Earth Hour: Turn Off the Lights!

[captain morgan]

You're the one who is launching into non-sequiturs about talking media heads. I've discussed only the physics with you and you're driving it of course to fit your needs.

How dramatic... I didn't realize that the Oscars were so close.

I never realized that including 2 persons in brackets with no further mention of them was "launching into non-sequiturs about talking media heads."

... But then again, your comments reflect the attack-mode of the typical enviro position that offers no argument nor insight.

I'm suggesting that your opinion doesn't matter one iota as far as the physics are concerned.

As to the physics you are discussing. Possibly you'll restrict it to the issue of man-made warming (this is what this is about, right?) and refrain from explanations like Milankovitch Cycles et al which serve to promote the ideal that it is not a man-made phenomenon... On that note, while the satellite data may be interesting, I do believe that the total frame of reference is 30-40 years... Assuming that the global climatic cycles are in the range of 10's of thousands of years and possibly 100's of thousands, 40 years is a wee stretch.

That said, if your argument is entirely dependent on physics, it's a thought that you have a point of reference that isn't based on fantasy.

In science, you accept the theory that works until something replaces it. When you can replace it, let me know. Until then, your weak assertions, and memetic rhetoric are worth nothing.

Funny thing about science, it also requires testability and replicability, let alone stable point(s) of reference... Don't get me wrong, I sure enjoyed the sermon outlining all of the 'theories' being postulated. It should be a snap for you to connect the dots and holler 'eureka' (not omitting the Oscar winning finger-stab of course).

So, let's have it.

This brings us to the question I left you with in my last post:

How does one explain the historical record of glaciation throughout the millenia, despite man not existing?... This shouldn't pose a problem for you, after all, the 'theories' pave the way, right?

I mean you must have a reason for saying it's something else. Let's hear it.

I am not the one dmanding that global warming is a result of humanity, am I?.. I thought that this was clear. That being the case, I'd say the onus is not on me to prove your point.

I'll wait. I'll not hold my breath, but I'll wait nonetheless.

You could try.

 

[Extrafire]

Oh this is rich!

Look what I just found.

I wonder why the media hasn't exposed this while the WWF was getting all the international exposure.

Talk about hypocracy!

"Using the carbon footprint calculator on the WWF’s own web site, the 36,800-mile trip in a Boeing 757 jet will burn about 100,000 gallons of jet fuel to produce roughly 1,231 tons of CO2 in 25 days — that’s the equivalent of putting about 1,560 SUVs on the road during those three-plus weeks and that doesn’t even include emissions related to local air, ground and water transport and other amenities."

Apparently the WWF is a major travel agent. Check out all this webpage. At the top it says "Reduce your carbon footprint" with a graphic of a guy with a backpack on a bike. They then list hudreds of world wide excursions by jet!
WWF - WWF Travel - View All Trips

SirJosephPorter, you think maybe your heroic organization might not be quite so worthy of you adulation?:lol:

 

[petros]

WWF is one of the biggest scams going.

 

[Extrafire]

Is it? You seemed to have a problem understanding that. Can you explain why a power generator would continue to generate based on a higher demand when the load on the lines doesn't require that? Why would they burn up those joules, when they aren't receiving any payoff for those extra watts?

I don't think you do understand. Just another thing to add to the lengthy list.

There you go playing dense again.

Read my post explaining the welder.

 

[captain morgan]

Oh this is rich!

Look what I just found.

I wonder why the media hasn't exposed this while the WWF was getting all the international exposure.

Talk about hypocracy!


Apparently the WWF is a major travel agent. Check out all this webpage. At the top it says "Reduce your carbon footprint" with a graphic of a guy with a backpack on a bike. They then list hudreds of world wide excursions by jet!
WWF - WWF Travel - View All Trips

SirJosephPorter, you think maybe your heroic organization might not be quite so worthy of you adulation?:lol:

Who knows? Maybe WWF can create enough of a demand that the locals in Borneo, the Rain forest and the other destinations will slash-and-burn a few thousand acres of rain forest so the eco-toursits can experience pristine environments first hand and bask in all of the goodness.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Goodness, are you guys still at it? Enough already, earth hour is over, was a huge success, let us move on.

Extrafire, I got my information from the WWF website, not from Sydney Herald or anybody else. As Sir Francis remarked, always go to the source. If WWF says that 1 billion people participated, I believe them. After all, I haven’t seen any estimates by anti-environmentalists, only sniping at how earth hour was not successful.

