# Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F'

This is a discussion on Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F' within the Environment forums, part of the US Discussion category; Lordy, lordy. Gslack, do work on your reading comprehension. Present CO2 level. 387 ppm. Present CH4 level, 1800 ppb. The present level of CH4 represents ...

 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F'

04-22-2010, 09:41 AM
 Old Rocks Registered User Member #13758 Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Portland, Ore. Posts: 33,113 Thanks: 12,794 Thanked 6,975 Times in 5,118 Posts Mentioned: 13 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Rep Power: 3467

Present CO2 level. 387 ppm.
Present CH4 level, 1800 ppb.

The present level of CH4 represents an increase of over 1 ppm. That is the equivelent of 21 ppm of CO2, and counting the fact that it oxidizes into CO2, then it is the equivelant of 40 to 70 ppm of CO2. Using the lower figure, 387 plus 40 gives you the equivelant of 427 ppm of CO2.

Now, you add in the effect of all the industrial GHGs, and you will get an equivelant of over 450 ppm of CO2.

global warming potential
04-22-2010, 10:17 AM
 gslack Registered User Member #23002 Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 4,527 Thanks: 934 Thanked 845 Times in 626 Posts Mentioned: 1 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Rep Power: 252

Present CO2 level. 387 ppm.
Present CH4 level, 1800 ppb.

The present level of CH4 represents an increase of over 1 ppm. That is the equivelent of 21 ppm of CO2, and counting the fact that it oxidizes into CO2, then it is the equivelant of 40 to 70 ppm of CO2. Using the lower figure, 387 plus 40 gives you the equivelant of 427 ppm of CO2.

Now, you add in the effect of all the industrial GHGs, and you will get an equivelant of over 450 ppm of CO2.

global warming potential
LIAR!

That was not your claim, and that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the article like that. AND it took you 2 days to finally address it, and this is the best excuse you can come up with???

Really?

Some bull**** song and dance irrelevant math that was not part of your claim and not part of the article you cited as source?

UNFREAKINGBELEIVABLE!!!

Seriously you are pathetic now.......
__________________
"Part of the issue is that the science behind AGW is over." -PMZ

"I agree that science is never over."-PMZ, from the same thread...

"Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed. After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion." -PMZ explaining his version of conservation of energy..
04-22-2010, 11:17 AM
 Shorebreak Registered User Member #21063 Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 395 Thanks: 16 Thanked 98 Times in 74 Posts Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Rep Power: 14
Oh, come on, Gslack. Why can't you get with the program? All these folks are trying to do is hide the decline. Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.

 The Following User Says Thank You to Shorebreak For This Useful Post: gslack (04-22-2010)
04-22-2010, 12:01 PM
 konradv Registered User Member #22976 Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Baltimore Posts: 14,491 Thanks: 1,158 Thanked 2,892 Times in 2,173 Posts Mentioned: 3 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Rep Power: 1350
Why wouldn't you want to hide the decline? If the decline is due to natural forces, then you HAVE to hide it in order to parse out the contribution of man. To not hide it is like trying to measure out a liquid outside during a rain storm. If you don't "hide" the liquid you're measuring, you're going to be including a lot of rain.
04-22-2010, 12:09 PM
 gslack Registered User Member #23002 Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 4,527 Thanks: 934 Thanked 845 Times in 626 Posts Mentioned: 1 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Rep Power: 252
Quote: Originally Posted by Shorebreak Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Oh, come on, Gslack. Why can't you get with the program? All these folks are trying to do is hide the decline. Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.

YouTube - Climategate: Hide The Decline - the video
Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
__________________
"Part of the issue is that the science behind AGW is over." -PMZ

"I agree that science is never over."-PMZ, from the same thread...

"Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed. After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion." -PMZ explaining his version of conservation of energy..
04-22-2010, 12:11 PM
 gslack Registered User Member #23002 Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 4,527 Thanks: 934 Thanked 845 Times in 626 Posts Mentioned: 1 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Rep Power: 252
Why wouldn't you want to hide the decline? If the decline is due to natural forces, then you HAVE to hide it in order to parse out the contribution of man. To not hide it is like trying to measure out a liquid outside during a rain storm. If you don't "hide" the liquid you're measuring, you're going to be including a lot of rain.
Never fails like a clock his little parrot shows up every time he gets busted. Sorry pal too late he stuck his foot in it deep this time and no amount of distraction will change it...Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
__________________
"Part of the issue is that the science behind AGW is over." -PMZ

"I agree that science is never over."-PMZ, from the same thread...

"Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed. After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion." -PMZ explaining his version of conservation of energy..
04-26-2010, 10:51 AM
 konradv Registered User Member #22976 Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Baltimore Posts: 14,491 Thanks: 1,158 Thanked 2,892 Times in 2,173 Posts Mentioned: 3 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Rep Power: 1350
That was not your claim, and that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the article like that. AND it took you 2 days to finally address it, and this is the best excuse you can come up with???

Really?

Some bull**** song and dance irrelevant math that was not part of your claim and not part of the article you cited as source?

UNFREAKINGBELEIVABLE!!!

Seriously you are pathetic now.......

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

What's unfreakingbelievable is what a douche bag you are. We don't post correctly or don't answer you in time. Why should we care about the opinion of someone who ignores the basic logic of the situation?

CO2 absorbs energy.

The amount in the atmosphere has been going up.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Tell us, where is the extra CO2 over-and-above historical averages coming from, if not man?
04-26-2010, 10:57 AM
 boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Member #4301 Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Land of Funk Posts: 29,351 Thanks: 5,438 Thanked 15,208 Times in 8,670 Posts Mentioned: 55 Post(s) Tagged: 5 Thread(s) Rep Power: 27530
Posted in another thread, here's the real story behind the demonizing of CO2:

Given the Obama Administration's goal of passing Cap and Trade and its demonization of Wall Street - it's important to understand how Goldman Sachs is actually a big stakeholder in seeing it pass:

[i]Whether Wall Street colossus Goldman Sachs has committed a crime remains to be seen, but the investigation may well uncover the environmental lobby and its public figurehead. For nearly a decade, Goldman Sachs has been a quiet but major investor in cap and trade. And Goldman’s main investment partner has been Al Gore.

About a decade ago, Goldman executives recognized that personal fortunes could be made with the invention of a carbon trading system through the passage of a U.S. cap-and-trade bill. This area was well suited to Goldman Sachs, the architects behind the complex world of futures trading and exotic derivatives.

Goldman joined Al Gore in 2004 and capitalized his investment company, Generation Investment Management. Strangely for a man who was a heartbeat away from the presidency, Gore decided to register his company in London — not the United States.

In November 2004, Gore unveiled GIM. Standing at his side was David Blood, the CEO of Goldman Asset Management. Blood was to become his co-founder (the new company was quickly nicknamed “Blood & Gore”). It was established with the initial capital of \$206 million, much of it from Blood clients at Goldman Sachs.

Gore also turned to Goldman Sachs guru (and later Bush Treasury Secretary) Henry Paulson to help him establish GIM. At the time, Paulson himself was an eco-warrior of sorts, serving as chairman of the board of the Nature Conservancy.

Today, seven of Gore’s GIM chief partners are from Goldman Sachs. The company is now valued at \$2.2 billion.

(snip)

Marc Morano, publisher of Climatedepot.com, agrees:

Goldman Sachs is helping to engineer the next great bubble. And we are talking about subprime science, subprime politics, and subprime economics. Goldman Sachs is at the forefront of the subprime economics of carbon trading.

Although cap and trade has temporarily faded in Washington, D.C., carbon trading still lives in the nation’s capital. Next week, Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are expected to unveil a new cap-and-trade bill.

The idea of turning a free, colorless, and odorless gas into a product still attracts the money people. Myron Ebell, director of Freedom Action, says:

These Gore investments could potentially make him a billionaire. For a guy who started with just a small fortune he could end up with a very large one.

Pajamas Media Will Obama’s Goldman Sachs Attack Expose Al Gore? Or Other Dems?

