RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: 400 Scientists Debunk Man-Made Global Warming

Posted by: Jag
- [14828255] Sat, Dec 22, 2007, 00:57

400 Scientists Debunk Man-Made Global Warming

I am not sure if the NASA scientists were among the 400, but I know they agree with the debunkers.

I just want to see a debate among scientists and no more liberal propaganda showing a polar bear on a floating piece of ice.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
776Boldwin
      ID: 3524145
      Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 10:52
PD

This is how liberals think:
"Granny on a fixed income needs to pay double for her fixed expenses because my utopian vision trumps her claim for bare essential living needs."
777Boldwin
      ID: 3524145
      Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 12:18
I will point out one vulnerability in my position, and that is that I am not sure if there aren't some viable hydro-thermal power plants out there. But wherever that is true, it is only true in a few local situations with extreme underground hot water close to the surface. I know for a fact that you can't just tap into hydrothermal power just anywhere at market prices for energy. We've already had that argument re: heatpumps and I know exactly what the scientists say vs the power company which is wrong but good for their image.

I'd love to see wave power. I am amazed some clever guy hasn't got that perfected enuff, but no, they haven't.

I follow every wrinkle in new wind turbine blade design.

I follow the conversion efficiency of new developments in solar power so closely I'm like the employee of NICOR gas following the stock price of his profit sharing stocks.

I tinker with personal ideas for horizontal fences collecting windpower and costing less to build and maintain.

I have just as much utopian interest in renewable energy as any of you guys.

But unlike liberals, intentions don't cut it with me. Show me that the idea actually works before you pat yourself on the back and pop champagne.
778Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 12:44
Granny on a fixed income needs to pay double for her fixed expenses

A buck twenty eight a month doubles Granny's fixed expenses? Where does your Granny live, Mali?
779Boldwin
      ID: 3524145
      Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 13:20
Liberals have many utopian ideas and many hidden taxes and are happy to enact the most regressive and expensive schemes.
780Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 13:46
You've descended into jibberish.

I'm off for my qualifying round for the Utah State Senior Golf Championships. One of my foursome is the very politically conservative vice-president of Washakie, a private free enterprise proponent which dispels the idea that only liberals are green.
781Boldwin
      ID: 3524145
      Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 14:34
Don't buy a Solyndra from him.
782Frick
      ID: 205591421
      Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 22:59
I just did a couple of quick Google searches and found the Brazos wind farm in Texas. It is 50% owned by Shell and went operational in 2003, which means that the tax credits expired in 2013.
783Boldwin
      ID: 3524145
      Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 23:52
About Brazos' wind farms and the rest of the Texas wind farm boom...It's all a big gamble according to the WSJ.
But generating power from wind isn't profitable without government tax breaks, which in the past have been offered and taken away. The big proposed projects in Texas, like those elsewhere in the country, are dependent on regulators approving transmission lines to connect remote and windy regions to major power markets. If the new lines aren't built, the projects are doomed.

Energy companies investing in wind power are expecting governments to toughen rules relating to traditional energy sources, part of long-term efforts to reduce global-warming emissions and reliance on Middle East oil. As a result, they're hoping renewable energy will become a profitable niche, not merely one that allows them to burnish their green credentials.
...
The wind doesn't always blow, and when it does, the amount of land required to catch meaningful amounts of it is vast. Shell's planned wind farm here would cover an area about five times the size of Manhattan, yet it would crank out, on average, only about as much electricity as a single coal-fired power plant. Even with subsidies, the return from wind projects tends to be lower than that from oil and gas.
...
So far, wind power has taken off in states with favorable regulatory environments, in particular those with rules requiring utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources.
...
Steve Westwell, head of the alternative-energy unit at BP, expects governments to toughen rules governing energy production, especially those relating to emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas linked to global warming. That will boost viability of alternative sources such as wind. "In the future, there will probably be a very different discussion of the economics of these technologies," he says. BP has announced plans to start building five wind farms in the U.S. this year.
These guys are all gambling on their pull with government to sabotage the prices of fossil fuels so that someday their alternative energy power plants become competitive. Thus the war on coal. In addition to regulations that force customers to buy some of their power. In addition to subsidies/tax credits.

