Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Status
Not open for further replies.

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
You're right, there is a whole category of greenhouse gases. No single gas called greenhouse though.

You should write letters. Get that addressed.

I wonder what it's like to be an unemployable greenhouse gas who has no work history at all? My greenhouse is plastic by the way, I couldn't stable the gas to the frame.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Whine all you like, but each time you drive your car, heat your house or buy anything that was transported by car/truck/plane/boat/rail; you put more cash in their jeans.

get off your high horse already and either DO something about it, or stop your moaning.

You forgot these little items, get a vaccination, medical supplies as well as in the manufacture of the multitude of drugs and antibiotics, not to mention fertilizers so we can grow our food, all of us used in our lives. Without oil we may not be here.
 

Slim Chance

Electoral Member
Nov 26, 2009
475
13
18
No doubt... The eco argument stops short of recognizing any benefits or necessities; it's always easier to live in a fantasy than it is to actually go out and "do" something.
 

GreenFish66

House Member
Apr 16, 2008
2,717
10
38
www.myspace.com
I Live in the Green/Clean Tech World now ..Left the past behind...It was here ,did its time ..but now we must leave it be ..Let it rest ...progress... .Forever forward ..Into the future , in the hopes we win the race ..Against not only this space ..This time ..But our own demise..Cheers to the future .To Innovation/Effieciency/ Zero Waste/ Sustainability/Prosperity...And to better ways of doing things...

Gotta have Faith in the Future...There's no other way forward ..

Green/Clean Tech is here now..It is the future...I know...I live it ...It's a Great lifestyle...And yes ..It Pays well too ..Living off less
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
So putting a blanket on you violates thermodynamics? I think not.



This is a fundamental understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. Read this DB to see clearly how a greenhouse gas does not violate thermodynamics.

I read it and it's wrong. Heat moves in one direction only, there is absolutly no way that the atmosphere can radiate heat back to a hotter planet. How can the incomming solar radiation be shut off? How could the greenhouse gas temp be isolated from the enormous background signature of the sun? The only thing the atmosphere radiates heat to is space. If you want that heat back down on the earth you will have to heatpump it down somehow. All you've got to work with is moving air masses, wind. The clouds are blankets, I can see that, but the delay in heat transfer is miniscule. You can't have it holding up clouds and heating the earth at the same time can you?
I can't believe that you believe what you do with respect to this subject. You might be hanging with a bad crowd and staying up late at night drinking and doing drugs maybe.:lol:
 

GreenFish66

House Member
Apr 16, 2008
2,717
10
38
www.myspace.com
Hey ... I just happen to be studying/doing some research on Geo/Earth Science..Another great field of study ( Next to Astro Biology.) ..It's A bit off topic ..But here's some stuff ..You's might find interesting..If not ..Sorry to interrupt ..Just ignore it ..I even threw in some Electro/magnetism for you Dark Beaver ...:wink: :icon_smile:


1 I On - Earth Science /Geo Science/ Over turning Circulation ...Solar prominence..Magnetic pole reversal .Hmmm, some very interesting stuff..

Over turning circulation / Thermohaline Ocean Circulation

Thermohaline Ocean Circulation

NASA Study Finds Atlantic 'Conveyor Belt' Not Slowing

Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

SOLAR FILAMENTS AND PROMINENCES?

WHAT ARE SOLAR FILAMENTS AND PROMINENCES?

Sun Erupts: Epic Blast Seen by NASA Solar Observatory

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Earth Magnetic Field Reversal

When North Becomes South: New Clues to Earth's Magnetic Flip-Flops

EARTH CHANGES: Magnetic Field Reversal

Why Does Earth's Magnetic Field Flip?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I'm Outta here..Gettin' tired of seeing this thread title at the top of the thread page...:) ...

L8R
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,871
116
63
I Live in the Green/Clean Tech World now ..Left the past behind...It was here ,did its time ..but now we must leave it be ..Let it rest ...progress... .Forever forward ..Into the future , in the hopes we win the race ..Against not only this space ..This time ..But our own demise..Cheers to the future .To Innovation/Effieciency/ Zero Waste/ Sustainability/Prosperity...And to better ways of doing things...

Gotta have Faith in the Future...There's no other way forward ..

