Debates
12 Feb 08
12 Feb 08
Ken Tapping has been taken out of context again, or at least not fully quoted. He does see that the earth is warming, but you won't get that from this newspaper article.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
The interesting thing from my point of view is that we do live in orbit around a variable star. Isn't it interesting that socialist vs. individualist politics have brought us to a point where such a simple and totally imperical scientific question has potentially opened the way for worn out commies to destroy the economy of earthlings?
Mars just keeps on warming. Think about it.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by StarValleyWyhttp://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650
Ken Tapping has been taken out of context again, or at least not fully quoted. He does see that the earth is warming, but you won't get that from this newspaper article.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
The interesting thing from my point of view is that we do live in orbit around a variable star. Isn't it interesting th ...[text shortened]... t commies to destroy the economy of earthlings?
Mars just keeps on warming. Think about it.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642
Both the solar activity and the mars warming points are dealt with, consecutively, in the links above.
13 Feb 08
3 edits
Originally posted by agrysonLet's see. You post a couple of propaganda articles written by environmentalists... not scientists, and because the web site was clever enough to include the word "science" in their handle you think this is science?
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642
Both the solar activity and the mars warming points are dealt with, consecutively, in the links above.
Who is Fred Pearce? A geography major who minored in sports? He authored your brilliant scientific response. Read about him here:
http://unjobs.org/authors/fred-pearce
Wow! What a giant in the field of astronomy, WHICH IS THE FRIGGIN SCIENCE LEAD of this thread.
Or the author of the other? Michale Lepage?
http://www.efsec.wa.gov/Sumas2/adj2001/bcprefiled/mfl-1.pdf
A friggin graduate student? Give me a break!
Enough energy wasted on your childish response.
Now go read about the the specific thing that we are talking about. The Sun! Here is a link to get you started. Don't get distracted by left-wing propaganda sites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
When you can show me ACTUAL SCIENCE that refutes the ability of scientists to FRIGGIN' COUNT SUN SPOTS WITH THEIR EYES, and can refute the Maunder Minimum that did occur, and many other like events that have occured regularly, as well as other times when the sun has heated up significantly (tree rings, animal remains etc.) don't tell me that your silly environmentalist shrub-hugger geography major and graduate student are bonafide Astronomers!
13 Feb 08
Originally posted by StarValleyWyUltimately, the "global warming" hysterics are losing ground. They are at the height of their powers today, but their arc is about to drop and within 20 to 30 years from now, we'll all be sitting around laughing about what a bunch of braying jackasses people like Al Gore were. This "global warming" nonsense is just an attempt by politicians and bureaucrats at the United Nations to create a sense of hysteria so they can "do something." Unfortunately, what they want to do is shakedown American taxpayers to pay for their global schemes.
Ken Tapping has been taken out of context again, or at least not fully quoted. He does see that the earth is warming, but you won't get that from this newspaper article.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
The interesting thing from my point of view is that we do live in orbit around a variable star. Isn't it interesting th ...[text shortened]... t commies to destroy the economy of earthlings?
Mars just keeps on warming. Think about it.
13 Feb 08
Originally posted by StarValleyWy? New Scientist is a popular science magazine. It is well read within the scientific community and any errors are quickly clarified. (though since the articles are well researched, that is on average less than one a week).
Let's see. You post a couple of propaganda articles written by environmentalists... not scientists, and because the web site was clever enough to include the word "science" in their handle you think this is science?
Who is Fred Pearce? A geography major who minored in sports? He authored your brilliant scientific response. Read about him here:
htt ...[text shortened]... ironmentalist shrub-hugger geography major and graduate student are bonafide Astronomers!
But, if you want a big anti-science love-in, go ahead. (the effect of the sun on the global climate is a climatoligical issue, and links were provided in the article for further info fromt he actual scientists) enjoy your thread...
13 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterand you keep telling yourself that DSR...