784Perm Dude
      ID: 294531914
      Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 23:59
Its like the WSJ is just learning about how the "free market" in the United States works for the first time [they probably are].
785Boldwin
      ID: 3524145
      Sun, Jun 15, 2014, 00:03
Yup...still no mention of a natural gas truck in there.
786biliruben
      ID: 208491113
      Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 14:27
In a fairly unambiguous message from his creator, Baldwin's home town projected to become the epicenter of hell on earth.

But only if Boldy's preference of Business as Usual is pursued.

787Seattle Zen
      ID: 25531211
      Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 14:51
Post rapture, who cares...
788Boldwin
      ID: 275392617
      Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 18:52
Yeah right. Weather computer models are so good now that they give significant results 86 years in advance, but if a butterfly flaps it's wings on the other side of the world it effects our weather.

People who think they understand science really annoy those of us who do.
789biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 19:50
The most ignorant are the least aware of it.
790sarge33rd
      ID: 125262619
      Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 20:26
People who think they understand science really annoy those of us who do.

This is a truly pathetic comment, given that it is coming from an amateur science enthusiast and seeks to redress bonafide scientists.
791Boldwin
      ID: 275392617
      Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 20:31
Just learn the science, professor.
792Frick
      ID: 29235107
      Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 07:54
I know this has been brought up numerous times and you ignore it every time, but there is a difference between climate and weather.

I still questions the validity of the models for climate, but predicting the climate into the future is something that should be possible. Predicting the weather 2 months from now, will never happen.

Those two statements can both be true, you can't seem to grasp the difference though.
793Boldwin
      ID: 21532278
      Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 09:43
If you actually understood science in general and science in this particular you'd know better.

The models have completely failed in the last twelve years. There is no way on earth they could be relied on by any thinking person 86 years out.

Further the values for basic things like the various feedback loops are so poorly understood, the science in that area so in it's infancy that for all they know CO2 leads to global cooling when all the feedback loops and interactions are accounted for.

Because of all these unknowns they have absolutely no idea what respective weights to assign solar variability vs CO2. Or other factors known and unknown. It has recently been speculated that cosmic rays play a big role. Who knew? They don't. They are pulling this hysteria out of their a&& for political and financial reasons.

The science in this area is in it's swaddling clothes, let alone is it not settled.
794Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 09:45
Not so long ago they showed models of an ice age coming. Let me explain using small words. RAIN WASHES THE CRAP FROM THE AIR. Damn, 'washes' has 6 letters, I hope it didn't confuse anyone. If we have climate change it will be because of Mother Nature not because we all don't drive electric cars. And please no more pictures of polar bears on floating ice.
795Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 09:47
Rain doesn't wash excess CO2 from the air. Or were you reading a bad homeschooling textbook?
796Boldwin
      ID: 21532278
      Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 09:57
Particulates and carbon but not CO2. Nature does naturally sequester carbon from the atmosphere however. Disappointed alarmists are grouching about a theory that atypical el-ninos have led to the recent 12 year lack of global warming.

Google el ninos sequestration for lots of fun.
797Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 09:59
You sure you want to stand by that statement? You should do a little Googling.
798Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 10:14
That was for PD.
800Boldwin
      ID: 21532278
      Sat, Jun 28, 2014, 14:44
Here is what will happen following Obama's energy plans...the glorious dream of Maurice Strong:
What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The groups conclusion is no. The rich countries wont do it. They wont change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isnt the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isnt it our responsibility to bring that about?
Results of countries that have pursued Strong's dream harder than Obama's:
The deputy leader of the German Green Party in the Bundestag, Oliver Krischer, summed up the dangers of relying on green power when he said,

A few years ago the renewable sector was the job miracle in Germany; now nothing is left of all of that.

Every European economy that followed the green agenda has faltered badly. Consequently, Germany is building coal plants to replace both failed wind power sources and even clean nuclear plants that are a casualty of irrational phobia after the Fukushima nuclear accident. In 2013 alone Germany built six more coal plants. China and India build four new ones every week, rendering Ontarios coal shutdown, as well as those planned for the U.S., completely irrelevant from a climate perspective no matter what one believes about the science.
801Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 10:07
Navajo Coal Plant to Close

The adopted plan will reduce power generated and emissions released by a third by the year 2020. It will also require the installation of more up-to-date pollution-control systems, designed to cut nitrogen-oxide emissions by 80 percent by 2030.

