"Things are changing and there's no doubt that it's as a result of human activities," said Mario Molina, a Mexican who shared a Nobel prize in chemistry in 1995 for groundbreaking work on chlorofluorocarbon gases and their threat to the Earth's ozone laye


So the guy who gave us the latest theory on the depletion of the ozone layer has now chimed in on global warming.

As of now, scientists still aren't sure what's causing the depletion of the ozone layer. 30 years ago, it was water vapor. Then it was Nitrous Oxide, methane from cow farts (coincidence?) and Space Shuttle exhaust.

So we banned CFCs, and the hole still grows.

Have to hand it to the global warming crowd. At least they refined the theory a bit. It's not just one thing, it's human activity in general.

They're making it as broad as possible to make as much money as possible on the fallacy that it is.

They're making it as broad as possible to make as much money as possible on the fallacy that it is.


Big deal that they're in it to make money. If it adds more jobs to the American Economy and not a foreign country's economy, I'm all for going "green".

What has me on guard is the fact that the loudest voices claiming human action in the cause aren't making the sacrifices they want the rest of us to make themselves.

Has Al Gore installed solar panels on his house to remove himself from the power grid? Other citizens have done it. More power to them, no pun intended.

if the Earth warmed 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees F) above what it ought to be.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

You can "if" all you want but it don't mean shit.

Sniper,

when you get your own Nobel prize you can rebuke global warming all you want.

I never could figure out how heavier than air CFCs could float up into the atmosphere. Then too, the ozone hole has no long term history because it wasn't know of until instrumentation could detect it. And finally, ozone is caused by the sun's rays. They always tell us about the hole after six months of Antarctica darkness. I still think the scare was a fraud.

Where is the CFC now?

The 2005 south polar vortex was close to the average of the last decade in terms of vortex area and temperature conditions. However, minimum temperatures inside the vortex were in early September near the coldest recorded since 1979. The area where total ozone was less than 220 DU (also called "ozone hole area") was larger than ever before, at that time of the year, during the first two weeks of August. During the last two weeks of August and the first three weeks of September the ozone hole area continued to increase at a pace close to the average of the last 10 years.

NASA reports that the temperatures on Mars & Venus have risen comparably to the temperature rise of Earth.
But I am sure Martian global warming is all Bush's fault too.


The problem with the man-made global warming crowd is that no data is capable of causing them to change their minds.
If your "theory" is impervious to new data, it isn't science; it is faith-based; it is religion.

Christ, the global warming computer models can't even predict current weather. You feed them data from 1900 and they tell you that in 2000 we should have all been flooded and sweating our balls off. The models are designed to give the desired outputs regardless of their inputs.

I'll buy that the Earth is coming out of a mini-Ice Age.
As a history student, I know that you can walk all over England and find areas that were once much closer to the shore. Not because the land expanded but because the sea level fell (e.g., the Battle of Hastings was much closer to the sea because in 1066 the sea levels were higher than today). I also know that warmer climate crops used to be grown in northern Europe than can be easily grown now.

But the idea that this is man made, I am just not buying that. First of all it is narcissistic. Oh no that giant sun thing has no affect on temperature; we as people do; we as Western Civilization do! (please, rolls eyes).
Too much politics based religion from their supporters. They ignore too much science.

And the killer is that the people banging on and on about global warming (I am looking at you Gore-acle), don't bother to actually live the life they advocate. It is a scam. It is the white version of Rev Al Sharpton.
Plus name one Leftist crisis that didn't involve the Earth being too populated. The Left is always willing to starve a few million people for "progress" (see Ukraine)

And as for his Noble prize, Jimmy Carter has a noble prize I don't listen to that anti-semitic jack ass either.

I forgot to add, Carbon-Credits those are the modern form of Catholic Indulgences.

"Noble(sic) prize"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Even more pathetically stupid than than Ray flag.

"Even more pathetically stupid than than Ray flag."

LOL!!!

Hans

This explanation still has me quizzical.

It is sometimes stated that since CFC molecules are much heavier than nitrogen or oxygen, they cannot reach the stratosphere in significant quantities. But atmospheric gases are not sorted by weight; the forces of wind (turbulence) are strong enough to fully intermix gases in the atmosphere. CFCs are heavier than air, but just like argon, krypton and other heavy gases with a long lifetime, they are uniformly distributed throughout the turbosphere and reach the upper atmosphere.

The discovery of the Antarctic "ozone hole" by British Antarctic Survey scientists Farman, Gardiner and Shanklin (announced in a paper in Nature in May 1985) came as a shock to the scientific community, because the observed decline in polar ozone was far larger than anyone had anticipated.

CFCs are "too heavy" to reach the stratosphere
It is sometimes stated that since CFC molecules are much heavier than nitrogen or oxygen, they cannot reach the stratosphere in significant quantities.[41] But atmospheric gases are not sorted by weight; the forces of wind (turbulence) are strong enough to fully intermix gases in the atmosphere. CFCs are heavier than air, but just like argon, krypton and other heavy gases with a long lifetime, they are uniformly distributed throughout the turbosphere and reach the upper atmosphere.[42]


BTW, CFCs evidently can last up to 50 years.

