Date: Fri May 2 06:48:40 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
please check your claims here before making the same ones over and over.
MYTH #1: 1998 was the hottest year on record, it hasn't been as hot since.
(The earth must be cooling)
TRUTH: True. 1998 was the hottest year on record, but the last 10 are pretty
much in the top 10 too. What makes 1998 special is that it was an extreme EL
Nino year. EL Nino is a periodic warm Pacific current that can effect weather
on a global scale, normal with bad results. We also had a mild El Nino in 2004
I think, but it wasn't as intense.
-------------------------------------------------------
MYTH #2: The Ice Caps are actually getting Thicker!!
TRUTH: They are getting "thicker", and they have been for 11,000 years. It's
still damn cold on the North and South Poles. However they are "receeding".
Meaning if there was ice 900 miles from the pole in 1900, now the ice coverage
is only 750 miles from the pole. This isn't even a discussion topic, their is
visual evidence everywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------
MYTH #3: NASA is concerned over the Earth Cooling. (Global Warming is a myth)
TRUTH: NASA is concerned over the Earth Cooling. There has been reports of
much weaker solar radiation from our sun. The Sun is that external thing that
warms our planet. It ALSO can influence the earths temperature. Wow... two
things that can influence the planet? Who would have thunk it.
-------------------------------------------------------
MYTH #4 The Earths climate has changed before.
TRUTH: Yes it has. Solar radiation, the tilt on the earths axis, the
particular orbit cycle and how far/close it comes to the sun, super volcanoe in
Sumatra, perhaps an asteroid in the Yucutan are all events that changed the
climate. Some dramatic- like a Super Volcanoe, some slow like planetary cycles
in the earths orbit.
None of this has any relation to man made global warming. If you throw
litter on a beach and the tide comes and washes it away- that doesn't mean you
didn't litter"
However, with Global Warming their is a clear causation between an increase
in greenhouse gases in the atomsphere and temperature increase. The measured
charts are almost identical.
--------------------------------------------------------
MYTH #5 We got a lot of Snow this year. (that disproves it)
TRUTH: None. Snow forms at around 32 degrees F. If you have winter days where
the temperature is 10 degrees, and extra degree or two caused by global warming
is still well below 32.
--------------------------------------------------------
MYTH #6 Today is cooler than yesterday.
TRUTH: There are many independent factors that can influence the earths
temperature. Much like a human body, a fever can be caused by a bacteria, and
influenza, a host of viruses..... If you have a blood infection and you get a
fever- that doesn't mean their is no risk to catch a cold. This is a common
Global Warming Denier argument, that is so logically flawed- yet they keep
going to over and over.
Date: Fri May 2 06:57:14 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" MYTH #3: NASA is concerned over the Earth Cooling. "
" TRUTH: NASA is concerned over the Earth Cooling. "
Wow! That is too funny. Which one do I believe?? Truth? or Myth?
Date: Fri May 2 06:58:33 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" MYTH #4 The Earths climate has changed before. "
" TRUTH: Yes it has. "
Then why is this in your list of truth/myths?
Date: Fri May 2 07:13:01 2008
Sender: Red Burley
AJ- Im not a Denier, but I think you missed an important point.
Some people have asked, and have made plausible arguments that, while global
warming is indeed happening, there is no conclusive proof that human behavior
has any significant effect on it. In other words, the argument says, the
buildup of greenhouse gases is part of a naturally occurring cycle which is
entirely independent of human agents.
I'm not sure if I agree with this, but it is an argument that should be
addressed.
Date: Fri May 2 07:22:47 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
William
I think this might be over your head, I can't make it any simpler
Say your engine is running hot because you need a new radiator when you go
to work every day. Your temperature guage comes on. You go to the mechanic,
he says your radiator is going bad.
But then a wicked cold front comes through, and you make it to work without
your temperature light coming on.
Does that mean your radiator isn't a problem?
Red- the post was done to debate the stupid things I keep hearing, not the ones
that actually can be scientifically debated. Though I think rate of change is
unprecedented, at least that arguement is intelligent.
Date: Fri May 2 07:33:32 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" But then a wicked cold front comes through, and you make it to work without
your temperature light coming on. "
I had a customer come in one day (one of Michigan's colder winter days) and
complained that her car overheated. It turned out that her radiator had frozen
solid.
What caused the overheating?
1; The engine for getting hot, as it naturally does
2; The coolant for not cooling
3; The radiator for allowing the coolant to freeze
4; The thermostat for not opening quick enough
5; The weak mixture of coolant
6; The water pump for not pumping the water
7; The gasoline for burning so hot it overheated the engine
8; The tires for allowing her to get out of her driveway in the first place
So, the moral of your analogy is that you should consider ALL aspects of a
condition BEFORE you state you KNOW what is CAUSING the problem. Any
possibility of that happening in the near future?
