TH3 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 This is all well and good but it contradicts your prior statement that human use of CO2 is warming the planet. Would youplease just pick a side and stick with it? I am not sure where and when that happened - but I if we are picking shirts and skins - I have always been on the side that humans burning fossil fuels is likely the cause recent upticks in global temperature - if that was not clear - there you go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 So I am a "little man" and a "turd"....sheesh...name calling...really? Give it a week or two and you'll be able to add "simpleton", "idiot", "moron", "Wednesday", etc. to that list. As for your anecdotal evidence, well there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperature since 1997, so that's all it is - anecdotal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 No it doesn't. He's saying CO2 is warming the planet, but that's a good thing. No, he specifically said that the use of CO2 was harming the planet. See a copy of his post below. Oooh - got me but good....Told you I am not an advocate of Al Gore or the movement to stop fossil fuel use....I just believe that CO2 use is warming the planet, the planet will survive just fine, rising temps will cause some problems for the human race - but those problems are far less than stopping the use of fossil fuels/CO2 with the caveat that acidification of the oceans could really really suck Edited by baskin, Today, 10:53 AM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) So I am a "little man" and a "turd"....sheesh...name calling...really? Turd: My special PPP name for a poster who refuses, repeatedly, to deal with the reality that's been placed in front of his/her nose. "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." - George Orwell Let's see if you've responded, properly, to anything I've put in front of your nose. If not? You remain a: turd. 1. There are few independent media sources - The Weekly Standard is not one of them - in fact I am not sure who is. The guy has a point that academia is funded to a point - by people who support the researchers views. Lindzen is just another one of them - he gets his $ the same way. Yeah, now you're getting it: there's no such thing as "independent" on this issue, just as there's no such thing as "scientific". Oh, so he doesn't get his money from the Oil Companies? Just...y'know...was surprised I didn't hear that "stock" answer, or see you parrot any other made up schit from leftist character assassins. 2. I don't get what you guys are trying to posit - are you saying the earth is not warming? Are you saying it is warming but it is not man? Are you saying it is warming and a large part of the scientific and political community is taking advantage to fund their studies and push for vast geopolitical and socialist changes in worldwide structure?Are you saying it is not warming but nevertheless a large part of the scientific and political community is taking advantage to fund their studies and push for vast geopolitical and socialist changes in worldwide structure? In order: 1. If it is warming, I can't trust it yet, because of the flat out lies that have been told in terms of the magnitude of the warming...for purely political and personal gain purposes. I need some physicists, economists, and mathematicians to review whatever data comes in from here on out. 2. This doesn't mean I don't think it's possible that it is warming. See...unlike environtologists, I take a: scientific approach to this. But, again, how much/how fast? Those are the questions that matter. IF the planet warms by .1 of a degree over 20 years....we can say that it is warming. However, we can also say: bring back Tar and Feathering for Al Gore. 3. In ALL cases, the $ cycle of Democrat politics and Global Warming Scientists and those with a socialist agenda....is now so obvious that it's not worth talking about. This was finally confirmed by China....making a big show of walking out of the IPCC meetings recently, and taking the little D-bag countries with them....when they found out they weren't going to get their welfare check. 3. A picture is not evidence of anything - you know that - 2013 was the hottest ground temp in the US - November was the hottest air temperature on Earth on record. As smart guys you should know how to draw lines on a graph and to get good information - one doesn't draw a line for the last 20 percent of the data - but rather draw a line for a trend for 100 percent of the data - kind of makes the 15 year "pause" less of a point. You ask a reasonable question...and follow it with this? What then...is the picture evidence of? Proof that Dr. Freeze exists? Perhaps this: is a picture you like better? Yes, Iceman made 553k square miles...of ice...magically appear. How the F do you account for what is so obviously an UTTER REFUTATION OF YOUR PREDICTION...in the simplest form possible = a before and after picture. You are confusing simplicity with veracity, and, the presence of the former doesn't preclude the latter. 4. Further - everyone knows that water holds much more energy than air - I think air is 2 percent of the climate energy and water is 98 - and both are components of climate - so one has to add water temp to the total energy contained in our climate - so add both of those components and the trend is unchanged. Everyone can read data etc...and everyone can choose to mix in politics to explain the current state of affairs. Interesting. I've never heard anybody try to tell me that "water holds much more energy than air" is the reason why the models have failed. You would think the creators of the models would have factored "water holds much more energy than air" into their models...prior to completing them. You know...because it's not like that's obvious or anything. All these scientists, working for years on their models....and the condition they missed, and you didn't....wasn't included. Truly amazing. Yes, and in this case? "Everyone" is the the climate scientists and Democrat politicians...who have cried "Conform with our wishes or die a watery death". I see it as this: The earth has warmed - the data shows this and we all have seen anecdotal evidence of warming - I live in southern Erie county and did not use my snow blower once last year - this year of course is different - nevertheless - farmers can tell you that the growing season is 2-3 weeks longer than 20 years ago. The shellfish industry can measure the Ph levels and see how it is reducing the strength of the shells of their harvest - and you can directly show how the new levels of CO2 are changing the oceans acidity. Not rocket science - high school science. No....this is what we call "anecdotal science" especially when we are talking about the climate of a F'ing planet. I love how "look at dem HURRICANES!"