Why is is quizzical, Ray? Do you dispute that heavier-than-air gasses exist in the atmosphere?

Evidently, the hole is recent:

An ozone hole was first observed in 1956
G.M.B. Dobson (Exploring the Atmosphere, 2nd Edition, Oxford, 1968) mentioned that when springtime ozone levels over Halley Bay were first measured, he was surprised to find that they were ~320 DU, about 150 DU below spring levels, ~450 DU, in the Arctic. These, however, were the pre-ozone hole normal climatological values. What Dobson describes is essentially the baseline from which the ozone hole is measured: actual ozone hole values are in the 150100 DU range.

Even more pathetically stupid than than Ray flag.

Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-04-06 08:55

Zit is obviously impressed by Al Gore's scientific credentials.

Hey Zit. You can't even prove you have a brain. You avoid my questions every time.

Randy
I can't say either way. It's one of those things that doesn't feel right.

It was first observed in 1956 yes. But that doesn't say it wasn't there long before CFCs.

It's one of those things that doesn't feel right.

Kind of like:

never could figure out how heavier than air CFCs could float up into the atmosphere.

Sometimes you genuinely scare me, Ray.

It says the discovery in 1956 does not show ozone depletion as we recognize it now:

The discrepancy between the Arctic and Antarctic noted by Dobson was primarily a matter of timing: during the Arctic spring ozone levels rose smoothly, peaking in April, whereas in the Antarctic they stayed approximately constant during early spring, rising abruptly in November when the polar vortex broke down.

The behavior seen in the Antarctic ozone hole is completely different. Instead of staying constant, early springtime ozone levels suddenly drop from their already low winter values, by as much as 50%, and normal values are not reached again until December.

Do you dispute that heavier-than-air gasses exist in the atmosphere?

No dispute about natural gases in the Periodic Table. Synthetic gases like CFC, the explanation requires a degree of faith to accept at face value. That's why I'm quizzical.

Sometimes you genuinely scare me, Ray.

Posted by YAV at 2008-04-06 09:22

Especially if you read my posts on the economy.

Why, Ray? Both are heavier than air? Is there something magical about CFCs? BTW, they have been found in the atmosphere.

Especially if you read my posts on the economy.

Which I'm sure you know I have. Also have spent some time on your website (completely enjoy).

Randy's doing great here so I won't add anything, except CFCs are anthropomorphic and are present, like all heavy gases, to 100km. Only ~100km do we get diffusion by molecular weight. You have to have the absence of so many factors before molecular diffusion and gravity are enough to consider.

This part's no mystery.

Randy
These are some thoughts and questions.
Inert gases don't break down.
Weight of CFC verses inert gases?
Molecular attractions?
Gravity force verses sporadic wind forces = time of downward forces verses upward forces.
Unknown or unaccounted factors that cause the hole.

I'll leave it there. I have a skeptical nature towards things that get political.

if the Earth warmed 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees F) above what it ought to be

And what "ought it be" at this period in an inter-glacial cycle?

"Noble(sic) prize"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes, typos are hilarious because DrudgeRetort has such extensive editing functions and all blog comments should be subjected to scrupulous rewriting.

Don't beclown yourself.

Yav
I used the word quizzical. If I said flatly, they were wrong, then you might have cause to be scared. Thanks for your concern.

Again, Ray, where are the CFCs coming from that everyone can find? You pose these questions--does that mean you don't believe the many researchers who are finding CFCs in the atmosphere. I'd have to look up the molecular weight of the CFCs--I see one source has 66.5--but I do know they can last over a century. Think of this: heavy radioactive material from Chernobyl spread over significant distances through the air, though the atoms are significantly heavier than CFCs. Indeed, there is currently uranium in the atmosphere, though in very small amounts.

Thanks for trying Randy. I had two semesters of chemistry forty years ago. I am not qualified to say one way or another. The test is whether the hole heals as predicted. That might be past my lifetime.

It's just my nature to be skeptical about subjects that become politicized. And I find much of science since the space program has become politicized.

You pose these questions--does that mean you don't believe the many researchers who are finding CFCs in the atmosphere.
Not disputing.

Think of this: heavy radioactive material from Chernobyl spread over significant distances through the air, though the atoms are significantly heavier than CFCs. Indeed, there is currently uranium in the atmosphere, though in very small amounts.

Any studies of how much sinks to the surface?

I'm glad there's a hole in the atmosphere. That way the heat can escape.

OK, Mario Molina has his degree in chemistry and not climatology. So, his opinion on this subject is just that, his opinion.
Here is a fact, CO2 represents .03 of a percent of total atmospheric gases. Nitrogen is 78%, Oxygen is 21%, Argon is .7% and all the other atmospheric gases are covered by that last .3%. BTW, that includes water vapor. Of all the gases mentioned, the one that is virtually impossible to model is water vapor. However, it's impact on global temperature is far more significant than that of CO2. So, I think that we should have an initiative to reduce the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere so that we can reduce global warming...

I see some scaremongering in the Chernobl article. I'm too tired to analyze it. There is a counter argument based on hormesis which argues that radiation is healthy up to a certain point. The EPA ignores it and makes straight line extrapolation.

As to depleted uranium. This is scandalous if it is in fact producing birth defects on Iraqis and our soldiers.

I suspect that the quantities of CFC used by the few remaining countries are insignificant compared to what the west used. If the theory is correct, we should see some reduction in the hole by now, I think?

Have to go.

Molina did not elaborate on specific effects so far from the Earth's temperature rise, which has been slightly less than 1 degree Celsius (1.8 F) over the last century.
* * * * *

Wow. Less than 1 degree Celsius over the last century. Yet he has "no doubt" that this rise results from human activity?

Amazing. Hundreds of millions of automobiles and planes and bombs thousands of rockets. Trillions of miles flown and driven and tens of billions of barrels of oil burned.

One degree. All from mankind! Imagine that. Quick question: just how in the hell did all our pollution from the above activities make its way to the other planets, which are also seeing warming?

I don't have a Nobel Prize--or a noble one. Maybe he can pick up another, in astronomy this time, if he can explain how.

Prag,

Look, we all know the planet is doomed. You and the rest of you flat Earthers need to get back in your caves and let the rest of us rational human beings save our dear holy planet. Only man can undo the normal cyclic changes that we are experiencing as any idiot can tell you. It is only uneducated, simple minded fools, like yourself, that think man did not cause this problem. Do us all a favor, stop driving and turn off your lights and if you see a cow, shove a plug up it's ass.

Cheers,
Walt

FF for the ass plug.

Scientists, NASA, etc all say that every single planet in the entire solar system has "global Warming" worse than earth.

Its President Bush fault for this fact. Of course! Haliburton works on every planet, so does Exxon.

Also, the earth used to be 20 degrees warmer than it is right now. I wonder how the hell it recovered and went into several ice ages after that?

Libs don't have an answer for that, because Bush wasn't alive. Which is why they say nothing about it, because its only worth saying something about if its Bush's fault. As I said, libs will do anything, say anything to gain back power.

Kuma

The hole could have been there for a million years, before they discovered it

How could that be?

Yer head hasn't been around fer millions of years, Ray!

Ha! Cheap shot but still fun fer Spud.

Lemme see, Spring is coming earlier and earlier, the ice is melting at both poles faster that IPCC predicted, species are shifting their habitats due to changes in global weather patterns but some idiots still think the noble prize winners of the last thirty years all got together to plan the biggest hoax in the planet's history?

That about it?

April Fucking Fools Day on a grand and global scale?

Wow, just wow.

Mankinds capacity for irrationality and denial are apparently boundless.

Mankind has had no appreciable negative impact on the planet, it's biomass, it's atmosphere or it's temperature since the start of the industrial revolution?

That's yer story and yer sticking to it?

Well aint that special.

Tell ya wot, why don't y'all hie yerselves down to the kiddy table and let the grown ups finish their discussion.

Don't fergit to bring yer "Pop Up Global Denial" books you got from from Unka BigOil.

All them pretty colors you luff so well!

Be Well.

Don't fergit to bring yer "Pop Up Global Denial" books you got from from Unka BigOil.

This coming from the same guy that worships the Hope Fairy.

Maybe if you "hope" hard enough, SUVs will melt the planet.

Cheers,
Walt

What do all them Nobel scientists know about global warming--my dog always howls when the weather changes.

Hey B-BOB.

Why is every planet in the solar system's Global Warming worse than Earth's?

Why is that? Got any answers? Your so interested in space and conspiracies, I figured you might be interested in that fact.

Why aren't you posting that its a conspiracy among some scientists that people are the sole cause of global warming? I mean, if anything is a conspiracy, that sure is, because all of the planets are warming more than ours, that is not in dispute.

Seems that the conspiracy against the truth is against you on this one B BOB.

Kuma

Nobody sez that man is the only factor in the global warming equation it's just the only one we can actually do sommat about.

So you admit the sun is causing the planet to change temperatures?

Now if you could just convince the world to stop driving, eating, cow's farting, factories operating, airplanes flying, lights turned on, trains running. We should stop volcanoes from erupting while we are at it. Then you will be happy right?

Cheers,
Walt

Why is every planet in the solar system's Global Warming worse than Earth's?

Why is that? Got any answers?

Posted by Kuma at 2008-04-07 01:13 AM | Reply

I hadn't heard that fact, but I'll assume it's true. Facts are it doesn't make any difference what other planetrs are doing. It doesn't matter that the Earth has gone through several
drastic global weather changes in the past.

Facts are if humans would have been around in those other weather changes, we might not have survived. Facts are people who spend their lives studying these things seem to think a major change is coming, and that while humans may not be the only cause, they are certainly part of the problem and hastening the warming.

The point is not what caused it or why it is happening. The point is what should we do about it. You seem to think we should just ignore these people who have studied this for their entire lives. I don't think that is wise.

However, you go on and keep thinking about whose fault it is, or what is causing it.

;-)

The point is what should we do about it.

Why don't we just move the Earth 3mm away from the sun?

Wouldn't that fix it?

Cheers,
Walt

Walt

Or we could just ask stupid questions and die.

Fortunately it won't make any difference to me. One of the perks of having gotten a lot of years in already. How about you? Got sunscreen? Water?

;-)

BuffaloBob

Will you do another "truthseeker" video -- I don't care which conspiracy you pick.

I swear if I have to see one more global warming article which seem to appear on these threads ad nauseum I'm going to tear my hair out.

:)

Global Warming Global Shwarming. Just another mechanism to keep the populace afraid. An afraid populace is a more controllable populace. Face it Mother Nature is a fickle bitch. She gets Hot Flashes some years and Cold flashes others. It all evens out in the end.

Larry Mohr

Sometimes Spud thinks they try and think up the most unbelievable shit they can come up with and get morons to believe it. The sad thing is... they do.

Yep, just like "Change" and "Hope" and "Man-Made Global Warming".

Shit! I just farted. I hope that doesn't cause a polar ice shelf to break off.

Cheers,
Walt

How about you? Got sunscreen? Water?

The only time I am going to need sunscreen is when I am laying on the beaches of Thailand enjoying my day.

You Man-Made ers, can rush out and buy all the hilltop property and SPF 1,000,000 you want.

Fill yer boots!

Cheers,
Walt

So you admit the sun is causing the planet to change temperatures?

Umm, yeah it warms up after sundrise and then cools down after nightfall.

Sorry, is this new information to you?

Now if you could just convince the world to stop driving, eating, cow's farting, factories operating, airplanes flying, lights turned on, trains running. We should stop volcanoes from erupting while we are at it. Then you will be happy right?

We have to start taking the economy off of oil as it is. Almost half of the oil that comes out of the ground goes into products that are not fuel.

Vehicles need to be run on sommat cleaner and more enviromentally friendly.

Human population needs to be controlled better. Education, immigration control, birth control.

Bio Mass needs to be respected more for how neccessary it is to climate cycles by eating up excess CO2. ie. Stop clearcutting like fucktards.

Meat is murder. People should eat less of it.

The seas are almost dead compared to a hundred years ago and farmed fish are a health risk. That has to be dealt with.

Volcanoes aren't anything we can do much about except to monitor closely.

You refuse to take any of this seriously because it's too big for you to wrap yer wee head around.

Spud gets that.

Trouble is wot you can't see, can and will hurt you.

Laugh it up in the meanwhile, chuckles.

Be glad other wiser heads than yours are making headway against the deliberate lies of the pseudo scientists that you are so invested in.

Be glad that they are trying to think our way out of this cul de sac.

Be Well.

Fuck the sunscreen that Shit smells rank for starters. Next it makes Your hands feel all icky, Then when You try and wash it off it still leaves a stench. What's the point in sunscreen when You can't stand the smell??

Larry Mohr

We have to start taking the economy off of oil as it is. Almost half of the oil that comes out of the ground goes into products that are not fuel.

Agreed 100%, but not because I give a black squirrels ass about Global Warming


Vehicles need to be run on sommat cleaner and more enviromentally friendly.

Fine, nobody likes smog.


Human population needs to be controlled better. Education, immigration control, birth control.

Agreed. Mega-Agreed. Agreed. Again for no reasons related whatsoever to global warming


Bio Mass needs to be respected more for how neccessary it is to climate cycles by eating up excess CO2. ie. Stop clearcutting like fucktards.

No argument.


Meat is murder. People should eat less of it.

Retarded. Humans are carnivorous. Few are herbivores.


The seas are almost dead compared to a hundred years ago and farmed fish are a health risk. That has to be dealt with.

What does this mean? Don't pollute the oceans? Fine, we shouldn't be dumping toxic waste in the waters. What do you have against farmed fish and what in the happy fuck does it have to do with man-made global warming?


Volcanoes aren't anything we can do much about except to monitor closely.

But the global temperature of the Earth, no problem. Let me just check the thermostat.


You refuse to take any of this seriously because it's too big for you to wrap yer wee head around.

No, I refuse to take it seriously because it is bullshit.

Spud gets that.

Trouble is wot you can't see, can and will hurt you.

Shaking in my boots. (From laughter)

Laugh it up in the meanwhile, chuckles.

Oh I intend to. And I am gonna be laughing till I am dead because it still will not be man's fault and the amount of crow you Man-Made ers are gonna be eating will wipe out the entire crow population.

Be glad other wiser heads than yours are making headway against the deliberate lies of the pseudo scientists that you are so invested in.

Yeah, I am real glad a bunch of bozos are wasting billions of dollars every year to fight something over which they have absolutely "0" to control. Spend that money on a cure for cancer, you know, something real.

Be glad that they are trying to think our way out of this cul de sac.

Be Well.

Good analogy. We are in a cul de sac. And the Earth will keep going around the sun and sometimes it will be a bit warmer and sometimes a bit cooler. There will be more ice ages and more melts, and so it will continue until the sun explodes and never will it have been man's fault.

You admit the Sun is partially responsible for Global Warming. What percentage of the current warming do you attribute to the sun, and how much to man?

Cheers,
Walt

B BOB, when you say "Facts are it doesn't make any difference what other planetrs are doing"

If you claim thats a "fact" you have no credibility whatsoever, because opinions are not facts, except in the liberal mind. Of course.

What I love about global warming is that there is not a damn thing you, me or anything you know can do about it, and you can't "tax" and legislate it away.

Liberals do not seem to understand this. Eventually, I suspect, the libs are going to FINALLY justify the use of the military, and thats to overthrow governments who are gross polluters.

Why hasn't any "brilliant" liberal won all that money thats out there from ALL kinds of people offering money to prove humans are causing global warming?

Because its easier to prove Bigfoot is real, thats why.

LOL liberals make me laugh, what a crackup.

Kuma

Walt, don't try and engage these libs with direct questions they can't handle. You know what your going to get as an answer don't you?

All the so called "facts" that come out of their mouths are simply the current state of emotions going on in there brains. And if they can't explain it, and don't know, its automatically a "conspiracy" which covers the gambit of their answers. Well, thats after they change the subject, and mis-direct you 100x.

Kuma

Or we could just ask stupid questions and die.

Or we can believe in fairy tales and still die.

Newsflash.

You are going to die, but not because of man made global warming. Feel better now.

Cheers,
Walt

Walt, don't try and engage these libs with direct questions they can't handle.

That is the best part Kuma. It's what keeps this place ticking!

Headed to lunch. Will see what happens later.

Cheers,
Walt

Kuma thinks he knows more than scientists that have studied the problem their whole adult lives. He thinks these scientists don't know the sun is hot. Kuma thinks only Kuma knows the universe.
Kuma is a classic dumbass--a definite bush voter and still proud of it.

Everyone listen to Kuma--the giant brain and his buddy Pinky Walt. They know all and tell all.

;-)

Why hasn't any "brilliant" liberal won all that money thats out there from ALL kinds of people offering money to prove humans are causing global warming?

I think it is easily proven. Even Bushie believes it.

LINK?

Everyone listen to Kuma--the giant brain and his buddy Pinky Walt.

Pretty funny.

Now you can get back to your Chicken Little routine.

Cheers,
Walt

Once again, the chicken little pants shitters remind us that we need to be afraid of destroying the planet, all the while rainforests are being demolished to make room for "biofuel" production. The Green Way!

It's not cool to be concerned about deforestation anymore. That's so yesterday, along with global cooling, save the whales, baby seals, Alar, the snail darter, nuclear waste . . .

Get with the program. It's global warming now, and trying to figure out a way to get Iowa corn farmers, Al Gore, and ADM rich off this latest round of fear mongering.

Noble(sic) prize"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes, typos are hilarious because DrudgeRetort has such extensive editing functions and all blog comments should be subjected to scrupulous rewriting.

Don't beclown yourself.

Posted by EvilDave


Yeah, Dave, I was thinking the same thing. Can't believe how entertaining they both found that. Children.....

The Noble "Peace" Committee became irrelevant the moment they gave an award to Yasser Arafat, the boy-loving terrorist who died of AIDS....

These guys seem fixated on local conditions rather than those which affect the entire solar system. All of the planets have been warming. The Earth has not become warmer since 1998. Now we have entered a 17 year reduced sunspot cycle with consequently less radiation of heat from the sun.

And won't we need warming, carbon dioxide, and what have you for facilitating plant growth so as to keep up with the feeding of the burgeoning populations?

This guy has got a gig as a modern say Cassandra. Oops! Wait. Cassandra's propheices materialized.

Oh well.

Cheers. So long as there's enough grain to process to allow us to "medicate" ourselves the good old Irish way.

when you get your own Nobel prize you can rebuke global warming all you want.

Posted by furio

So I guess you have one so you can say there is such a thing, and man is to blame. Bite my shorts!!!!

"Why hasn't any "brilliant" liberal won all that money thats out there from ALL kinds of people offering money to prove humans are causing global warming?"

LINK?

I could use the money--unfortunately I think your delusions are getting the better of you.

The point is not what caused it or why it is happening. The point is what should we do about it. You seem to think we should just ignore these people who have studied this for their entire lives. I don't think that is wise.

However, you go on and keep thinking about whose fault it is, or what is causing it.BBOB


There is scientific evidence that all of this may be due to the sun and its behavior. Since this whole global warming talk started happening I have been asking the question, 'what about the sun?' It is, afterall, what warms us.

And if this is the case then just what is there that we can do? I say the only thing we can do is find another planet to live on. Just don't pick Mars becuase it is experiencing global warming too. Could that be because of the sun? So, you keep believing that this is more than a money making politcial football.

Well , that says it all " a mexican " .
So , every year that the Earth has a cold spell , we will call it hiccup , then when the temps go up a degree we can say " see we brain dead mofos told you that it is man made " .But all the co2 from china , india , russia are not contributing at all , it is only the United States ( cause they have money ) and it would'nt be worth chasing after those above mentioned shitholes , they would only tell the beaner to fuck off , or hunt him and algore down for the pathetic lying pieces of shit they truly are . What was it Putin called them ? Oh yeah , useful tools/fools .
Oh yeah ! The sky is falling ! Cats are screwing dogs , fish are humping birds . It's a madhouse , a madhouse ! Apes are taking up arms , no animal has 2nd amendment rights , even if they are married to some liberal .

Did my damn truck cause the last ICE AGE to end? I'll bed it was the one Bush bought 13,000 years ago. Does anyone have any logic at all??? How many warming and cooling periods has the earth gone through that we know of. All before the factories and cars were imported to the US from the all intilengent cradle of civilization, Africa.

"intilengent(sic)"

;^)

To me, filthy brown, smelly air and poisoned water are reason enough to impose strict environmental controls on industry and individuals. I wish the whole politicised climate change argument would go away and people could be convinced that nature should be protected simply because it's beautiful and delicate.

To me, filthy brown, smelly air and poisoned water are reason enough to impose strict environmental controls on industry and individuals.


Now THAT is reasonable.

However, that is not the basis for the measures proposed by the man-made global warming religious fundies.

These libs are laughable on here. All they do is personal insults, re-direction and innuendo. They don't even TRY to back up what they believe. They DARE talk about what they really believe, they start getting tossed around like a pair of 44D jugs on a marathon runner. lol.

Let me say again, for the ignorant libs.

Global warming: No matter WHAT the cause of it, you can't do anything about it no matter what, so don't even worry about it. Like I said, the "ultimate" lib solution will be to go to war with every country thats not "green" and to force them to go green.

LOL its funny, the libs are seeing what I write here, about going to war, and deep down inside they are all like "GOOD IDEA!! ThAT WILL SAVE THE WORLD!" LOL

Kuma

BTW, libs, I have a 100,000 dollar Solar panel system on my house, I own a Toyota Prius AND a Honda Civic Hybrid, and every freaking lightbulb and appliance on all my property is ultra high efficient. So when I speak, you libs listen. Because I am the real thing.

Its funny how the right wing, that is me is everything the libs "wish" they were. You see, right wing people like me, we don't wait around for the Government to fix the worlds problems, we do it ourselves.

Like me.

Eat it.

Kuma

"So when I speak, you libs listen. Because I am the real thing."

lol. That's some funny shit, dumbass.

You got a house running on way overkill solar power, all energy efficient everything, and 2 brand new Hybrids in the garage?

You don't? Then STFU, real environmentalists are talking here, you can GTFO.

Kuma

Kuma!

Kuma, kuma, kuma...


lol. Hey dummy, do you see what's written after "posted by"?

Bani's here. "Coast to Coast" must be over.

He stated that if something isn't done about global warming that people would soon be forced to resort to cannibalism

Colbert touched on this one too.

Showed the clip of Ted "Lothario" Turner talkin' 'bout cannibalism and them proceeded to invite Tim "Fathead" Russert and Karl "Butterbal" Rove over to his house for dinner in about twenty years.

Suggested that a good way to prevent skin cancer in the meanwhile was to slather on A1 Steak sauce instead of sunscreen.

Again Spud is LOL!

GLOBAL WARMING - "The Greatest Scam in History"

Wozzit?

Hold on a sec...

GLOBAL WARMING DENIAL - "The Greatest Corporate Disinformation Campaign in History"

There... FIXED THAT FOR YOU.

Seriously, how can so many people deny the evidence of their senses here?

Denial + Stupidity = Neo Flat Earther.

Done the math.

Be Well.

/PS: We dohave A1 Steak Sauce in Canada only we call Eh 1, eh.

Onna,

What is that link? Nothing but more true believers spouting their religious views.

What is that supposed to be some kind of Bible?

They wrote it, you read it, and now it is fact.

I am not going to even argue with you. You have given up atheism for environmentalism.

In your religion you don't have to pray 5 times a day, you have to plant 5 trees.

Maybe I should pick up your Bible and see what it says about us Infidels.


Cheers,
Walt

Kuma,

You got a house running on way overkill solar power, all energy efficient everything, and 2 brand new Hybrids in the garage?


My whole house is off grid, efficient solar, hydro. No hybrid, bio d rovers. Solar hot water from our own springs, food on the table from our own gardens/farm. I live in the jungle, for real.

Do I prove my bona fides enough for you, and if so, can we have a talk?

Personal Responsibility seems to be what you're going for. Cool. But unfortunately most cannot afford to early adopt without some gov't incentive. They might want to be responsible, but finances prohibit it. The gov't should have gotten the message long ago and it seems like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. There is no GW in your eyes, but you're making changes anyway. $100k on a system is not chump change, although I doubt it got you more than a 9kw set up, and if you were living on that alone, there'd be no AC and other lifestyle concessions, rare for any American, Lib or Con. Maybe you want to be independent of the utilities, or maybe you recognize that pollution is sort of bad, just not earth changing, apocalypse bad. Maybe you're hedging your bets.
The gov't could be fostering alternative energy and increasing our GDP while promoting energy security--all good reasons that don't involve GW--$150B would have bought a lot of systems, probably taken about 5mm people off the grid. That would have been a start, and the money would have stayed in house.
But I digress. The point is that empirical evidence indicates warming and catastrophic environmental changes. The real scientists, the ones who have given their lives to Nature and Thought, are freaking out. This isn't about grants. This is about the leaders of the world listening to the scientific community and making changes, asap. Biz will be fine. Markets recover. The lands and oceans, once devastated, will not.

And as for a war, hell yeah. Send the troops to the Amazon now. Protect the lungs of Asia too. We can get by without oil, but not without the good green.

I'm skeptical of anybody who could make a claim like this...

"Long before we run out of oil, we will run out of atmosphere," he said.

So, the fact that climate history shows that life has persisted (albeit not easily) at temperatures 10 degrees hotter than now has no bearing? Sounds like this guy needs another paycheck.

Jestgetinalong,

Agreed. Whenever there is a large continent over at least one of the poles, the overall pattern is advancing glaciers and colder temperatures. We're in that cycle now. Within that cycle are warmup periods due to ocean currents, volcanism, sun output, etc. We're near the end of one of those. The overall dynamic right now, barring the disappearance of Antarctica, is for cold.

Zatoichi, you seriously need to learn how to read before you go calling someone a liar. I swear I can't believe the level of 'intelligence' by the left on this board. The words I wrote were there is 'scientific evidence that the sun MAY be causing this'.

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

advertisement"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns. After pressure from environmentalists, politicians agreed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, promising to limit greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012. Britain ratified the protocol in 2002 and said it would cut emissions by 12.5 per cent from 1990 levels.

Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide weather records were first collated in 1860.

Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.

To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.

The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.

Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last.



This is 'scientific evidence that sun MAY be causing this. Just like Gore is using 'scientific evidence' to make his point.

Gore has no scientific evidence to support his point, unless you consider made up data and intentionally incorrect analysis to be data.

Everlong, you'd do well to read Solanki's work. He doesn't say what you've attributed to him. Those are not his conclusions. I'm very familiar with his work. I've posted the links and his statements many times.

Posted by onna at 2008-04-08 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

Wow, links to 3 more readings from the Book of Gospels.

Cheers,
Walt

The biggest irony of the entire climate change debate is that skeptics/cynics like me should be viewing the issue with a jaundiced viewpoint, if not disbelieving the "global warming is dangerous" arguments. We certainly do see Gore and Inhofe from that perspective.
However, what people like me want to see is something which can explain what is occuring in some kind of detailed manner. One where we can review the explanations and understand them. We don't want generalizations like, well it's happened before. OK, did it happen like this, at this pace, what can we expect to see next. And we want an explanation which involves the very many factors which must be affecting the situation. I _know_ something is happening. Very many people also know. We do _not_ want b.s. thrown at us. The sun did it, it's happened before, etc. just sound like lazy efforts to ignore the discussion.

What we see is one side trying to explain the recent climactic occurances in a scientific manner, using climate models. They're nowhere near perfect, undoubtedly are missing information. And they need to be constantly updated. And they do need to be questioned. Nevertheless, they are an attempt to explain. The opposing side seems to be just throwing up explanations, without a coherent framework. And if questioned, or shown contradicting info, just bring up Gore. Guess which side I'm inclined to view favorably.

However, what people like me want to see is something which can explain what is occuring in some kind of detailed manner.

You asked for it.

Prepare for these people to bombard you with numbers and web pages.

Have fun mate!

I will be back later, I just sold my house on the beach and am trying to close the deal on my new house on top of Everest. Never can be too safe you know. Floods and all.

Cheers,
Walt

The sun did it, it's happened before, etc. just sound like lazy efforts to ignore the discussion.


I'm not ignoring it at all. I feel like you do about wanting an explanation, but it seems there are many exlanations. So, which one to believe? However, I do honestly believe that if global warming is occuring, and it's occuring differently or worse than before, I think it extremely arrogant of us to think that we can stop it.

I believe that we should keep our planet and water and air as clean as humanely possible as well. But, if global warming is as bad as many people say it is, we will not be able do anything to get in its way.

"I just sold my house on the beach ... "

Good for you. Insurance companies, per what I've read, are refusing to write new policies for properties within 100 yards of an existing shoreline. They've also started requiring flood insurance for properties within 5 miles of a shoreline and raised premiums on existing such policies.

Good for you.

Thanks. An added benefit of being on top of this mountain is that my Vsat works so much better.

Cheers,
Walt

the good news is that the denialists have lost, the only thing we need do is laugh at their ignorance. There is a lot of cience supporting the global warming issue, and no science in rebuttal

people like Walt know no science, only talking points. Remember these same people were touting that cigarette smoke is not harmful, that CFC's are not a problem, that smog is not harmful. They have always been wrong on the science, a very poor track record.

at a recent conference, a few denialists raised their erronious talking points and were greated with ridicule, that's what I am doing with Walt, laughing at his ignorance.

Onna,

If you're gonna say something and want to be understood, you have to take your head out of your ass first. You sound awfully muffled, and what you're saying doesn't make much sense.

"what you're saying doesn't make much sense."

will never make sense to assholes!

FYI,

You seem to be serious here, so I will be too. If you want to understand the climate, just get a basic understanding of high school level earth/space science and understand our system from a machine perspective. If you understand how a machine performs, you know what is normal and abnormal, and you know what is possible and what isn't generally.

With that baseline knowledge, look at what SCIENTISTS in PALEOCLIMATE say...they're the only ones with historical perspective here.

I recommend googling Science and Public Policy Institute and looking through all their backlog of papers from actual scientists who actually do this stuff for a living and aren't in anybody's pocket.

The other thing you have to understand is that CLIMATE MODELS ARE NOT SCIENCE AND NOT ACCURATE! You know this, as you watch the weather reports and see how accurate they are a week out, let alone further. Any study based on climate models is utter nonsense, as nobody understands all the climate inputs or their relative strengths, so how can you write a computer program to model something which you don't understand to that level of detail?

