Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Status
Not open for further replies.

jimshort19

Electoral Member
Nov 24, 2007
476
11
18
25
Zurich
There is undeniaby a credible challenge to the ill-defined notion and authority and veracity of 'scientific consensus', if not global warming. It is also undeniable that public proponents of the warming scenario rely most heavily upon the notion of the scientific herd as the best indicator of the future.

But consensus is not scientific. Consensus is convincing to the weak-minded and myself that would use it as a shortcut to determination. Climaticalogicallyontologically speaking, apparently a good number of reputable scientists can only be as right or wrong as I, if I could make up my mind, but I'm still on the fence.

If we agree that scientific consensus is not science, yet it is science that must solve this riddle before time does or we have proved our intellect inneffectual and may be in hot water, then surely I must read these aweful studies myself, not the opinions of politicians.

Then I will decide which scientist is right, and which one is wrong? No. I am incompetent.
This is a job for a Royal Commission of Inquiry. I'll trust nothing less.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

Oh, one thing I would like to add about the above comment.... The Weather Channel hasn't gotten a dang thing accurate since I was 11 years old. Whatever the founders of the WC would say, be that for or against "Global Warming" I wouldn't hold value to regardless.
 

jimshort19

Electoral Member
Nov 24, 2007
476
11
18
25
Zurich
There is so much profit to be made by driving the people of Banladesh and the Bahamas off ot their land that we just aught to buy these locations for salt water storeage. There may be more and bigger storms but the wild creatures will survive, except maybe the polar bear, and it won't bother us at all. The Dutch build better dykes and homes that float.

What's the problem? But we have to wait, uncertain of the 100 year weather forecast. I'm not holding my breath. Until these scientists can give me a reliable statistical probability of the ocean rising by a certain amount and the cost thereof, given that it is entirely a bearable human cost and a bearable human problem if it is less than a meter or two, I will give little more than tertiary considerations to my carbon footprint, and I'll press for no more than research upon the problem to answer my question.

In addition to this, I add that I really have no idea what the effect of a one meter rise would be, just that there is no prospect of the loss of life. Our new shelters are up to the storm. It is a truly human problem. Too bad about the polar bear. Better help that bear.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
We can do this?

Of course we can do this. Start pumping sulfates into the air as we do with greenhouse gases. All you have to do is put enough to cancel the forcing that greenhouse gases currently represent, and voila, trend reversed.
 

jimshort19

Electoral Member
Nov 24, 2007
476
11
18
25
Zurich
Wasn't it 'pumping sulphates' that turned Sudbury into the moon before INCO built the Superstack? Isn't it sulphates that killed our lakes? Is this proposal a scheme that will bathe the earth in dilute sulphuric acid? Won't this ruin the battery acid industry?

Fighting global warming with pollution is a solid idea. Let's do what we know works. But are you sure it's better than global warming?
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Pollution?

You know that pollution is any substance to excess right? With no salt in an environment, life couldn't exist. Too much salt, life cannot exist.

Science, read a book (regardless of the time it takes)
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Which ones and how much?

Which sulfates? Any chemical species with the SO4(2-) anion. How much would depend on the mixture of sulfates. I only mention greenhouse gases as they represent the largest forcing. In reality the sulphate forcing would have to negate all positive forcings to stop the warming trend, but then we're managing equilibrium, which isn't really something we should consider. Manage our contribution, that is all. For the record I think sulphates are a stupid idea. They also cause acid rain.

Wasn't it 'pumping sulphates' that turned Sudbury into the moon before INCO built the Superstack? Isn't it sulphates that killed our lakes? Is this proposal a scheme that will bathe the earth in dilute sulphuric acid? Won't this ruin the battery acid industry?

Fighting global warming with pollution is a solid idea. Let's do what we know works. But are you sure it's better than global warming?

