Start_new_topic

Participating Members

Lord Monckton Global Warming

« Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »

txmxer Posts: 6626 Joined: 8/21/2006 Location: Weatherford, TX	11/2/2009 6:00 PM CR250Rider wrote: Aalok Mehta aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen National Geographic News June 20, 2008 Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. Ker Than for National Geographic News September 21, 2009 This year's cooler-than-expected summer means the Arctic probably won't experience ice-free summers until 2030 or 2040, scientists say. please insert="" better="" climate="" model="" here=" Nerd wrote: I love it when people use science to prove that science is wrong. It's awesome that they don't catch the irony of it. CR250Rider wrote: Aalok Mehta aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen National Geographic News June 20, 2008 Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. Ker Than for National Geographic News September 21, 2009 This year's cooler-than-expected summer means the Arctic probably won't experience ice-free summers until 2030 or 2040, scientists say. please insert="" better="" climate="" model="" here=" Nerd wrote: I love it when people use science to prove that science is wrong. It's awesome that they don't catch the irony of it. txmxer wrote: I think the better point is that these conclusions are distinctly opposite ends of the spectrum of possible outcomes. It shows just how far this science is from settled. Quote Last Post Only txmxer wrote: I think the better point is that these conclusions are distinctly opposite ends of the spectrum of possible outcomes. It shows just how far this science is from settled. Quote Last Post Only I think the better point is that these conclusions are distinctly opposite ends of the spectrum of possible outcomes. It shows just how far this science is from settled. Vitaldrive "yahoo"
Nerd Posts: 4319 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: , Moderator	11/2/2009 6:03 PM CR250Rider wrote: Aalok Mehta aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen National Geographic News June 20, 2008 Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. Ker Than for National Geographic News September 21, 2009 This year's cooler-than-expected summer means the Arctic probably won't experience ice-free summers until 2030 or 2040, scientists say. please insert="" better="" climate="" model="" here=" Nerd wrote: I love it when people use science to prove that science is wrong. It's awesome that they don't catch the irony of it. txmxer wrote: I think the better point is that these conclusions are distinctly opposite ends of the spectrum of possible outcomes. It shows just how far this science is from settled. Nerd wrote: I love it when people use science to prove that science is wrong. It's awesome that they don't catch the irony of it. txmxer wrote: I think the better point is that these conclusions are distinctly opposite ends of the spectrum of possible outcomes. It shows just how far this science is from settled. Nerd wrote: They're not opposite ends! They're timelines. One says "next year" and another says "in 20 years" but both have the same conclusion. Quote Last Post Only Nerd wrote: They're not opposite ends! They're timelines. One says "next year" and another says "in 20 years" but both have the same conclusion. Quote Last Post Only They're not opposite ends! They're timelines. One says "next year" and another says "in 20 years" but both have the same conclusion.
Jack Flash Posts: 524 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: ,	11/2/2009 6:11 PM Jack Flash wrote: Neither has a conclusion., albeit the correct conclusion!! Anyways, you cant have a conclusion if you don't know what the ending is going to be!!! Jack Flash wrote: Neither has a conclusion., albeit the correct conclusion!! Anyways, you cant have a conclusion if you don't know what the ending is going to be!!! Quote Last Post Only Neither has a conclusion., albeit the correct conclusion!! Anyways, you cant have a conclusion if you don't know what the ending is going to be!!!
