Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An inconvenient truth.... or lie?
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 121 of 191 (538853)
12-10-2009 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Buzsaw
12-10-2009 10:53 PM


Fine if you don't have time to read all the emails. Surely, these blogs you link to have quotes from the emails. Just copy these quotes and cite them here. You said "questionable ones" so I'm assuming you know of at least 2 questionable emails. Surely, these blogs you link to have them cited. Like the old saying goes, show us the money.
Added by edit.
I didn't even need to go read people's blogs. I saw these quotes directly from major news networks and immediately saw right away that they were shown out of context. I've done everything from scientific research to law enforcement. As you can see, the professions I have gone through required me to write reports (lots of them). I can recognize misquotes from a mile away. Goodness knows, my police reports have been taken out of context on multiple occasions. In one instance, a blood sucking lawyer even tried to confuse me with my own report. I had to point out to him that the sentence he was quoting meant something completely different from what he was claiming if taken in context with the very next sentence. After I pointed this out, he played dumb and pretended he didn't understand. I spent the next 30 minutes explaining these 2 sentences and their context in regard to the event. It's a game that lawyers often play to try to confuse everyone in court, including the LEO.
As you can see, I'm particularly sensitive about this issue of misquoting people. I think it's immoral. I think people who advertise these misquotes are shameless liars, especially after being shown that these are misquotes.
But I'm willing to be shown wrong. All you have to do is bring some quotes from these blogs you are so fond of. Show us from the emails where the conspiracy is.
If you can't produce these quotes, I think the moral thing for you to do is apologize for the accusation. That is if you're really as moral as you claim to be.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Buzsaw, posted 12-10-2009 10:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Huntard, posted 12-11-2009 1:57 AM Taz has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 122 of 191 (538857)
12-11-2009 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Taz
12-10-2009 10:59 PM


Here are some
These two quotes that seem to pop up the most:
I've just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's t hide the decline
And
The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
Anyone care to shoot these down?
One other I'll shoot down myself:
Ed Cook to Keith Briffa writes:
We both know the probable flaws in Mike's recon, particualrly as it relates to the tropical stuff.
Hmm, pretty damnig, but wait that's not the end of it!
Ed Cook to Keith Briffa continued writes:
the only way to deal with this whole issue is to show in a detailed study that his estimates are clearly deficient....
Whoopsie!

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Taz, posted 12-10-2009 10:59 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Taz, posted 12-11-2009 4:58 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 123 of 191 (538860)
12-11-2009 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Buzsaw
12-10-2009 10:53 PM


Buzsaw writes:
Who's got time to read them all ...? Have I missed something?
Obviously yes, and willfully so (i.e. by your own intentional narrow-mindedness). You probably didn't notice (or perhaps could not figure out) that the link provided by DevilsAdvocate included a very simple, handy and effective search function -- you can quickly locate the messages that contain those damning phrases and read the relevant context, then use the search again to find the previous or subsequent messages in a given email thread. That's how I got the material for my other post in this thread (and I also supplied a similar link to that same archive site).
Honestly, Buz, your own statement makes it so clear that your opinion is based on prejudice rather than information.
I haven't seen the questionable ones refuted...
... because you haven't been paying attention, nor have you even extended the least effort to look for factual information. I found this link very early in my own perusal of viral web content -- I expect I'm not the first in this thread to provide it, but here it is again, just in case:
No webpage found at provided URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Buzsaw, posted 12-10-2009 10:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Huntard, posted 12-11-2009 5:13 AM Otto Tellick has seen this message but not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 124 of 191 (538861)
12-11-2009 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Taz
12-10-2009 4:00 PM


Hi Taz
Let me be blunt. At this point in the game, there isn't anything we can do about it. Even if tomorrow EMP bombs went off in the atmosphere around the world effectively shutting down everything technologically based, global warming will still continue on its trend. Enough damage has already been done. And at this point in the game, pretty much everything we do, like burning wood in the forest, contributes to GW.
What you are saying doesn't agree with what the scientists and politicians are telling us. They're telling us that we must and can change what we are doing, that there is still an opportunity at least to limit the extent of the damage; it's just that they're not actually taking the drastic actions that are necessary to stop the disaster they're talking about. (Obviously it's the politicians' role to take the necessary measures.)
Their namby-pamby measures, such as raising taxes or offering modest incentives for people to insulate their homes better, are next to useless. To prevent a global catastrophe they need to introduce proper emergency procedures similar to those that they wouldn't think twice about in the face of war, terrorist threats, or a pandemic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Taz, posted 12-10-2009 4:00 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Taz, posted 12-11-2009 4:08 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 125 of 191 (538862)
12-11-2009 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Otto Tellick
12-11-2009 4:54 AM


