Man Based Global Warming....

I know you care, you use renewable fuel to heat your home.

 

Spoken like a true believer, Fibber. Like it or not, CO2 is a harmless gas that is indeed necessary for life on this planet. To cast it as a pollutant is mindlesslly, blatantly untrue. Get a grip, man, and get a clue.

You and others may wish to surrender their liberties, economic and otherwise, to the machinations of a world-wide body basing its clout on fraudulent science, I do not. You may stand by cheering while you are enslaved, I won't.

I, personally, haven't 'won' anything on this thread or its subject matter. What I have done is consistently point out the fraud and deception of the AGW crowd which is now definitively coming to light. In that sense, I've been correctly educating those steeped in ignorance and religious fervor.

It is your choice to remain an adherent of a corrupt idea. Whether that idea is allowed to determine the freedoms of men is yet to be seen. Plenty of fraudulent and evil ideas have overtaken whole societies to their detriment while the true believers clulessly applaud.

Need we rehash the the evils of Marxism? Why, yes, apparently we do. Our country has cluelessly elected a Marxist to the presidency and the future of this great republic lies precariously in the balance. Now the entire planet is at peril of having a global power enslave it through draconian control of economies. Cheer on, fools!

I'll be standing with those who resist, those who cherish freedom, those who believe truth should not be the victim of fraud, those who think for themselves. The drones will do what drones do and keep their heads bowed and do what they are told.

Cheers!

 

Could not have been said better! :thumb:

 

Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the 'deniers' hated by the Hockey Team at CRU, IPCC, RealClimate et al:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

A lengthy excerpt:
The elitist attitudes exist elsewhere, too. While the skeptics’ blogs allow those who disagree to post opinions as long as they remain civil about it, RealClimate.org routinely ignores or deletes posts that might cast doubt on their tidy worldview. The same thing happens at Wikipedia, where a gatekeeper deletes newly posted content that departs from the IPCC party line.
A few of the CRU e-mails suggest that manipulation of climate data in order to reduce the signature of natural climate variations, and to exaggerate the supposed evidence for manmade climate change, is OK with these folks. Apparently, the ends justify the means.
The defense posted at RealClimate.org actually reinforces my point. {That's for you, Fibber} Do the IPCC scientists assume that this is how all climate scientists behave? If it really was how the rest of us behave, why would our eyebrows be raised up to our hairlines as we read the e-mails?
If all of this sounds incompatible with the process of scientific investigation, it shouldn’t. One of the biggest misconceptions the public has about science is that research is a straightforward process of making measurements, and then seeing whether the data support hypothesis A or B. The truth is that the interpretation of data is seldom that simple.
There are all kinds of subjective decisions that must be made along the way, and the scientist must remain vigilant that he or she is not making those decisions based upon preconceived notions. Data are almost always dirty, with errors of various kinds. Which data will be ignored? Which data will be emphasized? How will the data be processed to tease out the signal we think we see?
Hopefully, the scientist is more interested in discovering how nature really works, rather than twisting the data to support some other agenda. It took me years to develop the discipline to question every research result I got. It is really easy to be wrong in this business, and very difficult to be right.
Skepticism really is at the core of scientific progress. I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong about all my views on manmade global warming. Can the IPCC scientists admit the same thing?
Year after year, the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’s politics, not to find out how nature works. The ‘data spin’ is increasingly difficult to ignore or to explain away as just sloppy science. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

 

Is there any actual proof that CO2 causes temperatures to rise? I mean like a mechanism of action, not just a correlation.

 

There may or may not be some warming attributable to CO2. What is certain is that there is ZERO empirical evidence that CO2 has caused any significant, much less catastrophic, warming.

The ONLY thing upon which the AGW crowd base their dire projections of global catastrophe is computer programs that simulate (imperfectly) what will happen in the future based on a doubling of the present level of CO2. That is IT, There is absolutely ZERO emoirical evidence to support them.

Sorry, that's the truth as we presently know it.