Fighting anything with pollution is not smart. We combat excess of one, with excesses of another? We still have a problem with excess, and now new problems to deal with.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,870
116
63
Start pumping sulfates into the air as we do with greenhouse gases. All you have to do is put enough to cancel the forcing that greenhouse gases currently represent, and voila, trend reversed.
How do we know what temperature is optimum?
 

jimshort19

Electoral Member
Nov 24, 2007
476
11
18
25
Zurich
eenasir, you are joking, right? About global warming because we're getting close to the sun? I checked your link,

"the Earth will increase in thickness while the central heat of the Earth will diminish. And as we said that the gravitation influences the cold object more than the hot one; i.e. the more cold is the object, the more will it be attracted towards the Sun by its gravitation and vice versa.
The Second: As much as the Earth central heat will diminish and its crust will increase in thickness, it will contract and get smaller and its cold crust will crack and contract; so that the longitudinal mountain ranges will form; and as we said that the smaller the object is, the more will it be attracted towards the Sun..."

Ya, that's science fer ya. I cud tell that feller's the smartest tool in the toolshed. Yoo'll go far with fellers like that!
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
How do we know what temperature is optimum?

I never said anything about optimum temperature, but if I had to pick, I'd pick the temperature that best reflects how we've managed infrastructure and our activity. Our irrigation canals are not for instance compatible with a climate free of mountain glaciers. Increasing temperatures means more infrastructure devoted to protecting people from rising flood plains at already overpopulated river deltas, and other vulnerable coastal property, not optimum.

Depends who you ask, but I'd choose something close to the statistical mean from the last few decades. I think that's probably why the 1990 baseline was chosen, but who is to say 1980 wasn't optimum? Pretty ambiguous in that way.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Oh, one thing I would like to add about the above comment.... The Weather Channel hasn't gotten a dang thing accurate since I was 11 years old. Whatever the founders of the WC would say, be that for or against "Global Warming" I wouldn't hold value to regardless.
:lol: Good point! Weather forecasting is one of the very few professions where you can fail 95% of the time and not lose your job!

But I still watch them and tend to believe them anyway!:roll: Other people believe astrologers. Hope springs eternal...
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Oh, so you think the moon landing and the H-Bombs are myths, you are one of THOSE types...
I assume you're trying to make a point here but I can't figure out what it is.
Food ships from arable land to cities without it (such as desert cities). When land becomes too far from food sources their is massive population redistribution. You'll notice I gave an example (the Aral Sea).
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the Aral Sea either. It's dried up a lot over the last century, but the population has multiplied 7 times. Kind of the opposite of what you've been saying isn't it?

Warming is unlikely to reduce food sources, in fact it's more likely to increase food sources as more northerly regions are able to grow more and different crops, just like the last time it warmed up. At that time, southern and hotter regions didn't stop producing food, although some of them did complain that their former northern customers were now their competitors.

Seriously, this isn't the 1840's, the pinacle of our technology isn't steam. If we want to alter the environment we can. This is before we get into genetics, lets not forget the change simple algae caused.
Oh puleeze! Give up on the sci-fi.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
I never said anything about optimum temperature, but if I had to pick, I'd pick the temperature that best reflects how we've managed infrastructure and our activity. Our irrigation canals are not for instance compatible with a climate free of mountain glaciers. Increasing temperatures means more infrastructure devoted to protecting people from rising flood plains at already overpopulated river deltas, and other vulnerable coastal property, not optimum.

Depends who you ask, but I'd choose something close to the statistical mean from the last few decades. I think that's probably why the 1990 baseline was chosen, but who is to say 1980 wasn't optimum? Pretty ambiguous in that way.
1990 baseline was chosen so that England could get credit for their already converted coal to oil and natural gas. So Germany could get credit for the already mothballed East German industry. So France could get credit for their already converted/converting coal to nuclear electrical generation, so Russia could get credit for their mothballed soviet era industries, and so the US would have to start from scratch.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,870
116
63
Depends who you ask, but I'd choose something close to the statistical mean from the last few decades. I think that's probably why the 1990 baseline was chosen, but who is to say 1980 wasn't optimum? Pretty ambiguous in that way.
I liked the weather in 2007; my garden grew well and the winter wasn't too cold.
 

jimshort19

Electoral Member
Nov 24, 2007
476
11
18
25
Zurich
Tonington, "I'd pick the temperature that best reflects how we've managed infrastructure and our activity. Our irrigation canals are not for instance compatible with a climate free of mountain glaciers."

