Why Global Warming is total bullshit 101

[dilloduck]

1) It depends on how those scientists are funded; and 2) how many times throughout history has the dissenting scientist turned out to be correct? Thank goodness we didn't take your approach when Galileo and Newton stood up the scientific community who was just convinced the earth was at the center of the universe.

Anyway, believe whatever you like. That does not give anyone the right to impose that belief on others. Sell your car, turn off your electrical appliances, eat only what falls from nearby trees...whatever you think it right. Just don't tell me your beliefs mean I owe someone else money or that more unconstitutional government agencies are required.

Silly dingleberry. We are talking about scientists from every country and political system on earth. So you are stating that they are all getting their funding from one place. What a grand conspiracy theory.

Galileo went against the church orthodoxy, not other scientists with his support of the Coppernican plantery system. Newton was hailed in his time as the greatest living scientist by other scientists. You really should know something about history before you flap your yap.

I didn't say scientists get their funding from one place. You did. Rhetoric is your thing I see.

That said, scientist that get their funding from the same governments that wish to promote global warming so that they may enact more redistributive and regulatory schemes sure as hell can be influenced in their findings, especially with a topic as muddy as predicting future climatic conditions.

Your Galileo analogy is weak, really weak. The church was the authority at the time, just like you think the government is today. He was the guy standing against what everyone else accepted as fact. And Newton was hailed, after he was ridiculed.

And btw, nice ad hominem attack there. Not childish at all...

and governments get their money from the same source---taxpayers.
Enough of this scam to steal. People are wising up.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I’m not a scientist personally, nor do I study the subject extensively, but from what I can gather, a great majority of the reputable scientific institutions that spend all of their time studying the subject matter have concluded that global warming exists, and that it is likely man-made.

Some deniers point to conspiracy, and say that all of the world’s major scientific institutions have been “bought out” by governments in order to make the case for a carbon tax (yes, ALL of the world's major scientific institutions). But if you actually use your brain for a moment you will come to the realization that this conspiracy – just like many others – is too grand to have any basis in reality.

Perhaps if the split was 50/50 between the world’s science institutions, I might have second thoughts about not siding with the dissenters. But it’s not.

Therefore, I’m putting my money on what the majority of science says, rather than the opinion of a random internet guy (CrusaderFrank) who is generally extremely right-leaning.

Yep it's called HARRP AND MAINTAINED BY THE PEOPLE YOU TRUST.

Oh where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat

There are reports by the government that have stated that.
I bet you think those clouds forming behind those jet planes are con trials?

There is a difference between contrail and cemtrail
If you see a cloud behind a plane for more than three minutes that has not started to break up, it ain't a contrail

 

[Old Rocks]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How long does it take a condensation trial break up?

 

[westwall]

Mix of what, total volume or alcohol? Funny how you provide your answer but not the correct one, 25%!!!

Frankematics..., AGAIN!

The total mix.

The total mix.

Not, "What percent has the vodka increased"

Total.

All of it

All 1,000,000 parts.

100/1,000,000 = .01%

Of the TOTAL mix

That doesn't make scientific sense. Inert ingredients aren't considered part of the equation in any other scientific system. Why should they count in this case?

 

[wirebender]

a. Say you have a screwdriver drink, it's 1,000,000 parts in total of which 400 are vodka. You decide that's too weak and you add 100 parts more vodka. Approximately what percentage has the mix changed?

1. 33%
2. .01%
3. 6%
4. denier! Why do you hate science?!

Don't let the monkeys distract you. Before you go down the wacko lane with him, insist that he demonstrate the mechanism by which CO2 might be an "active" ingredient and make it a mechanism that doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[wirebender]

Svensmark (sp?) has been investigating solar magnetic effects for the last 10 or 20 years and has been underfunded and ignored. when CERN announced their CLOUD results they couldnt even have the decency to recognize his contributions.

I am not saying that the solar magnetic theory is totally correct or even the overwhelming effect in climate. but it is easily just as correlated to climate as CO2 theory and if funding and public fashion had gotten behind it rather than CO2 we would have a totally different view of global warming now. of course it would be difficult to blame the Sun's behaviour on mankind and therefore most people wouldnt give a shit.

I know that a luke warmer like yourself is probably not interested, but the DIVINER data has further bolstered the work done by N&Z and pretty much conclusively proves that the flawed version of the SB equations ( which I have pointed out repeatedly) used by warmists and luke warmers alike is little more than a very elementary misunderstanding of basic physics.

There is no greenhouse effect as described by warmists or luke warmers and CO2 is no where near the driver's seat with regard to the ATE described and demonstrated by N&Z. If you want to explain the temperature of the earth, you need not look much further than the ideal gas laws and the incoming solar radiation. Atmospheric composition is of little consequence.

 

[wirebender]

No, actually, that doesn't make sense. If you asked the majority of geologists in 1950 whether the continents moved, 99% of them would have told said you were daft for even considering it. by 1970, they all endorsed the theory of continental drift.

Majority opinion is irrelevant to scientific truth.

Dead on. Which is why while one side is talking about observed evidence and hard data, the other side is screaming consensus as if that were somehow a suitable substitute for actual hard, observable, repeatable science. Consensus and flawed computer output is all they have and the hope is that enough repetition will somehow make the fantasy that it represents real.

 

[wirebender]

Wrong. The first geology text I read, in 1955, and I don't know when that text was published, possibly pre-WW2, had several paragraphs on Werner's Continental Drift hypothesis. What the geologists of the time said, that while Werner presented some very interesting evidence for Africa and South America once being connected, there was no known mechanism for moving the continents around.

You have never read a text of any sort rocks. You have admitted repeatedly that you are not educated. Now you read geology texts and pretend to uderstand them? The fit on that tin foil hat must be getting tighter; or the effects of your dunning kruger are becoming more pronounced.

 

[wirebender]

Yeah, I remember. Except, you seem to be taking the wrong message from the article. You should be asking yourself why scientists changed their minds so fast. Some say its for the money, but anyone who knows academic science realizes the money's on the other side. With grant money you actually have to do some work and publish results. The deniers only have to get on TV and say its all bunk to pocket a lot more dough than any academic scientist ever will. FOLLOW THE MONEY. That should tell you who's really trying to buy a result.

They changed their minds so fast because the ice age didn't happen. Of course, there wasn't much of a financial incentive at the time to hang on to the hypothesis. Makes you wonder why they hang on to global warming now even though there has been no warming for more than 15 years that doesn't involve data tampering while CO2 concentrations continue to rise. The only difference between now and then is billions upon billions upon billions of dollars in research money.

As you say, follow the money. Research money flows to warmists at a ratio of about ten thousand to one over skeptics. The fact that there is a skeptical voice at all is evidence that no amount of lies can ever completely block out the truth.

 

[editec]

a. Say you have a screwdriver drink, it's 1,000,000 parts in total of which 400 are vodka. You decide that's too weak and you add 100 parts more vodka. Approximately what percentage has the mix changed?

1. 33%
2. .01%
3. 6%
4. denier! Why do you hate science?!

Suppose you are walked five mile and were then standing five feet away from a 1000 foot precipise.

Now suppose you walked that next 5 feet.

What fraction of the total distance did you just have to travel before you started falling?

1/5280th

Do you get it, Cru?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

a. Say you have a screwdriver drink, it's 1,000,000 parts in total of which 400 are vodka. You decide that's too weak and you add 100 parts more vodka. Approximately what percentage has the mix changed?

1. 33%
2. .01%
3. 6%
4. denier! Why do you hate science?!

Suppose you are walked five mile and were then standing five feet away from a 1000 foot precipise.

Now suppose you walked that next 5 feet.

What fraction of the total distance did you just have to travel before you started falling?

1/5280th

Do you get it, Cru?

If it's that powerful you should have at least 1 lab experiment that shows us how it works, no?

 

[konradv]

The total mix.

The total mix.

Not, "What percent has the vodka increased"

Total.

All of it

All 1,000,000 parts.

100/1,000,000 = .01%

Of the TOTAL mix

That doesn't make scientific sense. Inert ingredients aren't considered part of the equation in any other scientific system. Why should they count in this case?