 

Plant science is much more complex than you make it out to be and to postulate that a CO2 enriched atmosphere would be beneficial to all life is not scientifically sound. CO2 enhanced plant growth rates are dependent on temperature as well as availability of mineral nutrients. So the regions with colder temperatures may be affected differently than say those in the tropics. Furthermore, some studies show that elevated CO2 levels promote the growth of weedy species which are often time non-native and categorized as invasive. Invasive species in my state is a big problem and costs CA approx. $82 million/yr (Cal-IPC) or approx. $120 billion/yr in the United States (USDA)(Pimentel et al., Ecological Economics, 2005.). Some studies have also found that with increased growth rates, plants subjected to enhanced CO2 levels exhibit reduced nutrient quality which could mean that herbivores would be required to eat more biomass to obtain the same level of nutrients as a smaller quanitity of biomass from a plant under normal conditions. Ecosystems are very complex and to assume that any CO2 concentration level from 280p.p.m. to 1,000p.p.m. is perfectly ok is ludicrous and that is not even taking into account the other byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, temperature rise, or shifting precipiation patterns/rates. You may not see this in your line of work but I deal with pertubations like this every day.

In a nutshell, saying that CO2 is harmless at any concentration in the atmosphere and oceans is completely out of line with scientific findings and either ignorant or dishonest at the very least.

For those who actually read this sort of stuff I've included links for further study.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the United States[/FONT]

CA Climate & Agriculture Network - Presentations and video from the Climate & Agriculture Summit at UC Davis (yes, I attended)

MORE EFFICIENT PLANTS: A Consequence of Rising Atmospheric CO2?

Effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on plant growth: the interactive role of air temperature

Elevated atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 and plant growth


Interspecific variation in the growth response of plants to an elevated ambient CO2 concentration

Effects of elevated CO2 and temperature on plant growth and herbivore defensive chemistry

 

Do you have a good grasp on how CO2 and other greenhouse gases affect shortwave and long wave radiation (the chemistry and physics) and the various mechanisms we use to measure longwave radiation output?

 

I'm asking for someone to explain how CO2 traps heat resulting in global warming.

 

Ok, I wasn't sure if you meant the basic mechanism behind it or it.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) consists of a single carbon atom and two hydrogen atoms bonded to it, one on each side. Because greenhouse gasses are comprised of 3 or more atoms, they are loosely bonded and have a certain freedom of movement and thus are affected by longwave radiation in the form of vibrations. The carbon dioxide molecule can absorb infrared radiation and the molecule will vibrate. As molecules return to a ground state the molecule will release radiation which will likely be picked up by another molecule. This keeps the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) close to the earth instead of being radiated out into space. The more greenhouse gas molecules you have the more this effect is intensified.

Water vapor is the biggest contributor to the greenhouse affect and generally speaking, higher temperatures cause more evaporation which puts more water vapor into the atmosphere. Since the role of water vapor and it's myriad forms is still a bit confusing that is all I will say about that but there are plenty of papers on the subject.

The rest starts getting confusing when you start arguing limits to infrared radiation absorption and water vapor effects, Linzden's "iris hypothesis", feedbacks, and forcings but this give you the general idea. My best advice is to stay away from the alarmist and skeptic sites. They will only serve to confuse and polarize you.

Links to papers on the study of CO2 and its interactions with longwave radiation

 

Short answer: yes. Rather than giving a muddied explanation of the wave mechanics and balances, do some searches to find it in terminology and diagrams that make sense to you.

Try this one: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-1.3.html

 

Bring on the socialist, one world government. Tax the shit out of the rich and give everyone a livable guaranteed income. It's gonna happen and you can do nothing to stop it.

Mwuhahahahahahhahah

 

The maniacal laugh is appropriate. It becomes clear why you are such a supporter of the AGW agenda. Whether the science is fraudulent matters not at all. The goal is to control men and economies to further an idealogy - and a sick one at that.

