thirdworld19

Members
  • Content

    171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by thirdworld19

  1. OK, so here is a link to a list of some peer reviewed studies - and it's about a year old. So yes, you'll still have to find the studies, I don't have the time to spoon-feed like many others here do. Bikerbabe, does this 'proof' convince you otherwise now? So which peer-reviewed study will you follow? What about the question, find one peer reviewed study in the past 5 years...So will you now concede there is no consensus? Of course not. I find it interesting that everyone is so quick to jump on the bandwagon of something that we just don't know enough about yet. Do you realize how much money is changing hands due to this hype? I don't think it's bad for each person to be a responsible citizen while on the Earth. But if you truly buy into the hype, why haven't you stopped driving your cars or using electricty or any number of things? It's because we're not really that concerned. We still have to get to work and live right? And god forbid we don't jump anymore - think of all the gas saved with no more skydiving. Oh, maybe you'll take shorter showers and turn the lights off in a room you're not in. Maybe you even spent a bit of money to buy a hybrid car (very chic - but still driving a car). Very nice. That's a good question, what have you done to stop global warming? I'll bet for most, it's the very small, not even measurable, stuff that doesn't inconvenience you too much. I'll bet you have made changes to stop wasting - versus to actually stop using period. How much do you really believe? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8 Here's another - I know most don't like Singer, but it is peer reviewed. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a8c_1197385712
  2. Are you asking me what sort of "Proof" I need to believe that GW is happening or that man is causing it? And please define GW for me - or whatever it is you are asking. FYI, I haven't made my mind up - so to change it means to sway me one way or the other. In addition, I think humans are living pretty decent lives right now and will continue to for many more years to come. People are living far longer than they used to - which may be part of the problem - overpopulation. Maybe we shouldn't be trying to save everyone. When an animal population is too much, we typically cull the herd or issue more hunting licenses - or nature will take it's course and they will die off of starvation or disease. Also, I believe you are starting with a false assumption that some of these studies constitute proof. There have been so called scientific studies that have been proven to be a load of crap (ICPP). I will not rush to judgment on an issue such as this where it's (warming/cooling) been happening for millions of years and the time frame is not something that we can grasp in our lifetime.
  3. I disagree. What was put forth was a definition of consensus and it's just wrong. Consensus of those with an agenda perhaps, but definitely not of the scientific community. However, the whole consensus thing doesn't make good scietific sense to begin with. Science does not rely on a show of hands. Think Galileo or Copernicus - going against the general consensus.
  4. That’s not was asked. It’s about as relevant as the classic “have you stopped beating your children?” or “why are you so argumentative?” You are making strong claims. Strong claims require strong evidence. Multiple folks have asked you to provide some citation, data, something to support those unsubstantiated claims. That’s all. VR/Marg p.s. If you search some of my posts, you'll actually find a list article citations and links from peer-reviewed technical journals that challenge specific claims (with data) or provide alternative analysis of data that contribute to anthropogenic climate change. I disagree. I think those people throwing everyone into a tizzie are making the strong claims, not me. The IPCC report is finally shown for what it is - a bunch of crap. And people are still relying on it. In addition, no one seems to be taking into account the fact that this is what the Earth does - warms and cools - long before man was around and long after man is gone. I cited several websites that include boatloads of information, but others choose not to look because it doesn't support them.
  5. OK - so find one single peer reviewed study from the past five years that claims that rubbing bear shit all over you does not double your lifespan. Without such a study, there is, indeed, a consensus.
  6. These are the ones that go into my Celebrity Hot tub - but they're not allowed to talk. Just sit there and look pretty.
  7. thirdworld19

    women....