Otto Tellick writes:
I found this link very early in my own perusal of viral web content -- I expect I'm not the first in this thread to provide it, but here it is again, just in case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
Indeed, I provided the same video in my Message 112. I even embedded the video in my message. His other videos on cliamte change are also very nice.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Otto Tellick, posted 12-11-2009 4:54 AM Otto Tellick has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 191 (538877)
12-11-2009 10:20 AM


Censor Placement
As I find the time, I'll do some more researching the emails. In the meantime, for the third time who wants to address the censor placement problem which I cited in my message 102? This appears to lend support to the conspiratorial agenda of the UN relative to climatology.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 127 of 191 (538905)
12-11-2009 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by slevesque
12-06-2009 1:48 AM


Re: Global warming is real!
quote:
greenhouse gas who has the biggest effect right now is water vapor. But it is so complicated to simulate in models that we aren't able to do it yet, and so the biggest factor wasn't even taken into account by the GIEC. Yet they published that there was a 90% probability that anthropogenic factors were responsible.
All climate models, that I know of, do take water vapor into account as it is an important greenhouse gas. The issue you are misunderstanding about water vapor in the atmoshere is that it is a 'feedback', NOT a 'forcing'.
CO2 has a much longer 'residency' (100's of years) in the atmosphere than H2O (about a week and a half). As the atmosphere warms up it is able to hold more water which will increase the trapping of the long-wave radiation, the 'water vapor feedback'. As the atmosphere cools, the amount of water vapor resident in the atmosphere drops, and vice versa. Therefor, because of CO2's longer residency, it is a strong forcing mechanism.
And let's not forget that the Earth's 'natural' greenhouse effect is roughly 33 degree's C anyways. So, even IF humans only contributed 2% of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the impact would be about 0.7 degrees C, which is not a negligable amount.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by slevesque, posted 12-06-2009 1:48 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 128 of 191 (538938)
12-11-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
12-11-2009 4:55 AM


JUC writes:
What you are saying doesn't agree with what the scientists and politicians are telling us.
No, it's the same message. I'm just a lot more blunt than them.
It took literally hundreds of millions of years for the Earth's biosphere to gather up all the carbon and put them in the ground in the form of fossil fuel. It literally took us 200 years to release them back into the atmosphere. What do you think happens to all that carbon if we suddenly stop all our carbon burning activities? They don't just magically disappear.
And let's admit it. The world's economies are based almost entirely on carbon. The resistance to change from capitalists to a greener economy will be nothing short of an all out political and financial war.
Personally, I'm pessimistic on this front. But I've been known to be wrong once or twice in my life time

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-11-2009 4:55 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 12-11-2009 4:33 PM Taz has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 191 (538940)
12-11-2009 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Taz
12-11-2009 4:08 PM


Taz writes:
And let's admit it. The world's economies are based almost entirely on carbon.
As is the plant kingdom which produces oxygen which survival of the human and animal kingdom is based upon, which supplies the plant kingdom.......which.......which...etc.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Taz, posted 12-11-2009 4:08 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Taz, posted 12-11-2009 5:05 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 132 by Rahvin, posted 12-11-2009 6:14 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 130 of 191 (538942)
12-11-2009 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Huntard
12-11-2009 1:57 AM


