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.
That's not what he said. You DIDN'T read it.Did you take five minutes to read the statement of the Princeton University physics professor?Someone must own some oil stock....
Yes, we did.
He agreed with the rest of the scientists that CO2 has increased the earth's temperature by one degree in the last hundred years.
The problem is the effect of the CO2 increase is cumulative and constantly increasing. Combine that with the feedback effects of melting poles, and the effect will become more powerful in the future.
He says, doubling of the current concentration will increase tempature by 1 degree.There is little argument in the scientific
community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small
increase of the earths temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments
of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2
in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like
putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one
below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to
add a warmer jacket.
Chrissy, you are a liar. You did not read the statement and are simply making up your own version of what he said.Over the past
ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at
all what was predicted by the IPCC models.
You were not. The "also" modifies back to "the devil."He makes a very good analogy between prohibition and this "Climate Change" science fiction hysteria. Organized crime found its birthplace there, to this day we have never completely recovered from that panic boondoggle. We're making the exact same mistake now, except the convenient "devil" this time is CO2 -- which also happens to be essential for all life on this planet.But what about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we
keep hearing about? In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported
benefits of prohibition were wildly exaggerated.
If I'm reading your post correctly MM, you're saying that alcohol is essential for all life on this planet?
When I was a schoolboy, my textbooks on earth science showed a prominent “medieval
warm period” at the time the Vikings settled Greenland, followed by a vicious “little ice
age” that drove them out. So I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated
“hockey stick curve,” in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. I could hardly
believe my eyes. Both the little ice age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and
the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become
absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey
stick. This was far from an obscure detail, and the hockey stick was trumpeted around
the world as evidence that the end was near. We now know that the hockey stick has
nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature
records and incorrect statistical analysis.
I keep hearing about the “pollutant CO2,” or about “poisoning the atmosphere”
with CO2, or about minimizing our “carbon footprint.” This brings to mind another
Orwellian pronouncement that is worth pondering: “But if thought corrupts language,
language can also corrupt thought.” CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we
should not corrupt the English language by depriving “pollutant” and “poison” of their
original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per
million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely
essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a
fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants. Plants, and our own
primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were about 1000 ppm,
a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current
level of about 380 ppm. We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no
higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few
adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.
He also exposes again, one of the biggest lies of the AGW church:When I was a schoolboy, my textbooks on earth science showed a prominent medieval
warm period at the time the Vikings settled Greenland, followed by a vicious little ice
age that drove them out. So I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated
hockey stick curve, in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. I could hardly
believe my eyes. Both the little ice age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and
the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become
absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey
stick. This was far from an obscure detail, and the hockey stick was trumpeted around
the world as evidence that the end was near. We now know that the hockey stick has
nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature
records and incorrect statistical analysis.
Sinatra, I appreciate your civil posts without the silly name calling of some people here.
From the article you posted...
"That is the position of a more moderate expert on climate change, William Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University, who says, I dont think its time to panic, but contends that, because of global warming, more sea-level rise is inevitable and will displace millions; melting high-altitude glaciers will threaten the food supplies for perhaps a billion or more; and ocean acidification could undermine the food supply of another billion or so. Dyson strongly disagrees with each of these points..."
Here's the problem with these points.....
A very small increase in the sea level will displace millions.
Many of the glaciers referred to above have already melted.
And the influence of CO2 on the climate grows greater each and every day.
Now against that we have the "possiblilty" of a coming ice age. But the effect of CO2 is here now and is already happening. So we have to weight the threat of CO2 caused global warming against the possibilty of a coming ice age. Which seems like the more immediate threat? I would have to say global warming.
Dyson refuted all of those points - as well as indicating current CO2 levels are historically low, and that higher Co2 could be of great benefit to the overall climate.
He maintains, and I agree - there are far more pressing concerns for humanity than the speculative outlook regarding global warming.
Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.Friend, our mistake is in dealing with AGW soap-boxers as though this was a scientific debate.
We have to identify them as neuotic babblers, and realize that it is not facts and time that will cure them. In an old routine, Mel Brooks as a psychiatrist cures a patients compulsion to form paper-dolls by saying, Dont tear paper.
Treat them in the same way. Calmly tell them "Don't believe nonsense."
Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.Friend, our mistake is in dealing with AGW soap-boxers as though this was a scientific debate.
We have to identify them as neuotic babblers, and realize that it is not facts and time that will cure them. In an old routine, Mel Brooks as a psychiatrist cures a patients compulsion to form paper-dolls by saying, Dont tear paper.
Treat them in the same way. Calmly tell them "Don't believe nonsense."
Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.Friend, our mistake is in dealing with AGW soap-boxers as though this was a scientific debate.
We have to identify them as neuotic babblers, and realize that it is not facts and time that will cure them. In an old routine, Mel Brooks as a psychiatrist cures a patients compulsion to form paper-dolls by saying, Dont tear paper.
Treat them in the same way. Calmly tell them "Don't believe nonsense."
You were not. The "also" modifies back to "the devil."He makes a very good analogy between prohibition and this "Climate Change" science fiction hysteria. Organized crime found its birthplace there, to this day we have never completely recovered from that panic boondoggle. We're making the exact same mistake now, except the convenient "devil" this time is CO2 -- which also happens to be essential for all life on this planet.
If I'm reading your post correctly MM, you're saying that alcohol is essential for all life on this planet?
CO2 is the devil and also essential for all life on the planet.
Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.Friend, our mistake is in dealing with AGW soap-boxers as though this was a scientific debate.
We have to identify them as neuotic babblers, and realize that it is not facts and time that will cure them. In an old routine, Mel Brooks as a psychiatrist cures a patient’s compulsion to form paper-dolls by saying, “Don’t tear paper.”
Treat them in the same way. Calmly tell them "Don't believe nonsense."
Truth and reason?
Every scientific society on the planet agrees with us, and the facts are irrefutable. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.
Still waiting on you to refute that.
It further confirms that the effect of continued increases will NOT cause much more rise in temperature. And it further supports the claim that Man is not the main culprit at all.
No, Happer confirms what other scientists have been saying, that CO2 has caused the earth to heat up one degree in the last century. What is remarkable is that the effects of this rise in temperature was greater than even the most pessimistic scientist had predicted. Happer's article came out in 2002, five years before the astonishing melt down of the North Pole in 2007.
Why was the effect so much greater than predicted?
Because of the positive feedback effects of melting of the polar ice cap.
yeah d d d d definitely the polar ice cap. fucking feeble-minded moron.
Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.Friend, our mistake is in dealing with AGW soap-boxers as though this was a scientific debate.
We have to identify them as neuotic babblers, and realize that it is not facts and time that will cure them. In an old routine, Mel Brooks as a psychiatrist cures a patients compulsion to form paper-dolls by saying, Dont tear paper.
Treat them in the same way. Calmly tell them "Don't believe nonsense."
Truth and reason?
Every scientific society on the planet agrees with us, and the facts are irrefutable. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.
Still waiting on you to refute that.
Did you take five minutes to read the statement of the Princeton University physics professor?Someone must own some oil stock....
Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.
Truth and reason?
Every scientific society on the planet agrees with us, and the facts are irrefutable. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.
Still waiting on you to refute that.
Yet another overly broad generalization that either intentionally or by accident, leaves out the actual facts on this subject. The 380ppm CO2 value that has been assigned to today has been bested a number of times in relatively recent history - the overall average in the 19th Century was approximately 321ppm. The 20th Century was 338ppm. The highest 20the Century reading was in 1942 when CO2 rose to just over 420ppm. As such, our current CO2 levels are considerably lower than they were approximately 70 years ago - though it should be noted CO2 levels can and do fluctuate regularly, as opposed to the IPCC's version of relatively flat CO2 levels prior to widespread industrialization - such a
CO2 flatline has never existed.
Either way, take the time to review this information - information that was provided in another form earlier:
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.
Truth and reason?
Every scientific society on the planet agrees with us, and the facts are irrefutable. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.
Still waiting on you to refute that.
Still waiting for you to answer the question I asked earlier, which indicates that you know that BIG GREEN dictates energy policy in this country , not big oil.
But the bigger problem is of a personal nature, shall we say mental, and your need is for a sense of importance, I'm going to help you, by dedicating a poem that might help you overcome this obsession with global warming:
For Chriss, Huggy, and the rest of their posse, by Jesse Jackson:
I Am
Somebody
I Am
Somebody
I May Be Poor
But I Am
Somebody
I May Be Young
But I Am
Somebody
I May Be On Welfare
But I Am
Somebody
I May Be Small
But I Am
Somebody
I May Make A Mistake
But I Am
Somebody
My Clothes Are Different
My Face Is Different
My Hair Is Different
But I Am
Somebody
I Am Black
Brown
White
I Speak A Different Language
But I Must Be Respected
Protected
Never Rejected
I Am
God's Child
I Am
Somebody
Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/I_Am_-_Somebody"
Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.
Truth and reason?
Every scientific society on the planet agrees with us, and the facts are irrefutable. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.
Still waiting on you to refute that.
Yet another overly broad generalization that either intentionally or by accident, leaves out the actual facts on this subject. The 380ppm CO2 value that has been assigned to today has been bested a number of times in relatively recent history - the overall average in the 19th Century was approximately 321ppm. The 20th Century was 338ppm. The highest 20the Century reading was in 1942 when CO2 rose to just over 420ppm. As such, our current CO2 levels are considerably lower than they were approximately 70 years ago - though it should be noted CO2 levels can and do fluctuate regularly, as opposed to the IPCC's version of relatively flat CO2 levels prior to widespread industrialization - such a
CO2 flatline has never existed.
Either way, take the time to review this information - information that was provided in another form earlier:
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
Exposing their outright lies and distortions makes them scurry like cockroaches from the light. I already know there's nothing that is going to convince them they are blind believers of a fast failing religion. I have no delusions that truth and reason have any effect on them.
Truth and reason?
Every scientific society on the planet agrees with us, and the facts are irrefutable. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.
Still waiting on you to refute that.
Yet another overly broad generalization that either intentionally or by accident, leaves out the actual facts on this subject. The 380ppm CO2 value that has been assigned to today has been bested a number of times in relatively recent history - the overall average in the 19th Century was approximately 321ppm. The 20th Century was 338ppm. The highest 20the Century reading was in 1942 when CO2 rose to just over 420ppm. As such, our current CO2 levels are considerably lower than they were approximately 70 years ago - though it should be noted CO2 levels can and do fluctuate regularly, as opposed to the IPCC's version of relatively flat CO2 levels prior to widespread industrialization - such a
CO2 flatline has never existed.
Either way, take the time to review this information - information that was provided in another form earlier:
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