The deal was not imposed by EPA, though it was prepared to do so if necessary. It was worked out by a committee of stakeholders, including the plants owners, area environmental activists, Indian nations and others who will have to get along without NGS.

The days of the fossil-fuel economy are numbered. And even as we continue to rely on one such form of energy natural gas King Coal is destined to lose its energy crown.


802sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 18:22
The horse, trains, steamships, cassette tapes, VHS tapes, crossbows, shortswords, etc etc etc all lost their respective crowns as having topped at one time or another, their applications. Why wouldnt coal eventually lose its?
803sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Fri, Aug 15, 2014, 00:25
Humans are to blame.....

David Brin, astrnomer, physicist, author; on the subject. (His FB post on the topic today)

David Brin
22 mins Edited
The steady backpedaling of denialists would be impressive, if it werent both pathetic and staggeringly harmful to all of our grandchildren. Five years ago, the Fox-propelled cant was the glaciers arent melting! They are advancing and we face a new Ice Age!

Then came word that the US Navy is desperately playing catch-up in the Arctic as the Russians establish a dozen new bases to exploit the rapidly-melting icecap and Chinese freighters ply the Northwest Passage. Films like CHASING ICE which is fantastic, gorgeous, dramatic and stunning show before your very eyes the steady retreat of the glaciers and it comes down to every last one of them.

So, the next fall back position? Its variability! Theres melting in the Arctic and the north, okay, but cooling in the Antarctic!
Um no. Fox glommed onto the fact that SNOWFALL has increased at the south pole. And yes it has because evaporation has increased in the surrounding antarctic seas an absolute proved fact as they warm up and the Ross Ice Sheet melts and drifts away. The snowfall is more evidence of global warming. Duh. So whats next?

Okay, its all melting, but it has nothing to do with CO2!"
Except, well, there's also this thing called worldwide oceanic acidification, in which Ph levels have fallen a whole tenth of a point, a staggering change that may lead to greater plunges that are already noticeably affecting fisheries across the globe. The Ph change is absolute, clear, inarguable... and only one mechanism can POSSIBLY be responsible, carbonic acid derived from water-absorbed CO2, whose levels have been climbing rapidly due to human generated... yes... pollution.

Acidification is such a profound and total death slam that denialist cultists simply change the subject, as quickly as possible, pointing somewhere else and shouting "squirrel!"
But let's be clear. Let me paraphrase for you the current denialist catechism:

Okay, its all melting, but its natural! So what if we are urged to take moderate precautions by 99% of those scientists who actually understand the Navier Stokes and gas balance and radiative transport equations and cellular automata atmospheric models, that have successfully simulated climate on six planets and transformed the old two hour weather report into a ten day marvel! ALL of those super-smart, highly competitive men and women are in fact herd-following lemmings! Dullard cowards, clutching teensy climate grants. (Even though almost no such grants actually exist, and Fox has never offered us a list of them to back up their claim.)
In any event, it is far more plausible that ALL of the smart folks have conspired to spread alarmist nonsense than that we might listen to experts and take reasonable, moderate precautions, just on the off chance that 99% of those who actually know something about all this might (maybe) have a clue.

Does that just about sum it up? The reasoning" why denialists refuse even to negotiate mild increases in energy efficiency R&D, that would benefit us all, even if global warming proved to be a myth? It all comes down to TWODA Things We Ought to be Doing Anyway. Even if 99% of scientists are fools.

Humans are to blame.....

Face it, you are cultists, boys. And when the world fills with climate refugees, we who tried will happily help those refugees move into your house. You can keep the flooded doomsday prepper basement
804Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Fri, Dec 19, 2014, 06:50
Another reason you seldom hear from Algore anymore:

805Boldwin
      ID: 49572022
      Sun, Jul 12, 2015, 20:12
As I've pointed out before, if anything we are headed for a mini-ice age. The 'pause in GW for the last ~14 years' is just the beginning.

More coal plants please.