I agree. Frank doesn't seem to understand the difference between inert and active ingredients! What's he doing here?!?!

 

[konradv]

Yeah, I remember. Except, you seem to be taking the wrong message from the article. You should be asking yourself why scientists changed their minds so fast. Some say its for the money, but anyone who knows academic science realizes the money's on the other side. With grant money you actually have to do some work and publish results. The deniers only have to get on TV and say its all bunk to pocket a lot more dough than any academic scientist ever will. FOLLOW THE MONEY. That should tell you who's really trying to buy a result.

They changed their minds so fast because the ice age didn't happen. Of course, there wasn't much of a financial incentive at the time to hang on to the hypothesis. Makes you wonder why they hang on to global warming now even though there has been no warming for more than 15 years that doesn't involve data tampering while CO2 concentrations continue to rise. The only difference between now and then is billions upon billions upon billions of dollars in research money.

As you say, follow the money. Research money flows to warmists at a ratio of about ten thousand to one over skeptics. The fact that there is a skeptical voice at all is evidence that no amount of lies can ever completely block out the truth.

You think the skeptics/deniers aren't getting lots of money? They don't even have to do research with the money they get!

 

[Old Rocks]

Wrong. The first geology text I read, in 1955, and I don't know when that text was published, possibly pre-WW2, had several paragraphs on Werner's Continental Drift hypothesis. What the geologists of the time said, that while Werner presented some very interesting evidence for Africa and South America once being connected, there was no known mechanism for moving the continents around.

You have never read a text of any sort rocks. You have admitted repeatedly that you are not educated. Now you read geology texts and pretend to uderstand them? The fit on that tin foil hat must be getting tighter; or the effects of your dunning kruger are becoming more pronounced.

LOL. I have stated that I do not have a degree. Since I have been posting articles, most of which I have read from peer reviewed sources on this board, and you have been posting crap, who does that indicate has the most real education?

 

[bripat9643]

Mix of what, total volume or alcohol? Funny how you provide your answer but not the correct one, 25%!!!

Frankematics..., AGAIN!

The total mix.

The total mix.

Not, "What percent has the vodka increased"

Total.

All of it

All 1,000,000 parts.

100/1,000,000 = .01%

Of the TOTAL mix

That doesn't make scientific sense. Inert ingredients aren't considered part of the equation in any other scientific system. Why should they count in this case?

CO2 is inert, moron.

 

[konradv]

CO2 is inert, moron.

Nope.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That doesn't make scientific sense. Inert ingredients aren't considered part of the equation in any other scientific system. Why should they count in this case?

I agree. Frank doesn't seem to understand the difference between inert and active ingredients! What's he doing here?!?!

You should check with Old Rocks before you post because he keeps telling us that CO2 is inert and does nothing but linger in the atmosphere. So much like the "CO2 leaving the ocean in a feedback loop/entering the ocean turning it acidic (which acid is it making?)" oxymoron, we have the CO2 inert/active oxymoron.

The Warmers and Decline Hider and just chock full of moronic ideas

 

[westwall]

That doesn't make scientific sense. Inert ingredients aren't considered part of the equation in any other scientific system. Why should they count in this case?

I agree. Frank doesn't seem to understand the difference between inert and active ingredients! What's he doing here?!?!

My response is to your astounding lack of scienctific knowledge and procedures. Thank god you're not a doctor. Your malpractice insurance would be through the roof....of course, that's assuming you could get any...or weren't in prison for criminally negligent homicide.

 

[konradv]

I agree. Frank doesn't seem to understand the difference between inert and active ingredients! What's he doing here?!?!

You should check with Old Rocks before you post because he keeps telling us that CO2 is inert and does nothing but linger in the atmosphere. So much like the "CO2 leaving the ocean in a feedback loop/entering the ocean turning it acidic (which acid is it making?)" oxymoron, we have the CO2 inert/active oxymoron.

The Warmers and Decline Hider and just chock full of moronic ideas

It's not inert with respect to absorption of IR, formation of carbonic acid and carbonates in solution or in photosynthsis. I'd need OR's context to know what system he was referring to, but it's definitely not inert in all cases as YOU seem to be saying.