Stealing from one group of people to give to another is morally wrong. Socialism drags everyone down. Socialism, as it devolves to totalitarianism literally kills or imprisons those who resist. I prefer life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Using your own country as an example of how well this sorry system works:



"Socialism has worked for the world - and now it can work for you!"


Canada:


"One Really Just Society - No, Really!"

Canada's policy of trying to create a Just Society has been great for the working class Canadian. Canada has created for herself one of the strongest social safety nets in the world that ensures that no one suffers. Canada's world renowned health-care system is also source of pride for all Canadians because of the satisfaction of knowing that everyone receives equal treatment, no matter how much money they make. It is efficient and provides excellent service to everyone and does not even punish people with user fees.

The Canadian economy is a vibrant one which encourages the best and brightest to come to Canada to work, and the redistribution of wealth is a fair system between the provinces that has helped every area of the nation develop to its fullest potential. Workers in Canada also benefit from a government which actively supports labour unions.

Canadians should also be proud that their justice system values the concept of rehabilitation and human rights. On the issue of human rights, Canada boasts an exemplary Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Overall, Canada is one of the world's strongest democracies with an accountable government that is a voice for all Canadians, rich or poor.

Canada - Just another example of how Socialism WORKS!

But does it really work?Just Society: Pierre Trudeau started the Canadian cause for a society where no one "should be entitled to superflous or luxury goods until the essentials of life are made available to everyone", which set the tone for modern day Canada, in spite of the policy's devastatingly Socialistic after-effects.

one of the strongest social safety nets in the world: Welfare is widely defrauded by citizens as well as new immigrants, with hard-working Canadian citizens paying for every cent. While certain provinces, such as Ontario, have taken steps to eradicate fraud (and to get capable workers back into the workforce), these policies have been widely criticized as "violations of human rights." As it stands right now, a person fully capable of working can remain on welfare for their entire life, if they so choose.

efficient and provides excellent service to everyone: The inefficiency of government control has resulted in outrageous waiting lists for services such as cancer treatment. Waiting lists for cancer treatment are considerably longer than the American average and "the times are also longer than what radiation oncologists consider to be the medically acceptable maximum" (Fraser Institute). Furthermore, in 1999, over 120 people were removed from the coronary by-pass surgery waiting list in Ontario because they had been on it so long, they were so unhealthy that they would not survive the surgery anyway. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has also ranked Canada low for the availability of MRI and CT scanners although Canada ranked fifth for health care costs. Similar problems plague almost every area of the system.

user fees: The majority of Canadians choose to believe that more government funding is the answer to health care problems. Most Canadians refuse to even entertain the idea of user fees, which even Sweden has implemented as part of the answer to dealing with patients who go to the doctor for every sniffle or cough.

Canadian economy: The Canadian rate of productivity, which is directly connected to the standard of living in a nation, continues to slow, particularly in comparison to the United States. The high Canadian tax rate discourages business growth and investment and our high level of debt (which owes great thanks to Trudeau's massive expansion of social services in 1970's) has contributed to the low value of the Canadian dollar.

best and brightest to come to Canada to work: The chief executive of one of Canada's top high-tech companies said it best when he said, "we sure have not created an economic climate to keep our top talent ... and wealth creators here for the coming century" (John Roth, CEO of Nortel). The low value of the Canadian dollar, the ability of American companies to adequately pay for highly-skilled workers, and the high rate of taxation has led to a "brain drain." As Roth said, "the top marginal tax rate in the United States just moved from $283,000 to $285,000. Canada's top rate starts at $65,000 Canadian, or $42,000 U.S. So in Canada, you are wealthy at $42,000 U.S. In America, you're wealthy at $285,000 U.S."

redistribution of wealth: Hardly a fair system. The provinces of Ontario and Alberta are the only net contributors to the economy of the country and are punished for this by having their wealth taken. Despite being morally wrong, this system of "taking from the rich to give to the poor" is rife with flaws. A family in Alberta with a household income of $30,000 - $40,000 will pay out over $3000 for equalization payments, while a family in the province of Newfoundland which has a household income of over $100,000 will receive over a $1000 in benefits. Furthermore, these equalization payments have not led to economic development in the areas receiving them, ensuring that the system will never end.