CR250Rider Posts: 3485 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: Bellevue, WA.	11/2/2009 6:38 PM CR250Rider wrote: seems to indicate global warming models are.... incomplete CR250Rider wrote: seems to indicate global warming models are.... incomplete Quote Last Post Only seems to indicate global warming models are.... incomplete "...four-strokes are only competitive because they were given an enormous displacement advantage back in 1998." MXA. 3/11/2008
CR250Rider Posts: 3485 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: Bellevue, WA.	11/2/2009 6:44 PM CR250Rider wrote: What is the maximum average temperature of the Earth? CR250Rider wrote: What is the maximum average temperature of the Earth? Quote Last Post Only What is the maximum average temperature of the Earth? "...four-strokes are only competitive because they were given an enormous displacement advantage back in 1998." MXA. 3/11/2008
txmxer Posts: 6626 Joined: 8/21/2006 Location: Weatherford, TX	11/3/2009 6:02 AM Nerd wrote: I love it when people use science to prove that science is wrong. It's awesome that they don't catch the irony of it. txmxer wrote: I think the better point is that these conclusions are distinctly opposite ends of the spectrum of possible outcomes. It shows just how far this science is from settled. Nerd wrote: They're not opposite ends! They're timelines. One says "next year" and another says "in 20 years" but both have the same conclusion. txmxer wrote: I think the better point is that these conclusions are distinctly opposite ends of the spectrum of possible outcomes. It shows just how far this science is from settled. Nerd wrote: They're not opposite ends! They're timelines. One says "next year" and another says "in 20 years" but both have the same conclusion. txmxer wrote: One is already wrong...the other...we'll see. But, why wait 20 years. Let's throw the world economy down the shitter because someone made a prediction. One that was wrong last year. Sounds a lot like the folks that predict the end of the world...and when it's wrong...well, it going to happen next year.... Quote Last Post Only txmxer wrote: One is already wrong...the other...we'll see. But, why wait 20 years. Let's throw the world economy down the shitter because someone made a prediction. One that was wrong last year. Sounds a lot like the folks that predict the end of the world...and when it's wrong...well, it going to happen next year.... Quote Last Post Only One is already wrong...the other...we'll see. But, why wait 20 years. Let's throw the world economy down the shitter because someone made a prediction. One that was wrong last year. Sounds a lot like the folks that predict the end of the world...and when it's wrong...well, it going to happen next year.... Vitaldrive "yahoo"
UpTiTe Posts: 2539 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: , CA	11/3/2009 6:55 AM UpTiTe wrote: Global warming is a power grab and that is it. They continue to throw out stats that are wrong, like 6 of the hottest years have been in the last decade, WRONG. They continue to say that the arctic is melting because of it heating up, WRONG, it WAS melting because the currents in the arctic sea reversed, somthing nasa figured out using satelites over the years. Its funny how these facts have been left out. Surface warming is a fact and isnt hurting a thing, but global warming is a complete myth. UpTiTe wrote: Global warming is a power grab and that is it. They continue to throw out stats that are wrong, like 6 of the hottest years have been in the last decade, WRONG. They continue to say that the arctic is melting because of it heating up, WRONG, it WAS melting because the currents in the arctic sea reversed, somthing nasa figured out using satelites over the years. Its funny how these facts have been left out. Surface warming is a fact and isnt hurting a thing, but global warming is a complete myth. Quote Last Post Only Global warming is a power grab and that is it. They continue to throw out stats that are wrong, like 6 of the hottest years have been in the last decade, WRONG. They continue to say that the arctic is melting because of it heating up, WRONG, it WAS melting because the currents in the arctic sea reversed, somthing nasa figured out using satelites over the years. Its funny how these facts have been left out. Surface warming is a fact and isnt hurting a thing, but global warming is a complete myth. If you take away a mans ability to fail, you take away his will to succeed. You were not born a winner, and you were not born a loser. You are what you make yourself be.
Nerd Posts: 4319 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: , Moderator	11/3/2009 9:41 AM txmxer wrote: I think the better point is that these conclusions are distinctly opposite ends of the spectrum of possible outcomes. It shows just how far this science is from settled. Nerd wrote: They're not opposite ends! They're timelines. One says "next year" and another says "in 20 years" but both have the same conclusion. txmxer wrote: One is already wrong...the other...we'll see. But, why wait 20 years. Let's throw the world economy down the shitter because someone made a prediction. One that was wrong last year. Sounds a lot like the folks that predict the end of the world...and when it's wrong...well, it going to happen next year.... Nerd wrote: They're not opposite ends! They're timelines. One says "next year" and another says "in 20 years" but both have the same conclusion. txmxer wrote: One is already wrong...the other...we'll see. But, why wait 20 years. Let's throw the world economy down the shitter because someone made a prediction. One that was wrong last year. Sounds a lot like the folks that predict the end of the world...and when it's wrong...well, it going to happen next year.... Nerd wrote: You're confusing science and politics again. Quote Last Post Only Nerd wrote: You're confusing science and politics again. Quote Last Post Only You're confusing science and politics again.