Re: Here are some
HA!
quote:
I've just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's t hide the decline
Looking at the whole email...
quote:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
First of all, I'm not going to pretend I know what the hell any of this means. And neither should the liars. I'm sure someone else can do a better job at interpreting this email than I can.
What I can say is I've written lots and lots and lots of reports in other areas. I know what the word "trick" means in scientific lit, and it's definitely not what the liars want people to think. It means a clever or a different way at interpreting the data. It doesn't mean change the data or committing fraud.
The hide the decline part could mean anything. Why do they insist on it to mean hiding the decline in global temperature? Look at the email again. It looks like climatologist lingo to me. Why do I say this? Because when I communicate via email with other cops, I use cop lingo that could be misinterpreted by dumbfucks... I mean civilians. It doesn't mean we have a vast conspiracy to enslave the civilian population.
There you have it. I don't know what the hell the email means since it's written in climatologist lingo. But I do know that it could be interpreted in a hell of a lot of different ways. I'm sure there will be a press release soon from the scientists to explain what the hell it means.
quote:
The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
The whole email as well as previous emails...
quote:
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/...if/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?
mike
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Steve
Again, more climatologist lingo. My best interpretation is they're talking about the effects of El Nino on the temperature versus the projected temperature. Again, nothing in there indicates fraud or conspiracy.
What I did notice from reading these emails is they're using very casual language in their own climatologist lingo. This is far different from the "secret documents" portrayed by fundamentalists.
Who else wants to take a stab at this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Huntard, posted 12-11-2009 1:57 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by DBlevins, posted 12-16-2009 1:17 AM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 131 of 191 (538943)
12-11-2009 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Buzsaw
12-11-2009 4:33 PM


Buzsaw writes:
As is the plant kingdom which produces oxygen which survival of the human and animal kingdom is based upon, which supplies the plant kingdom.......which.......which...etc.
Buz, you've been using this plant thing for a long time now, at least two years since I first saw you used it on here. Not going to bend over backwards anymore for you.
The Earth doesn't care whether the atmosphere has more carbon dioxide or not. The plants don't care whether the atmosphere has more carbon dioxide or not. But people do.
Based on your logic, might as well say animal life is dependent on water. Therefore, we should flood the whole planet so everything could happily live in water.
Here's another one. Praying is good for you. Therefore, people should do nothing but pray all day long.
My grandfather used to say: too much of anything is never a good thing. Carbon dioxide may be necessary for the plant kingdom, but as people goes we don't necessarily want too much of it. Ever heard of a thing called pollen and allergies?
Added by edit.
The fact that you put any message at all here tells me you're still here. Let's discuss about the emails. Someone else has posted a few for you. All you have to do now is tell us what you think. As you can see in the message just above, I freely admit I'm totally ignorant in climatologist lingo. Should be a walk in the park for you to shove it up my ass.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 12-11-2009 4:33 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Buzsaw, posted 12-11-2009 6:33 PM Taz has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 132 of 191 (538946)
12-11-2009 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Buzsaw
12-11-2009 4:33 PM