    Witches of Eastwick was a good movie - very fun. But, look what happened to Jack.
  8. Hey Squeak, Glad you have a long list because Laura Branigan is dead. Unless you're sick that way. Oh my - how, when did she die?
  9. Oh, there were so many of them... David Coverdale - although now he looks like an alien. David Lee Roth - Again, age hasn't helped him as it does so many others. Ihave to agree with the Billy Idol. Still have a thing for David Bowie - 70s and 80s - but not sure if he qualifies under rock Had a thing for Billy Squier Ian Astbury (Cult) Still have a thing for Ian Gillan (Deep Purple - as if I need to tell you) Ray Gillen (Badlands, Black Sabbath) Jimmy Lee Vaughn (Stevie Ray's older brother) Michael Hutchence (INXS) Someone stop me...
  10. Would you re-evaluate your claims if temperatures (facts) have been shown to have not not gone down every year since 1998? Aka “Would you re-evaluate your claim if 2005 & 2007 were as warm as 1998?” (i.e., the initial question in [post #155], which was precise, did not refer to CO2, and did not refer to causal factors … just directly measured facts). It really was a very easy question with lots of conceivable ‘outs’ and explanations: Singer may not have updated his analyses (it’s not your responsibility to keep him updated); it could be new information that you hadn’t seen before (didn’t want to assume); or you could have presented contradictory data (not aware of any but proving a negative is usually a challenge). VR/Marg Look at the chart of global temperatures at friendsofscience.org. This shows the decrease in temps (not point for point, but the trend) which contradicts those claiming that CO2 is causing the global warming. CO2 is going up when temps are decreasing.
  11. No, you claimed, inaccurately, that global warming stopped in 1998, despite the fact that there have been warmer years since then. Please refer to the post where I stated this. I believe there is some confusion in my posts. I have not said that global warming has started or stopped. I merely pointed out that the causation between CO2 and temperatures is a load of crap. And I used the example of temps decreasing from 1998 - 2007 while CO2 continued to increase to show that.
  12. If this were the case, you would know that the hype behind anthropogenic global warming is just that - hype. And of course they would state in their About page if they had any political slants or funding, right? (Much of what they post relies on the IPCC report which is a bunch of BS.) If you truly want to know, you can look it up yourself, and either believe or disbelieve. I like to keep an open mind. I do admit that the whole anthropogenic gloabal warming is political - completely and totally. We agree! With regard to your scientific consensus, please show me what consensus you are referring to. More and more scientists are questioning the "science" behind those that make these GW claims. Are you referring to the IPCC consensus? Hope not - because it's all BS. Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.” Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.” Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.” USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.” Please go to the following link: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cbhttp://epw.senate.gov:80/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cbhttp://epw.senat
  13. Since you are admittedly a non-expert, why would anyone believe anything you have to say about theoretical inconsistencies? You don't have to believe me - go look for yourself. I didn't realize everyone here was an expert. I'll have to keep my opinions to myself from now on - huh?!?
  14. So, a single data point is enough if it supports your preconceived ideas, but not if it disputes them. Or, maybe it is. Scientists don't deny that, but it doesn't mitigate the significance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Perhaps, instead of assuming the theories are wrong simply because you don't understand the topic, you should try asking questions to get explanations for the things that appear to you to be inconsistent. Boy, you totally missed what I was saying. Try rereading my post without any preconceived ideas.
  15. This seems to be somewhat different from your earlier post that global warming is happening in decades versus thousands of years. So, now you are saying that the CO2 will not do much in the short term, but as the years go by, the climate will warm. How does this fit in your scale of decades versus thousands of years?
  16. >> You must've missed the earlier posts where someone claimed that the CO2 that man is producing is causing the global warming. I didn't claim that 1998 was the warmest year. You may want to revisit some of the previous posts.
  17. Facts are still facts. Your data points still show that temps have decreased since 1998. MY data points show nothing of the sort. And Singer is a piss-poor horse to hitch your wagon to, being a confirmed shill for the tobacco industry and a proven liar. Then you're choosing not to look.
  18. Wow. I wish climatologists understood the earth's climate as well as you do. There is a reason there is consensus among scientists. There is a reason that there aren't any peer reviewed studies from the past five years claiming global warming does not have an anthropogenic component. Heck, there's probably even a reason it took those climatologists several years to get their PhD's. Perhaps you should read the science instead of the propaganda propagated by those who stand to lose if the unsustainable status quo is changed. Here is a good place to start. Here is another good source. A couple questions to ask yourself when you encounter claims regarding global warming: What peer reviewed study are these claims based upon? In which scientific journal was the study published? Wow - so you're a climatologist? Obviously you can distinguish between the BS/political slants and the correct science - right?!? Why resort to name calling and puffery? Not needed. We can throw websites at each other all day long. And then we can spend time debunking each by attacking the sources of funds for each (Real Climate - left-wing political site funded by friends of Gore). Where does that get us? So let's just skip past all of that.
  19. Concur. I also find great value in the skepticism of science. Would you re-evaluate your claim if 2005 & 2007 were as warm as 1998? VR/Marg Actually, no. I have read enough information that convinces me that CO2 is not a significant factor in the warming/cooling trends of the Earth. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas. The Earth has gone through many cycles prior to man and will continue to long after man is gone. Correlating CO2 to temperature is what the people pushing this global warming theory want us to believe. Instead of trying to explain something that I am not an expert in, I figure that it would be easier to point out the inconsistencies in the theory.
  20. Facts are still facts. Yes they are. And analysis of the data points indicate a continuing warming trend. I think the point is that depending on the time frames you pick and the period of time, you can find both warming and cooling periods - as I've just shown. There have been several cooling periods in the past 100 years even as the CO2 has risen. So to link the Earth's recent warming with the increase in CO2 is incorrect. There are many other, and far more significant, things that go into the Earth's natural warming and cooling cycles. To say that it's man made is simply not correct.
  21. Facts are still facts. Your data points still show that temps have decreased since 1998.
  22. Granted, but because it is so big, the government has decided to use it to store hazardous waste, and now your dogs have become Cujo dogs. I wish there were reliable planes in Egypt to jump out of.
  23. I am being serious... Were you ever in prison or were you ever addicted to heroin, coke, alcohol, etc.? Just curious about your statement "Everything I used to love was sin..."
  24. Would you care to share your source for that bit of disinformation? Where ever you got that idea, it's wrong. Of the many sources throughout the internet, I took this from S. Fred Singer - Climate Scientist, Former Director of the US Weather Satellite Service and past vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. And if you were to look at the actual data points you provided in your post and not just the pretty lines they've drawn for you, you'd see that the data does prove this point. 1998 was a very hot year, and the temps have decreased since then.
  25. I find it interesting that when the hype started, it was "global warming." And now it is "climate change." Global warming cannot be used anymore because since 1998 the global temperature has gone down, maybe just slightly, but it has gone down. However, at the same time, CO2 has increased and human production has increased. So you’ve got “a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact.” So by switching to "climate change," it allows people to point at any weather event -- whether it’s warming, cooling, hotter, dryer, wetter, windier, whatever -- and say it is due to humans.