txmxer Posts: 6626 Joined: 8/21/2006 Location: Weatherford, TX	11/3/2009 11:56 AM Nerd wrote: They're not opposite ends! They're timelines. One says "next year" and another says "in 20 years" but both have the same conclusion. txmxer wrote: One is already wrong...the other...we'll see. But, why wait 20 years. Let's throw the world economy down the shitter because someone made a prediction. One that was wrong last year. Sounds a lot like the folks that predict the end of the world...and when it's wrong...well, it going to happen next year.... Nerd wrote: You're confusing science and politics again. txmxer wrote: One is already wrong...the other...we'll see. But, why wait 20 years. Let's throw the world economy down the shitter because someone made a prediction. One that was wrong last year. Sounds a lot like the folks that predict the end of the world...and when it's wrong...well, it going to happen next year.... Nerd wrote: You're confusing science and politics again. txmxer wrote: explain. I'm talking about science. One that was predicting complete ice melting in a year, and then turned around one year later to say it's 20 to 30 years out because one variable made that much difference. that's not science. That's guessing. Quote Last Post Only txmxer wrote: explain. I'm talking about science. One that was predicting complete ice melting in a year, and then turned around one year later to say it's 20 to 30 years out because one variable made that much difference. that's not science. That's guessing. Quote Last Post Only explain. I'm talking about science. One that was predicting complete ice melting in a year, and then turned around one year later to say it's 20 to 30 years out because one variable made that much difference. that's not science. That's guessing. Vitaldrive "yahoo"
Nerd Posts: 4319 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: , Moderator	11/3/2009 11:58 AM txmxer wrote: One is already wrong...the other...we'll see. But, why wait 20 years. Let's throw the world economy down the shitter because someone made a prediction. One that was wrong last year. Sounds a lot like the folks that predict the end of the world...and when it's wrong...well, it going to happen next year.... Nerd wrote: You're confusing science and politics again. txmxer wrote: explain. I'm talking about science. One that was predicting complete ice melting in a year, and then turned around one year later to say it's 20 to 30 years out because one variable made that much difference. that's not science. That's guessing. Nerd wrote: You're confusing science and politics again. txmxer wrote: explain. I'm talking about science. One that was predicting complete ice melting in a year, and then turned around one year later to say it's 20 to 30 years out because one variable made that much difference. that's not science. That's guessing. Nerd wrote: That is science. If you have one year that is way colder than expected, it takes a while to reverse the effects at the north pole. Science doesn't mean they will be right all the time, but it does mean that they have figured out the framework of a model that determines the climate. They have duplicated it in labs and proven it through ice cores. Then, on the other side you have coal, oil and energy companies putting out junk science to cause doubt in the populace, just like tobacco companies did in the 1950s. The science has nothing to do with cap and trade, which I agree is BS. Quote Last Post Only Nerd wrote: That is science. If you have one year that is way colder than expected, it takes a while to reverse the effects at the north pole. Science doesn't mean they will be right all the time, but it does mean that they have figured out the framework of a model that determines the climate. They have duplicated it in labs and proven it through ice cores. Then, on the other side you have coal, oil and energy companies putting out junk science to cause doubt in the populace, just like tobacco companies did in the 1950s. The science has nothing to do with cap and trade, which I agree is BS. Quote Last Post Only That is science. If you have one year that is way colder than expected, it takes a while to reverse the effects at the north pole. Science doesn't mean they will be right all the time, but it does mean that they have figured out the framework of a model that determines the climate. They have duplicated it in labs and proven it through ice cores. Then, on the other side you have coal, oil and energy companies putting out junk science to cause doubt in the populace, just like tobacco companies did in the 1950s. The science has nothing to do with cap and trade, which I agree is BS.
