Global Warming and what you can do to against it

Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
jfma@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:49:27 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:52:36 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

There are also some skeptics with "more than a grade school
education in science" in your country, Trevor. A very interesting
article entitled "Global Warming - Don't Wait up" appeared in a
newspaper here in the UK last week. Written by a chap called Ian
Plimer, a professor of geology at the University of Adelaide.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231673/Global-warming-Dont-wait-The-Earth-tricks-carbon-count-control.html

Nice. Amazingly sane. The problem is that one can't get any
research funding for expounding the obvious and simple historical
logic.

**Bollocks. Plimer is making a fortune from his fictional account.
The fossil fuel industry is very wealthy and pays people to lie.
Here is the example of just how wealthy it is:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/


And where are these supposed climate change scientists getting their
money?

**They're scientists. They're paid by them employers. Like the scientists at
the EPA, NASA and other places in the US, during the reign of your previous,
moronic President Dubya. Although they were paid by an administration with
clear links to the fossil fuel industry and a global warming denying
President with obvious signs of brain damage, those same scientists
consistently reported the truth. It's what scientists are paid to do - tell
the truth.

It is from government or other institutional grants and they
just have to keep those grants coming in or else they lose their worth
to the universities they work for.

**Like the scientists working for your previous, global warming denying,
brain damaged President. Scientists are paid to tell the truth. Guys like
Plimer are paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie. Same as Lindzen and
others.
Oh dear, you seem to be becoming irrational now that some of us are
*daring* to question your religion. As for "telling the truth", are
you sure? Why hide data and mmethods if they're "telling the truth".

In cas you missed it, here's Richard Feynman on "Cargo Cult Science".
Note any similiarities to the cult of AGW?

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
 
Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Jerry Peters wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Jerry Peters wrote:
Charlie <left@thestation.com> wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:9ktci5leck8ukl2rtcm1nqjm67ued1jcrk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
sustainable.future115@gmail.com> wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on
the planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than
usual, it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's
global warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming.
When sunspots fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's
an unscheduled political change, or the stock market dives, it's
global warming. Anything even slightly off normal, it's global
warming. Somehow, I'm more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from
now. Global computer weather models that predict the future,
can't seem to do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum
and medieval warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global
nuclear self-destruction was to unite the world against a single
threat. Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence
was the most common suggestion. Science fiction was written
around this theme. Well, they were close. We now have something
we can all fight together, even if it might be faked or
contrived. Maybe spending money on fighting global warming can
save the economy. Once we fix global warming, we can get
together and fight the oncoming ice age.

Do a Google search for Bolivia and glaciers.
I would like to read your rationale as to what is causing this
phenomenon of fast glacier melting.
It must be caused by something other than your hot air.


Ooh a GW True Believer. Have you properly genuflected to Al Gore yet
today?

It's been both cooler & warmer in the historical record. There were
dairy farms in Greenland in Viking times. Some of them are still
buried by ice, BTW

One of the "tricks" used by AGW True Believers is to eliminate the
Medieval Warm Period so that the current warming looks extreme.

**Bollocks. That there was localised warming in parts of the Northern
hemisphere is not denied by anyone. Localised warming does not equal
GLOBAL WARMING.


Then there's the alleged accuracy of their temperature measurements,
less that 1 degree from 100 year old data & tree rings, give me a
break!

**Give you a break? Not likely. Lying about the facts, does not
alter the truth. Proxy measurements of considerably higher accuracy
have been in use for decades.


I live in Pennsylvania. Where I'm currently sitting there were once
ice sheets, they melted, it's what happens when the earth ends a
cold period and starts to defrost, get over it.

**Good for you. Sadly, those of us with more than a grade school
education in science understand that CO2 is a significant driver of
climate on this planet. We are also aware that a 30% increase in CO2
levels is largely responsible for the warming we are presently
experiencing. Of course, if you have your own theory to present,
then do so. Make certain it is peer-reviewed though. The science
behind CO2 influenced global warming has been peer-reviewed. You
should offer nothing less.

What a shithead you are

**This would be a pot, kettle, black moment, Mr Moron. You have insulted and
demeaned at every opportunity. I suggest you take a long hard look in the
mirror.
You really get upset when someone questions your religion, don't you?

, responding with ad-hominum attacks when
someone disagrees with your AGW religion.

**I am responding with facts, you moron.
No, your *religious* opinions.

As for my science education,
I took AP chemistry, calculus & physics in high school and I have a
BSE from a well known engineering school.

**Liar. Your education is clearly lacking. You have no idea of what
constitutes the scientific method. You rely on op-ed pieces rather than real
science.
I have yet to see any "real science" coming from the AGW crowd, you
included. I *have* seen a lot of enviro-religious nonsense, however.

You might google "postmodern science".

I don't see science here, I see a religious cult using the trappings
of science to promote their ideas.

**Of course. You would not know real science if it bit you on the arse.

I'd like to see some real peer review of AGW.

**It abounds. I suggest you do some actual reading of scientific literature,
rather than op-ed pieces and popular magazines. Read some SCIENCE, you
idiot.

By scientists other than
the climastrologist in crowd. In particular, I'd like to see some
statisticians review some of the statistical techniques used by Mann
et al.

Again: DID YOU READ THE EMAILS, the ones discussing subverting the
peer review process?

**For the second teim: Yes.
Then you obviously have a reading comprehension problem. Either that
or your religious beliefs are getting in the way.
 
"Jerry Peters" <jerry@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:hgbje3$jqm$6@news.eternal-september.org...
Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Jerry Peters wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Jerry Peters wrote:
Charlie <left@thestation.com> wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:9ktci5leck8ukl2rtcm1nqjm67ued1jcrk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
sustainable.future115@gmail.com> wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on
the planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than
usual, it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's
global warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming.
When sunspots fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's
an unscheduled political change, or the stock market dives, it's
global warming. Anything even slightly off normal, it's global
warming. Somehow, I'm more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from
now. Global computer weather models that predict the future,
can't seem to do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum
and medieval warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global
nuclear self-destruction was to unite the world against a single
threat. Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence
was the most common suggestion. Science fiction was written
around this theme. Well, they were close. We now have something
we can all fight together, even if it might be faked or
contrived. Maybe spending money on fighting global warming can
save the economy. Once we fix global warming, we can get
together and fight the oncoming ice age.

Do a Google search for Bolivia and glaciers.
I would like to read your rationale as to what is causing this
phenomenon of fast glacier melting.
It must be caused by something other than your hot air.


Ooh a GW True Believer. Have you properly genuflected to Al Gore yet
today?

It's been both cooler & warmer in the historical record. There were
dairy farms in Greenland in Viking times. Some of them are still
buried by ice, BTW

One of the "tricks" used by AGW True Believers is to eliminate the
Medieval Warm Period so that the current warming looks extreme.

**Bollocks. That there was localised warming in parts of the Northern
hemisphere is not denied by anyone. Localised warming does not equal
GLOBAL WARMING.


Then there's the alleged accuracy of their temperature measurements,
less that 1 degree from 100 year old data & tree rings, give me a
break!

**Give you a break? Not likely. Lying about the facts, does not
alter the truth. Proxy measurements of considerably higher accuracy
have been in use for decades.


I live in Pennsylvania. Where I'm currently sitting there were once
ice sheets, they melted, it's what happens when the earth ends a
cold period and starts to defrost, get over it.

**Good for you. Sadly, those of us with more than a grade school
education in science understand that CO2 is a significant driver of
climate on this planet. We are also aware that a 30% increase in CO2
levels is largely responsible for the warming we are presently
experiencing. Of course, if you have your own theory to present,
then do so. Make certain it is peer-reviewed though. The science
behind CO2 influenced global warming has been peer-reviewed. You
should offer nothing less.

What a shithead you are

**This would be a pot, kettle, black moment, Mr Moron. You have insulted
and
demeaned at every opportunity. I suggest you take a long hard look in the
mirror.

You really get upset when someone questions your religion, don't you?
**I have no religious beliefs. Science, OTOH, welcomes questions however.
The sad thing is when people mix their religious beliefs with non-science
and proclaim it to be fact.

, responding with ad-hominum attacks when
someone disagrees with your AGW religion.

**I am responding with facts, you moron.

No, your *religious* opinions.
**See above.

As for my science education,
I took AP chemistry, calculus & physics in high school and I have a
BSE from a well known engineering school.

**Liar. Your education is clearly lacking. You have no idea of what
constitutes the scientific method. You rely on op-ed pieces rather than
real
science.

I have yet to see any "real science" coming from the AGW crowd,
**Of course. Since you have zero understanding of science, you would think
that.

you
included. I *have* seen a lot of enviro-religious nonsense, however.
**Sure. As have I. I have also examined some solid science too.

You might google "postmodern science".


I don't see science here, I see a religious cult using the trappings
of science to promote their ideas.

**Of course. You would not know real science if it bit you on the arse.

I'd like to see some real peer review of AGW.

**It abounds. I suggest you do some actual reading of scientific
literature,
rather than op-ed pieces and popular magazines. Read some SCIENCE, you
idiot.

By scientists other than
the climastrologist in crowd. In particular, I'd like to see some
statisticians review some of the statistical techniques used by Mann
et al.

Again: DID YOU READ THE EMAILS, the ones discussing subverting the
peer review process?

**For the second teim: Yes.

Then you obviously have a reading comprehension problem. Either that
or your religious beliefs are getting in the way.
**Nope. Some scientists made some bad decisions, by subverting their
principles. They will likely pay for those bad decisions. Which is right and
proper. Let's do the same to idiots like Carter, Plimer and Lindzen too.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
<snip>

You really get upset when someone questions your religion, don't you?

**I have no religious beliefs. Science, OTOH, welcomes questions however.
The sad thing is when people mix their religious beliefs with non-science
and proclaim it to be fact.
Ahhh ... Now we're getting somewhere ... :)


Arfa
 
So what
can every single person do to reduce global warming ?
I intend to call for a ban global warming conferences. They're clearly a
waste of time and money, and those taking part, and the protestors,
create considerable CO2 just be going there.

Just need to hold a conference about the proposed ban.

Sylvia.
 
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00a73bcc$0$17148$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
So what
can every single person do to reduce global warming ?

I intend to call for a ban global warming conferences. They're clearly a
waste of time and money, and those taking part, and the protestors, create
considerable CO2 just be going there.

Just need to hold a conference about the proposed ban.

Sylvia.

They are offsetting the CO2 generated with travel and the conference itself
with tree planting and greener brick making kilns in some third world
country from what I heard. That made me feel much better about the fiasco.
The time they wasted there is time that they might have spent creating some
other problems somewhere, so maybe it isn't all bad.

All of it is a waste of time anyway. I have the perfect solution but the
Obama administration has not been interested. We can simultaneously have a
positive impact on CO2, unemployment, health care, the homelessness problem,
and keep more "too big to fail" industries alive.

The solution is to ramp up production of carbonated soda, use the cases cans
of soda to build housing for the homeless and stack them around our homes to
build an insulating layer. By not drinking the soda, we will help solve the
obesity problem and reduce diabetes, and by increasing the production and
storage of soda we will sequester large amounts of CO2. The increase will
require employment of many currently without jobs and the improvements in
insulation will reduce home heating and cooling requirements. We should be
able to make a significant dent in all of the aforementioned problems with
an investment of no more than a few hundred billion dollars, a trivial
amount these days. The only problem is whether we use Coke or Pepsi, or opt
for a more generic cola that we can buy from Wal-mart.

I think the Obama administration was too busy with the health care solution
to pay attention to my proposal. I hear they finally figured out how to
save significant money. They have figured out that they will completely
eliminate colon cancer and the costs of related treatment and testing by
reaming us all new assholes on an annual basis.

Leonard
 
Leonard Caillouet wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00a73bcc$0$17148$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
So what
can every single person do to reduce global warming ?

I intend to call for a ban global warming conferences. They're clearly a
waste of time and money, and those taking part, and the protestors,
create
considerable CO2 just be going there.

Just need to hold a conference about the proposed ban.

Sylvia.


They are offsetting the CO2 generated with travel and the conference itself
with tree planting and greener brick making kilns in some third world
country from what I heard.
Still, they could have done those things anyway, but not gone to Copenhagen.

That made me feel much better about the fiasco.
The time they wasted there is time that they might have spent creating some
other problems somewhere, so maybe it isn't all bad.
There is that.

All of it is a waste of time anyway. I have the perfect solution but the
Obama administration has not been interested. We can simultaneously have a
positive impact on CO2, unemployment, health care, the homelessness
problem,
and keep more "too big to fail" industries alive.

The solution is to ramp up production of carbonated soda, use the cases
cans
of soda to build housing for the homeless and stack them around our
homes to
build an insulating layer. By not drinking the soda, we will help solve
the
obesity problem and reduce diabetes, and by increasing the production and
storage of soda we will sequester large amounts of CO2. The increase will
require employment of many currently without jobs and the improvements in
insulation will reduce home heating and cooling requirements. We should be
able to make a significant dent in all of the aforementioned problems with
an investment of no more than a few hundred billion dollars, a trivial
amount these days. The only problem is whether we use Coke or Pepsi, or
opt
for a more generic cola that we can buy from Wal-mart.
I admire you lateral thinking. Still, have you checked the CO2 output
involved in extracting the aluminium used for the cans? I rather suspect
it's more than the CO2 you can dissolve in that much water.

But keep up the good work.

Sylvia.
 
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00aa9064$0$23688$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Leonard Caillouet wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00a73bcc$0$17148$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
So what
can every single person do to reduce global warming ?

I intend to call for a ban global warming conferences. They're clearly a
waste of time and money, and those taking part, and the protestors,
create
considerable CO2 just be going there.

Just need to hold a conference about the proposed ban.

Sylvia.


They are offsetting the CO2 generated with travel and the conference
itself
with tree planting and greener brick making kilns in some third world
country from what I heard.

Still, they could have done those things anyway, but not gone to
Copenhagen.

That made me feel much better about the fiasco.
The time they wasted there is time that they might have spent creating
some
other problems somewhere, so maybe it isn't all bad.

There is that.


All of it is a waste of time anyway. I have the perfect solution but the
Obama administration has not been interested. We can simultaneously have
a
positive impact on CO2, unemployment, health care, the homelessness
problem,
and keep more "too big to fail" industries alive.

The solution is to ramp up production of carbonated soda, use the cases
cans
of soda to build housing for the homeless and stack them around our homes
to
build an insulating layer. By not drinking the soda, we will help solve
the
obesity problem and reduce diabetes, and by increasing the production and
storage of soda we will sequester large amounts of CO2. The increase
will
require employment of many currently without jobs and the improvements in
insulation will reduce home heating and cooling requirements. We should
be
able to make a significant dent in all of the aforementioned problems
with
an investment of no more than a few hundred billion dollars, a trivial
amount these days. The only problem is whether we use Coke or Pepsi, or
opt
for a more generic cola that we can buy from Wal-mart.

I admire you lateral thinking. Still, have you checked the CO2 output
involved in extracting the aluminium used for the cans? I rather suspect
it's more than the CO2 you can dissolve in that much water.

But keep up the good work.

Sylvia.
For an interesting analysis of the Copenhagen debacle, see

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1237235/ANALYSIS-Saved--trillion-pound-trade-carbon.html

Arfa
 
"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:jTzXm.107843$3M1.37497@newsfe18.ams2:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00aa9064$0$23688$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Leonard Caillouet wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00a73bcc$0$17148$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
So what
can every single person do to reduce global warming ?

I intend to call for a ban global warming conferences. They're
clearly a waste of time and money, and those taking part, and the
protestors, create
considerable CO2 just be going there.

Just need to hold a conference about the proposed ban.

Sylvia.


They are offsetting the CO2 generated with travel and the conference
itself
with tree planting and greener brick making kilns in some third
world country from what I heard.

Still, they could have done those things anyway, but not gone to
Copenhagen.

That made me feel much better about the fiasco.
The time they wasted there is time that they might have spent
creating some
other problems somewhere, so maybe it isn't all bad.

There is that.


All of it is a waste of time anyway. I have the perfect solution
but the Obama administration has not been interested. We can
simultaneously have a
positive impact on CO2, unemployment, health care, the homelessness
problem,
and keep more "too big to fail" industries alive.

The solution is to ramp up production of carbonated soda, use the
cases cans
of soda to build housing for the homeless and stack them around our
homes to
build an insulating layer. By not drinking the soda, we will help
solve the
obesity problem and reduce diabetes, and by increasing the
production and storage of soda we will sequester large amounts of
CO2. The increase will
require employment of many currently without jobs and the
improvements in insulation will reduce home heating and cooling
requirements. We should be
able to make a significant dent in all of the aforementioned
problems with
an investment of no more than a few hundred billion dollars, a
trivial amount these days. The only problem is whether we use Coke
or Pepsi, or opt
for a more generic cola that we can buy from Wal-mart.

I admire you lateral thinking. Still, have you checked the CO2 output
involved in extracting the aluminium used for the cans? I rather
suspect it's more than the CO2 you can dissolve in that much water.

But keep up the good work.

Sylvia.


For an interesting analysis of the Copenhagen debacle, see

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1237235/ANALYSIS-Saved--trill
ion-pound-trade-carbon.html

Arfa
AGW/"climate change" is a SCAM,and the latest means of the socialists
grabbing power and getting around the US Constitution.
It's all about "wealth redistribution" and "global justice".
I note in Copenhagen,they are already arguing over who gets how much of the
money.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top