What irrigation canals? Afghanistan? Why not pick a temperature by public opinion poll? A temperature that reflects our personality rather than Afghanistan's canals?

So many temperatures to choose from, according to Torrington, and so little time, according to the news.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Tonington, "I'd pick the temperature that best reflects how we've managed infrastructure and our activity. Our irrigation canals are not for instance compatible with a climate free of mountain glaciers."

What irrigation canals? Afghanistan? Why not pick a temperature by public opinion poll? A temperature that reflects our personality rather than Afghanistan's canals?

So many temperatures to choose from, according to Torrington, and so little time, according to the news.

Or how about ours? We have irrigation canals too. Jeez, read a book.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Tonington, "I'd pick the temperature that best reflects how we've managed infrastructure and our activity. Our irrigation canals are not for instance compatible with a climate free of mountain glaciers."

What irrigation canals? Afghanistan? Why not pick a temperature by public opinion poll? A temperature that reflects our personality rather than Afghanistan's canals?

So many temperatures to choose from, according to Torrington, and so little time, according to the news.

Apparently you've never been to Alberta.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,870
116
63
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,870
116
63
The Times -- They Are A-Changin'
January 02, 2008: 08:05 PM EST



Jan. 3, 2008 (Investor's Business Daily delivered by Newstex) -- Climate Change: Skepticism about man-induced global warming has reached the science pages of the newspaper of record. This suggests the debate not only isn't over, but that it's also finally newsworthy.
Some warming deniers must have slipped a body-snatching pod under the bed of New York Times columnist John Tierney. Or at the very least the accountants at Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) must have put more than a lump of coal in the stocking hanging over Tierney's fossil fuel-burning fireplace.
In his first column of the new year, Tierney writes that the deniers of truth are in fact Nobel Laureate Al Gore and those who ignore both scientific evidence and the historical record in their prophecies of doom. 2008, says Tierney, will be no exception.
In a column titled "In 2008, a 100 Percent Chance of Alarm," he exposes the Chicken Littles for what they are -- opportunists and alarmists who in this new year "will bring you image after frightening image of natural havoc linked to global warming." Inconvenient truths and scientific fact will be ignored.
A case in point cited by Tierney was when Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites. It was hardly a blip in Earth's geological history, but Tierney noted how "it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming."
Less dramatic and newsworthy was the announcement that the same satellites also recorded that the Antarctic sea ice had reached the highest level ever. But then, polar bears allegedly drowning and icebergs breaking away are good theater.
We're told the Larsen B ice shelf on the western side of Antarctica is collapsing. It is warming and has been for decades. But it comprises just 2% of a continent that otherwise is cooling.
In the same week Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize, the respected scientific journal Nature published a paper you probably didn't hear much about. It concluded that global warming had a minimal effect on hurricanes.
In fact, after Katrina, hurricane watchers have had trouble getting as far as the letter "K".
"The last couple of years have humbled the seasonal hurricane forecasters," says Max Mayfield, a former director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami. The 2007 season was the third calmest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.
As for temperature, Tierney reports how British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would make 2007 the hottest year on record. After 2007 was actually lower than any year since 2001, the BBC still proclaimed: "2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend."
That must be why in January 2007 some $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a disastrous five-day freeze. A few months earlier Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the California Global Warming Solutions (OOTC:GWSO) Act of 2006 designed to, uh, help cool the climate.
In 2007, Australia experienced its coolest June ever. The city of Townsville underwent its longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in a quarter-century.
But for greenies, it doesn't matter what the weather actually is or what the data actually show. It's all caused by global warming. As Canadian Greenpeace rep Steven Guilbeault explained in 2005: "Global warming can mean colder; it can mean drier; it can mean wetter; that's what we're dealing with." Oh.
We hope Tierney's piece signals the beginning of a fair and balanced debate on the Earth's climate and man's impact on it in the mainstream media, including all the inconvenient truths that are fit to print.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.