Meanwhile GW scientists feeling the need for safe rooms and punishments for anyone who questions their science.
806Boldwin
      ID: 49572022
      Sun, Jul 12, 2015, 22:11
Which is gonna require a whole lotta revisionary research grants covering EVERYTHING, since GW was supposedly responsible for EVERYTHING

Just hilarious. And all over a supposed 0.006 deg C per year.
807Boldwin
      ID: 49572022
      Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 20:25
Understanding the Arctic Ice Recovery.
Arctic sea ice is rapidly recovering from its lows in 2007 and 2012. The reason the lows occurred was because starting in 1988, winter winds were blowing a lot a sea ice out into the North Atlantic, where it melted. The loss of thick multi-year ice led to large summer melts.

But since 2011 the winter winds have changed, and there has been a large increase in the amount of thick multi-year ice. This ice is harder to melt in summer, and has led to the higher summer minimums seen in recent years.

It has nothing to do with global warming and never did.
808CanadianHack
      ID: 2710231914
      Fri, Jul 17, 2015, 19:52
As usual Baldwin misses out on reality by about 180 degrees.

Antarctica is melting. Climate change has shifted the winds so that they come in stronger than ever before from the west (Pacific Ocean) and they exit in the east (Atlantic Ocean). Strong winds bring warm water that undercuts the glaciers in the west an accelerates their melt. These glaciers or "land ice" are typically a kilometer thick and are melting at a tremendous rate. When these winds exit Antarctica in the east they are cold winds. They can in winter cause an increase in sea ice. Sea ice is typically a meter thick or less.

There is more sea ice due to shifting winds and there is less land ice. This is a significant net loss since the land ice is much thicker and the sea ice melts away in summer so it is not permanent. There is a huge net loss in the volume of ice but if you measure in the appropriate time in the southern hemisphere winter (i.e. now) the area covered by ice is marginally larger. Thus the source of Baldwin's lie (technically he doesn't know he is lying - he is being used by the people who post on the sites he frequents and they lie).
809CanadianHack
      ID: 2710231914
      Fri, Jul 17, 2015, 20:42
I just responded for the Antarctic. The same is true of the Arctic. Warm winds from the Atlantic melt Greenland and cooler winds exit to the north of Greenland. These winds have increased in strength.

Thin sea ice forms in winter and melts in summer. Very thick land ice retreats. The total volume of ice is significantly reduced although the total surface area increases in the Arctic just like the Antarctic.

The point again is Baldwin has been deceived.
810Boldwin
      ID: 49572022
      Fri, Jul 17, 2015, 22:07
I know there will be local warming bumps in the trends, [especially from a pretty strong el nino developing] but I get such a tickle every extra month and every extra year that the sun refuses to get active with sunspots. Just the thot of you guys having to explain years and years of cold at your GW 'fly-in-on-your-private-jet' get togethers. The closed down airports at winter GW events. I especially love those.

Wave your arms in panic. Make bold assertions. By all means. It makes it all the sweeter.
811Boldwin
      ID: 49572022
      Sat, Jul 18, 2015, 12:15
Zero statistical warming trend in 21 years.

Wow, I wonder what would have happened without the greenhouse gasses? Hmmm...

Funny thing is, you can't tinker with the weather monitors from space.



Which according to Hack sent the Antarctic crumbling and sent the NOAA back to the blackboards to recalibrate the data, narrative, big lie.
812Boldwin
      ID: 49572022
      Sat, Jul 18, 2015, 12:32
Ya'know WATT this Death Valley weather monitor station needs? A great big asphalt parking lot! That's the ticket.







Cause having the world record temp reading all the way back in 1922 doesn't fit the narrative.
813CanadianHack
      ID: 2710231914
      Sat, Jul 18, 2015, 12:41
Baldwin

Your graph in 811 clearly shows warming in the last 21 years. Put a best fit line through the data and it will have a positive slope. That means warming.

Your 811 graph is evidence for that whi9ch you are arguing against. That isn't too bright on your part.
814Boldwin
      ID: 49572022
      Sat, Jul 18, 2015, 13:29
No statistically significant change whatsoever.
815CanadianHack
      ID: 2710231914
      Sun, Jul 19, 2015, 16:03
Baldwin

You obviously do not understand how to read a graph.
I will teach you. Since we don't have the exact data values (do we?), you can try this to find the trend of the data.

1. Print out the graph
2. Get a ruler and draw in the best fit straight line that you can that has half of the points above it by as big a margin as the half of the points below it
3. Measure its slope = rise/run (notice that is a positive number - the later points tend to be higher in value than the earlier points)
4. Now try to determine the error in that number. Take your ruler and draw on the graph the highest and lowest slope value lines that appear to fit the data.
5. Measure their slopes. If you did this well, the best fit slope lies approximately halfway between the highest possible and lowest possible slopes. If you didn't get that result you made a mistake. Try again.
6. The uncertainty in the slope (from this rough and dirty method) is +/- half of the difference between the biggest and smallest possible slopes.
7. Now report your slope as the best fit number +/- the uncertainty. Notice that it is a positive number and the uncertainty leaves its range positive.

I eyeball the graph and see a best fit line of about 0.4 degrees/16 years = 0.025 degrees/year

Biggest possible slope is about 0.6 degrees/16 years = 0.0375 degrees/year

Lowest possible slope is about 0.1 degree/16 years = 0.00625 degrees/year.

So roughly eyeballing things I get about 0.025+/-0.015 degrees per year as a slope. I am saying its between about 0.04 and 0.01 degrees per year. Since all of that range is positive then it is clearly statistically significant that it is a positive number showing warming. Anyone who says otherwise is misinformed or lying.
816Boldwin
      ID: 49572022
      Sun, Jul 19, 2015, 16:49
When NOAA has to come up with a PR blitz, a position paper, rejiggered numbers and a convoluted explanation for why that graph doesn't say what it says...

...you know that graph is fatal to their position.

When you go flapping your arms about end of the world predictions...

...don't bring .o1

Take it from someone in the 'end of the world' announcing business. If what I had was that weak I wouldn't have the face to speak up in public.

817Boldwin
      ID: 49572022
      Sun, Jul 19, 2015, 17:17
Can you believe GW enthusiasts have gone from hockey-stick out of control exponential increases, to trying to present that graph as proof of alarming warming?

And they're still wide-eyed.

Amazing
818Boldwin
      ID: 49572022
      Sun, Jul 19, 2015, 17:36
Besides, adjust for the el nino and it's crystal clear that is as flat a line as you could hope to find in real life numbers.
819Boldwin
      ID: 49572022
      Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 14:26
Worst ice conditions in 20 years force change of plans to icebreaker research program

820CanadianHack
      ID: 2710231914
      Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 17:59
Baldwin is still confused about the difference between land ice and sea ice. 808 and 809 would explain this to him if he cared about being intellectually honest.
821Boldwin
      ID: 49572022
      Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 19:09
No. see, you don't get to claim the Arctic will be ice-free by...



or 2008, or 2012, or 2013, or 2015...

Without us taking a look...

...and no waving your arms and demanding we look at Greenland's interior instead or Greeenland's coast instead or one particular part of Antactica or this particular glacier over here...

We're gonna fact check your predictions and when they turn out spectacularly backwards we are going to laff in your face and throw your theory in the trash where it belongs.

822CanadianHack
      ID: 2710231914
      Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 21:26
Here are facts as opposed to strawmen. Hence Baldwin won't be interested.

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/11/loss-of-land-ice-not-sea-ice-more-sea-level-rise/

There are several more resources at the bottom f the page.
823Boldwin
      ID: 49572022
      Fri, Jul 24, 2015, 00:05
They've been predicting an ice-free arctic. We aren't talking about sea level but just admit you and Algore have been crushed WRT the arctic being ice-free by now.

You are free to start a discussion of alleged sea level rise. That should be hilarious.
824Boldwin
      ID: 49572022
      Fri, Jul 24, 2015, 00:28
Panic over 1/2 the thickness of a fingernail.
825Boldwin
      ID: 2711516
      Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 16:18
The GW hystericals are collapsing. Even admitting their large scale errors.

Unfortunately I don't know how to c-n-p from this source because the admissions are astounding.
826Boldwin
      ID: 611422119
      Thu, Mar 31, 2016, 06:43
Cat is out of the bag. It is all about deliberately impoverishing the developing world and transferring wealth.
Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole, said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

We redistribute de facto the worlds wealth by climate policy, said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesnt really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the worlds resources will be negotiated.
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: 400 Scientists Debunk Man-Made Global Warming

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days33
Last 30 days1311
Since Mar 1, 2007166313014