Ultimately, the "global warming" hysterics are losing ground. They are at the height of their powers today, but their arc is about to drop and within 20 to 30 years from now, we'll all be sitting around laughing about what a bunch of braying jackasses people like Al Gore were. This "global warming" nonsense is just an attempt by politicians and b ...[text shortened]... ly, what they want to do is shakedown American taxpayers to pay for their global schemes.
13 Feb 08
Originally posted by agrysonSo you like cute little Decorators magazines and Nice little propaganda talking-points in lieu of real science.
? New Scientist is a popular science magazine. It is well read within the scientific community and any errors are quickly clarified. (though since the articles are well researched, that is on average less than one a week).
But, if you want a big anti-science love-in, go ahead. (the effect of the sun on the global climate is a climatoligical issue, ...[text shortened]... s were provided in the article for further info fromt he actual scientists) enjoy your thread...
What a laugh! You never even mention the question: We live in orbit around a VARIABLE friggin star!
Can you find an interior decorator that you want to quote in refutation of that FACT too?
13 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWell said. I will only add that I think people need to be aware that it is more an effort to destroy Capitalism than anything to do with the "climate".
Ultimately, the "global warming" hysterics are losing ground. They are at the height of their powers today, but their arc is about to drop and within 20 to 30 years from now, we'll all be sitting around laughing about what a bunch of braying jackasses people like Al Gore were. This "global warming" nonsense is just an attempt by politicians and b ...[text shortened]... ly, what they want to do is shakedown American taxpayers to pay for their global schemes.
What happened to all the commies in 1990?
A - They all died
B - They changed tactics
If you answer B then the natural question is "Ok. Now how do we destroy the capitalist pigs?"
Little weeney in the corner sucking on his thumb and chewing his fingernails stands up and says "What if we can brainwash everyone to believe that the world is ending? Then get a bunch of usefull idiots to back us up? Can't we ruin the world that way?"
And they went and found the usefull idiots (it's a long tradition) and are doing a damn fine job of it.
13 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWySolar fluctuations (including the one resulting in the maunder minimum) have been taken into account by climatologists when calculating whether or not human CO2 emissions have anything to do with climate change.
Let's see. You post a couple of propaganda articles written by environmentalists... not scientists, and because the web site was clever enough to include the word "science" in their handle you think this is science?
Who is Fred Pearce? A geography major who minored in sports? He authored your brilliant scientific response. Read about him here:
htt ironmentalist shrub-hugger geography major and graduate student are bonafide Astronomers!
Are you seriously suggesting some of the world's largest scientific organisations (such as AAAS, The Royal Society, NAS etc) haven't taken this into consideration (willfully or otherwise) in their process of reaching a conclusion? These are massive institutions with huge reputations at stake. They are also include the best scientists in the world, who are trained to not be biased. How likely is it that they would miss out solar fluctuations?
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/media/4th_spm2feb07.pdf
Here's the statement. If they have made a grave error of omission, then do you not think that someone somewhere along the line of scrutiny would have pointed it out?
If your concern is that genuine, then why not write, voicing your concerns, to one of these organisations, say AAAS yourself? That would be the most intellectually honest thing you could do, and you could be saving the world from a lot of hassle if you turn out to be right. I'd be delighted if you would post any reply you received.
Here's the address:
For media inquiries, or to find a AAAS expert or speaker, phone 202-326-6440, or media@aaas.org
If on the other hand you believe they are deceiving you, then I have no interest in trying to discuss with a conspiracy theorist, as you are more concerned with maintaining your belief than coming to the truth.
If you can show me strong evidence that they have been deliberately lying, or show me an email/letter (including the message to which they are replying) from them admitting that they have made a gross error, then I'll be delighted that you have shown me the light and help spread the word, sound fair?
13 Feb 08
Originally posted by mrstabbydon't worry too much about turning the sceptics ... people are allowed to beleive whatever they like, and some have very set views .. most of us know not to listen to the very few remaining sceptics (except just once in a blue moon) ... we have real life to live now, and a future to build.