Green/Clean Tech is here now..It is the future...I know...I live it ...It's a Great lifestyle...And yes ..It Pays well too ..Living off less
Kum Ba Yah, my Lord
Kum Ba Yah
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
You forgot these little items, get a vaccination, medical supplies as well as in the manufacture of the multitude of drugs and antibiotics, not to mention fertilizers so we can grow our food, all of us used in our lives. Without oil we may not be here.

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the advances made possible by fossil energy, and at the same time acknowledging the negative consequences of continued fossil energy reliance.

I work for a drug corporation that strives to lead the industry when it comes to corporate citizenship. That includes a voluntary adoption of the Kyoto protocol, and selling malaria drugs at no profit, even driving the costs down with further R&D, to name just two.

Not all companies fight against doing the right thing...
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I read it and it's wrong. Heat moves in one direction only, there is absolutly no way that the atmosphere can radiate heat back to a hotter planet. How can the incomming solar radiation be shut off?

Who said anything about shutting it off? The solar heats the earth, the heated Earth radiates long wave radiation back to space, and the greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit that same long wave. Some goes out, and some stays. Just like when you wrap up in a blanket.

You can make a fire hotter by building a wall of rocks around it too. Same principal. More energy that is given off by the fire is radiated back into the center, and voila, a warmer fire, even though the concrete blocks are colder than the fire itself.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the advances made possible by fossil energy, and at the same time acknowledging the negative consequences of continued fossil energy reliance.

I work for a drug corporation that strives to lead the industry when it comes to corporate citizenship. That includes a voluntary adoption of the Kyoto protocol, and selling malaria drugs at no profit, even driving the costs down with further R&D, to name just two.

Not all companies fight against doing the right thing...
That wasn't really my point. I was just saying that oil is not necessarily the devil in this world. I agree and also know companies that try and follow the Kyoto protocol, but oil is really the savior of man. We have nothing that can replace it.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
That wasn't really my point. I was just saying that oil is not necessarily the devil in this world. I agree and also know companies that try and follow the Kyoto protocol, but oil is really the savior of man. We have nothing that can replace it.

LRT? Did that not replace a mode of transportation that uses oil? Technologies exist to use far less energy, not just oil. On balance, oil isn't even the worst, but they are some of those fighting hardest against responsible use of resources.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Who said anything about shutting it off? The solar heats the earth, the heated Earth radiates long wave radiation back to space, and the greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit that same long wave. Some goes out, and some stays. Just like when you wrap up in a blanket.

You can make a fire hotter by building a wall of rocks around it too. Same principal. More energy that is given off by the fire is radiated back into the center, and voila, a warmer fire, even though the concrete blocks are colder than the fire itself.


Physics Contrived. Equations for calculating heat in the atmosphere do not apply for saturation. But to pretend otherwise, a fudge factor was contrived for fake calculations. The so-called settled science is nothing but a fudge factor.








No Scientifically Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming.
CO2 saturates absorbing the limited radiation available to it in about ten meters (Heinz Hug). An increase in CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. Since scientists know this, a fake mechanism is contrived for the top of the troposphere based on thin spectrum shoulders. But again, an increase in CO2 only shortens the distance radiation travels, which does nothing significant to increase the temperature. And there is no way to get heat from the top of the troposphere, which is very cold, to ground level. And since this is also known, some climatologists revert back to the near-earth analysis. They can't figure out where it is happening, but it has to be happening, god said so.
None Dare Call It Fraud — Paul Driessen


Temperature Equilibrium.
Equilibrium of temperature was not accounted for by climatologists. Equilibrium fixes the net-equivalent temperature of the atmosphere at that point where the rate of energy leaving the planet equals energy entering from the sun. It means humans cannot alter the net-equivalent temperature of the atmosphere.


Temperature Gradient. The gradient of temperatures in the atmosphere is the signature of radiation going around the greenhouse gasses, not through them.Global Warming Science Explained for the Public.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Global warming science explained by cranks, more like it.