...becomes..."well...this year of course is different" when it's colder than Oprah's snatch out...and, let's not forget the poor English children who will never see the snow. I love how weather is only "extreme" when it fits the Global Warming narrative. Do you even see it? Do you understand why this crap causes an empiricist like me....to howl BS?!?! One can say the earth always warms and cools and choose to classify this warming as nature. One can also choose to say that this warming is particularly fast with past warming and cooling trends and research it. Well - humans have pretty much doubled the CO2 concentration in the last 100 years - you can calculate this by how much coal and oil we have used and you can measure it. And - again - a high school science project of an aquarium with differing before/after CO2 levels will show a mimic of our own atmosphere. Now one can chose to view this through a political prism - I have no answer for that Again, this IS political, and ALWAYS has been. There's more evidence for this being a leftist political contraption...than there is for the damn warming itself. We can easily say...a bit of warming may be caused by humans, but, trying to isolate that from natural occurrences, like the F'ing Sun....is darn near impossible. And, that should tell us something: if you can't isolate a variable...what does that say about it's range? Or magnitude....in terms of all the other variables? Technical people, like me, know the answer to that. Do you? Edited January 6, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Al Gore closes up shop!!! http://www.tpnn.com/2014/01/03/global-warming-high-priest-al-gore-closes-all-alliance-for-climate-protection-field-offices-lays-off-90-of-staff/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Al Gore closes up shop!!! http://www.tpnn.com/...ff-90-of-staff/ In a press release, Al Gore blamed global warming for the closing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 What Catastrophe? :MIT’s Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist When you first meet Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, leading climate “skeptic,” and all-around scourge of James Hansen, Bill McKibben, Al Gore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and sundry other climate “alarmists,” as Lindzen calls them, you may find yourself a bit surprised. If you know Lindzen only from the way his opponents characterize him—variously, a liar, a lunatic, a charlatan, a denier, a shyster, a crazy person, corrupt—you might expect a spittle-flecked, wild-eyed loon. But in person, Lindzen cuts a rather different figure. With his gray beard, thick glasses, gentle laugh, and disarmingly soft voice, he comes across as nothing short of grandfatherly. Granted, Lindzen is no shrinking violet. A pioneering climate scientist with decades at Harvard and MIT, Lindzen sees his discipline as being deeply compromised by political pressure, data fudging, out-and-out guesswork, and wholly unwarranted alarmism. In a shot across the bow of what many insist is indisputable scientific truth, Lindzen characterizes global warming as “small and . . . nothing to be alarmed about.” In the climate debate—on which hinge far-reaching questions of public policy—them’s fightin’ words. More at link: http://www.weeklysta...phe_773268.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 More at link: http://www.weeklysta...phe_773268.html http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/162041-setting-up-the-global-warming-lies-to-come/page__st__120?do=findComment&comment=3026836 Already posted, moron. Try reading other people's posts, for once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Turd: My special PPP name for a poster who refuses, repeatedly, to deal with the reality that's been placed in front of his/her nose. "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." - George Orwell Let's see if you've responded, properly, to anything I've put in front of your nose. If not? You remain a: turd. Yeah, now you're getting it: there's no such thing as "independent" on this issue, just as there's no such thing as "scientific". Oh, so he doesn't get his money from the Oil Companies? Just...y'know...was surprised I didn't hear that "stock" answer, or see you parrot any other made up schit from leftist character assassins. In order: 1. If it is warming, I can't trust it yet, because of the flat out lies that have been told in terms of the magnitude of the warming...for purely political and personal gain purposes. I need some physicists, economists, and mathematicians to review whatever data comes in from here on out. 2. This doesn't mean I don't think it's possible that it is warming. See...unlike environtologists, I take a: scientific approach to this. But, again, how much/how fast? Those are the questions that matter. IF the planet warms by .1 of a degree over 20 years....we can say that it is warming. However, we can also say: bring back Tar and Feathering for Al Gore. 3. In ALL cases, the $ cycle of Democrat politics and Global Warming Scientists and those with a socialist agenda....is now so obvious that it's not worth talking about. This was finally confirmed by China....making a big show of walking out of the IPCC meetings recently, and taking the little D-bag countries with them....when they found out they weren't going to get their welfare check. You ask a reasonable question...and follow it with this? What then...is the picture evidence of? Proof that Dr. Freeze exists? Perhaps this: is a picture you like better? Yes, Iceman made 553k square