...Are you seriously suggesting some of the world's largest scientific organisations (such as AAAS, The Royal Society, NAS etc) haven't taken this into consideration (willfully or otherwise) in their process of reaching a conclusion? These are massive institutions with huge reputations at stake. They are also include the best scientists in the world, who ...[text shortened]... n I'll be delighted that you have shown me the light and help spread the word, sound fair?
13 Feb 08
Originally posted by StarValleyWyDid you post your self referential conversation again?
So you like cute little Decorators magazines and Nice little propaganda talking-points in lieu of real science.
What a laugh! You never even mention the question: We live in orbit around a VARIABLE friggin star!
Can you find an interior decorator that you want to quote in refutation of that FACT too?
Thankfully it stopped being a love-in.
As MR. Stabby rightfully pointed out, the variability of the sun has been well studied for at least three solar cycles (each of 11 years). Given that solar variations occur on an 11 year cycle, their effect on the recent warming of several decades proves to be minimal. Whether it's an interior decorator or a bloody brick-layer doesn't change their points. To boot, their points are a meta-analysis of the available literature, so the links I posted are not, as you suggest, opinion pieces, they are, to use your own words, "real science". The fact that you haven't even heard of New Scientist as a publication says a lot. It is an excellent and well balanced publication, popularising science worldwide. What, is the horoscope the only thing you read?!
13 Feb 08
Originally posted by mrstabbylol
Solar fluctuations (including the one resulting in the maunder minimum) have been taken into account by climatologists when calculating whether or not human CO2 emissions have anything to do with climate change.
Are you seriously suggesting some of the world's largest scientific organisations (such as AAAS, The Royal Society, NAS etc) haven't taken thi ...[text shortened]... n I'll be delighted that you have shown me the light and help spread the word, sound fair?
I have said many times that I do realize that the earth is warming and that this being the case, it does no harm to do what we can to not contribute to the change.
This thread is about the sun.
Did you miss that part?
13 Feb 08
Originally posted by agrysonAnd Mars and All the moons of Jupiter and Saturn... and all Uranus all keep warming up.
Did you post your self referential conversation again?
Thankfully it stopped being a love-in.
As MR. Stabby rightfully pointed out, the variability of the sun has been well studied for at least three solar cycles (each of 11 years). Given that solar variations occur on an 11 year cycle, their effect on the recent warming of several decades proves to be m ...[text shortened]... blication, popularising science worldwide. What, is the horoscope the only thing you read?!
Again, we live in orbit around a Variable star. Earth has been much colder than today and much hotter... in the current epoch. And it did it most of the time WITHOUT humans around. How did it do that?
I find it interesting that people can use a natural condition to further political goals. That isn't too difficult. Concentrate.
14 Feb 08
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAnd I'm saying that we are amplifying the sun's effect, making its warming effects more drastic. That is why we should try to lessen our contribution to the change.
lol
I have said many times that I do realize that the earth is warming and that this being the case, it does no harm to do what we can to not contribute to the change.
This thread is about the sun.
Did you miss that part?
To look at the sun in isolation with regard to our climate is akin to looking at our effects on climate in isolation - they come hand in hand.
14 Feb 08
2 edits
Originally posted by mrstabbyYou are then just copying what I say.
And I'm saying that we are amplifying the sun's effect, making its warming effects more drastic. That is why we should try to lessen our contribution to the change.
To look at the sun in isolation with regard to our climate is akin to looking at our effects on climate in isolation - they come hand in hand.
What I say in addition is that the earth has warmed and cooled for millions of years WITHOUT US to take credit or blame. It will continue to do so, no matter whether or not we even exist.
Let me ask you a serious question. Should we begin a policy of intentional genecide to decrease the population of earth?
That is the only way to prevent us from being human beings. By our very nature, we consume. And when consumption occurs heat is generated. It's just physics. All the best effort you can imagine isn't going to prevent the increase in temperatures.