Date: Fri May 2 08:19:18 2008
Sender: Joshua MacOscar
William,
Can you explain to me why denying Global Warming is such a big deal? Is it the
idea of us humans spending too much money on something that we have little
impact on (if you are right)?
I don't believe that Al Gore knows what he is talking about, but believe that
energy conservation/being green/etc... are all good causes (within financial
reason). It seems like this is such a polarizing issue, and I wanted someone on
the opposite of ManBearPig to explain that to me.
Date: Fri May 2 09:42:09 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
"So, the moral of your analogy is that you should consider ALL aspects of a
condition BEFORE you state you KNOW what is CAUSING the problem."
Yeah and they have done a pretty good job of looking at a lot of variables.
- 15 billion tons of greenhouse gases into the atompshere per day, (which is
measurable) correlating with a temperature increase of the same increment is
pretty solid.
It is the global warming deniers which try to find one variable (like 1999
was colder than 1998) and all of a sudden claim THERE IS NO THREAT.
Now you tell me? which is wiser?
Date: Fri May 2 13:49:23 2008
Sender: P Kenny
AJ,
Direct me to one, single piece of data that shows a correlation between
temperature and CO2 for any reasonable temporal period.
Or even a causal relationship.
Because that is the basis of the global warming scam.
Cheers,
PK
Date: Fri May 2 16:21:56 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
MYTH #1: 1998 was the hottest year on record, it hasn't been as hot since.
(The earth must be cooling)
:The PDO which is now in a cooling phase may very well have been accentuating
the perception of global warming. Not to mention that the Vostok data shows
definitively that it has been significantly warmer in the past than it was in
1998. "On record" refers to about a 100 year period, whereas the Vostok data
refers to about 600,000 years.
--------------------------------------------------------
MYTH #3: NASA is concerned over the Earth Cooling. (Global Warming is a myth)
TRUTH: NASA is concerned over the Earth Cooling. There has been reports of
much weaker solar radiation from our sun. The Sun is that external thing that
warms our planet. It ALSO can influence the earths temperature. Wow... two
things that can influence the planet? Who would have thunk it.
-------------------------------------------------------
:Looks like we need to crank up the smokestacks to combat the loss of solar
radiation!
MYTH #4 The Earths climate has changed before.
:It's not any more true to say the earth's climate has changed before than to
say that Elizabeth Taylor has changed husbands before. There's is no constant
in climate except change! And there is no established causation between CO2 and
temperature, or else the IPCC's predictions would not be as wrong as they are,
which is to say wrong with at least a 95% interval of confidence.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-continue-to-falsify/
Date: Sat May 3 06:36:36 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" Can you explain to me why denying Global Warming is such a big deal? "
Joshua, You pretty much answered for me in your second paragraph. As long as
you include the 'within financial reason', which you did.
Date: Sat May 3 10:17:44 2008
Sender: Joshua MacOscar
Cool. I can dig it.
As a sidebar, I do not see much discussion regarding the evolution of the human
species. Remember in that Star Wars movie how the central planet was all cement
and asphalt and buildings? Maybe humans are meant to eventually live in a
hotter climate. We freak out over species becoming extinct, but what if they
are just in our way?
Date: Sat May 3 11:47:57 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
"Direct me to one, single piece of data that shows a correlation between
temperature and CO2 for any reasonable temporal period."
This is my last post. This is like talking to a wall. This will be the 3rd
time on these boards the following graphs will be posted.
1) The first is from Vladavastok
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/20/21248/499
you can also easily google this info
Now one could argue, C02 is actually a result of temperature increase- not the
other way around. However, NO ONE can argue there is not an obvious direct
correlation between the two... unless you need a 1st grader to explain graphs
to you. This is over 1000's of years.
2) The 2nd is a modern image from 1880- through 2010
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/Images/CO2-Temp.jpg
Again showing a clear correlation between CO2 increase and temperature
increase.
-- Now I've shown you the past 400,000 years and the past 120- I hope one of
those fits your "reasonable time period".
You could of course argue their is some 3rd variable,(aliens, the lost city
of Atlantis, Al Quada) which is independently driving up both Temperature and
C02 emissions, or you could just use the brain God gave us and say "Geee....
they must be somehow related?"
Date: Sat May 3 12:03:42 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Then how did this happen?
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-continue-to-falsify/
Date: Sat May 3 14:56:25 2008
Sender: Dennis Berg
A.J. let me explain. Lets say we sent a satellite into orbit and a couple days
later sent another satellite into space in a parallel orbit. A year later we
start tracking the locations of these two satellites. Since they are in
parallel orbits, they would have a perfect positive correlation, i.e. on a
graph their locations would be in perfect sync. Under the assumptions you say
must be made from a graph, it must be concluded that one of the satellites is
causing the location of the other. In fact, they just happen to be traveling
in the same direction. Now, with temperature versus CO2, we have the fact that
temps were already rising 150 years before CO2 began to rise. Now we are told
to believe that the last 150 years are the result of man-made CO2 while the
previous 150 years were due to natural fluctuations.
You should also realize that graphs can be fairly poor analytical tools. They
can be easily manipulated by changing the scale, using different starting
points, etc. They also don't tell the entire story relating to causation.
With your graphs, they do indeed show that temps and CO2 rise and fall
together. The first question should be, does temperature cause CO2 or does CO2
cause temperature. The second question should be, is there another variable
that causes both temperature changes and CO2 changes. We don't know the answer
to either of those questions, merely emotionally based feel good beliefs on
what the answers must be.
Date: Sat May 3 19:17:51 2008
Sender: P Kenny
Hi AJ,
Thanks for these links. I can read graphs, thanks.
Your first graph shows [C02] and temperature (T) over hundreds of thousands of
years. It does appear to show a correlation between [CO2] and T; except, when
actually looking at the timescale, the temperature change comes before the CO2.
Show, it shows that temperature drives CO2, Of course, these guys who make
their living selling global warming and carbon credits bend over backwards to
come up with arguments that somehow a plot of a million years that shows T
affects CO2 is really the reverse.
Why on earth do you people insist on showing a graph of a million year's worth
of data that T affects CO2 and then claim that CO2 forces T?
The second one is an example of how scales are manipulated to attempt to agree
with particular point of view or argument. Sure, when the data is graphed like
that it looks like C02 and T correlate. But dig a little deeper. Nearly half
the warming in the 20th century occured in the first 50 years. It appears to
have gone in two spurts. But, the C02 only increases its slope around 1950. It
goes nuts. But the temperature only increases like it had earlier in the
century. The increases in T between around 1905 and 1945 is very nearly the
same as 1965-2005; but the C02 increases (slopes) over those two periods are
vastly different.
Tell me how C02 drives T in this data?
No doubt we pumping C02 into the air like crazy - with adverse effects for us
humans. But global warming isn't one of them.
Date: Sun May 4 10:38:24 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
I'll re-answer this, this discussion was had before, I think Morris explained
it.
It is shown that an increase in temperature (even naturally) does cause an
increase in C02 levels. However, it's not really disputable that if you
increase C02 levels temperature will rise. Thats relatively basic.
Here is a great article, it's not Pro-Gore either-
"Are the changes in CO2 concentration causing changes in temperature or is it
the other way around? It’s both.
"The drops in CO2 concentration do not always begin until after a cooling
period has begun. Then, as an ice age is ending, the concentrations may remain
low for some time into the warming period. This means that the CO2 changes
cannot be the driving force in initiating these major climate shifts. But as
the climate cools, the concentration of CO2 drops and this has a further
cooling effect. And as the climate is warming, more CO2 is released into the
atmosphere, further increasing global temperatures. This is called a positive
feedback loop."
Thats talking about Climate Shifts from ice age to ice age, caused by the
natural cycles of th earth's orbit,tilt etc, that we discussed earlier.
Knowing just the basics.
I can't see how 15 billion tons of man made greenhouse gases put into the
atomsphere everyday- could not effect temperature?
Really, how can it not?
Date: Sun May 4 19:33:19 2008
Sender: P Kenny
The theory is weak and the empirical data is weak or fudged, but I'm supposed
to believe humans cause global warming just because no one can come up with an
explanation for something else that could happen when we pump C02 into the
atmosphere?
And if I don't buy into this, I am labeled a denier on the same moral ground as
a Holocaust denier, because the "debate is over"?
That's called religion. Welcome to the Dark Ages.
Long live Senor Inquisitor Gore!
Date: Sun May 4 19:48:50 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
What are you talking about? Have you done any research at all?
If you think science can't measure temperature or CO2 levels, you need to go
back to school.
The empirical data is accepted by everyone... but pretty much you. There is
no debate on the temperature. Fudged? yeah, NASA is just making stuff up.
You can't even come up with a good reason why you don't think global warming is
possible other than you don't like Al Gore or the scientist are lying to you.
Date: Sun May 4 21:07:08 2008
Sender: Morris Cohen
Is P Kenny another one of AJ's alter egos?
Date: Sun May 4 21:32:30 2008
Sender: William Johnson
You mean AJ is argueing with himself and using NASA info that says there is
global cooling while he is argueing in favor of global warming? Wow, that must
be one intense alter-ego.
Date: Mon May 5 06:47:59 2008
Sender: P Kenny
Earlier I was impressed with a lot of the debate and posts in this forum, and
that is why I chimed in, but AJ's most recent post is disappointing.
AJ, first, my statement was not all inclusive. I already pointed out how the
data you presented was a) very weak in suggesting that C02 forces temperature
and b) the scales and presentation were manipulated to make the data confirm to
a particular, preconceived hypothesis.
Second, there is plenty of debate on the temperature, particularly the trends
and what it means. There is also some debate on whether the temperature
measurements have been manipulated by the placement of measuring stations e.g.
on blacktop, urban ares, near heat sources etc etc.
I don't have to come up with a good reason why human / emssions global warming
is not possible. If you want me to believe it, you need to come up with good
reasons why it is possible. And the evidence you and others have shown is
insufficient. "It must exist because you can not prove it is impossible." That
is just nuts. The theory has some merit, but the data proves otherwise.
Finally, your juvenile snipes do little service to prove your point. It makes
me think your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are for crap.
Your last post suggested I wrote two things I did not: "can't measure C02",
"NASA is making things up." If you recall, you presented two graphs that you
claimed showed that C02 forces temperature, where in reality they strongly
suggest the opposite or no relationship. I referred specifically to those. I
think you should confine your retorts to what I actually write, but I don't
expect you will.
Date: Mon May 5 08:25:33 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Fine then-
"you presented two graphs that you claimed showed that C02 forces temperature,"
NO- I never said CO2 forces temperature in those graphs- I said they are
obviously correlated.
Can you explain to me how they "show no relation" when they are nearly
identical?
I did say CO2 raises temperature. Take a box stand in it, have someone pump
some CO2 into it.... tell me if it gets hotter.
"Manipulated information"
I can't argue with this. There are 80 different sources which provide
temperature readings that are the same. Then usually one far right conservative
sight that says "2007 was the coldest year ever"- if you want to believe these
fringe scientist analysis, there is nothing I can say.
------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is I don't even know what your point is? You act like every piece
of evidence is a lie.
Temperature- You say they can't measure it
Graphs- You say the don't look the same (even though they do)
Both temp and C02 rising - you say not correlated
plus all information is ""manipulated"
This is the "give me 100%" proof arguement conservatives are willing to go to
quantum theory to get that .00001% chance it's not
Date: Mon May 5 10:11:29 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-continue-to-falsify/
This runs counter to everything you just said. If all of this is so
self-evident, how did the IPCC get it so wrong?
And while I'm at it...so much for you so-called near unanimity of scientific
opinion on global warming.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1
Date: Mon May 5 10:38:01 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
HENRY- if your going to post this stuff-
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-continue-to-falsify/
I'm not sure what the hell this is? beta formula, progression, p=95,
ummmm....
It shows a whole lot of technical stuff- as opposed to just showing a
temperature, seems like smoke and mirrors to me. Does nothing to refute how
hot the past decade has been historically either.
It says "Despite an uptick in temperature" yet their graph shows a decline
slope?
Your going to have to explain what this roundabout science is actually saying?
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
"there has been no net global warming since 1998."
- Whenever you see this phrase, it pretty much invalidates the debater, they
are willingfully manipulating something for an agenda. All scientisr know 1998
was not a normal year, (AGAIN) it was an intense El Nino year... this is sad,
to have to keep explaining this.
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1
I
like this article. wow. What a shameful travesty of intellectualism.
"Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent
of the actions of humans,"
- No shit, that doesn't mean we can't effect it though.
and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all
life;
- yeah, so is Zinc, but you don't eat 3 pounds a day.
Nice Mission Statement.
"That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial
activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic
climate change."
????? Yep those caveman factories were very clean. So these people just
think the earth is the impenatrable thing.
the Bottom Line-
"That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce
emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith."
Signed-
Greedy Corporate CEO's of the World.
------------------------------------
I get it Henry, P- you guys think the earth is this super immune entity and
for some bizzare reason nothing man can do can effect it.
To me that is just retarded.
Date: Mon May 5 10:41:26 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
1) What if 15 billion tons of Co2 were pumped into just your house every day?
Do you agree you would die?
2) What if 15 billion tons of C02 were pumped into just one town in the world
per day, how would it do?
3) How about just one state? What would things be like? (think Venus)
4) What if 15 billion tons of C02 were pumped into the planet per day?
Oh wait,... that would have no effect.
WHY?
1) Is the earth too big?
2) Do you not understand what C02 does?
WHICH IS IT?
Date: Mon May 5 10:58:19 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" 1) What if 15 billion tons of Co2 were pumped into just your house every day?
2) ...one town...
3) ...one state...
4) ...the planet... "
I would have NASA spend billions, upon billions on finding another planet
that 6 people could be sent to and start a 'new world'.
Or, I would federalize all oil companies and raise prices to $15 a gallon.
ALL profits then go to subidizing alternative fuel research/development. I
would then rebuild the entire infrastructure to allow usage of the
next-generation electric vehicle. The rise of gas prices would force people to
abandon reckless and un-necesary motor vehicle use. Immediately reducing CO
output caused by internal combustion engines. Which would in turn, immediately
reduce the global warming effects caused by vehicle emmissions. Then I would go
after factory emmision outputs any and every way possible to force them to
reduce/eliminate their part of the problem.
Date: Mon May 5 11:14:58 2008
Sender: Kendell R Jillson
AJ, where do you get your data? One source I saw said only about 20 million
tons of man-made CO2 per day. And what's the net increase? (granted 20
million tons is a lot, but only adds about 2-3 ppb/day to the atmosphere...and
that's assuming that there isn't an increase in biomass growth or losses to
other carbon sinks).
Date: Mon May 5 11:16:10 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
You wouldn't have to raise gas prices.
Oil companies made like 80 billion dollars in profit last year.
Just give a billion dollar reward to the first non fossil fuel powered
funcional affordable car.
You'd have your solution within a year.
Date: Mon May 5 11:19:57 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Kendell-
I don't remember, but it was Greenhouse Gases not just C02- and it stuck in my
head.
Realistically, I don't understand the number anyway.
Though, I appreciate the idea. 2 parts per billion- doesn't seem like much. I
would be interested in reading this info.
Date: Mon May 5 11:27:12 2008
Sender: William Johnson
How would you force people to buy/use these vehicles when they can continue
using their current ones for only $4 a gallon? Besides, they've already got
those vehicles. You just don't hear about them because the evil oil companies
keep that data under wraps and no one has access to it.
Date: Mon May 5 11:28:54 2008
Sender: Morris Cohen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Fossil-fuel CO2 emissions by country. It was 27 billion tons per year in 2004.
We're probably around 35 now, which is ~2.2% of the total CO2 that is in the
atmosphere.
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/2_global_warming.htm
Some info about how C02 levels might increase
Date: Mon May 5 13:14:38 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
So if it's can be shown that 2.2% of the CO2 in the atomsphere is man made, it
shouldn't be too difficult to see what a 2.2% increase in C02 does in a
controlled environment.
William- you said give all the profit. I said the profit was 80 billion. We
wouldn't be driving fossil fuel powered cars for long if 5% of that money went
to create something different.
Date: Mon May 5 14:18:53 2008
Sender: Morris Cohen
"2.2% of the CO2 in the atomsphere is man made"
Not quite. This year, we're dumping an amount into the atmosphere that is
about 2.2% of the ambient level. But, there are complications from absorption
in trees (and/or lack thereof), etc, you can find more info in the second link
I posted.
Date: Mon May 5 14:19:33 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
HENRY- if your going to post this stuff-
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-continue-to-falsify/
I'm not sure what the hell this is? beta formula, progression, p=95,
ummmm.... It shows a whole lot of technical stuff- as opposed to just showing a
temperature, seems like smoke and mirrors to me. Does nothing to refute how
hot the past decade has been historically either.
It says "Despite an uptick in temperature" yet their graph shows a decline
slope?
Your going to have to explain what this roundabout science is actually saying?
:Oh Christ you're kidding me. It's real technical stuff, if you think basic
statistics and mathematics is technical. It's a damn scatterplot of the
temperature anomalies from 5 different organizations. The lines plotted are the
IPCC prediction (labeled such), the actual trend line (labeled average trend),
and the lines that represent the 95% confidence interval (labeled such),
usually twice the standard deviation, or really close. I'm sure Andy could
explain it much more thoroughly should he see fit. But it's really a very easy
chart to understand; the actual trend is one way, the IPCC's predicted trend
the opposite. They were wrong, simple as that.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
"there has been no net global warming since 1998."
- Whenever you see this phrase, it pretty much invalidates the debater, they
are willingfully manipulating something for an agenda. All scientists know 1998
was not a normal year, (AGAIN) it was an intense El Nino year... this is sad,
to have to keep explaining this.
:Somehow I'm guessing all of these people who have careers related to climate
or earth sciences know about El Nino. Did it never occur you that you're
drawing the wrong conclusion from the right event?
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1
I
like this article. wow. What a shameful travesty of intellectualism.
:It's not an article, genius. It's a declaration made by a lot of people, again
many of whom have PhDs or high-level jobs related to climate or earth sciences.
You really should read through the list of signatories and supporters of these
two works, lest you think this is just a couple of crackpots with a Web site
(which you wouldn't think if you read thoroughly).
Nice Mission Statement.
"That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial
activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic
climate change."
????? Yep those caveman factories were very clean. So these people just
think the earth is the impenatrable thing.
the Bottom Line-
"That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce
emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith."
Signed-
Greedy Corporate CEO's of the World.
:Screw you. You obviously didn't read the list of the people that support it.
I'm not even going to start because you won't read, won't care.
:I guess all these people that have forgotten more about the science of the
earth and climate than you ever knew are just retarded as well.
Date: Mon May 5 18:53:07 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Dude- I read all your roundabout science attempts to from various industry
beneficiaries to discredit the obvious- yet you all avoid the simplest of
questions I posed:
1) Is the earth big enough to handle it? Are we not putting enough C02 into the
air in your opinion
or
2) are you claiming C02 doesn't do anything?
there really isn't any other way to look at it- if your a denier, you have to
side with 1 or the other.
Date: Mon May 5 19:39:32 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Don't know, don't care. Fact is that earth over the last 10 years isn't
warming, it's cooling. Could have fooled the folks in South Carolina last
summer though!
Point is the IPCC, supposedly the world's authority on climate change, was
wrong and doesn't know what's going on. If they don't know, how can anyone else
claim they do? And if no one knows what's going on, why in the world would you
expect the world to retard its economic progress and decrease its standard of
living for something that no one can figure out?
I'm in favor of alternative energy and conservation and all that, but it has
nothing to do with climate change.
Date: Mon May 5 20:23:25 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Ok so you refust to answer the most basic of questions and because 1998 was the
hottest year on record you now claim the earth is cooling... totally ignoring
the fact 7 of the past 10 years are the hottest of the past 100.
I suppose it is all relative....
it was 83F yesterday here and 79F today... so yep your right, the earth is
cooling.
Date: Mon May 5 20:23:41 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Ok so you refust to answer the most basic of questions and because 1998 was the
hottest year on record you now claim the earth is cooling... totally ignoring
the fact 7 of the past 10 years are the hottest of the past 100.
I suppose it is all relative....
it was 83F yesterday here and 79F today... so yep your right, the earth is
cooling.
Date: Tue May 6 05:47:39 2008
Sender: William Johnson
If CO2 were the only gas being put in the atmosphere at that rate, I think the
earth could handle it. However, there is more than just CO2 being discharged
into the air and the earth cannot handle everything bad being put into the
air/ground/waters. Don't forget about the ground and waters, AJ. The air is NOT
the only part of the earth that is being relentlessly polluted.
Let me ask the global warming fearmongers; why is it so important to keep
the earth at ONE temperature through the controlling of ONE chemical (one that
happens to be required for plant growth)? Planet temperature changes have
occured since the beginning of time--are you going to deny that?
How about you concentrate your efforts to stop pollution to the land that
grows your food? Can you live without food? How about you concentrate your
efforts to stop pollution to the water that you drink? Can you live without
water? Having asked those two (apparently) unimportant questions; how long can
you live by having the earth warm up 2 degrees in the next 50 years?
All I can say to 'get your fricken priorities straight'! You bury unkown
amounts of nuclear waste in the ground, along with every other kind of waste
immaginable. You release unknown amounts of waste into our waterways each day,
causing tremendous loss of life RIGHT NOW, yet the important thing to global
warming fearmongers is that the planet will warm up in 50-500 years 2-3
degrees.
Date: Tue May 6 08:21:52 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Global Warming doesn't just refer to Co2, it's all greenhouse gases.
Anyway, I get your point.
to clarify
your acknowledging greenhouses gases can effect the world, your just
questioning (aside from the GW people themselves) whether or not a 2 degree
change in temperature down the road will be that bad, or even if it should be
the main environmental priority?
Date: Tue May 6 08:56:48 2008
Sender: Joshua MacOscar
El Nino is Spanish for "The Nino".
Date: Tue May 6 10:32:01 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Josh, or "Goal for Liverpool."
AJ, I don't see it as a fundmental question, because it has answered itself.
There's been so much embellishment and falsehood in the "facts" presented by
the global warming pushers that I find it hard to figure what exactly I should
argue against and what should be dismissed as lies.
Therefore, I put the burden of proof on them to explain why the IPCC
projections have been so wrong. After all, they're the ones that are asking the
world to change and give up their standard of living (while tooling around in
planes and limos themselves) based upon no more than what they say is true.
Date: Tue May 6 19:01:47 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" whether or not a 2 degree change in temperature down the road will be that
bad, or even if it should be the main environmental priority? "
That is exactly my concern. 2 or 3 degrees doesn't seem to be enough to
warrant major (I mean major) bucks being spent when the global warming 'answer'
totally ignores the problem the other 2 might warrant. In fact, some of the
'answers' actually make the other 2 (land/water based pollutants) worse, ie;
excessive battery, heavy metal waste, pesticides, ect. If you are going to
correct global warming only to create a non-livable land, I would tend to pass
on that option. If you correct global warming only to ruin the water (that is
melting from the ice caps) then I'll pass on that option, too.
Somewhere there has to be a compromise between healthy/unhealthy and when I
hear 'no compromise', I get pessimistic about the motive of those yelling "fix
it, or else!".
Date: Tue May 6 19:19:17 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
William-I appreciate your answer.
Henry- you have chosen a position which is undiscussable.
- You won't state whether or not you think greenhouse gas effect the earth.
- Your using an 8 year record of temperature to say temperatures are declining,
and won't look at pre 1998 obviously. Which is such a fallacy, I can't even
begin. all of the hottest years in the past 100 are in the past 10.
Your "prove to me 100% while I dispute everything" leaves the discussion over.
Date: Tue May 6 20:16:42 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
I'm simply asking for a refutation of the falsification of the IPCC's
predictions. I rather doubt there is one to be made.
It doesn't matter if they affect the earth or not. What matters is the sum
total of all the things that affect the temperature of the planet. And for
almost a decade now, we've been in a cooling trend.
You say "well that's only 8 years", well how long did it take for this GW cause
celebre to spin up? How much talk was there about this in 1989? Almost none.
Apparently, to the GW people, 8-9 years made all the difference when it came to
decrying GW, yet apparently you want to try to have it both ways.
And you won't look past the last 100 years at the other 590,000 for which we
have data, so I guess that makes us even.
Date: Tue May 6 21:16:42 2008
Sender: Kendell R Jillson
AJ, quick point...according to :
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
1934/1998 (tied), 2006, 1921, and 1931 were the 5 hottest years on record. at
least for the 48 contiguous states...
i think i remember reading something about there being a y2k bug in their data
processing that was just discovered.
Date: Tue May 6 21:24:46 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Kendall and Henry
"And for almost a decade now, we've been in a cooling trend."
No we haven't.
I'm sitting here staring at NASA's numbers
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116114150.htm
2007 Was Tied As Earth's Second Warmest Year
"The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and
the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990"
IF 2007 was the 2nd warmest year- how is that a "cooling trend"?
So lets start here- SIMPLY.
you guys are essentially saying NASA is lying, right?
Date: Tue May 6 21:54:52 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
PS- Henry-
Do you actually read the posts are just spit out talking points..?
"And you won't look past the last 100 years at the other 590,000 for which we
have data,"
yeah, we looked at it above... that just confirms the similarity between
temperature and CO2. (according to the charts. which are probably all lies in
your mind)
"1) The first is from Vladavastok
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/20/21248/499
you can also easily google this info
Now one could argue, C02 is actually a result of temperature increase- not the
other way around. However, NO ONE can argue there is not an obvious direct
correlation between the two... unless you need a 1st grader to explain graphs
to you. This is over 1000's of years.
Date: Wed May 7 06:35:44 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" However, NO ONE can argue there is not an obvious direct
correlation between the two... "
And, what are the plans to correct it? By destroying the land, we'll correct
global warming? By destroying the water, we'll correct global warming?
Date: Wed May 7 08:03:53 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
GISS is only one of several sets of available temperature data of that type.
You still haven't actually tried to read and understand that link, I see. I'm
not surprised.
---
yeah, we looked at it above... that just confirms the similarity between
temperature and CO2. (according to the charts. which are probably all lies in
your mind)
:So you know that 1998 was NOWHERE NEAR the warmest year in the last half
million.
"1) The first is from Vladavastok
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/20/21248/499
you can also easily google this info
:That article is worthless. How did CO2 levels vary widely over time without
human activity (since the global warming nuts blame humans for global warming)?
How is this in any way relevant to the debate of human-induced global warming?
Was there a previous incarnation of super-advanced humans that intermittently
fired up the CO2 machine so they could have a few thousand years of warmth? All
this shows is that the people who believe that any global warming is very
plausibly independent of human activity have a point, since it has happened
throughout history before WITHOUT human activity! I mean how hard is that to
understand?
Now one could argue, C02 is actually a result of temperature increase- not the
other way around. However, NO ONE can argue there is not an obvious direct
correlation between the two... unless you need a 1st grader to explain graphs
to you. This is over 1000's of years.
:Hilarious considering you were the equivalent of a monkey scratching its head
at a scatterplot, yet you indirectly accuse me of being on a first grade level
in math since I don't agree with your interpretation of a graph.
Date: Wed May 7 06:35:44 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" However, NO ONE can argue there is not an obvious direct
correlation between the two... "
And, what are the plans to correct it? By destroying the land, we'll correct
global warming? By destroying the water, we'll correct global warming?
Date: Wed May 7 08:12:18 2008
Sender: Kendell R Jillson
Well, my link was from Nasa, too. And given that the fact that their numbers
have been wrong before (something about improper temperature corrections due to
y2k bugs (which were only discovered by reverse engineering their numbers since
they didn't actually release their code), not to mention the fact that several
of their temperature measurements were located right next to air conditioning
vents). Add in the surface ocean temperature data suggesting that the world
isn't warming as rapidly as suggested, color me a bit skeptical.
Date: Wed May 7 08:27:47 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
It's hopeless Kendall. He sees what he wants to see. That's fine. I'm no longer
bothering myself with it.
Date: Wed May 7 08:50:28 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Whats hopeless Henry is your writing 8 paragraphs instead of just answering a
simple question.
I asked if you thought NASA was lying. I showed you the numbers from NASA.
You write a book.
Point being- if you don't even think the earths temperature can be accurately
measured-
then why do you keep in this discussion?
Fundamental to a discussion of Global Warming would be the temperature of the
planet.
-----
EXAMPLE
ME: Henry do you believe in Global Warming?
HENRY: I can't say, I don't think NASA knows how to take an accurate
temperature.
DISCUSSION OVER- I don't even know how you can have input past that point?
Date: Wed May 7 08:52:00 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
same for you Kendell-
your discussion shouldn't even be Global Warming. It should be how to measure
temperature. Like I said to Henry, how can you even get involved if you don't
believe an accurate temperature exists?
Date: Wed May 7 08:55:14 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
The funniest part-
You don't believe temperature is being accurately measured.
Therefor, it can't possibly be getting hotter, and there is no way man can be
influencing it. (stated with definite certainty)
DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE THE OBVIOUS LOGIC FALLACY THERE?
Date: Wed May 7 10:10:17 2008
Sender: Kendell R Jillson
So when the models for such a complicated system as the earth's climate say
that with an increase of x ppm of CO2 will lead to an increase of y oC, and an
increase of y oC is only seen with possibly faulty measurements, I don't have
the right to question the validity of those models?
(and will you take your A&A turn already?)
Date: Wed May 7 10:22:23 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
100 posts ago- the issue should have been- all other arguements aside-
What is the temperature?
unless that question can be answered, there is no discussion.
Date: Wed May 7 13:28:55 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
I won't answer it because it's a gotcha question that solves nothing.
AGAIN, that link you refuse to attempt to comprehend has FIVE different sources
of global temperature measures and indices. I'll take the average of five
opinions to your one that admitted to problems (very elementary ones at that)
in the past.
Point being- if you don't even think the earths temperature can be accurately
measured- then why do you keep in this discussion?
:Because I keep letting myself down by promising myself to stop replying to
your dreck, then failing.
Date: Wed May 7 08:55:14 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
The funniest part-
You don't believe temperature is being accurately measured.
Therefor, it can't possibly be getting hotter, and there is no way man can be
influencing it. (stated with definite certainty)
DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE THE OBVIOUS LOGIC FALLACY THERE?
:Pot...kettle...incredulous.
Date: Wed May 7 14:19:16 2008
Sender: Joshua MacOscar
I asked a first grader to help me with graphs. I don't think he knew what he
was talking about.
Date: Wed May 7 15:55:05 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Henry- it's not a "gotcha" question it's a simple logic progession.
You apparently don't believe the earths temperature can be accurately
measured.- so how can you objectively pick a side?
For example- apparently you believe 1998 was the hottest year on record,
because that lets you say it's gotten cooler.
But when I try to give the temperatures of the recent years, all of a sudden
NASA can't measure it accurately?
Just how does that work?
- you can't just pick the Republican/Conservative anti-global warming info and
claim that is accurate and dismiss anything that doesn't fit your agenda.
Date: Wed May 7 22:28:56 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
rtfl -- read the f*cking link. Everything is explained.
That is all. I'm done with you. I'm through spoon feeding you.
Date: Thu May 8 06:10:44 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" What is the temperature? unless that question can be answered, there is no
discussion. "
It is 52, right now. It was 65, yesterday. But, it was 33 one day in
December. Which temperature would you like to use to further you global warming
ideals?
And, you didn't answer my question. Which pollution are you OK with to
defeat global warming? Land pollution or water pollution?
Date: Thu May 8 08:03:27 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Henry your link is s#@t. Your tactic is escapist and cowardly.
I've tried to use the temperatures NASA uses- but they are lies to you, (unless
of course you want to use it)
Don't be an idiot. How can you discuss global warming if you can't even decide
on what temperature your going to accept.
Date: Thu May 8 08:05:17 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
William-
I don't understand what your saying? Do you think because someone is against
air pollution, they must be for water pollution?
Date: Thu May 8 08:32:56 2008
Sender: Joshua MacOscar
I believe that William is pointing out the pollution risks of combating global
warming.
Date: Thu May 8 09:21:45 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
I could try it like this-
Can someone please direct me toward the last 10 years, decade of world
temperatures........
(I can do without 9 pages of opinion and BS a graph would be nice)
Date: Thu May 8 11:44:40 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
It's not a tactic.
There are FIVE sets of numbers on that link. The GISS is one of them, but I'm
not using it as my only data set.
Numbers don't lie, but that doesn't mean that one set of numbers gives you
every bit of useful information that can be gleaned on a topic either.
You can call me whatever names you want, I'm done with this topic. I've won,
you've lost. You're on the GW Bush "you're either with us or against us" track
re: NASA's numbers, portraying them as infallible. Ironic, since you spend so
much of your time hating him and then use his tactics in an argument that
clearly is not nearly as black and white as you'd have it be.
Date: Thu May 8 18:35:00 2008
Sender: William Johnson
Thank you, Joshua
Date: Thu May 8 18:44:51 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
LOL... yeah you won- Henry.
I can't 100% prove global warming.
I can't 100% prove global cooling either, or really anything by your logic.
Date: Thu May 8 18:44:57 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
LOL... yeah you won- Henry.
I can't 100% prove global warming.
I can't 100% prove global cooling either, or really anything by your logic.
Dolphin Simulation Games is not responsible for the content of posts.
Please report any offensive messages to help@dolphinsim.com.
