Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
51 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,688 Year: 9,436/23,288 Month: 451/1,544 Week: 165/561 Day: 5/63 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global warming - fact or conspiracy?
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3704 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 91 of 111 (326864)
06-27-2006 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by deerbreh
06-27-2006 2:44 PM


Re: Calling ThingsChange and other members of the Flat Earth Society
deerbreh writes:

so far at least I don't see anything approaching the Institute for Creation Research or the Discovery Institute financed by the energy companies.

Perhaps not a stand alone institute like ICR, but they are co-opting a lot of existing right-wing think tanks to the same end.
Check out this link to see just who they are funding and their affiliations:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/

deerbreh writes:

I actually think a bigger danger is that the energy companies will "flip" and jump on the alternative energy bandwagon in order to retain corporate control over the process.

I think this is already happening with biofuels.
We have to assume they can read the writing on the wall and are already planning their diversification away from petroleum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by deerbreh, posted 06-27-2006 2:44 PM deerbreh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by deerbreh, posted 06-27-2006 3:40 PM EZscience has responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1443 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 92 of 111 (326879)
06-27-2006 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by EZscience
06-27-2006 2:55 PM


Re: Calling ThingsChange and other members of the Flat Earth Society
I think this is already happening with biofuels.
We have to assume they can read the writing on the wall and are already planning their diversification away from petroleum.

I am thinking a big push into nuclear energy and wind energy is likely by the oil companies as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by EZscience, posted 06-27-2006 2:55 PM EZscience has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by EZscience, posted 06-27-2006 9:27 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4142 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 93 of 111 (326929)
06-27-2006 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by deerbreh
06-26-2006 9:27 AM


*** Your comments about carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are also patently ridiculous. ***

Carbon monoxide does convert thru natural processes to carbon dioxide.

The temperature of the earth has been studied over 200 years and show the temps have increased about 1 degree C.

The article ***Sun's warming influence 'under-estimated'***
referenced below supports global warming was already a factor before the greenhouse gases of the industrial revolution.

The increases from the evidence are suggestive that global warming are due to increases in solar activities and a decrease in low cloud cover causing less solar radiation to be reflected from the earth.

source references ***

Carbon monoxide is created when carbon-containing fuels are burned incompletely. Through natural processes in the atmosphere, it is eventually oxidized to carbon dioxide. Carbon monoxide concentrations are both short-lived in the atmosphere and spatially variable.

http://www.answers.com/topic/carbon-monoxide

Scientists at Armagh Observatory claim a unique weather record could show that the Sun has been the main contributor to global warming over the past two centuries.

When analysed, the data allow the average temperature at Armagh to be calculated to an accuracy of 0.1 deg C per decade. Eventually the entire data set will be placed on the internet.

"It's quite apparent from our data that global warming, of about a degree C, has been taking place for at least a hundred years," Dr Butler told BBC News Online.

Low clouds cool the Earth by reflecting more solar radiation back into space, so a drop in the amount of low cloud contributes to global warming.

The data will confuse some climate experts who argue that the influence of changes in the Sun on rising temperatures has already been studied, and discounted, as a major cause of global warming.

"I suspect that the greenhouse lobby have under-estimated the role of solar variability in climate change,"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by deerbreh, posted 06-26-2006 9:27 AM deerbreh has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by EZscience, posted 06-27-2006 9:31 PM johnfolton has responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3704 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 94 of 111 (326968)
06-27-2006 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by deerbreh
06-27-2006 3:40 PM


Disributed energy production...
...is their true enemy.

Various conbinations of small-scale, localized solar and wind energy production for home-owners would castrate their unholy enterprise.

Look for corporate interests to oppose subsidies and compensatory reimbursemnt for local power generation ...the best approach to liberate the common man from dependency on corporate profiteering from energy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by deerbreh, posted 06-27-2006 3:40 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3704 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 95 of 111 (326969)
06-27-2006 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by johnfolton
06-27-2006 7:30 PM


JF writes:

The article ***Sun's warming influence 'under-estimated'***
referenced below supports global warming was already a factor before the greenhouse gases of the industrial revolution.

...which has absolutely no bearing on the fact that these gases are undeniably amplifying any purported effects of solar radiation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by johnfolton, posted 06-27-2006 7:30 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by johnfolton, posted 06-28-2006 12:04 AM EZscience has not yet responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3704 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 96 of 111 (326974)
06-27-2006 9:40 PM


Virtually unaninimous support among scientists for Gore's movie
A worthwhile link to check out.

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by ThingsChange, posted 06-27-2006 11:42 PM EZscience has not yet responded

  
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 4476 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 97 of 111 (327017)
06-27-2006 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by EZscience
06-27-2006 9:40 PM


Desperate Housewarmers
Virtually unaninimous support among scientists for Gore's movie

Nice misleading headline !!!
You should work for NY Times.
I read your link. It's about a survey of 100 scientists of mixed views. Only the like-minded fans that went to see Gore's movie were in agreement. That's 19 of the 100 (the remainder were not polled, and that's irrelavent anyway).


'Liberalism is a mental disorder' - Michael Savage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by EZscience, posted 06-27-2006 9:40 PM EZscience has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4142 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 98 of 111 (327021)
06-28-2006 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by EZscience
06-27-2006 9:31 PM


*****...which has absolutely no bearing on the fact that these gases are undeniably amplifying any purported effects of solar radiation.
*****

No, Human contributions to all the greenhouse gases including water vapor is only .28% of the greenhouse effect. Whats .28% of 1 degree (mans contributions) to greenhouse gases truthfully is not amplifying global warming (mans contributions are really meaningless). The only real change amplifying global warming is water vapor.

****reference below:

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).

" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "

Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by EZscience, posted 06-27-2006 9:31 PM EZscience has not yet responded

  
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 4476 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 99 of 111 (327023)
06-28-2006 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by EZscience
06-27-2006 7:32 AM


Re: Calling ThingsChange and other members of the Flat Earth Society
EZ writes:

There is NO controversy about whether global warming is caused by human activity.


If so, you should go straighten out those big-oil-backed Wikipedia writers.


'Liberalism is a mental disorder' - Michael Savage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by EZscience, posted 06-27-2006 7:32 AM EZscience has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 100 of 111 (330044)
07-09-2006 9:33 AM


Anthropogenic Global Warming Deniers - Come the Fuck On!
Come the fuck on!

Come

The

Fuck

On!

Come the fuck on!

quote:
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Come the fuck on!

Edited by AdminJar, : fix size of images


  
bgmark2
Member (Idle past 4709 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 05-04-2007


Message 101 of 111 (401308)
05-19-2007 6:36 AM


Cold in south pole last year than normal plus tornadoes. A decrease since 1950 of F3s or above. An increase on very small ones because of doppler radar. That's technology not climate.

All helps prove without adoubt global warming will drown us all who live by the coast unless we swithct to bio diesil.


  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 111 (465361)
05-05-2008 4:50 PM


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/04/do0405.xml

quote:
A notable story of recent months should have been the evidence pouring in from all sides to cast doubts on the idea that the world is inexorably heating up. The proponents of man-made global warming have become so rattled by how the forecasts of their computer models are being contradicted by the data that some are rushing to modify the thesis.

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Legend, posted 05-06-2008 9:51 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 3556 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 103 of 111 (465424)
05-06-2008 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by New Cat's Eye
05-05-2008 4:50 PM


Interesting article. In many ways, certain 'environmentalists' exhibit the same behaviour as religious fundamentalists whereby they readily accept and publicise any evidence supporting their theory while ignoring/discarding any evidence that goes against it.

My grandad grew up in the shadow of Snowdon and he used to tell us of years when there was hardly any snow at the peak in mid March. Of course there was no man-made warming to blame back then and people just accepted that natural variation is just that. O tempora, o mores!


"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-05-2008 4:50 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
PurplyBear
Junior Member (Idle past 4346 days)
Posts: 20
From: Indianapolis, Indiana
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 104 of 111 (466403)
05-14-2008 11:30 PM


Who gives a crap
Who cares if global warming is made up. The earth, your home could use less trash and waste. If made up it has people working towards something good. BTW, I did not read one post in this thread. I just thought I would thrown my dollar.


People are not stupid, religion is.

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Legend, posted 05-20-2008 2:49 AM PurplyBear has not yet responded

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 3556 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 105 of 111 (467184)
05-20-2008 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by PurplyBear
05-14-2008 11:30 PM


Re: Who gives a crap
If made up it has people working towards something good.

It also has governments taking away our freedoms and our money in the name of 'something good'.


"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by PurplyBear, posted 05-14-2008 11:30 PM PurplyBear has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Taz, posted 05-20-2008 2:53 AM Legend has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020