Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
My home is getting socked with 19-24 inches of snow. Yeah, I could do for some global warming about now. (no not really, I like snow.)
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Climate Science Untarnished by Stolen E-mails
- Thread starter JimH52
- Start date
Toronado3800
Gold Member
- Nov 15, 2009
- 7,608
- 560
- 140
It was a pretty good amount of replacement. Something that you wouldn't think humans would be capable of. There are a couple ways of running it. Really showed the effects of greenhouse gasses in large amounts.
I understand the trick is to guess, calculate, or imagine the effects of a smaller percentage increase on a much larger atmosphere over a longer amount of time.
Don't bother just saying the experiments have no real life meaning because the scale / percentage differences. I halfway agree. My "belief" is greenhouse gasses do hold in temperature but the exact percentage is unknown. My feeling is its better to be conservative and error on the side of caution instead of liberally dumping whenever/whatever we feel like. Don't worry though, I'm actually in favor of hard caps instead of this crazy trading system they've come up with. (We've had this discussion before)
I understand the trick is to guess, calculate, or imagine the effects of a smaller percentage increase on a much larger atmosphere over a longer amount of time.
Don't bother just saying the experiments have no real life meaning because the scale / percentage differences. I halfway agree. My "belief" is greenhouse gasses do hold in temperature but the exact percentage is unknown. My feeling is its better to be conservative and error on the side of caution instead of liberally dumping whenever/whatever we feel like. Don't worry though, I'm actually in favor of hard caps instead of this crazy trading system they've come up with. (We've had this discussion before)
IlovemyworkhereattheClimatResearchUnit.
Go to USMB and spread the word. According to us, climate science is untarnished!
Dinosaurs: We are not concerned about the 6 mile-wide asteroid that just impacted in Mexico.
- Sep 12, 2008
- 14,201
- 3,567
- 185
I have been seeing lots of little stories around where people are digging into what the emails talk about. One was folks dug around the data for Australia and found that adjustments made to the data to clarify errors from relocation of stations and the fact the areas around stations changed from rural to urban had the adjustments done backward (raised instead of lowered) and news from Russia that the East Anglia folks ignored better data and used worse data.
This isn't going away. As folks look into what has been going on, there will be more and more small bombshells.
Lets not forget the weather is not following the models, and the models have been consistently wrong. The temperatures are supposed to be rising, but are falling instead.
And the science is really badly tarnished by what they were doing in a host of different frauds relating to the peer review process.
There is also the farce that Copenhagen got its first snow in 14 years during the climate conference. The day after Algore showed up. He seems to be a snow god. Several global warming meetings have had weather problems when he shows up.
This isn't going away. As folks look into what has been going on, there will be more and more small bombshells.
Lets not forget the weather is not following the models, and the models have been consistently wrong. The temperatures are supposed to be rising, but are falling instead.
And the science is really badly tarnished by what they were doing in a host of different frauds relating to the peer review process.
There is also the farce that Copenhagen got its first snow in 14 years during the climate conference. The day after Algore showed up. He seems to be a snow god. Several global warming meetings have had weather problems when he shows up.
I have been seeing lots of little stories around where people are digging into what the emails talk about. One was folks dug around the data for Australia and found that adjustments made to the data to clarify errors from relocation of stations and the fact the areas around stations changed from rural to urban had the adjustments done backward (raised instead of lowered) and news from Russia that the East Anglia folks ignored better data and used worse data.
This isn't going away. As folks look into what has been going on, there will be more and more small bombshells.
Lets not forget the weather is not following the models, and the models have been consistently wrong. The temperatures are supposed to be rising, but are falling instead.
And the science is really badly tarnished by what they were doing in a host of different frauds relating to the peer review process.
There is also the farce that Copenhagen got its first snow in 14 years during the climate conference. The day after Algore showed up. He seems to be a snow god. Several global warming meetings have had weather problems when he shows up.
warmest decade in germany since they take records. and guess what, we just had a freezing period which killed some old folks and planes and trains.