All of them have very nice credentials. I wonder if you haven't exercised unscientific bias in this matter. There is no physical mechanism that would support your favoured greenhouse gas hypothesis, and as you can plainly see any such suggested mechanism is easily proved to be entirely wrong for well understood thermodynamic reasons. You are arguing from the camp of those who are quickly and irreversably being proven as the most infamous scientific cranks ever exposed. You stick to your guns though, you won't be the first fanatic to be undone by flawed ideology. No one can say I did not try to save you from yourself.:smile:
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The physical mechanism is radiative transfer.

I have no time to chase you arround in circles this evening, I have received an emergency request to test a flat of beer, at a minimum. The sun has been out for the whole afternoon and the horseshoe pits may be warm enough to conduct the iron flinging beer swilling ritual. I will tip one fer yu :canada:
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
30,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists Can’t Be Wrong

Fred Dardick – Canada Free Press April 30, 2010

Nature Magazine, the academic journal that introduced the world to X-rays, DNA double helix, wave nature of particles, pulsars, and more recently the human genome, is set to publish a paper in June that shows atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for only 5-10% of observed warming on Earth.

As explained by the paper’s author Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, “The climate is warming, yes, but not because of greenhouse gases.”

For the preeminent scientific journal in the world to publish Kauppinen’s work shows conclusively that Al Gore’s much touted “scientific consensus” supporting human-caused global warming
Eco-censors and the global warming hoax

For years scientists have been trying to get out the message past the eco-censors that there are thousands and thousands of them who do not buy into the global warming hoax.

Since 2009 more than 238 physicists including Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever and professors from Harvard, MIT, Princeton, UCLA and dozens of other top universities and research institutions have signed an open letter addressed to the Council of the American Physical Society saying the scientific data did not support the conclusion that increased CO2 concentrations are responsible for global warming.

In 2009 over 700 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC members, joined with Senator Inhofe in a Senate Minority Report to express their doubts over man-made global warming claims.

In the report U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg was quoted as saying “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”

In the largest effort to date to document global warming dissent in the scientific community, 31,486 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,029 PhD, 7,157 MS, 2,586 MD and DVM, and 12,714 BS or equivalent - have signed on with the Global Warming Petition Project to state “the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity.”

Many of the best and brightest minds in the United States and around the world are in total agreement: The so-called global warming “scientific consensus” is a complete fabrication and does not exist.
30,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists Can’t Be Wrong



 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
30,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists Can’t Be Wrong

Fred Dardick – Canada Free Press April 30, 2010

Nature Magazine, the academic journal that introduced the world to X-rays, DNA double helix, wave nature of particles, pulsars, and more recently the human genome, is set to publish a paper in June that shows atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for only 5-10% of observed warming on Earth.

As explained by the paper’s author Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, “The climate is warming, yes, but not because of greenhouse gases.”

For the preeminent scientific journal in the world to publish Kauppinen’s work shows conclusively that Al Gore’s much touted “scientific consensus” supporting human-caused global warming
Eco-censors and the global warming hoax

For years scientists have been trying to get out the message past the eco-censors that there are thousands and thousands of them who do not buy into the global warming hoax.

Since 2009 more than 238 physicists including Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever and professors from Harvard, MIT, Princeton, UCLA and dozens of other top universities and research institutions have signed an open letter addressed to the Council of the American Physical Society saying the scientific data did not support the conclusion that increased CO2 concentrations are responsible for global warming.

In 2009 over 700 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC members, joined with Senator Inhofe in a Senate Minority Report to express their doubts over man-made global warming claims.

In the report U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg was quoted as saying “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”

In the largest effort to date to document global warming dissent in the scientific community, 31,486 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,029 PhD, 7,157 MS, 2,586 MD and DVM, and 12,714 BS or equivalent - have signed on with the Global Warming Petition Project to state “the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity.”

Many of the best and brightest minds in the United States and around the world are in total agreement: The so-called global warming “scientific consensus” is a complete fabrication and does not exist.
30,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists Can’t Be Wrong



Ah, and now we have the opposing side's argumentum ad populum. "It must be this way because everyone thinks so".
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Ah, and now we have the opposing side's argumentum ad populum. "It must be this way because everyone thinks so".

That is the valid point made by those who singed Anna. The much touted scientific consensus flogged ad nauseum by the likes of Gore and Strong never existed. If you think science is the answer then you must agree that their has been fraud.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.