More Environmentalist Fraud!!!

[Old Rocks]

Look.........heres the poop folks.

Old Rocks is an elitist fcukking k00k who's world is 100% idealistic, and it doesnt take a genius to figure this out. When you are able to be on the computer 18 hours a day, it kinds tells you soemthing does it not?? And you will find, many of these environmentalist religious loons have one thing in common: they are largely social invalids and it is no accident that many are able to spend their whole life blogging about the way they want the world to be. Its not being out in the real woprld though........they dont get chances to assess real people in real situations, nor do they have to be held accountable for anything except paying their internet bill. It effects the way you view life s0ns..........

Its like my father in-law........PHd in English. Never worked a day in his life yet thinks he's the smartest among us. Self righteous as hell though with plenty of strong opinion............just like Rocks here. But in the real world, its the height of failure in my view. Like my fther in-law, Rocks lives a life of philosophy and for people like that, the world view is significantly clouded.

These people dont want to know information that challenges their worldview........

While I agree with most of your post, I really doubt OR is a PhD of anything. Nor do I buy that he's smarter than anyone. People who get their jollies out of telling everyone how much smarter they are than the average joe generally have some serious issues.

The truly intelligent, classy people of this world do not feel compelled to advertise their position on the IQ richter scale. It's obvious when somebody is intelligent. They don't have to point it out. If they are pointing it out it's because nobody else think's they're very smart; usually because they AREN'T.

IDK bro..........OR could easily have a Phd in environmental blogging if they handed the things out. The guy must put in a minimum of 100 hours a week on here.........certainly commendable enough for special recognition..............at least in the Environmental Special Olympics

Well, I don't put in that much time. You see, some of us use more that just one finger to type with.

 

[Old Rocks]

By the way, ol' Kooky Bill, it would be interesting to see you follow me around for just one day in the steel mill. Millwrighting gives you a very practical view of the world. Ideology has never fixed a machine yet, nor made a differance in the strength of a material. Nor in the absorbtion spectrum of a GHG.

 

[Bern80]

By the way, ol' Kooky Bill, it would be interesting to see you follow me around for just one day in the steel mill. Millwrighting gives you a very practical view of the world. Ideology has never fixed a machine yet, nor made a differance in the strength of a material. Nor in the absorbtion spectrum of a GHG.

Milwrighting gives you a [practical view of the world? That's rich. There isn't a more IMpractical person on these boards. How can one person be so fucking old and so fucking dense at the same time? If you were practical person, you would see that from a practical sense that what man contributes to the ozone effect is basically nothing. If you were practical you would see that man's impact by something even as drastic as everyone driving electric cars is negligible at best. And I give two shits about what scientific bodies, who's funding depends on their findings, say about it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bern, can the yap-yap, and present some real evidence that AGW is not real. Can you do that?

Well, no, you cannot. Not even were the evidence out there because it is not the be found in Conservative talking points. One has to read scientific papers in order to see what the evidence is. And thus far, I have seen no indication that you have the intellectual capacity to do that.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, can the yap-yap, and present some real evidence that AGW is not real. Can you do that?

Well, no, you cannot. Not even were the evidence out there because it is not the be found in Conservative talking points. One has to read scientific papers in order to see what the evidence is. And thus far, I have seen no indication that you have the intellectual capacity to do that.

When have you done this? Where did YOU ever present any evidence that the current warming trend was predominantly caused by man? YOU are the one making the argument. You are the one that needs to back it up. And you are the one that is going to have the hard time doing so, since the two biggest proponents of AGW, Gore and the IPCC have been PROVEN to be absolute frauds. On top of that you pretend a group is exhonorated of wrong doing because they investigated THEMSELVES? There still enough time in your life to get a little integrity while your at it.

Let's see if you really do have any integrity and have an honest discussion:

I am not saying it is or it isn't, rather IF the current warming period is natural, and assuming all of the disasters you predict as a result of a warmer earth, should we still be trying to stop it from happening?

 

[westwall]

By the way, ol' Kooky Bill, it would be interesting to see you follow me around for just one day in the steel mill. Millwrighting gives you a very practical view of the world. Ideology has never fixed a machine yet, nor made a differance in the strength of a material. Nor in the absorbtion spectrum of a GHG.

So, how long have you worked for Evraz?

 

[logical4u]

The Vikings farmed Greenland from 800s until the 1300s

Even the socialist democrat bible: the New York Times said to Cool the Hype

In 1421 China sailed through the “Polar regions” in a ship, no ice.

The “Ozone Hole” is getting larger even after Al Gore helped to ban Freon & CFCs through the Montreal Accord that doesn't require participation of China, India, & other developing countries.

Rolling Stone Magazine: Al Gore The Avenger - "As vice president, Gore was a chief architect of the Kyoto Protocol, the historic accord on reducing carbon-dioxide emissions. But the Senate refused to ratify the treaty, calling the evidence "inconclusive.""

China exempt from reducing greenhouse gases in Kyoto Signed by Clinton-Gore.

Al Gores campaign was funded by the (PRC) Peoples Republic of China. Do you see a pattern here with Gore helping China? Gore was key in passing NAFTA. (See Gore vs Perot Debate)

China is importing & hording oil at twice the rate they are using it.

Al Gore does not actually believe his CO2 causes warming story.

Why was "Global Warming" renamed "Global Climate Change"?

I forget, didn't these guys say we are we experiencing "Peak Oil"? How is it possible to fill the atmosphere with carbon if we are running out?

Weren't these so called "scientist" screaming global cooling 35 years ago?

Why were all the thermometers that read cool excluded from the temp data?

Dosen't CO2 Lag Temperature by 800 years?

Albany, New York has one of the longest actual temp measurements in U.S. When they started recording temp measurements in 1820 in Albany, New York the Average Annual Temperature for 1822 was 49.0F, & in 2008 it was still 49.0F.

 

[konradv]

Weren't these so called "scientist" screaming global cooling 35 years ago?

If you were logical in your thought processses instead of merely ideological, you'd have to wonder what would make so many scientists change their minds in a relatively short period of time. Of course, the denier position has very little to do with science and everything to do with politics. The main objection apparently is that, they just don't like Gore. I don't pay much attention to those types, because those that know the subject, discuss it. Those that don't, talk about Gore!

 

[Bern80]

Weren't these so called "scientist" screaming global cooling 35 years ago?

If you were logical in your thought processses instead of merely ideological, you'd have to wonder what would make so many scientists change their minds in a relatively short period of time. Of course, the denier position has very little to do with science and everything to do with politics. The main objection apparently is that, they just don't like Gore. I don't pay much attention to those types, because those that know the subject, discuss it. Those that don't, talk about Gore!

Gore gets brought up by the opposition for some legitimate reasons. Like why is the figurehead for AGW NOT a scientist? Why won't he debate anyone on the issue if he's so right about it? Might he have some financial reasons (carbon credits) for proporting AGW? Whether you believe in AGW or not, one has to admit, that this most vocal of spokespeople is far from credible.

 

[westwall]

Weren't these so called "scientist" screaming global cooling 35 years ago?

If you were logical in your thought processses instead of merely ideological, you'd have to wonder what would make so many scientists change their minds in a relatively short period of time. Of course, the denier position has very little to do with science and everything to do with politics. The main objection apparently is that, they just don't like Gore. I don't pay much attention to those types, because those that know the subject, discuss it. Those that don't, talk about Gore!

The reason they changed their minds are two-fold. The first is no one seemed to care that things were getting colder at the time so there was no money being thrown at them. And secondly we entered into one of the thirty year warming trends that the Earth enters into oh every 50 years or so. After the corresponding cooling period stops....and then the warming trend comes back....for a decade or three....then the cooling comes back.....


Uhhh get the picture? Nope I didn't think you would. That's why we're reclassifying AGW theory as a religion. It has no basis in science and relys on the faith of its adherents.

 

[konradv]

Weren't these so called "scientist" screaming global cooling 35 years ago?

If you were logical in your thought processses instead of merely ideological, you'd have to wonder what would make so many scientists change their minds in a relatively short period of time. Of course, the denier position has very little to do with science and everything to do with politics. The main objection apparently is that, they just don't like Gore. I don't pay much attention to those types, because those that know the subject, discuss it. Those that don't, talk about Gore!

Gore gets brought up by the opposition for some legitimate reasons. Like why is the figurehead for AGW NOT a scientist? Why won't he debate anyone on the issue if he's so right about it? Might he have some financial reasons (carbon credits) for proporting AGW? Whether you believe in AGW or not, one has to admit, that this most vocal of spokespeople is far from credible.

No, I don't. He isn't getting this stuff out of thin air. He may be a bit dramatic in his presentation, but the gist of the science is right on.

 

[westwall]

Weren't these so called "scientist" screaming global cooling 35 years ago?

If you were logical in your thought processses instead of merely ideological, you'd have to wonder what would make so many scientists change their minds in a relatively short period of time. Of course, the denier position has very little to do with science and everything to do with politics. The main objection apparently is that, they just don't like Gore. I don't pay much attention to those types, because those that know the subject, discuss it. Those that don't, talk about Gore!

Gore gets brought up by the opposition for some legitimate reasons. Like why is the figurehead for AGW NOT a scientist? Why won't he debate anyone on the issue if he's so right about it? Might he have some financial reasons (carbon credits) for proporting AGW? Whether you believe in AGW or not, one has to admit, that this most vocal of spokespeople is far from credible.

No, I don't. He isn't getting this stuff out of thin air. He may be a bit dramatic in his presentation, but the gist of the science is right on.

Hate to tell you but it's not.

Here is the latest scientist to figure out it's all a fraud.

CFACT

 

[skookerasbil]

Gore gets brought up by the opposition for some legitimate reasons. Like why is the figurehead for AGW NOT a scientist? Why won't he debate anyone on the issue if he's so right about it? Might he have some financial reasons (carbon credits) for proporting AGW? Whether you believe in AGW or not, one has to admit, that this most vocal of spokespeople is far from credible.

No, I don't. He isn't getting this stuff out of thin air. He may be a bit dramatic in his presentation, but the gist of the science is right on.

Hate to tell you but it's not.

Here is the latest scientist to figure out it's all a fraud.

CFACT

.......w0w...........Westwall asserting his dominance on the Environmental forum of the USMessageBoard!!!


classic pwn bro....................classic.....................


Holy crap.......this guy said EXACTLY what I have been sayng for 10 years..........almost word for word.

Just more concrete fodder that this "man made" global warming stuff is a gigantic hoax and has been so since the beginning.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[konradv]

So what if we're "within normal limits" now? The whole point, if GHGs continue to rise, warming is inevitable. The REAL fraud is that the deniers are creating a generation of scientific Know-Nothings, who think that all science is politically motivated, when they themselves are the main culprits.

 

[KissMy]

So what if we're "within normal limits" now? The whole point, if GHGs continue to rise, warming is inevitable. The REAL fraud is that the deniers are creating a generation of scientific Know-Nothings, who think that all science is politically motivated, when they themselves are the main culprits.

Bullshit Where do you get your power from? Did you gas up your ride this week? George W. Bush home is likely greener than yours & Al Gores. I have wind & solar, underground cistern collects rainwater & a geothermal heat pump, efficient fluorescent lighting, low-E double pained windows, insulated doors, air tight spray foam insulated home, recycle, have a large garden, can my own food, run all vehicles on E-85 bio-fuel & use a outdoor clothes-line. Do you?

Temperature drives CO2, Not the other way around.

 

[konradv]

So what if we're "within normal limits" now? The whole point, if GHGs continue to rise, warming is inevitable. The REAL fraud is that the deniers are creating a generation of scientific Know-Nothings, who think that all science is politically motivated, when they themselves are the main culprits.

Bullshit Where do you get your power from? Did you gas up your ride this week? George W. Bush home is likely greener than yours & Al Gores. I have wind & solar, do you?

Temperature drives CO2, Not the other way around.

You're listening to people who are feeding you lies. CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation. That's a well established fact. If CO2 continues to rise and statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, what's the other half doing?!?! Remember, there's a little bugaboo called Conservation of Energy that the deniers like to ignore. Crack a science book sometime. Merely parroting phrases you've heard from others doesn't cut it with me. PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

 

[westwall]

So what if we're "within normal limits" now? The whole point, if GHGs continue to rise, warming is inevitable. The REAL fraud is that the deniers are creating a generation of scientific Know-Nothings, who think that all science is politically motivated, when they themselves are the main culprits.

Bullshit Where do you get your power from? Did you gas up your ride this week? George W. Bush home is likely greener than yours & Al Gores. I have wind & solar, do you?

Temperature drives CO2, Not the other way around.

You're listening to people who are feeding you lies. CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation. That's a well established fact. If CO2 continues to rise and statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, what's the other half doing?!?! Remember, there's a little bugaboo called Conservation of Energy that the deniers like to ignore. Crack a science book sometime. Merely parroting phrases you've heard from others doesn't cut it with me. PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Yes, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that all energy decreases towards entropy. So riddle me this batman, how do you get MORE energy by passing it through a CO2 membrane? According to the Laws of Conservation of Energy, everytime there is an interaction you LOSE energy, you are the people who claim that in the interaction of solar energy and the atmosphere you get MORE energy. Try following your own advice and read a good book, one that has actual real science in it.

You folks are chasing the proverbial perpetual motion machine.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bullshit Where do you get your power from? Did you gas up your ride this week? George W. Bush home is likely greener than yours & Al Gores. I have wind & solar, do you?

Temperature drives CO2, Not the other way around.

You're listening to people who are feeding you lies. CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation. That's a well established fact. If CO2 continues to rise and statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, what's the other half doing?!?! Remember, there's a little bugaboo called Conservation of Energy that the deniers like to ignore. Crack a science book sometime. Merely parroting phrases you've heard from others doesn't cut it with me. PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Yes, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that all energy decreases towards entropy. So riddle me this batman, how do you get MORE energy by passing it through a CO2 membrane? According to the Laws of Conservation of Energy, everytime there is an interaction you LOSE energy, you are the people who claim that in the interaction of solar energy and the atmosphere you get MORE energy. Try following your own advice and read a good book, one that has actual real science in it.

You folks are chasing the proverbial perpetual motion machine.

Damn, you are either really stupid, or good at pretending to be a total idiot.

And of course we all know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics also disproves evolution. Walleyes, you are getting more pathetic on a daily basis.

 

[konradv]

According to the Laws of Conservation of Energy, everytime there is an interaction you LOSE energy, you are the people who claim that in the interaction of solar energy and the atmosphere you get MORE energy.

LOL!!! Crack a science text sometime, westy. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy is NEVER lost, it's CONSERVED!!!