txmxer Posts: 6626 Joined: 8/21/2006 Location: Weatherford, TX	11/3/2009 12:20 PM txmxer wrote: their framework sucks if the changes that occur naturally in one year can alter their predictions that significantly. Once again, that qualifies as guesswork. Not science. What was the prediction for melting that particular year based on? It was obviously not based on a solid framework because the prediction is now 20 years out. As far as the politics...I'm not injecting politics into the discussion. It's been injected into the discussion by the IPCC and others. They have taken their faulty science and attempted to use it to make policy. I say their is much to debate and all they say is nope...done deal. Oh, but, our model is wrong again...oops. We tweaked the forcings. It will be right now. txmxer wrote: their framework sucks if the changes that occur naturally in one year can alter their predictions that significantly. Once again, that qualifies as guesswork. Not science. What was the prediction for melting that particular year based on? It was obviously not based on a solid framework because the prediction is now 20 years out. As far as the politics...I'm not injecting politics into the discussion. It's been injected into the discussion by the IPCC and others. They have taken their faulty science and attempted to use it to make policy. I say their is much to debate and all they say is nope...done deal. Oh, but, our model is wrong again...oops. We tweaked the forcings. It will be right now. Quote Last Post Only their framework sucks if the changes that occur naturally in one year can alter their predictions that significantly. Once again, that qualifies as guesswork. Not science. What was the prediction for melting that particular year based on? It was obviously not based on a solid framework because the prediction is now 20 years out. As far as the politics...I'm not injecting politics into the discussion. It's been injected into the discussion by the IPCC and others. They have taken their faulty science and attempted to use it to make policy. I say their is much to debate and all they say is nope...done deal. Oh, but, our model is wrong again...oops. We tweaked the forcings. It will be right now. Vitaldrive "yahoo"
Nerd Posts: 4319 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: , Moderator	11/3/2009 12:23 PM txmxer wrote: their framework sucks if the changes that occur naturally in one year can alter their predictions that significantly. Once again, that qualifies as guesswork. Not science. What was the prediction for melting that particular year based on? It was obviously not based on a solid framework because the prediction is now 20 years out. As far as the politics...I'm not injecting politics into the discussion. It's been injected into the discussion by the IPCC and others. They have taken their faulty science and attempted to use it to make policy. I say their is much to debate and all they say is nope...done deal. Oh, but, our model is wrong again...oops. We tweaked the forcings. It will be right now. txmxer wrote: their framework sucks if the changes that occur naturally in one year can alter their predictions that significantly. Once again, that qualifies as guesswork. Not science. What was the prediction for melting that particular year based on? It was obviously not based on a solid framework because the prediction is now 20 years out. As far as the politics...I'm not injecting politics into the discussion. It's been injected into the discussion by the IPCC and others. They have taken their faulty science and attempted to use it to make policy. I say their is much to debate and all they say is nope...done deal. Oh, but, our model is wrong again...oops. We tweaked the forcings. It will be right now. Nerd wrote: One guy made the claim. You guys don't understand science if you think there is some sort of a "leader" and that that person can make declarations on behalf of science as a whole. Nothing is every proven 100%. Nothing. Not even your very own existence. That doesn't mean it's not true, does it? When the studies first came out that linked lung cancer to tobacco smoke, do you think people should've listened? Or should they have waited nearly 50 years like they did? Quote Last Post Only Nerd wrote: One guy made the claim. You guys don't understand science if you think there is some sort of a "leader" and that that person can make declarations on behalf of science as a whole. Nothing is every proven 100%. Nothing. Not even your very own existence. That doesn't mean it's not true, does it? When the studies first came out that linked lung cancer to tobacco smoke, do you think people should've listened? Or should they have waited nearly 50 years like they did? Quote Last Post Only One guy made the claim. You guys don't understand science if you think there is some sort of a "leader" and that that person can make declarations on behalf of science as a whole. Nothing is every proven 100%. Nothing. Not even your very own existence. That doesn't mean it's not true, does it? When the studies first came out that linked lung cancer to tobacco smoke, do you think people should've listened? Or should they have waited nearly 50 years like they did?
txmxer Posts: 6626 Joined: 8/21/2006 Location: Weatherford, TX	11/3/2009 12:26 PM txmxer wrote: do go on about "science"...tell me what you read in a book... txmxer wrote: do go on about "science"...tell me what you read in a book... Quote Last Post Only do go on about "science"...tell me what you read in a book... Vitaldrive "yahoo"
txmxer Posts: 6626 Joined: 8/21/2006 Location: Weatherford, TX	11/3/2009 12:39 PM txmxer wrote: more to the point, let's compare climate science to evolution. You've said repeatedly that if they find rabbits were hanging around with T-Rex, the theory is shot (I think that was you, right?). You mention the ice-core data when it comes to climate. That's a fail much like the rabbit and the dinosaur. The record shows what is written off as an anomaly. Heating first, CO2 second. You know this. But, it's deemed irrelevant for some reason. It's not irrelevant. It's inconvenient and thus ignored. That's a big fail in terms of the scientific method. AGW proponents have been quoted as saying it must be the CO2 because we can't think of anything else...fail. This is a very inexact area of study. To give such credence to such inexact methods is a scientific failure. txmxer wrote: more to the point, let's compare climate science to evolution. You've said repeatedly that if they find rabbits were hanging around with T-Rex, the theory is shot (I think that was you, right?). You mention the ice-core data when it comes to climate. That's a fail much like the rabbit and the dinosaur. The record shows what is written off as an anomaly. Heating first, CO2 second. You know this. But, it's deemed irrelevant for some reason. It's not irrelevant. It's inconvenient and thus ignored. That's a big fail in terms of the scientific method. AGW proponents have been quoted as saying it must be the CO2 because we can't think of anything else...fail. This is a very inexact area of study. To give such credence to such inexact methods is a scientific failure. Quote Last Post Only more to the point, let's compare climate science to evolution. You've said repeatedly that if they find rabbits were hanging around with T-Rex, the theory is shot (I think that was you, right?). You mention the ice-core data when it comes to climate. That's a fail much like the rabbit and the dinosaur. The record shows what is written off as an anomaly. Heating first, CO2 second. You know this. But, it's deemed irrelevant for some reason. It's not irrelevant. It's inconvenient and thus ignored. That's a big fail in terms of the scientific method. AGW proponents have been quoted as saying it must be the CO2 because we can't think of anything else...fail. This is a very inexact area of study. To give such credence to such inexact methods is a scientific failure. Vitaldrive "yahoo"
Nerd Posts: 4319 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: , Moderator	11/3/2009 12:54 PM txmxer wrote: more to the point, let's compare climate science to evolution. You've said repeatedly that if they find rabbits were hanging around with T-Rex, the theory is shot (I think that was you, right?). You mention the ice-core data when it comes to climate. That's a fail much like the rabbit and the dinosaur. The record shows what is written off as an anomaly. Heating first, CO2 second. You know this. But, it's deemed irrelevant for some reason. It's not irrelevant. It's inconvenient and thus ignored. That's a big fail in terms of the scientific method. AGW proponents have been quoted as saying it must be the CO2 because we can't think of anything else...fail. This is a very inexact area of study. To give such credence to such inexact methods is a scientific failure. txmxer wrote: more to the point, let's compare climate science to evolution. You've said repeatedly that if they find rabbits were hanging around with T-Rex, the theory is shot (I think that was you, right?). You mention the ice-core data when it comes to climate. That's a fail much like the rabbit and the dinosaur. The record shows what is written off as an anomaly. Heating first, CO2 second. You know this. But, it's deemed irrelevant for some reason. It's not irrelevant. It's inconvenient and thus ignored. That's a big fail in terms of the scientific method. AGW proponents have been quoted as saying it must be the CO2 because we can't think of anything else...fail. This is a very inexact area of study. To give such credence to such inexact methods is a scientific failure. Nerd wrote: That after this that preceded it: do go on about "science"...tell me what you read in a book... Ha! So, I take it you studied the ice-core data yourself, huh? They have shown in labs that an increase in CO2 heats an environment. You're buying the junk science pushed by the oil and energy companies. Quote Last Post Only Nerd wrote: That after this that preceded it: do go on about "science"...tell me what you read in a book... Ha! So, I take it you studied the ice-core data yourself, huh? They have shown in labs that an increase in CO2 heats an environment. You're buying the junk science pushed by the oil and energy companies. Quote Last Post Only That after this that preceded it: do go on about "science"...tell me what you read in a book... Ha! So, I take it you studied the ice-core data yourself, huh? They have shown in labs that an increase in CO2 heats an environment. You're buying the junk science pushed by the oil and energy companies.
txmxer Posts: 6626 Joined: 8/21/2006 Location: Weatherford, TX	11/3/2009 1:15 PM txmxer wrote: so, you fail to respond? nice attempt at diverting the discussion. txmxer wrote: so, you fail to respond? nice attempt at diverting the discussion. Quote Last Post Only so, you fail to respond? nice attempt at diverting the discussion. Vitaldrive "yahoo"
Nerd Posts: 4319 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: , Moderator	11/3/2009 1:19 PM txmxer wrote: so, you fail to respond? nice attempt at diverting the discussion. txmxer wrote: so, you fail to respond? nice attempt at diverting the discussion. Nerd wrote: That was a response. They have proven the link of causation to CO2. You're simply buying the junk science being pushed by the oil industry just like people bought the junk science that the tobacco industry used to push. Quote Last Post Only Nerd wrote: That was a response. They have proven the link of causation to CO2. You're simply buying the junk science being pushed by the oil industry just like people bought the junk science that the tobacco industry used to push. Quote Last Post Only That was a response. They have proven the link of causation to CO2. You're simply buying the junk science being pushed by the oil industry just like people bought the junk science that the tobacco industry used to push.
txmxer Posts: 6626 Joined: 8/21/2006 Location: Weatherford, TX	11/3/2009 1:21 PM txmxer wrote: they have? Where/when? txmxer wrote: they have? Where/when? Quote Last Post Only they have? Where/when? Vitaldrive "yahoo"
Nerd Posts: 4319 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: , Moderator	11/3/2009 1:23 PM txmxer wrote: they have? Where/when? txmxer wrote: they have? Where/when? Nerd wrote: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/...global-temperatures/ Quote Last Post Only Nerd wrote: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/...global-temperatures/ Quote Last Post Only http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/...global-temperatures/
SteveS Posts: 2470 Joined: 8/16/2006 Location: Lake of the Ozarks, MO	11/3/2009 2:24 PM SteveS wrote: No proof there. SteveS wrote: No proof there. Quote Last Post Only No proof there.
Jack Flash Posts: 524 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: ,	11/3/2009 4:28 PM Nerd wrote: You're confusing science and politics again. txmxer wrote: explain. I'm talking about science. One that was predicting complete ice melting in a year, and then turned around one year later to say it's 20 to 30 years out because one variable made that much difference. that's not science. That's guessing. Nerd wrote: That is science. If you have one year that is way colder than expected, it takes a while to reverse the effects at the north pole. Science doesn't mean they will be right all the time, but it does mean that they have figured out the framework of a model that determines the climate. They have duplicated it in labs and proven it through ice cores. Then, on the other side you have coal, oil and energy companies putting out junk science to cause doubt in the populace, just like tobacco companies did in the 1950s. The science has nothing to do with cap and trade, which I agree is BS. txmxer wrote: explain. I'm talking about science. One that was predicting complete ice melting in a year, and then turned around one year later to say it's 20 to 30 years out because one variable made that much difference. that's not science. That's guessing. Nerd wrote: That is science. If you have one year that is way colder than expected, it takes a while to reverse the effects at the north pole. Science doesn't mean they will be right all the time, but it does mean that they have figured out the framework of a model that determines the climate. They have duplicated it in labs and proven it through ice cores. Then, on the other side you have coal, oil and energy companies putting out junk science to cause doubt in the populace, just like tobacco companies did in the 1950s. The science has nothing to do with cap and trade, which I agree is BS. Jack Flash wrote: Your guys sound like a whole bunch of Motodudes Nerd! Quote Last Post Only Jack Flash wrote: Your guys sound like a whole bunch of Motodudes Nerd! Quote Last Post Only Your guys sound like a whole bunch of Motodudes Nerd!
Nerd Posts: 4319 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: , Moderator	11/3/2009 4:29 PM SteveS wrote: No proof there. SteveS wrote: No proof there. Nerd wrote: You should probably read it. Quote Last Post Only Nerd wrote: You should probably read it. Quote Last Post Only You should probably read it.
Scotty Posts: 3704 Joined: 3/21/2008 Location: san diego, CA	11/3/2009 4:30 PM txmxer wrote: they have? Where/when? Nerd wrote: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/...global-temperatures/ txmxer wrote: they have? Where/when? Nerd wrote: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/...global-temperatures/ Scotty wrote: What does that prove? They are not using the science to undermine the other science that tells the science to prove that CO2 doesn't do shit to the science. wtf? Quote Last Post Only Scotty wrote: What does that prove? They are not using the science to undermine the other science that tells the science to prove that CO2 doesn't do shit to the science. wtf? Quote Last Post Only What does that prove? They are not using the science to undermine the other science that tells the science to prove that CO2 doesn't do shit to the science. wtf?