It was a pretty good amount of replacement. Something that you wouldn't think humans would be capable of. There are a couple ways of running it. Really showed the effects of greenhouse gasses in large amounts.
I understand the trick is to guess, calculate, or imagine the effects of a smaller percentage increase on a much larger atmosphere over a longer amount of time.
Don't bother just saying the experiments have no real life meaning because the scale / percentage differences. I halfway agree. My "belief" is greenhouse gasses do hold in temperature but the exact percentage is unknown. My feeling is its better to be conservative and error on the side of caution instead of liberally dumping whenever/whatever we feel like. Don't worry though, I'm actually in favor of hard caps instead of this crazy trading system they've come up with. (We've had this discussion before)
My feeling is also to be conservative, but my conclusion is just opposite.
Right now, to feed the 6 billion or so folks breathing around here, we use vehicles driven by fossil fuel sourced energy. I have heard that the goal of our government is to reduce the emissions of CO2 to 20% of the current level.
Does anyone know when we were at that level of CO2 emission? Anyone know what the population was at that time? Anyone know exactly what percent of the global increase of CO2 that represents? Anyone know what percent of warming is currently driven by that percent of CO2?
To reach that level, we are planning planetary famine. I happen to have led a very nice life and have never in my life gone to bed hungry. There were times when I was simply too lazy to fix whatever was available, but never without food.
Think about farming. What part of the transport of seed, planting of seed, preparation of fields, fertilizing, irrigating, harvesting or transport of harvest is not driven by fossil fuel?
Famine in the USA? That is the plan.
Maybe that's not the plan and the Big 0 is just being disingenuous. Nah! That could not even be a consideration. At least some would not consider it.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Dinosaurs: We are not concerned about the 6 mile-wide asteroid that just impacted in Mexico.
Neo-con idiots. We are not concerned that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by 40% from the burning of fossil fuels. We are not concerned that man's activities have increased the atmospheric content of CH4 by 250%. We are not concerned that the Artic is responding to the warming by outgassing both CO2 and CH4.
No, we are just concerned that some energy moguls might make a few less billion.
What a bunch of blind idiots you people are.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
It was a pretty good amount of replacement. Something that you wouldn't think humans would be capable of. There are a couple ways of running it. Really showed the effects of greenhouse gasses in large amounts.
I understand the trick is to guess, calculate, or imagine the effects of a smaller percentage increase on a much larger atmosphere over a longer amount of time.
Don't bother just saying the experiments have no real life meaning because the scale / percentage differences. I halfway agree. My "belief" is greenhouse gasses do hold in temperature but the exact percentage is unknown. My feeling is its better to be conservative and error on the side of caution instead of liberally dumping whenever/whatever we feel like. Don't worry though, I'm actually in favor of hard caps instead of this crazy trading system they've come up with. (We've had this discussion before)
My feeling is also to be conservative, but my conclusion is just opposite.
Right now, to feed the 6 billion or so folks breathing around here, we use vehicles driven by fossil fuel sourced energy. I have heard that the goal of our government is to reduce the emissions of CO2 to 20% of the current level.
Does anyone know when we were at that level of CO2 emission? Anyone know what the population was at that time? Anyone know exactly what percent of the global increase of CO2 that represents? Anyone know what percent of warming is currently driven by that percent of CO2?
To reach that level, we are planning planetary famine. I happen to have led a very nice life and have never in my life gone to bed hungry. There were times when I was simply too lazy to fix whatever was available, but never without food.
Think about farming. What part of the transport of seed, planting of seed, preparation of fields, fertilizing, irrigating, harvesting or transport of harvest is not driven by fossil fuel?
Famine in the USA? That is the plan.
Maybe that's not the plan and the Big 0 is just being disingenuous. Nah! That could not even be a consideration. At least some would not consider it.
No, Code, it is peope like yourself that have created the situation that will create famine right here in the US.
Agriculture is dependent on weather. As the weather gets less predictable, there will be major crop failures. Those not wise enough to plan for this will suffer.
interview - climate science untarnished by hacked emails - ipcc | top news | reuters
this is exactly what a lot of us have been saying. There is no smoking gun in the e-mails. The problem is the neos that want to deny globla warming don't understand what they are reading. Who woulda thunk?
you utilize an interview with the head of the ipcc denying there is a scandal as proof there isn't a scandal??? Are you actually that moronic?
That is akin to interviewing hitler on international relations as proof he was not at all a bad guy.
The ipcc and its big brother the united nations are scrambling to do all they can to minimize the increasing damage caused by these revelations because they could lose billions if more and more continue to call bs on the global warming scam...
keep thinking that and also vote for palin if she ever runs for another public office that she can quit. Maybe if someone read the e-mails s l o w l y__t o __y o u,__y o u__m i g h t__u n d e r s t a n d . . .
t___a___k____e__________y_____o_____u______r______o_____w_____n_______a_____d_____v_____i____c_____e_______a_____s_____s_____h_____o____l_____e____!
Last edited:
- May 20, 2009
- 144,594
- 67,058
- 2,330
Dinosaurs: We are not concerned about the 6 mile-wide asteroid that just impacted in Mexico.
Neo-con idiots. We are not concerned that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by 40% from the burning of fossil fuels. We are not concerned that man's activities have increased the atmospheric content of CH4 by 250%. We are not concerned that the Artic is responding to the warming by outgassing both CO2 and CH4.
No, we are just concerned that some energy moguls might make a few less billion.
What a bunch of blind idiots you people are.
It's too bad the science is so mean to your forgone conclusions.
New Party Line: The Imaginary Man-made CO2 contribution that never existed is now the driving force in putting more methane in the atmosphere.
Stop pretending you're talking about science, this is a fairy tale. You and the 6,000 Year Old Earthers should spend more time together because you have more in common than you realize
- May 20, 2009
- 144,594
- 67,058
- 2,330
It was a pretty good amount of replacement. Something that you wouldn't think humans would be capable of. There are a couple ways of running it. Really showed the effects of greenhouse gasses in large amounts.
I understand the trick is to guess, calculate, or imagine the effects of a smaller percentage increase on a much larger atmosphere over a longer amount of time.
Don't bother just saying the experiments have no real life meaning because the scale / percentage differences. I halfway agree. My "belief" is greenhouse gasses do hold in temperature but the exact percentage is unknown. My feeling is its better to be conservative and error on the side of caution instead of liberally dumping whenever/whatever we feel like. Don't worry though, I'm actually in favor of hard caps instead of this crazy trading system they've come up with. (We've had this discussion before)
My feeling is also to be conservative, but my conclusion is just opposite.
Right now, to feed the 6 billion or so folks breathing around here, we use vehicles driven by fossil fuel sourced energy. I have heard that the goal of our government is to reduce the emissions of CO2 to 20% of the current level.
Does anyone know when we were at that level of CO2 emission? Anyone know what the population was at that time? Anyone know exactly what percent of the global increase of CO2 that represents? Anyone know what percent of warming is currently driven by that percent of CO2?
To reach that level, we are planning planetary famine. I happen to have led a very nice life and have never in my life gone to bed hungry. There were times when I was simply too lazy to fix whatever was available, but never without food.
Think about farming. What part of the transport of seed, planting of seed, preparation of fields, fertilizing, irrigating, harvesting or transport of harvest is not driven by fossil fuel?
Famine in the USA? That is the plan.
Maybe that's not the plan and the Big 0 is just being disingenuous. Nah! That could not even be a consideration. At least some would not consider it.
No, Code, it is peope like yourself that have created the situation that will create famine right here in the US.
Agriculture is dependent on weather. As the weather gets less predictable, there will be major crop failures. Those not wise enough to plan for this will suffer.