Well, it was. I billion people, 4000 cities, 88 countries. Get over it, live with it.

Apparently the WWF is a major travel agent.

And your point is? Because they are a travel agent, that proves that one billion people couldn’t’ have participated in earth hour?

Thinking about it, it makes perfect sense. They are a wildlife organization, so it is natural that they organize wildlife excursions all over the world.

Anyway, if WWF says 1 billion people participated, then 1 billion people participated as far as I am concerned, in spite of what any far right website or blog may say.

 

[Said1]

I was the only one on my street with the lights on.

 

[Tonington]

... But then again, your comments reflect the attack-mode of the typical enviro position that offers no argument nor insight.

I'm not making an argument, I'm testing yours...

It's coming up short.

As to the physics you are discussing. Possibly you'll restrict it to the issue of man-made warming (this is what this is about, right?) and refrain from explanations like Milankovitch Cycles et al which serve to promote the ideal that it is not a man-made phenomenon...

Why would I refrain from explanations like Milankovitch cycles? I'm the one who pointed them out to you...

Milankovitch cycles show that Earth's climate responds to a wide range of perturbations. That is all. They don't in anyway promote the idea that the current trend is not influenced by man's activities.

So far, your assertions have nothing to do with physics. Please show us how the physics of Milankovitch cycles falsifies the premise that human activities are warming the atmosphere.

On that note, while the satellite data may be interesting, I do believe that the total frame of reference is 30-40 years... Assuming that the global climatic cycles are in the range of 10's of thousands of years and possibly 100's of thousands, 40 years is a wee stretch.

And if it were orbital forcing that was causing the heating, this would mean more irradience. This would mean we should see a warming stratosphere...

Funny thing about science, it also requires testability and replicability,

I don't need lectures from you about what science is. Would you like me to post my thesis next month when it's finished?

So, let's have it.

You can start here. I don't need a eureka moment, because I'm not the one arguing against established science, with some whimsical and unsubstantiated cause.

You need to get a clue. I suggest reading the link I embedded above.

How does one explain the historical record of glaciation throughout the millenia, despite man not existing?... This shouldn't pose a problem for you, after all, the 'theories' pave the way, right?

Man not existing is irrelevant. How do you explain the fact that humans have died since our species was born, despite the fact that guns are only a recent invention?

You're conflating, and this argument is as ridiculous as your notion about the size of something being proportional to it's importance.

I am not the one dmanding that global warming is a result of humanity, am I?

No, you're the one saying it could be something else. What's the reasoning for your hypothesis. You claim to know how science works. Well, lay out your case. Let's see if it has any merit.

Or maybe you're just another rehtoritician.

 

[Tonington]

There you go playing dense again.

Read my post explaining the welder.

Why not answer the question directly?

Explain why a power generator is going to continue to burn fuel at a rate that exceeds load demand. Go ahead. Maybe address TenPenny's attempt to educate you while you're at it.

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, time and time again you declared that you take everything you see on CNN and read in the Globe and Mail as true, because these two news sources are unbiased, truthful and objective.

CNN reported that "more than 2800 cities and towns participated worldwide in 83 countries and 24 time zones" in Earth Hour, which was ridiculed as "trick", "sham" and "flimflammery" by the Globe and Mail.

 

[Cannuck]

Simple.... Go to the source you quote in the World Wildlife Fund ( Earth Hour US ) Site..

I did, and I know what their site says. That's why I posted what I posted. If you recall...

"""We think we are going to have 100 million people around the world sending a message that climate change is real, and we need to take action now," World Wildlife Fund CEO Carter Roberts told CNN."

The one billion figure and the 100 million figure both came from WWF. Obviously they are not trustworthy or reputable.

 

[Cannuck]

Anyway, if WWF says 1 billion people participated, then 1 billion people participated as far as I am concerned, in spite of what any far right website or blog may say.

..And I guess if they say a hundred million took part then a hundred million took part as far as you're concerned. Are you going to accept both numbers?
​

 

[Said1]

who really gives a sh*t. Like, seriously?

 

[Cannuck]

who really gives a sh*t. Like, seriously?

People that pay taxes to fund idiotic environmental projects that the likes of WWF, Green Peace and David Suzuki convince idiotic politicians we need.