Nerd Posts: 4319 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: , Moderator	11/3/2009 4:35 PM txmxer wrote: they have? Where/when? Nerd wrote: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/...global-temperatures/ Scotty wrote: What does that prove? They are not using the science to undermine the other science that tells the science to prove that CO2 doesn't do shit to the science. wtf? Nerd wrote: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/...global-temperatures/ Scotty wrote: What does that prove? They are not using the science to undermine the other science that tells the science to prove that CO2 doesn't do shit to the science. wtf? Nerd wrote: No, it shows that the greenhouse effect has been repeatedly demonstrated to cause warming due to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, both through the checking of ice cores and through lab experiments. Quote Last Post Only Nerd wrote: No, it shows that the greenhouse effect has been repeatedly demonstrated to cause warming due to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, both through the checking of ice cores and through lab experiments. Quote Last Post Only No, it shows that the greenhouse effect has been repeatedly demonstrated to cause warming due to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, both through the checking of ice cores and through lab experiments.
Scotty Posts: 3704 Joined: 3/21/2008 Location: san diego, CA	11/3/2009 4:42 PM Nerd wrote: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/...global-temperatures/ Scotty wrote: What does that prove? They are not using the science to undermine the other science that tells the science to prove that CO2 doesn't do shit to the science. wtf? Nerd wrote: No, it shows that the greenhouse effect has been repeatedly demonstrated to cause warming due to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, both through the checking of ice cores and through lab experiments. Scotty wrote: What does that prove? They are not using the science to undermine the other science that tells the science to prove that CO2 doesn't do shit to the science. wtf? Nerd wrote: No, it shows that the greenhouse effect has been repeatedly demonstrated to cause warming due to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, both through the checking of ice cores and through lab experiments. Scotty wrote: I was joking. Quote Last Post Only Scotty wrote: I was joking. Quote Last Post Only I was joking.
CR250Rider Posts: 3485 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: Bellevue, WA.	11/3/2009 4:55 PM Edited Date/Time: 11/3/2009 4:56 PM CR250Rider wrote: Of note in the figure below is the strong correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. As the temperature increases, ice sheets recede, which increases the absorptivity of the earth, and more carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and other greenhouse gases are released. This increases the temperature further, which causes the ice sheets to recede further, and causes more greenhouse gases to be released, etc. This is a positive feedback loop and is the “runaway greenhouse effect” in action. The positive feedback also works in the opposite direction causing the earth to drastically fluctuate between these two metastable states. What causes this runaway greenhouse effect to end? The answer is that once the earth has achieved its maximum absorptivity (or very close to it), additional receding ice or greenhouse gases becomes irrelevant. The climate is “pinned” to the maximum possible value. CR250Rider wrote: Of note in the figure below is the strong correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. As the temperature increases, ice sheets recede, which increases the absorptivity of the earth, and more carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and other greenhouse gases are released. This increases the temperature further, which causes the ice sheets to recede further, and causes more greenhouse gases to be released, etc. This is a positive feedback loop and is the “runaway greenhouse effect” in action. The positive feedback also works in the opposite direction causing the earth to drastically fluctuate between these two metastable states. What causes this runaway greenhouse effect to end? The answer is that once the earth has achieved its maximum absorptivity (or very close to it), additional receding ice or greenhouse gases becomes irrelevant. The climate is “pinned” to the maximum possible value. Quote Last Post Only Of note in the figure below is the strong correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. As the temperature increases, ice sheets recede, which increases the absorptivity of the earth, and more carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and other greenhouse gases are released. This increases the temperature further, which causes the ice sheets to recede further, and causes more greenhouse gases to be released, etc. This is a positive feedback loop and is the “runaway greenhouse effect” in action. The positive feedback also works in the opposite direction causing the earth to drastically fluctuate between these two metastable states. What causes this runaway greenhouse effect to end? The answer is that once the earth has achieved its maximum absorptivity (or very close to it), additional receding ice or greenhouse gases becomes irrelevant. The climate is “pinned” to the maximum possible value. "...four-strokes are only competitive because they were given an enormous displacement advantage back in 1998." MXA. 3/11/2008
CR250Rider Posts: 3485 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: Bellevue, WA.	11/3/2009 4:57 PM CR250Rider wrote: CR250Rider wrote: Quote Last Post Only "...four-strokes are only competitive because they were given an enormous displacement advantage back in 1998." MXA. 3/11/2008
Nerd Posts: 4319 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: , Moderator	11/3/2009 4:58 PM Scotty wrote: What does that prove? They are not using the science to undermine the other science that tells the science to prove that CO2 doesn't do shit to the science. wtf? Nerd wrote: No, it shows that the greenhouse effect has been repeatedly demonstrated to cause warming due to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, both through the checking of ice cores and through lab experiments. Scotty wrote: I was joking. Nerd wrote: No, it shows that the greenhouse effect has been repeatedly demonstrated to cause warming due to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, both through the checking of ice cores and through lab experiments. Scotty wrote: I was joking. Nerd wrote: Sorry! You need a smiley or something! And CR250rider, that's the spin junk science being pushed by the oil and energy industries. Quote Last Post Only Nerd wrote: Sorry! You need a smiley or something! And CR250rider, that's the spin junk science being pushed by the oil and energy industries. Quote Last Post Only Sorry! You need a smiley or something! And CR250rider, that's the spin junk science being pushed by the oil and energy industries.
CR250Rider Posts: 3485 Joined: 4/01/2008 Location: Bellevue, WA.	11/3/2009 5:44 PM Nerd wrote: No, it shows that the greenhouse effect has been repeatedly demonstrated to cause warming due to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, both through the checking of ice cores and through lab experiments. Scotty wrote: I was joking. Nerd wrote: Sorry! You need a smiley or something! And CR250rider, that's the spin junk science being pushed by the oil and energy industries. Scotty wrote: I was joking. Nerd wrote: Sorry! You need a smiley or something! And CR250rider, that's the spin junk science being pushed by the oil and energy industries. CR250Rider wrote: i just need some more convincing, that's all. sounds plausible to me, but i'm obviously not a scientist, nor do i pretend to be. but plenty of real qualified ones wonder as I do. Follow the money? Gore is heavily invested, science grants, from GOVERNMENTS cloud the truth and the U.N. itself stands to gain untold power. lot's of suspicious elements at play. right? Quote Last Post Only CR250Rider wrote: i just need some more convincing, that's all. sounds plausible to me, but i'm obviously not a scientist, nor do i pretend to be. but plenty of real qualified ones wonder as I do. Follow the money? Gore is heavily invested, science grants, from GOVERNMENTS cloud the truth and the U.N. itself stands to gain untold power. lot's of suspicious elements at play. right? Quote Last Post Only i just need some more convincing, that's all. sounds plausible to me, but i'm obviously not a scientist, nor do i pretend to be. but plenty of real qualified ones wonder as I do. Follow the money? Gore is heavily invested, science grants, from GOVERNMENTS cloud the truth and the U.N. itself stands to gain untold power. lot's of suspicious elements at play. right? "...four-strokes are only competitive because they were given an enormous displacement advantage back in 1998." MXA. 3/11/2008
txmxer Posts: 6626 Joined: 8/21/2006 Location: Weatherford, TX	11/3/2009 6:07 PM Nerd wrote: No, it shows that the greenhouse effect has been repeatedly demonstrated to cause warming due to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, both through the checking of ice cores and through lab experiments. Scotty wrote: I was joking. Nerd wrote: Sorry! You need a smiley or something! And CR250rider, that's the spin junk science being pushed by the oil and energy industries. Scotty wrote: I was joking. Nerd wrote: Sorry! You need a smiley or something! And CR250rider, that's the spin junk science being pushed by the oil and energy industries. txmxer wrote: actually it's not. Go read pro-AGW sites and they acknowledge that there's more or less a limit in warming due to gases. But, you knew that, right? Quote Last Post Only txmxer wrote: actually it's not. Go read pro-AGW sites and they acknowledge that there's more or less a limit in warming due to gases. But, you knew that, right? Quote Last Post Only actually it's not. Go read pro-AGW sites and they acknowledge that there's more or less a limit in warming due to gases. But, you knew that, right? Vitaldrive "yahoo"

« Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »

Post a Reply to: Lord Monckton Global Warming