Will Obama’s Goldman Sachs Attack Expose Al Gore?
__________________
"Nothing is more curious than the almost savage hostility that Humour excites in those who lack it." - George Saintsbury, A Last Vintage

04-26-2010, 11:07 AM
 gslack Registered User Member #23002 Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 4,527 Thanks: 934 Thanked 845 Times in 626 Posts Mentioned: 1 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Rep Power: 252
That was not your claim, and that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the article like that. AND it took you 2 days to finally address it, and this is the best excuse you can come up with???

Really?

Some bull**** song and dance irrelevant math that was not part of your claim and not part of the article you cited as source?

UNFREAKINGBELEIVABLE!!!

Seriously you are pathetic now.......

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

What's unfreakingbelievable is what a douche bag you are. We don't post correctly or don't answer you in time. Why should we care about the opinion of someone who ignores the basic logic of the situation?

CO2 absorbs energy.

The amount in the atmosphere has been going up.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Tell us, where is the extra CO2 over-and-above historical averages coming from, if not man?
4Days..... Thats the amount of time you took to come in here and try to defend the little weasel pal of yours....

Notice something? Your little pal ran away.... Showing his BS all too clearly.

AND your little obfuscation attempt is weak. It operates on the assumption CO2 (whether increased or not) drives climate. This has been shown and proven to be utterly false. CO2 is an effect of warming and not the cause. Ask any real scientist who actually works in the fields of paleo-climate research this direct question and an honest one will tell you the same thing I just did. Ask one of the faithful all clamoring for their research money and you will get a line of BS and postulating to confound and mislead the answer.

Now grow up and cite or quote people fairly douchebag...
__________________
"Part of the issue is that the science behind AGW is over." -PMZ

"I agree that science is never over."-PMZ, from the same thread...

"Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed. After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion." -PMZ explaining his version of conservation of energy..
04-26-2010, 11:10 AM
 boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Member #4301 Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Land of Funk Posts: 29,351 Thanks: 5,438 Thanked 15,208 Times in 8,670 Posts Mentioned: 55 Post(s) Tagged: 5 Thread(s) Rep Power: 27530
George says it best:

__________________
"Nothing is more curious than the almost savage hostility that Humour excites in those who lack it." - George Saintsbury, A Last Vintage

04-26-2010, 12:39 PM
 Si modo Registered User Member #20811 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: St. Eligius Posts: 39,197 Thanks: 6,535 Thanked 11,532 Times in 8,017 Posts Mentioned: 2 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Rep Power: 5295
That was not your claim, and that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the article like that. AND it took you 2 days to finally address it, and this is the best excuse you can come up with???

Really?

Some bull**** song and dance irrelevant math that was not part of your claim and not part of the article you cited as source?

UNFREAKINGBELEIVABLE!!!

Seriously you are pathetic now.......

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

What's unfreakingbelievable is what a douche bag you are. We don't post correctly or don't answer you in time. Why should we care about the opinion of someone who ignores the basic logic of the situation?

CO2 absorbs energy.

The amount in the atmosphere has been going up.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Tell us, where is the extra CO2 over-and-above historical averages coming from, if not man?
And, as has been pointed out to you before, your 'logic' is in error. IF CO2 levels are the only variable in climate effects, your point MIGHT have merit. It's not the only variable, thus your 'point' has no merit.

You have a short memory, are just not too bright, or are dishonest.
__________________
"It was ****ing corrupt. Embarrassing some of the stuff I learned about. I failed to lead and should have been more involved" .... a bus driver
 The Following User Says Thank You to Si modo For This Useful Post: gslack (04-26-2010)
04-26-2010, 12:43 PM
 boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Member #4301 Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Land of Funk Posts: 29,351 Thanks: 5,438 Thanked 15,208 Times in 8,670 Posts Mentioned: 55 Post(s) Tagged: 5 Thread(s) Rep Power: 27530
You have a short memory, are just not too bright, or are dishonest.

I'm going to guess he's doing a full hat trick.
__________________
"Nothing is more curious than the almost savage hostility that Humour excites in those who lack it." - George Saintsbury, A Last Vintage

 The Following User Says Thank You to boedicca For This Useful Post: Si modo (04-26-2010)
04-26-2010, 02:53 PM
 westwall Per Ardua Ad Astra Member #23239 Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Nevada Posts: 22,252 Thanks: 18,044 Thanked 8,530 Times in 5,840 Posts Mentioned: 624 Post(s) Tagged: 1 Thread(s) Rep Power: 18177
Please address a simple question I have for you. How did the temperature rise so high during the Roman Warming Period and the Medeival Warming Period without mans influence? Please answer that simple question if you would be so kind.