CO2 and plants
Hi Buz,
You're partially correct. Plants (and some bacteria) do function as excellent "CO2 scrubbers." They take CO2 and effectively spit out O2, using teh Carbon for their growth.
When life first formed on Earth, CO2 based metabolisms were all the rage. O2 is var too volatile - Oxygen reacts to form other compounds very, very easily. That's the reason things burn, and is part of why Oxygen based metabolisms work so well - they produce a LOT more energy, which is for instance why we can move around and plants cant.
But a long time ago, there just wasn't enough Oxygen in teh atmosphere to support Oxygen-based metabolisms. Plants eventually altered the atmosphere of teh Earth until Oxygen was prevalent - at which point the new selective pressures caused a massive explosion of Oxygen-breathing life (ie, it didn;t exist before, and suddenly in teh fossil record we start to see Oxygen-breathers appearing and thriving with great variety, and this coincides with ancient atmospheric evidence showing the increase of Oxygen's availability).
We, obviously, are one of the results of all of this. But you're "we breath O2 and exhale CO2, and plants do the reverse" comment is vastly oversimplified.
Plant metabolisms are vastly slower than Oxygen-based ones. You;ve probably heard the old factoid that it takes seven large trees to produce enough Oxygen for each person to breathe. They do reduce CO2 and produce O2, but they do so slowly.
Plants also function to "permanently" store the Carbon they use in teh ground. When they metabolize Carbon, it;s used in their body structure. The ashes that result from burning plants are mostly just carbon, in fact. All of that carbon is trapped in teh ground under normal circumstances.
But given sufficient timeframe and the right conditions, dead plant matter becomes what we now use as fossil fuels. Millions of years of dead plant matter is pumped out of storage daily from oil wells and coal mines. We then burn the stuff...which releases many things back into the atmosphere, including but not limited to CO2, CO, and water vapor. CO2 and water vapor are both greenhouse gases.
So while it;s true that plants will indeed reprocess the CO2 that we release back out of the atmosphere and trap it in the ground, there is a finite rate at which this process can occurr. Global deforestation isn;t helping matters. But more importantly, we're releasing millions of tons of extra CO2 into the atmosphere, in addition to what the Oxygen-breathers just exhale naturally. The "balance" between O2 and CO2 consumption and production is completely out of whack - there just aren;t enough plants in the world to scrub the CO2 as quickly as we keep replacing it.
It's like pouring water into a bucket with a hole. If you pur more water into the bucket than the hole can pass, eventually the bucket will start to overflow. With global warming, we're attacking both ends, shrinking the hole and pouring larger amounts of water every day as developing nations try to cheaply meet their rapidly increasing energy needs, and as developed nations continue to consume ever more.
Take a look at this:
World Bank, World Development Indicators - Google Public Data Explorer
In 1960, global CO2 emissions were around 3.1metric tons of CO2 per person. That's already a lot of CO2. But by 2005, that had increased to 4.5 metric tons per person.
In 45 years, global CO2 output has increased by 74%.
That's not good. The Earth's ecosystem simply can't handle a 74% increase (and it's more than that - that's just the past 45 years). There aren't enough trees, there isn;t enough algea, there simply are not enough CO2 scrubbing organisms to trap CO2 as quickly as we're putting it all in the air.
Now, this is not global warming data. This is just basic atmospheric measurements and calculations of industrial output, all done during a period when we could measure them directly. We aren't talking about computer simulations like what the climatologists in the leaked emails were working on - this is real-world actual data.
There are a lot of factors involved in why we see an increase.
Now, look at some data from NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Now, this is also real-world data, most of which we've been able to directly observe and record.
Take a look particularly at 1960 through 2005 on each of those graphs, since it coincides with out CO2 data.
Again, we aren't even talking about the source of the CO2 yet - we're just noticing that the increase in CO2 seems to correlate with a rise in global temperatures.
Note that the temperature rise is basically universal, even if it's spikey. Individual years can show significant variation, but the overall trend moves ever warmer.
Now look at teh beginning of the graphs, at the 1800s. Notice that we didn't appear to be in the process of warming up...and then, right around the time of the Industrial Revolution, temperatures started to climb.
Scientists have been looking at this data for a long time. We've analyzed various potential causes, even ones other than CO2. Stellar activity goes through an 11-year cycle, for instance, and that's been tossed around as an explanation...except that the warming trend has lasted a lot longer than can be explained by an 11-year stellar cycle. Even now, in a relative "calm" period of stellar activity, the Earth isn;t cooling back down.
There really just aren't that many other sources of warming. We know that the atmospheric content has been relevant to climate changes in the past - ice core data shows that warmer periods show greater concentrations of greenhouse gasses, while cooler periods like ice ages tend to have lower concentrations (though this is oversimplified). In the end, we're not receiving an unusually large amount of energy from the Sun, but the Earth is getting unusually warm. If the same amount of energy is coming in and the Earth is warming up, that means we're radiating less energy into space.
That means we're suffering from a greenhouse effect.
The principle cause of planetary greenhouse effects are gasses like water vapor and CO2.
You can see how this is all starting to come together, yes?
I'm barely even toughing on human involvement. I see a correlation in the Industrial Revolution with the increase in greenhouse gasses and the beginning of the rise in temperatures. But correlation is not causation, and I'm frankly not knowledgeable enough on the subject to say with certainty that human industrialization is the primary factor in global warming. However, the correlation makes me suspect that human society has had a role, which means when scientists say that yes, human society is very likely responsible in large part for the current warming trend, I find them very easy to believe.
Confirming this data are current observations. Giant ice shelves are breaking off of Antarctica - recently a very large iceberg was observed not far from New Zealand that had broken off and drifted North. Weather patterns are growing more and more varied - highs are getting higher, and lows lower, in many regions. The ice caps are visibly receding, to the point where we now have a Northwest Passage where none existed before.
That global warming is happening is not up for debate - it's objectively, observably factually true.
That human beings are in large part responsible is strongly suggested at the least...and those who have studied the problem in far more depth than you or I have suggested that the correlation is stronger than merely a suggestion.
The released emails are not so embarrassing for the scientists involved - it's embarrassing to see exactly how few of the population actually understand what's being said, how few actually take the time to read what's being presented in context, and how many people believe Bill O'Reilly when he says "global warming has been conclusively shown to be a lie" when nobody who's even once looked at the numbers would ever even think that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 12-11-2009 4:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 191 (538949)
12-11-2009 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Taz
12-11-2009 5:05 PM


Taz writes:
The Earth doesn't care whether the atmosphere has more carbon dioxide or not. The plants don't care whether the atmosphere has more carbon dioxide or not. But people do.
Yah, we know, especially when elitist people can enrich themselves with the peeple's money and when elitist people can empower themselves over the peeple.
Taz writes:
Carbon dioxide may be necessary for the plant kingdom, but as people goes we don't necessarily want too much of it. Ever heard of a thing called pollen and allergies?
Too many oxygen producing plants? Too much pollen and allergies? Simple solution: Leave of the global concern about too many peeple who can manage the plants like the loggers, etc; Leave off birth management/control: open up the plant land confiscated by elitist people who govern the peeple; apply the natural remedies which deal with the pollen as I've done for myself, etc.
Taz writes:
The fact that you put any message at all here tells me you're still here. Let's discuss about the emails. Someone else has posted a few for you. All you have to do now is tell us what you think. As you can see in the message just above, I freely admit I'm totally ignorant in climatologist lingo.
I'm heading out for the evening and off to church tomorrow, also out of town. In the meantime, about the location of those censors. A penny for your thoughts. Nothing for your thoughts. Being an honest soul, I wouldn't want to lie to you for non-payment.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Taz, posted 12-11-2009 5:05 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Rahvin, posted 12-11-2009 6:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 134 of 191 (538952)
12-11-2009 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Buzsaw
12-11-2009 6:33 PM


Yah, we know, especially when elitist people can enrich themselves with the peeple's money and when elitist people can empower themselves over the peeple.
Buz, really. "Elitist people can empower themselves over the people?"
The word "elitist" is nothing mroe than an absurd buzzword. It's used to somehow make the opinions of educated and knowledgeable people seem worth less than the uneducated and compeltely ignorant random Joe on the street, which is patently stupid.
What, to you, is an "elitist," Buz?
The only people getting rich right now are the people enjoying the status quo. There's a reason the gas, oil, and coal companies lobby heavily against nuclear power, against global warming, and spread lies: they're the ones taking our money without a care for the consequences.
It's rather amusing that you should believe in absurd global conspiracies to engineer payouts to 3rd world countries, and yet don;t see the well-documented and easily verified agendas of the oil barons and their lobbyists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Buzsaw, posted 12-11-2009 6:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 135 of 191 (539043)
12-12-2009 11:34 AM


Climate change man-caused?
So some are still not yet convinced that climategate is nothing but a massive scam created by global warmingites, including some scientists, to tie climate change to man-caused activities. How about a simple lesson in Climatology 101?
(1) What was man doing or not doing during the 1950's thru the 1970's when scientists were actually worried that we were entering into a mini-iceage?
(2) It was only when the mini-iceage of the 1970's ended that the global warmingites began to develop their beliefs that man had somehow caused the warming climate change of the 1980's thru the 1990's.
(3) Since 1998 the global temps have actually decreased about 0.6C. When this data could not be fit into the fudged temp models that declared man's CO2 emissions were causing global temps to irreversibly increase, then a massive cover-up ensued to suppress this information.
(4) Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year.
(5) Therefore, climate change talks and agreements are about power, manipulation and control of the 5% of CO2 emissions that are caused by man, which includes breathing and burning fossil fuels!!! It's also about a massive wealth transfer from the "have nations" to the "have not" nations.
(6) Pure and simple, climate change is about following the money of those who have irreversibly tied their welfare to climate change being man-caused!!! This includes scientists, politicians, and government workers, and global warmingites who will implement and profit from this massive scam.

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Dr Jack, posted 12-12-2009 12:05 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 137 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-12-2009 1:51 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 138 by Little Ruru, posted 12-12-2009 4:46 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024