Yeah, we were so much better off before the recent warming trend that started 18,000 years ago when everything north of the Ohio River was a Glacier.
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
Neo-con idiots. We are not concerned that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by 40% from the burning of fossil fuels. We are not concerned that man's activities have increased the atmospheric content of CH4 by 250%. We are not concerned that the Artic is responding to the warming by outgassing both CO2 and CH4.
No, we are just concerned that some energy moguls might make a few less billion.
What a bunch of blind idiots you people are.
What's a 40% increase in 0.03%?
Ohhh that's right, that makes it a 0.42%! How silly of me!
It's TEOWAWKI!!!! RUN RUN FOR THE HILLS EVERYBODY! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES AND FLAP YOUR ARMS LIKE A CHICKEN!!!!!! PuKuck!!
Check your math....It's nowhere near near 0.42%
It was a pretty good amount of replacement. Something that you wouldn't think humans would be capable of. There are a couple ways of running it. Really showed the effects of greenhouse gasses in large amounts.
I understand the trick is to guess, calculate, or imagine the effects of a smaller percentage increase on a much larger atmosphere over a longer amount of time.
Don't bother just saying the experiments have no real life meaning because the scale / percentage differences. I halfway agree. My "belief" is greenhouse gasses do hold in temperature but the exact percentage is unknown. My feeling is its better to be conservative and error on the side of caution instead of liberally dumping whenever/whatever we feel like. Don't worry though, I'm actually in favor of hard caps instead of this crazy trading system they've come up with. (We've had this discussion before)
My feeling is also to be conservative, but my conclusion is just opposite.
Right now, to feed the 6 billion or so folks breathing around here, we use vehicles driven by fossil fuel sourced energy. I have heard that the goal of our government is to reduce the emissions of CO2 to 20% of the current level.
Does anyone know when we were at that level of CO2 emission? Anyone know what the population was at that time? Anyone know exactly what percent of the global increase of CO2 that represents? Anyone know what percent of warming is currently driven by that percent of CO2?
To reach that level, we are planning planetary famine. I happen to have led a very nice life and have never in my life gone to bed hungry. There were times when I was simply too lazy to fix whatever was available, but never without food.
Think about farming. What part of the transport of seed, planting of seed, preparation of fields, fertilizing, irrigating, harvesting or transport of harvest is not driven by fossil fuel?
Famine in the USA? That is the plan.
Maybe that's not the plan and the Big 0 is just being disingenuous. Nah! That could not even be a consideration. At least some would not consider it.
No, Code, it is peope like yourself that have created the situation that will create famine right here in the US.
Agriculture is dependent on weather. As the weather gets less predictable, there will be major crop failures. Those not wise enough to plan for this will suffer.
As far as I know, weather has always been unpredictable. The climate is an absolute mystery to AGWers. If the past is any indication, there will periods of rain, drought, heat and cold. Sometimes it will be very, very warm and sometimes it will be very, very cold.
I'll predict right here and now that there will be snow and there will be rain. Probably right after Mrs. Code has had me plant some flowers, we'll have hail.
I have lived in 5 states. In every one except California, someone has said to me, "That's the thing about the weather around here. If you don't like it, just wait a while. It's going to change." They have been right in every case.
By the by, if there is a big enough change in climate to cause planetary famine, what will those who "wise enough to plan for this" going to do?
I need to know this in case the Big 0 is successful in his plans.
- May 20, 2009
- 144,594
- 67,058
- 2,330
The way you can tell someone is outright lying is that they'll either say "I'm a teabagger" or use the phrase "Settled science"
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- May 20, 2009
- 144,594
- 67,058
- 2,330
"I'm a Warmer..."
How are deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 melting the polar ice caps -- on Mars?
Yes...Let's lead it all off with the debunked "hockey stick" graph. .
.Similar threads
- Replies
- 648
- Views
- 7K
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 736
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 56
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8092
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-