More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time

[billvon 2,476]

>Sure it can be removed. What do you do with it. I am involved with some
>power plant construction. The process is not yet here.

It's been demonstrated. You can reinject it into oil wells or other geologic formations, or liquefy it and store it underwater as clathrate hydrates,

I think not creating so much of it to begin with is a better idea than making it and storing it though.

>If you had never spoke of "concensus" I may be more inclinded to
>acept this statement. It took me a while to figure out that sound bites
>like " most scientists" are pure bs. That is the political side of the
>argument.

Again, I was referring of scientific consensus, not political consensus. You keep confusing the two. Some other examples:

Evolution is accepted by most scientists, but not by most christians. In other words, there is scientific consensus but not popular consensus.

The link between smoking and lung cancer is accepted by most scientists, but not by many smokers. In other words, there is scientific consensus.

The idea that our emissions of CO2 has caused the planet to warm is accepted by most scientists, but not most conservatives. In other words, there is scientific but not political consensus.

>I am a name caller??? Now that is good one.

Everyone reading this thread can see what you titled it.

>YOu forget the under the table money laundering in programs such
>as the media ignored oil for food program. That program (and a
>contrived GWing tax) is where the money they care about comes from

So now UN-organized covert money laundering is (secretly) supplying money to the scientists who research anthropogenic warming? And this is generating more than 40 billion dollars a year? Are the godless commies getting a cut? Is Dr. Evil involved by any chance? It would make a much better conspiracy theory if there was a Dr. Evil!

[billvon 2,476]

>It would be like talking the relative merits of different teams with \
>those overweight, shirtless guys . . .

Your one warning.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Sure it can be removed. What do you do with it. I am involved with some
>power plant construction. The process is not yet here.

It's been demonstrated. You can reinject it into oil wells or other geologic formations, or liquefy it and store it underwater as clathrate hydrates,

I think not creating so much of it to begin with is a better idea than making it and storing it though.It is not commercially available yet

>If you had never spoke of "consensus" I may be more inclined to
>accept this statement. It took me a while to figure out that sound bites
>like " most scientists" are pure bs. That is the political side of the
>argument.

Again, I was referring of scientific consensus, not political consensus. You keep confusing the two. Some other examples:Would you knock this off. I am talking of say scientific consensus. If it is true science then consensus would never be discussed. I am not confusing the two

Evolution is accepted by most scientists, but not by most christians. In other words, there is scientific consensus but not popular consensus.again I call bull shit. And to claim it is ridicules’ too. Hell, I think because of the media bs there is a higher percentage of the population than there is scientists.

The link between smoking and lung cancer is accepted by most scientists, but not by many smokers. In other words, there is scientific consensus.

The idea that our emissions of CO2 has caused the planet to warm is accepted by most scientists, but not most conservatives. In other words, there is scientific but not political consensus.

>I am a name caller??? Now that is good one.

Everyone reading this thread can see what you titled it.Truth is painful. This is an alarmist issue not a scientific one

>You forget the under the table money laundering in programs such
>as the media ignored oil for food program. That program (and a
>contrived GWing tax) is where the money they care about comes from

So now UN-organized covert money launderingat least this part is true is (secretly) supplying money to the scientists who research anthropogenic warming? And this is generating more than 40 billion dollars a year? Are the godless commies getting a cut? Is Dr. Evil involved by any chance? It would make a much better conspiracy theory if there was a Dr. Evil!And you can exaggerate if you want but the fact remains. They are pushing the issue much like a bs world weapons treaty. GWing is a political money grubbing agenda not a scientific one. Again, the planet is currently in a warming, natural warming cycle. The only reason anybody claims it is man made is money and to push thier eco beliefs on those that don't

Scientific consensus my ass

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,476]

>And you can exaggerate if you want but the fact remains.

So you're serious about the whole conspiracy thing? Wow! Just - wow!

How about 9/11? Was that pulled off by Bush? (sorry, by the democrats or the UN?)

>Again, the planet is currently in a warming, natural warming cycle.

I recall a thread of yours entitled "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998." So you are now changing your story? If that represents a step in your gradual education on the subject, I see that as a good thing overall.

Let us know when you change your story again. I suspect the next step will be "OK, so we have caused some warming - but it will be a GOOD thing, not like those looney liberal alarmists claim."

[mnealtx 0]

Bill - I recently (within the last month or so) saw a graph comparing solar output and the "hockey stick", and it was a very close comparison.

Unfortunately, I can't remember *where* I saw it, and can't find it now.

Have you seen anything like that, and what is your opinion on it? Also, have the temperature readings been normalized for the 'heat island' effect as cities have built up over the last 100 years?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>And you can exaggerate if you want but the fact remains.

So you're serious about the whole conspiracy thing? Wow! Just - wow!

How about 9/11? Was that pulled off by Bush? (sorry, by the democrats or the UN?)

>Again, the planet is currently in a warming, natural warming cycle.

I recall a thread of yours entitled "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998." So you are now changing your story? If that represents a step in your gradual education on the subject, I see that as a good thing overall.

Let us know when you change your story again. I suspect the next step will be "OK, so we have caused some warming - but it will be a GOOD thing, not like those looney liberal alarmists claim."

When you get to the point of exageration and putting words in other mouths to cloud things, it is time end the discussion. Sorry you are getting frustrated.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

>It would be like talking the relative merits of different teams with \
>those overweight, shirtless guys . . .

Your one warning.

O give me a break. It was a valid sports analogy concerning fanatical views. NOt even remotely a PA ...but then you banned me for a sardonic comment about sheep fucking, so ...

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Then come back and we can talk

It would be like talking the relative merits of different teams with those overweight, shirtless
guys who paint their torsos in teams colors. About all we would get is team dogma and drunken gyrations with moob flopping.

what ever the f&$k does this mean? Or is it a veiled PA?

Neither veiled nor a PA, just a statement concerning people who hold views that border (on one side or another) on the fanatical.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Then come back and we can talk

It would be like talking the relative merits of different teams with those overweight, shirtless
guys who paint their torsos in teams colors. About all we would get is team dogma and drunken gyrations with moob flopping.

what ever the f&$k does this mean? Or is it a veiled PA?

Neither veiled nor a PA, just a statement concerning people who hold views that border (on one side or another) on the fanatical.

And you don't consider that an insult?

Wow

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Then come back and we can talk

It would be like talking the relative merits of different teams with those overweight, shirtless
guys who paint their torsos in teams colors. About all we would get is team dogma and drunken gyrations with moob flopping.

what ever the f&$k does this mean? Or is it a veiled PA?

Neither veiled nor a PA, just a statement concerning people who hold views that border (on one side or another) on the fanatical.

And on another note. Do you think everyone that has an opinion opposed to you has a "fanatical" view point?? Quite judgemental don't you think?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,679]

news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1266401,00.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Lots of possibles. And again, I am not against the debate however, I am against anyone saying the science is a done deal

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Lots of possibles. And again, I am not against the debate however, I am against anyone saying the science is a done deal

That's funny. You say the science is a done deal all the time.

Well, actually you say the POLITICS are a done deal and the science is slowly and inevitably catching up to it.

But that's the same thing.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Lots of possibles. And again, I am not against the debate however, I am against anyone saying the science is a done deal

That's funny. You say the science is a done deal all the time.

Well, actually you say the POLITICS are a done deal and the science is slowly and inevitably catching up to it.

But that's the same thing.

You getting good at putting words in others mouths. Twist things if you will. Doesn't change a thing

Oh, and the science is going the other way. As more researchers are getting brave and speaking out against the GWing PC crowd more evidence against the alarmist view is being published and reviewed.

Care to go for strike three??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Care to go for strike three??

I know! You're actually Mr. Mxyzptlk. That explains everything.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 2,476]

> Bill - I recently (within the last month or so) saw a graph comparing solar
>output and the "hockey stick", and it was a very close comparison.

I'd like to see that.

There are several solar output cycles around. The most dramatic one is an 11-year sunspot cycle, where solar output varies by almost 2 watts/m2 (normal output is about 1366 w/m2.)

Other cycles result in smaller changes.

The Hale cycle is 22 years, and results from the sun's changing magnetic field. The Gleissberg cycle is 70-100 years. The Suess cycle is 210 years, and the Hallstatt cycle is 2300 years. All these produce a somewhat smaller change in output - but when they sum, we can see measurable changes in temperature as a result. Usually these happen over fairly long periods of time (like a degree increase in 500 years) due to the small % of change.

The issue there is that these produce some cyclic variations in solar output, not the sort of step function we've seen recently (the "hockey stick.")

Now, it's a given that we don't understand the sun completely, and so for all we know there is a cycle that hasn't been seen for a few million years and is just now starting. If that were the case, irradiation would increase and the planet would warm up. That would be pretty easy to measure; instruments above most of the atmosphere (orbital, balloon and mountain observatories) would see an increase in solar power corresponding to the warming no matter what the lower atmosphere was doing. If we had seen an increase of around 2.5 watts/sq m, that would explain the warming we've been seeing. However, we've seen a change that's only about .2 watts/sq m, when the 11-year cycle is averaged out.

>Also, have the temperature readings been normalized for the 'heat
>island' effect as cities have built up over the last 100 years?

Yes. It's been done both ways (normalized and not normalized but area-corrected) and there was less than .05C difference. Indeed, 42% of weather stations identified as being in "developed areas" showed _cooler_ than average temps, since in many areas (parks, residential areas) cities are cooler than the surrounding areas.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Care to go for strike three??

I know! You're actually Mr. Mxyzptlk. That explains everything.

No more than you are.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

No more than you are.......

It looks like you want to repeat this embarassing exchange from a month ago:

Rubber & Glue

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

No more than you are.......

It looks like you want to repeat this embarassing exchange from a month ago:

Rubber & Glue

I am sorry you were embarassed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[yourmomma 0]

Wow, you must be reading "The Secret". Creating your own reality is super-sweet.
Really, anyone can do it!!

"My canopy isn't malfunctioning. That's just the reserve manufactures scaring me into using their product so they can make more money and benefit off my irrational and completely un-scientific fear. As a matter of fact their are brave scientist saying that the malfunctioning canopy is a complete myth and that this canopy under is not in fact man made but naturally occurring and nothing to fear. So I'm just gonna ignore all these liberal fearmongers in those drive by AFF classes and ride this thing out. And to think I almost spent money on a reserve."
I love it.

[billvon 2,476]

>When you get to the point of exageration and putting words in other mouths . . .

Are you now claiming that you did not post "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998" ?

[billvon 2,476]

>As a matter of fact their are brave scientist saying that the
>malfunctioning canopy is a complete myth and that this canopy under is
>not in fact man made but naturally occurring and nothing to fear.

Well, that's not quite fair. A better analogy would be "some scientists say that my canopy is malfunctioning and some say it isn't. If there's so much debate, why spend the money on a repack? And I haven't died yet. If I do die, THEN I'll believe the 'malfunction alarmist myth.' "

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>When you get to the point of exageration and putting words in other mouths . . .

Are you now claiming that you did not post "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998" ?

You know full well that was the tittle of the article posted. So, are you using this tactic because you can't debate the topic?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

You know full well that was the tittle of the article posted. So, are you using this tactic because you can't debate the topic?

YOU of all people telling billvon that he "can't debate the topic" is just about the funniest thing I've seen all week. And that's saying a lot because we had a REALLY funny guy over for dinner last night and he had us rolling on the floor laughing.

But your comment gets the prize.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 2,476]

>You know full well that was the tittle of the article posted.

Yes, which is what I said. That's what YOU titled YOUR post. If you do not mean the things you post, that's fine - just make that clear.

>So, are you using this tactic because you can't debate the topic?

The only two people discussing the science of global warming here are nmealtx and I. You're defending your favorite political position. (Well, you were. You said "it's time to end the discussion" - but perhaps that was another thing you posted that you didn't mean.)

But if you would like to debate the science, here's one. If you do not believe man is causing the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere - where is all the carbon we're burning going? And what other source is causing the carbon increase that we have seen?