Scientific opposition to climate change

Now Oddie, must you always try to prove what a dumb fuck you truly are? That Petition was put out by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an organization located about twelve miles from Cave Junction, Oregon. A really cosmopolitan setting for all three of the senile founders.


What if the Oregon Petition names were real? « Greenfyre?s



“Right. Real scientists would sign a petition organized by some one man Oregon backwater. They wouldn’t publish refutations of the science in the literature, nor bring it up at conferences and symposia, nor use the various professional organizations and societies at their disposal, nor work through the National Academies and various professional institutions. Nope, not a chance.

For sure they’d just sign an on-line petition put up by someone who can’t even manage decent HTML [It's improved ... the original was much worse]. Real credible … and who was supposed to believe this? brain damaged rodents? children who hadn’t read ‘How and Why Wonder Books’?”

Of course the petition turned out to be even more ridiculous than it initially seemed (links at bottom). Still, the Petition found an audience gullible and desperate enough to accept it as credible.

A history of the Petition in terms of the key players, and an excellent breakdown of the signatories can be found at “The Global Warming Debate” starting about 1/3rd down the page.

Nice ad hominem attack, which does nothing to refute the credentials of the 31,000+ who signed the petition.

But thanks for playing, you dried up old fart.

__________________
Oddball's ignore list: Backward hatters, terrain park rats, HOV lanes, rappers, "new country", NASCAR, basketball, soccer, dweebs who think that a drawer full of Harley tee shirts makes them a motorcyclist, celebutards in general and "reality" show 'tards in particular, "green" anything, hippies, wiggers, Zippy the pinhead, windbag sports pundits including, but not limited to; Skip Bayless, Chris Berman, Stephen A. Smith, Joe Buck, Woody Paige, Jay Mariotti, pride rallies/parades, radio blabbermouths not named Jason Lewis, fruity Japanese "drift" cars, Wal-Mart/Sam's/Costco haters, snobs, Larry the Cable Guy, Lars Ulrich, Jerry Jones, Jimmy Fallon, Jon Stewart, Flo, Sunday news shows, cable pundit programs in general and MSNBC in particular, Nickelback, Jim Cramer, Paul Krugman, EJ Dionne, Celine Dion, Karl Rove, Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter, Illinois Nazis.

Oddball -

Are you aware that very, very many of the people who signed the petition now say that they were either
mistaken, that they would not sign such a document today, that they were misled, or that they never signed it in the first place?

I appreciate you can scarecely read or write, but even by your standards isn't this a little dumb?

__________________
'And if you tolerate this, then you children will be next' The Manics

OB reads and writes just fine, ya' pompous lil' pissant.......Now, seeing as though you're obviously a gullible lil' fool, I have some prime oceanfront property in Palm Springs, complete with palm trees, coconuts, surfboard, and a big titty blonde beach bunny with an apple ass...I'll give ya' a great deal on it. All you have to do is deposit the money in my PayPal account, and I will e-mail ya' the deed....What say you?

And that deal goes for any of you gullible lil' AGW loons....Let me know!

__________________
The Jester laughs because the world is full of fools!
I'm multi-talented. I can talk and piss you off at the same time.
Sometimes, "the majority" only means all the FOOLS are on the same side!
Yesterdays flower children are todays blooming idiots.
99% of democrats give the rest a bad name
I just neutered the dog. Now he's a liberal!
FAT PEOPLE ARE HARD TO KIDNAP

When my life is over, and my time has come to pass, bury me upside down so the world can KISS MY ASS!

Wicked Jester -

If you can find any coherent and on-topic post from Oddball anywhere on this forum, I'd love to see it.

You won't find one.

But as for gullibility - I couldn't agree more. In many ways the key issue with climate scepticism is that people would rather believe nutcase blogs than they would listen to genuine scientific sources.

__________________
'And if you tolerate this, then you children will be next' The Manics

Ya' mean like the NASA study that completely blew the CO2 myth put out by the AGWer's completely out of the water?

__________________
The Jester laughs because the world is full of fools!
I'm multi-talented. I can talk and piss you off at the same time.
Sometimes, "the majority" only means all the FOOLS are on the same side!
Yesterdays flower children are todays blooming idiots.
99% of democrats give the rest a bad name
I just neutered the dog. Now he's a liberal!
FAT PEOPLE ARE HARD TO KIDNAP

When my life is over, and my time has come to pass, bury me upside down so the world can KISS MY ASS!

W. Jester -

I'd really prefer to stick to facts and events that actually happened.

__________________
'And if you tolerate this, then you children will be next' The Manics

I think it is silly to pretend that we cannot see "climate change."

We know climate changes.

What we don't know is who or what is the cause of it.

There is very little quality evidence for man-caused climate change. There is no rational basis to believe that anything we can do about climate will have much impact on it changing.

Do you have a link you can share for that study?

Ilar -

Actually, the evidence linking CO2 to climate change is overwhelming. It is complex, but there is no lack of data now - which is why no major scientific organisation questions the link at this point.

I am happy to post an overview of the science for you if you like.

Ok, here it is: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...use-effect.htm

__________________
'And if you tolerate this, then you children will be next' The Manics

Um....good luck with that!

__________________
'And if you tolerate this, then you children will be next' The Manics

A blog entry is what passes for overwhelming evidence in your book? You get more rediculous with every post...And that so called evidence is anything but...

It claims actual measurements of downward LW radiation when no such measurements exist that have been taken at ambient temperature. The devices which have measured downdwelling radiation are, without exception, cooled to a temperature far below ambient.

If you knew the first thing about the second law of thermodynamics, you might begin to suspect why a device must be cooled to a temperature lower than the ambient to measure what is claimed to be happening at the ambient.

Here is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG in 1997. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions.



The light colored line is the IRIS data collected in 1970 and the darker line is the IMG data from 1997. If AGW theory were correct, the IMG data from 1997 should show less outgoing longwave radiation than the IRIS data from 1970 as there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1997 than there was in 1970. As you can see, the longwave radiation from the two separate snapshots is identical indicating no additional absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.




If you print the two graphs and overlay them, you will find them identical. No less outgoing LW radiation.

I am sorry I couldn't find a blog from a right wing politician!! I do know how you love those as sources.


The Sceptical Science pages do provide a good overview for people who just want to know the key issues. It also provides lots of studies people can then go on to read if they wish. We know you don't read those!

btw. There is also a page on the site which explains your error with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Here it is: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Seco...use-theory.htm

__________________
'And if you tolerate this, then you children will be next' The Manics

johnosullivan.livejournal.com/38681.html] johnosullivan - New NASA Satellite Data Study Undermines Greenhouse Gas Effect

??

I can't post URL's here yet. So I just note what would be in the URL link.

Please try and use genuine scientific sources. NASA might be a good place to start.

They say:

Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change whereas gases, such as water, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks."

Climate Change: Causes

__________________
'And if you tolerate this, then you children will be next' The Manics