That was not your claim, and that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the article like that. AND it took you 2 days to finally address it, and this is the best excuse you can come up with???

Really?

Some bull**** song and dance irrelevant math that was not part of your claim and not part of the article you cited as source?

UNFREAKINGBELEIVABLE!!!

Seriously you are pathetic now.......

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

What's unfreakingbelievable is what a douche bag you are. We don't post correctly or don't answer you in time. Why should we care about the opinion of someone who ignores the basic logic of the situation?

CO2 absorbs energy.

The amount in the atmosphere has been going up.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Tell us, where is the extra CO2 over-and-above historical averages coming from, if not man?
__________________
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
'Yea, Though I Fly Through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I Shall Fear No Evil. For I am at 50,000 Feet and Climbing.'
- Sign over SR71 Wing Ops-

"He who asserts must also prove" Aristotle
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,

Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
04-26-2010, 04:49 PM
 Old Rocks Registered User Member #13758 Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Portland, Ore. Posts: 33,113 Thanks: 12,794 Thanked 6,975 Times in 5,118 Posts Mentioned: 13 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Rep Power: 3467

The Medeival warming was not as warm as present.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

And real scientists get published in places like this;

Global temperature change ? PNAS

Nor was the Roman period, if there was one at all, as warm as we are at present.

You disagree? Present real articles that support your position from real science journals, preferably peer reviewed. You do know what that is?
04-26-2010, 04:50 PM
 Old Rocks Registered User Member #13758 Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Portland, Ore. Posts: 33,113 Thanks: 12,794 Thanked 6,975 Times in 5,118 Posts Mentioned: 13 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Rep Power: 3467
That was not your claim, and that is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the article like that. AND it took you 2 days to finally address it, and this is the best excuse you can come up with???

Really?

Some bull**** song and dance irrelevant math that was not part of your claim and not part of the article you cited as source?

UNFREAKINGBELEIVABLE!!!

Seriously you are pathetic now.......

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

What's unfreakingbelievable is what a douche bag you are. We don't post correctly or don't answer you in time. Why should we care about the opinion of someone who ignores the basic logic of the situation?

CO2 absorbs energy.

The amount in the atmosphere has been going up.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Tell us, where is the extra CO2 over-and-above historical averages coming from, if not man?
And, as has been pointed out to you before, your 'logic' is in error. IF CO2 levels are the only variable in climate effects, your point MIGHT have merit. It's not the only variable, thus your 'point' has no merit.

You have a short memory, are just not too bright, or are dishonest.

Logic? You have yet to demostrate that in the least amount, Si.

 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F'
 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home USMB Office     Rules and Guidelines     Introduce Yourself     Announcements and Feedback US Discussion     Politics         Political Satire     Current Events     Clean Debate Zone     Congress     Election Forums     Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare     ObamaCare     Media     Immigration/Illegal Immigration     Stock Market     Law and Justice System     Environment     Education     Energy     Economy     Science and Technology     Religion and Ethics     History     Health and Lifestyle     Military     Conspiracy Theories     Race Relations/Racism     Tea Party Global Discussion     General Global Topics     Wikileaks     Australia     Afghanistan     Africa     Asia     Canada     Europe     Iraq     Iran     Israel and Palestine     Latin America     Middle East - General Site Sponsors Community     General Discussion     USMB Lounge         Word Games and Other Fun     USMB Mafia Zone     Reviews     The Bull Ring     Humor Hobbies     Automotive Forum     Arts & Crafts     Computers     Food & Wine     Firearms     Gardening and Landscaping     Motorcycles     Music     Paranormal     Pets     Philosophy     Photography and Imaging     Sports     Travel     TV Forum     The Outdoors     Writing     XBox/Playstation/Nintendo Wii

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:34 AM.

 -- US v2 -- US v1 Contact Us - Political Forums - Politics Discussion - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top