supports labour unions: Canadian law has given labour unions the right to force people to join as a condition of employment, in violation of the right to freedom of association.

the concept of rehabilitation and human rights: There is no system of consecutive sentencing in Canada, resulting in such recent cases as the five year sentence given to a man who had a large role in the 1985 Air India bombing which killed 329 people. Many Canadian police officers have become frustrated as people convicted of such crimes as break and enter are routinely let off with light probation.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms: While the Charter seems to defend such basic rights as "freedom of expression," its preamble enshrines religious values ("Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law") rather than a separation of church and state which any free nation should have. This allows for the continued public funding of Catholic schools, which even the UN has declared is a violation of civil rights.

More important, Section 33 of the Charter has the infamous "notwithstanding clause" which allows for any provincial government to violate fundamental freedoms if they pass an act of Parliament. This has most famously occurred in Quebec to violate the rights of non-Francophones.

world's strongest democracies with an accountable government: There is no limit to how long any Canadian politician, including the prime minister, can stay in power. The British-style Parliamentary system allows for a party to form a majority with only 40% of the popular vote. Furthermore, the West in particular does not get an adequate vote, a problem which had contributed to the Western Separation movement. In addition, Jean Chretien's 'reign' as Prime Minister has been marked by patronage appointments, scandal and corruption, in which billions of dollars have been misappropriated. He has centralized the power of Parliament within the Prime Minister's Office and maintains strict controls over his fellow Liberal Party members to prevent dissent. Amongst the critics of his government, he has been called "The Friendly Dictator." Even the leader of the Canadian citizen's group Democracy Watch, who has co-written a book with ultra-socialist Ralph Nader, does not consider Canada a democracy any longer due to the centralization of power.

Anyone wishing to impose socialism on the entire world has lost his soul or his mind. Maybe both.

 

So if you are murdered but there is no evidence that someone murdered you, then you will not be dead any more? Cool!

 

U, your Canada slag-fest post is so hilarious. There are a couple things in there that I agree with, some things that are old and out of date, but mostly it's just anti-Canada propaganda. Funny to think somebody went to all that trouble over little ol' us. Thanks.

 

Yes, this is known the zombie denialist theorem or Lazarus effect. This also results in the zombie paradox when the undead then chooses to kill the assailant so that the murderer is dead, and the victim is alive.

 

Thanks Shawn, you made me laugh and startle my dog who was asleep.

 

For all the TRUE BELIEVERS - those who irrationally believe in a discredited idea.

Why some people are willing to kill or be killed for beliefs that wouldn't pass muster with most rational folks is even more puzzling. It may have to do with insecurity. Eric Hoffer (author of True Believer) seemed to think so. He wrote:​

The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.... (AGW in this case)

A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business....

The fanatic is perpetually incomplete and insecure. He cannot generate self-assurance out of his individual resources -- out of his rejected self -- but finds it only by clinging passionately to whatever support he happens to embrace.

This passionate attachment is the essence of his blind devotion and religiosity, and he sees in it the source of all virtue and strength.... He easily sees himself as the supporter and defender of the holy cause to which he clings. And he is ready to sacrifice his life. (Or relinquish his freedom)
​

Hoffer also seemed to think that true believers want to give up all personal responsibility for their beliefs and actions. They want to be free of the burden of freedom.

In other words, drones, drones.​

 

Some frank talk in some hacked emails is nothing in the face of this:


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALe...


and



Online video and audio: programmes and multimedia | The Economist



As it's been repeated time and again, if anything, climatologists as a group and specifically the IPCC, have been way too conservative.


If you want to deny that all the trends outlined in this article are fake, then we are into the looking glass here people... you're f@cking bat-sh!t crazy.

 

:bored: