On the failure of alarmism!!!

Discussion in 'Environment' started by skookerasbil, Jul 20, 2011.

  1. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,149
    Thanks Received:
    2,910
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,178
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,617
    Thanks Received:
    4,589
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,106
    skook, would explaining the data and facts within a scienfitic manner be a better way to inform the public?

    1# Point out the difference of tsi and global temperature
    2# Ask what forcing is causing the warming because the sun is not causing it.
    3# Explain that co2 is just part of the puzzle that is causing temperature change--There is negatives like sulfur, ect and there are postives like co2 that are pushing to warm the planet. The surplus of energy is what warms the planet.
    4# What is causing the surplus?
    5# If it is co2 then how much warming will occur.

    Would this make public care?
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2011
  3. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,149
    Thanks Received:
    2,910
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,178

    Your question is essentially irrelevant. Sorry but it really is dude............

    Even if a huge majority cared ( which they dont) then what?

    Then what s0n?

    76 trillion to go green ( not my #....the UN's #)

    And lets say you could pull the world together and get that ( lol.....you couldnt get 1/10th of that ), not one person on the face of the planet can say with ANY level of certainty that it would make a shit worth of difference.

    Your points are moot.........


    It is this fact, and this fact alone that enables people to ascribe the term "k00ks" to alarmists. Its like a long bearded guy in the local psych ward sitting in front of the nurses station telling people he is in fact Jesus and is running the government from his room via morse code. You could try to reason with him I guess but I have a hunch the efforts just might be a wee bit fruitless.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2011
  4. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,149
    Thanks Received:
    2,910
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,178
    From Dr. Lindzen in link above............and most compelling..........


    "The earth is never exactly in equilibrium"


    To the alarmists however, it is...........fascinating, especially when you think about the fact that they are self-proclaimed genius's.
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,440
    Thanks Received:
    5,409
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,294
    Dr. Lindzen testified before Congress as to the harmlessness of tobacco. He was well paid for his testimony. He was also well paid for his testimony concerning global warming.

    ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Richard Lindzen

    Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    Member, Annapolis Center Science and Economic Advisory Council. Contributing Expert, Cato Institute. Contributing Expert, George C. Marshall Institute. Member, National Academy of Sciences.

    Dr. Lindzen is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's reports and has been at the forefront of the consistent attacks on the IPCC since the early 1990's. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive. His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them.

    Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2011
  6. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,440
    Thanks Received:
    5,409
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,294
    Lindzen's Iris Affect was falsified many years ago. As a climate scientist, he is considered to be a has been, an old man only interested in making money denying the obvious. He has prostituted his credentials for the energy corperations money. But he makes a lot more money than most Climatologist.
     
  7. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    LOL oldsocks, you want to explain how if he is such a bad egg, why you had to go to a Greenpeace run website to get your evidence? Yes thats right its a greenpeace site. says so right on the left hand side. Way to go for the non-bias sources there fraud...LOL

    Says " A Greenpeace project" right on the left-hand side with this link Greenpeace USA | Greenpeace USA

    And BTW Can't seem to find the information in your claim that he testified on the harmlessness of tobacco anywhere in your linked site.... Oh and he is a professor of meteorology at MIT.. I am pretty sure the preeminent tech college in the country may have issue with a professor on the take for big oil don't you? If he were so inclined to let his science be dictated by outside money he would NOT be teaching at MIT.

    But hey aren't you the one telling us to trust scientists? So trust all of them who agree with AGW theory just not any of the rest of them huh... LOL and you ask for science... HHAHAHAHAHAAAA
     
  8. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    You're a Greenpeace nut aren't you tool...LOL
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,440
    Thanks Received:
    5,409
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,294
    There are 97 published climatologists in the world. 95 of the state that global warming is real, and caused by GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels. One, Dr. Singer, claims global warming does not exist. But he is also to senile to be publically used by the energy corps. The other, Dr. Lindzen, is not senile, but publically soiled by his testimony concerning tobacco and denial of the observed effects of the warming.

    There is an overwhelming consensus among scientists working on this problem. The consensus cuts across national and political lines. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real and a danger to society.

    Now, G-string, you can flap yap all you care to, but without presenting any real facts and observations for your opinion, you simply portray yourself as a simpleton of a Know-Nothing.
     
  10. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    HUSH GREENPEACE TOOL! :lol::lol::lol:

    I bet you spike trees...:lol:

    You seriously earlier tried to negate NASA claims with Wikkipedia, then you used a greenpeace website to attack a MIT Professor and expert. WOW, you really don't care about the science at all unless its science you agree with.

    You have no ability to recognize science, you just recognize what you agree with. Thats not science so please spare me the nonsense.. When YOU start showing real evidence and facts that are NOT biased and self promoting, you can make the claim. Until then you haven't the credibility to get the benefit of the doubt on anything you post.
     

Share This Page