miles...of ice...magically appear. How the F do you account for what is so obviously an UTTER REFUTATION OF YOUR PREDICTION...in the simplest form possible = a before and after picture. You are confusing simplicity with veracity, and, the presence of the former doesn't preclude the latter. Interesting. I've never heard anybody try to tell me that "water holds much more energy than air" is the reason why the models have failed. You would think the creators of the models would have factored "water holds much more energy than air" into their models...prior to completing them. You know...because it's not like that's obvious or anything. All these scientists, working for years on their models....and the condition they missed, and you didn't....wasn't included. Truly amazing. Yes, and in this case? "Everyone" is the the climate scientists and Democrat politicians...who have cried "Conform with our wishes or die a watery death". No....this is what we call "anecdotal science" especially when we are talking about the climate of a F'ing planet. I love how "look at dem HURRICANES!"...becomes..."well...this year of course is different" when it's colder than Oprah's snatch out...and, let's not forget the poor English children who will never see the snow. I love how weather is only "extreme" when it fits the Global Warming narrative. Do you even see it? Do you understand why this crap causes an empiricist like me....to howl BS?!?! Again, this IS political, and ALWAYS has been. There's more evidence for this being a leftist political contraption...than there is for the damn warming itself. We can easily say...a bit of warming may be caused by humans, but, trying to isolate that from natural occurrences, like the F'ing Sun....is darn near impossible. And, that should tell us something: if you can't isolate a variable...what does that say about it's range? Or magnitude....in terms of all the other variables? Technical people, like me, know the answer to that. Do you? Turd: My special PPP name for a poster who refuses, repeatedly, to deal with the reality that's been placed in front of his/her nose. "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." - George Orwell Let's see if you've responded, properly, to anything I've put in front of your nose. If not? You remain a: turd. Yeah, now you're getting it: there's no such thing as "independent" on this issue, just as there's no such thing as "scientific". Oh, so he doesn't get his money from the Oil Companies? Just...y'know...was surprised I didn't hear that "stock" answer, or see you parrot any other made up schit from leftist character assassins. In order: 1. If it is warming, I can't trust it yet, because of the flat out lies that have been told in terms of the magnitude of the warming...for purely political and personal gain purposes. I need some physicists, economists, and mathematicians to review whatever data comes in from here on out. 2. This doesn't mean I don't think it's possible that it is warming. See...unlike environtologists, I take a: scientific approach to this. But, again, how much/how fast? Those are the questions that matter. IF the planet warms by .1 of a degree over 20 years....we can say that it is warming. However, we can also say: bring back Tar and Feathering for Al Gore. 3. In ALL cases, the $ cycle of Democrat politics and Global Warming Scientists and those with a socialist agenda....is now so obvious that it's not worth talking about. This was finally confirmed by China....making a big show of walking out of the IPCC meetings recently, and taking the little D-bag countries with them....when they found out they weren't going to get their welfare check. You ask a reasonable question...and follow it with this? What then...is the picture evidence of? Proof that Dr. Freeze exists? Perhaps this: is a picture you like better? Yes, Iceman made 553k square miles...of ice...magically appear. How the F do you account for what is so obviously an UTTER REFUTATION OF YOUR PREDICTION...in the simplest form possible = a before and after picture. You are confusing simplicity with veracity, and, the presence of the former doesn't preclude the latter. Interesting. I've never heard anybody try to tell me that "water holds much more energy than air" is the reason why the models have failed. You would think the creators of the models would have factored "water holds much more energy than air" into their models...prior to completing them. You know...because it's not like that's obvious or anything. All these scientists, working for years on their models....and the condition they missed, and you didn't....wasn't included. Truly amazing. Yes, and in this case? "Everyone" is the the climate scientists and Democrat politicians...who have cried "Conform with our wishes or die a watery death". No....this is what we call "anecdotal science" especially when we are talking about the climate of a F'ing planet. I love how "look at dem HURRICANES!"...becomes..."well...this year of course is different" when it's colder than Oprah's snatch out...and, let's not forget the poor English children who will never see the snow. I love how weather is only "extreme" when it fits the Global Warming narrative. Do you even see it? Do you understand why this crap causes an empiricist like me....to howl BS?!?! Again, this IS political, and ALWAYS has been. There's more evidence for this being a leftist political contraption...than there is for the damn warming itself. We can easily say...a bit of warming may be caused by humans, but, trying to isolate that from natural occurrences, like the F'ing Sun....is darn near impossible. And, that should tell us something: if you can't isolate a variable...what does that say about it's range? Or magnitude....in terms of all the other variables? Technical people, like me, know the answer to that. Do you? Hey Vizzini....I surely cannot battle with your dazzling intellect....I guess I don't have either the IQ or the paranioa to connect the dots between a spike in global temperatures that parallel the rise in fossil fuel use and CO2 concentration that the "left" and academia have somehow collectively conspired to leverage this set of happenstances into greater and greater control of our lives. Wow...just wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Hey Vizzini....I surely cannot battle with your dazzling intellect....I guess I don't have either the IQ or the paranioa to connect the dots between a spike in global temperatures that parallel the rise in fossil fuel use and CO2 concentration that the "left" and academia have somehow collectively conspired to leverage this set of happenstances into greater and greater control of our lives. Wow...just wow. A point for the Princess Bride reference. But you didn't actually read all that, did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 A point for the Princess Bride reference. But you didn't actually read all that, did you? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 No. Good. 'Cause I was going to subtract ten points if you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 We should be burning more sulfur-laden coal in order to put more So2 into the atmosphere to cool the planet. Mother nature does that through exploding volcanoes. It works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 We should be burning more sulfur-laden coal in order to put more So2 into the atmosphere to cool the planet. Mother nature does that through exploding volcanoes. It works. Do we possess the technological capability of producing enough to counteract the effect of bovine flatulence on the global climate, in addition to man-made sources of pollution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Do we possess the technological capability of producing enough to counteract the effect of bovine flatulence on the global climate, in addition to man-made sources of pollution? Light a match Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Do we possess the technological capability of producing enough to counteract the effect of bovine flatulence on the global climate, in addition to man-made sources of pollution? It is not just bovines. It is also cows. And all other mammals too. It is sad but I have said in the past that we may need to kill all mammals so that humans may live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 Hey Vizzini....I surely cannot battle with your dazzling intellect....I guess I don't have either the IQ or the paranioa to connect the dots between a spike in global temperatures that parallel the rise in fossil fuel use and CO2 concentration that the "left" and academia have somehow collectively conspired to leverage this set of happenstances into greater and greater control of our lives. Wow...just wow. A point for the Princess Bride reference. But you didn't actually read all that, did you? No. Good. 'Cause I was going to subtract ten points if you did. HA! 2 things are hilariously true here: 1. Yes Baskin did read it, given his response. Read his response again, and think. Yep...there it is isn't it? The damn Princess Bride thing seals it! Oh hilarious irony! Moreover: he can't respond to it. IF he is an engineer, as he says, then he knows why. The best: crying about name calling, and then calling names, right after? Well, at least one thing is true, he will fit in at PPP. Baskin: Come on, man! The models, if we take them at face value, predicted that we should be encountering massive consequences that we simply...aren't. Especially since the models are based on LESS CO2 than we've actually had dumped into the atmosphere(via China and India) than they anticipated. As a result, the models' creators have come up with hilariously lame contingencies in an effort to explain away their failure. Now, either you explain why this has happened, or understand: you're going to be my new PPP plaything. Ask ...lybob how that works. 2. Of course DC_Tom read it. DC_Tom reads everything I write, hoping for an error. As evidence, he busted on B-Man for posting what I already had: http://forums.twobil...20#entry3026836 Already posted, moron. Try reading other people's posts, for once. Hehehehehehe :lol: :lol: Once again, I've had DC_Tom's #, for years, and there it is again. That's WHY he reads everything I write. He's hoping someday to break free... NEVER! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 HA! 2 things are hilariously true here: 1. Yes Baskin did read it, given his response. Read his response again, and think. Yep...there it is isn't it? The damn Princess Bride thing seals it! Oh hilarious irony! Moreover: he can't respond to it. IF he is an engineer, as he says, then he knows why. The best: crying about name calling, and then calling names, right after? Well, at least one thing is true, he will fit in at PPP. Baskin: Come on, man! The models, if we take them at face value, predicted that we should be encountering massive consequences that we simply...aren't. Especially since the models are based on LESS CO2 than we've actually had dumped into the atmosphere(via China and India) than they anticipated. As a result, the models' creators have come up with hilariously lame contingencies in an effort to explain away their failure. Now, either you explain why this has happened, or understand: you're going to be my new PPP plaything. Ask ...lybob how that works. 2. Of course DC_Tom read it. DC_Tom reads everything I write, hoping for an error. As evidence, he busted on B-Man for posting what I already had: Hehehehehehe :lol: :lol: Once again, I've had DC_Tom's #, for years, and there it is again. That's WHY he reads everything I write. He's hoping someday to break free... NEVER! And yet you were eventually pwned by Chef Jim in a thread about programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I am an engineer...BSME Clarkson....MBA too..although I have never been a "practicing" PE. Did not read all of it. Seriously not sure what response you are looking for...you contradict yourself so much its tough to even understand what your point is and how you got there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) One thing you have to appreciate is how the media will work so hard to make something like cold weather sound really dramatic by calling it a polar vortex! I haven't seen a dramatic vortex like this since the last time I cleared a level on Asteroids for Playstation 2. Edited January 8, 2014 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts