountering the Earth's magnetic field, cause electric currents to flow in the ionosphere and magnetosphere. These electric currents disturb the magnetic field, resulting in a temporary shift in the North Magnetic Pole's position. The size and direction of this shift varies with time, in step with the magnetic field fluctuations. Since such fluctuations occur constantly, the Magnetic Pole is seldom to be found at its "official" position, which is the position in the absence of magnetic field fluctuations.

Lets compare pole movement and global warming. What do you think we'll find?





Well. Those two graphs either scream correlation or it screams coincidence?

A fool would say coincidence.

The 1982 drop is a dead give a way.
 
captain morgan
#260
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I didn't. Petrus brought it up, you agreed and I thought it was funny so I posted a condensed version of it. And then you whined about my joke.... You said And I said, it seems to me they've been squawking about humans causing AGW (and CO2) since day 1.


Ohhh, it was a joke was it?

I didn't get that from your post. It appeared to be more of a simpleton's view of a subject that had no relevance, especially when you were called on it.



Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I doubt it, but what difference does that make? They aren't being built for anyone's benefit but whoever is building them.... lol How many poor do you know go flying around the globe, building factories, running factories, taking cruise ship tours, etc.?


What difference does it make?!... Are you serious?

Don't you greenies get your panties all in a bunch the very minute that humanity emits more than the prescribed and predetermined amount of CO2 that is allotted to each person? I'd think that those societies that were building hundreds, if not thousands, of coal-fired electricity plants would get your hackles up.... Oh, I guess I forgot, it's only ghg's and CO2 produced from Western nations are evil - the rest are eco-friendly regardless of socio-economic elements.


Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I can still out think you, though.

Give 'er your best shot.

I can only assume from your past posts that the best is yet to come.


Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

And that's without resorting to insults, which is something you accused Tonington of doing. But it's ok if you insult people, though, huh, just not anyone else?

Oh?.. Does youre snide and condescending attitude count as an insult, or is that a privilege that you reserve exclusively for yourself?

As far as Tonnington is concerned; I have an opinion of that individual that I've expressed in (relatively) non-offensive terms.. He/she is who they are, but in the end, they will eat a massive dose of crow - just like yourself in terms of this issue... The only question that remains; will you (or Tonnington) be big enough to man-up and admit fault, or will you find minuscule and retarded reasons to absolve yourself(s) of responsibility.

My bet is you'll look for any and all excuses to absolve yourself of taking ownership of your statements.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

No, you misunderstand. What contradictory evidence has been presented here? That is my question. You brought it up. So, which evidence am I not responding to? Which evidence am I not addressing? You say my treatment is to bash the poster and then call them a denier. I bash the idea, give a link or two, or whatever is necessary, and then when you guys continue to say these things I call you ignorant and a denier.

A spade is a spade.

Let's see... Why don't you start with explaining - in the context of anthropogenic global warming - the preponderance of past periods of glaciation (absent mankind) and consequent recession of said glaciers (again, absent mankind).

I am so looking forward to being educated in terms of "calling a spade a spade".

I await (for a long time I'd imagine) seeing any kind of response to this that is SCIENTIFIC AND REPEATABLE... After all, you are the voice of science after all.

Good luck.. (I'll understand if you're unable to really respond (other than with excuses and rhetoric Like dinosaur farts for example)).

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I've been waiting years for him to post something substancial. I think he has a fetish for fuzzy haired bananas and middle aged fembots just because they are the only names he knows.


Didn't you get your fill when I schooled you in your ridiculous belief that geothermal energy would save the planet? Do you recall?... Have you you so quickly forgotten that despite your adherence to a personal belief that you - and especially your corporate operations - are in direct conflict with the very nonsense that you expound here?

You are still the very same hypocrite that you were on the canada.com forums Iggy - for as much as things change, they are still the same.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I've been waiting years for him to post something substancial.


BTW, learn to spell before you elect to take the high road with others Forrest.
 
Scott Free
#261
Alright, I'm done here. Evidently you hippies are going to believe whatever you want.

I'm not sure what you're all getting out of this. Does it feel good to belong to a "special" green club? Perhaps you think you sound like experts or you think you're gaining some prestige? Perhaps you feel more in control of your own lives.

I don't know. I don't care.

But I know dogmatism when I hear it.
 
petros
#262
Quote:

Didn't you get your fill when I schooled you in your ridiculous belief that geothermal energy would save the planet? Do you recall?... Have you you so quickly forgotten that despite your adherence to a personal belief that you - and especially your corporate operations - are in direct conflict with the very nonsense that you expound here?

You are still the very same hypocrite that you were on the Canada.com forums Iggy - for as much as things change, they are still the same.

No I didn't. you never taught me or anyone else **** all except your infatuation with old Japs.

Well Bubba? What is the cycle you kept talking about but never manifested any information?

Yup my business uses energy. Very little actually and thanks to federal regulations and bitching and whining from stockholders when I leave a drill site it's spotless.

So I'll ask you again what is the cycle you claim is behind the planetary climate and tectonic changes?

Anytime you are ready.

One more time because reality needs shoring up in this place.

Magnetic Pole Shift Vs. Global Warming.

Poles first:



An now the Global Warming with it's identical al gore rhythm.

 
captain morgan
#263
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

No I didn't. you never taught me or anyone else **** all except your infatuation with old Japs.

Whatever it is you're rattling-on about doesn't require racial slurs..

Grow up


Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Yup my business uses energy. Very little actually and thanks to federal regulations and bitching and whining from stockholders when I leave a drill site it's spotless.

So I'll ask you again what is the cycle you claim is behind the planetary climate and tectonic changes?


I suppose that green tech has advanced dramatically in that you are able to move lots of heavy equipment, personnel, supplies and eco-fuel into all those remote areas (accessible only by air possibly?)... And you manage to do it with very little energy requirements.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider "very little"?.. How many lbs do you use for mob/de-mob and operations?.. Do you truly believe that the average eco-warrior will support your contention it is very little?
 
petros
#264
I don't give a **** about eco warriors all I care about is the next contract.
 
captain morgan
#265
Glad to hear it.
 
petros
#266
Oh I almost forgot. Thanks for your tax money, I really appreciate the incentives and heavy breaks Harper is doling out.
 
AnnaG
#267
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Ohhh, it was a joke was it?

I didn't get that from your post. It appeared to be more of a simpleton's view of a subject that had no relevance, especially when you were called on it.

Wow! Back in kiddiegarden.
You know for someone that complained that Tonington attacks posters and whatnot, you seem to be right up there with what you accused him of. lmao

Who cares whether you get it or not?

"Called on it"? About what? Petros said the whole thing was concocted by Marxists and you agreed. All Les did was say that human involvement in global warming being concocted by Marxists was hilarious. It's a joke. And so far you deniers cannot prove that we haven't been an influence.

Quote:

What difference does it make?!... Are you serious?

Don't you greenies get your panties all in a bunch the very minute that humanity emits more than the prescribed and predetermined amount of CO2 that is allotted to each person? I'd think that those societies that were building hundreds, if not thousands, of coal-fired electricity plants would get your hackles up.... Oh, I guess I forgot, it's only ghg's and CO2 produced from Western nations are evil - the rest are eco-friendly regardless of socio-economic elements.

hhhmmm Back in kiddiegarden again, huh?




Quote:

Give 'er your best shot.

You wouldn't even know what hit you. You haven't yet. lol

Quote:

I can only assume from your past posts that the best is yet to come.

It's evident so far that you deniers can't disprove AGW. Anything you've posted so far has had holes poked in it. The evidence still shows AGW. It's tough that you don't like it. Perhaps you need a binkie?




Quote:

Oh?.. Does youre snide and condescending attitude count as an insult, or is that a privilege that you reserve exclusively for yourself?

I suppose it never occurred to you that that you simply see what you want? lmao If someone posts something that you'd think he was being sarcastic because that's what you expected?

Quote:

As far as Tonnington is concerned; I have an opinion of that individual that I've expressed in (relatively) non-offensive terms.. He/she is who they are, but in the end, they will eat a massive dose of crow - just like yourself in terms of this issue... The only question that remains; will you (or Tonnington) be big enough to man-up and admit fault, or will you find minuscule and retarded reasons to absolve yourself(s) of responsibility.

I guess we'll have to wait and see which will be eating crow.

Quote:

My bet is you'll look for any and all excuses to absolve yourself of taking ownership of your statements.

You're projecting your childish little character onto him. He's more scientist than a lot of scientists. He readily goes with the evidence as it comes in whether it completely reverses his previous conclusions or not. He's a grown up, unlike you. You'd lose your bet.

Quote:

Let's see... Why don't you start with explaining - in the context of anthropogenic global warming - the preponderance of past periods of glaciation (absent mankind) and consequent recession of said glaciers (again, absent mankind).

I think he'd say natural cycles have an influence on glaciation and glacial subsidence. He's already said that a couple times. What he also said was that this present natural cycle has been modified by human intervention.

Quote:

I am so looking forward to being educated in terms of "calling a spade a spade".

I doubt you'd know any education if you saw it. lol

Quote:

I await (for a long time I'd imagine) seeing any kind of response to this that is SCIENTIFIC AND REPEATABLE... After all, you are the voice of science after all.

Good luck.. (I'll understand if you're unable to really respond (other than with excuses and rhetoric Like dinosaur farts for example)).

Like I said, I doubt you'd know it if you saw it. You haven't seemed to yet.



Quote:

BTW, learn to spell before you elect to take the high road with others Forrest.

lmao Back to the childishness again.

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

Alright, I'm done here. Evidently you hippies are going to believe whatever you want.

And you scientific illiterate will still be worshiping your god of denial.

Quote:

I'm not sure what you're all getting out of this. Does it feel good to belong to a "special" green club? Perhaps you think you sound like experts or you think you're gaining some prestige? Perhaps you feel more in control of your own lives.

I don't know. I don't care.

But I know dogmatism when I hear it.

.... but not when you speak it. lol

BTW, the definition of dogmatism is "the use of a system of ideas based upon insufficiently examined premises." Climate scientists are studying the event profusely. It's the deniers that can't seem to keep up.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post


Lets compare pole movement and global warming. What do you think we'll find?





Well. Those two graphs either scream correlation or it screams coincidence?

A fool would say coincidence.

The 1982 drop is a dead give a way.

Lemme see, the graph of temp anomalies has a rapid increase since about 1900. The graph of polar movement shows a shift after about 1970. That's a 70 year difference. So where did the heat from polar movement go during those 70 years? A scenic tour around the galaxy?

Here's another coincidence:


And from here www.michaelmandeville.com/ear...Comparison.png (external - login to view)

 
captain morgan
#268
great post Anna... i especially like the part where you chastise all for acting childish to Les and then immediately launch into that very mode with Scott Free.

Congratulations, you take first prize.

BTW - A hint for ya. If Les elects to respond and exchange in a manner that is condescending and insulting, he can expect the same in return.
 
mentalfloss
#269
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG

Lemme see, the graph of temp anomalies has a rapid increase since about 1900. The graph of polar movement shows a shift after about 1970. That's a 70 year difference. So where did the heat from polar movement go during those 70 years? A scenic tour around the galaxy?





Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

great post Anna... i especially like the part where you chastise all for acting childish to Les and then immediately launch into that very mode with Scott Free.

Congratulations, you take first prize.

True, but you have to admit, the polar comment was pretty satisfying. It had that extra oomph of rational thought behind it.
 
captain morgan
#270
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Oh I almost forgot. Thanks for your tax money, I really appreciate the incentives and heavy breaks Harper is doling out.

My pleasure... Afterall, we picked-up a royalty break and an exemption in property taxes from your province just recently.... It'll work out to be a ton of cash, enough to be bonused-out to the principals in a meaningful way.

I look at it as Petros personally paying our company to extract your resources and sell them on the open market.
 

Similar Threads

2910
19
The biggest scam in history
by Stretch | Dec 2nd, 2008
12
Global Capitalism; Greatest Scam in History
by darkbeaver | Jan 24th, 2008
no new posts