All these environmentalist churches eventually get to the point where the goal is to generate funds rather than to do any good and unfortunately, most will invariable turn to the government tit to get those funds. These charades are nothing more than publicity stunts. If WWF can convince politicians of this 1 billion number, it stands to reason (since much of the developing world has no electricity, TV, etc.)that one could argue that upwards of 30% of the population in say, the US or Canada support theses nutters. Most slimeball politicians will hand money to organizations with that many followers. It is important for people to speak up and make it very clear that these people lack honesty and integrity and should not get one nickle of our tax dollars.

 

[Said1]

I don't have a problem with the idea, and once my daughter realized we were the only people on our street who forgot, we shut'er down. What I don't understand is the quibbling, in this thread, over numbers. Clearly LOTS of people in numerous countries, participated as it was promoted through vehicles such as schools, among other things.

 

[Cannuck]

What I don't understand is the quibbling, in this thread, over numbers.

I don't personally care about the numbers but lets not kid ourselves, the WWF will use the 1 billion number anytime it suits their purpose and I know that sooner or later that purpose will include getting their hands on my tax dollars.

 

[Said1]

I would say it's probably fairly accurate, when you consider the number of house holds with children and young adults. There are 22k undergrads at my university alone......Youth is probably the biggest market targets for this campaign.

 

[captain morgan]

I'm not making an argument, I'm testing yours...

How quaint.... An individual with no argument and no answers questions all others... Is your Phd in philosophy? (definitely not in logic)

Why would I refrain from explanations like Milankovitch cycles? I'm the one who pointed them out to you...

The reference supports the notion of natural cycles.. Hardly any form of support that man-made ghg's are sizzling the planet... Do you even know what you are arguing?

Milankovitch cycles show that Earth's climate responds to a wide range of perturbations. That is all. They don't in anyway promote the idea that the current trend is not influenced by man's activities.

Thanks for the 411 on that... For the record, the Milankovitch Cycles DO promote the idea that the system is natural and cyclic.

I don't need lectures from you about what science is.

Apparently you do.

You can start here. I don't need a eureka moment, because I'm not the one arguing against established science, with some whimsical and unsubstantiated cause.

Great site. I especially like the emboldened words: "[SIZE=+1]If you want basic facts[/SIZE] about climate change"... Is that how 'established science' really works?

They MUST be true cause they are confident to write them in the literary equilivent of yelling!...


[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]

Man not existing is irrelevant.

... Yeah.... Humanity is irrelevant in the discussion of man-made ghg's fueling global warming.

Great logic... Einstein and Hawkins can rest easy for a while longer.

 

[VanIsle]

Hello CM
Nice to see another canada.com person here.

 

[Tonington]

How quaint.... An individual with no argument and no answers questions all others... Is your Phd in philosophy? (definitely not in logic)

I have arguments, I just haven't presented them here. You have.

PhD? Who said anything about a PhD? My thesis is not for completion of a Doctorate. By the way, all PhD's are philosophy. That's what the Ph stands for.
Doctor of Philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reference supports the notion of natural cycles.. Hardly any form of support that man-made ghg's are sizzling the planet... Do you even know what you are arguing?

You don't know what you're arguing. You are in essence arguing that Earth's climate is either responsive to natural cycles, or to human influence, and that it can't be both. This is stupid.

Thanks for the 411 on that... For the record, the Milankovitch Cycles DO promote the idea that the system is natural and cyclic.

The system contains cycles. That's hardly ground-breaking news.

Apparently you do.

No, I really don't. I bet if I posted a solid paper and a crappy paper, you wouldn't be able to pick out what's wrong. It's not a slight, most people aren't privy to how it works. You actually have to have some practice.

Great site. I especially like the emboldened words: "[SIZE=+1]If you want basic facts[/SIZE] about climate change"... Is that how 'established science' really works?

No, it's meant for those like you who don't have any tacit knowledge on the subject, and make ignorant claims that exemplify their own fundamental ignorance.

They MUST be true cause they are confident to write them in the literary equilivent of yelling!...

No, bold is emphasized speech. Caps locks are the equivalent of yelling. You can't even get that right.

... Yeah.... Humanity is irrelevant in the discussion of man-made ghg's fueling global warming.

Humanity is irrelevant when it comes to discussing past climate change. If you disagree with that you should get your head checked.

If you can't understand that there is more than one way to force the climate system, then it's pointless to continue talking to you.

I suspect it is pointless.