Finally, simple common sense is important. If CO2 is driving climate, the temperatures would have to track steadily up as the CO2 levels have. They patently have not, so the cornerstone of the global climate chane myth is UTTER FUCKING NONSENSE.

Compelling case, Jon the "science" teacher. I think the screaming really helped convince me.

Science and Public Policy Institute
The institute receives funding from ExxonMobil

They were started by Exxon with a 100K grant. Exxon still funds them at 50K/year. You get your counter information where you can I guess.

All these libs, using the same argument on a broad spectrum of issues. Don't you guys see what they do? EVERY SINGLE TIME an issue doesn't go their way, or something is explained they do not agree with, what do libs do every time?

They either say the source was "paid" to say it, or its a conspiracy.

They always say that. Every single position held by any republican is in the pocket of the source of the problem.

This is how democrats argue.

They are arguing NASA is in the oil companies pockets, and every single scientist on earth who doesn't agree in humans being cause of Global warming.

NASA is in the pocket of EXXON?

Can any of you stupid democrats name names? Who is in who's pocket? How can you prove it? Who from NASA got paid X dollars to say every planet is warming more than earths?

Also libs, before you speak, please be honest with your peers here and let us know the wealth of drugs you did when you were younger. That might let us reasonable people gain some insight to the insane thought processes in your puny minds.

LOL every single study of all time that disagrees with a dem was "bought"

LOL do you idiots actually believe that? or are you just stupid.

Kuma

my Dear KUMA, NASA is not in the oil companies pockets and no one said they were, besides they agree with the global warming assessment

here's a link to NASA's position, I guess you didn't know, maybe you should do a little research

NOAA also agrees as do most climate scientists (see IPCC assessment)

climate change is not a dem or lib issue, it is science, science that you may be unaware of.

Who said anything about NASA? You? You didn't say anything NASA said. You said something and attributed it to NASA - and it was a complete lie.

Good job.

NASA's a fine source for data. I'd recommend you actually use them.

"The other thing you have to understand is that CLIMATE MODELS ARE NOT SCIENCE AND NOT ACCURATE! "
"Any study based on climate models is utter nonsense"

JonRyker, these have to be the stupidest things you have said to date. Science is based on predicting things and that is done thru use of models. And you _really_ need to learn the difference between weather and climate. You make no case for your credibility by conflating the two.

The Science and Public Policy Institute is a conservative think tank which denied climate change was occuring before they ever came up with arguments to counter any claims. They are _not_ a credible source.

If you have a barrel full of water and add another cup, the barrel overflows. That is how the CO2 increase is being presented. Learn the argument before you discount it.

Many scientists specializing in paleoclimatology do support the climate change argument. Quit making genaralizations which make you look foolish.

"The other thing you have to understand is that CLIMATE MODELS ARE NOT SCIENCE AND NOT ACCURATE! "
"Any study based on climate models is utter nonsense"

Walt, see what I mean. I ask for what, in science, is a basic approach to a question, and I get this reply. There are quite a few good arguments against various aspects of the present climate models being used. But not only aren't they presented in a coherent structure, but even the idea of using a coherent structure is ridiculed. Skeptic me says, I ain't gonna believe this dude.

Nobel peace prizes are largely over-rated.

With Yassar Arafat's Nobel peace prize & 50 cents,
I could buy a cup of coffee.

Nobel peace prizes are largely over-rated.


So are dumbasses that comment on things they know nothing about.

The only 2 bigger scams than man-made global warming:

1. the fact that the gas that EVERYONE exhales (CO2)
is an evil 'greenhouse gas' that is destroying
our planet.

2. Al Gore's carbon credits scheme.

You can go back thru this thread and many other and find links which support the fact that the computer models are wong, other planets are heating more, more ice is growing than metling, etc..

Where? Where is one link to:
1) computer models are wrong.
2) planets are heating more.
3) globally ice is growing more than it's melting.

?

16 links supporting GW, 2 (you linked the same article twice, that counts as one) that don't address any of the 3 points above - including your link. Unlike the "deniers" the U.N. and Scientists won't discount 2008. They also won't cling to it as the only data point of any value.

(Oh, I didn't count Bani's links - most were off topic anyway)

You can go back thru this thread and many other

and many others

Cheers,
Walt

Cheers.

I'm somewhat of a liberal and i think global warming is full of shit.

Global warming alarmist actually believe the sun has little to no effect on earths weather.

The sun CREATES the earth's weather so how would it not affect climate?

It's a fact that there is a direct correlation between the sun and the planets in regards to weather and climate.

Without the sun the earth is a big cold rock. In fact without green house gases the earth is a big cold rock.

do some research for yourself its out there. There is no consensus on global warming.

i'm probably more of a moderate. ...

"Who made it political?"

global warming is political and religious because there is no debate about the science.

Science is always debated theorized and discussed. People come up with theories and try to disprove them.

Global warming there is a single model that everyone basses the science on and there is no debate. No one is trying to disprove the science. No one is trying to improve the science. People who speak out against it and disproves the science are losing their jobs and being threatened with their lives and jobs.

There is pure evidence that the model that is being used is completely wrong and doesn't take into account of the sun, cosmic rays, dust in the atmosphere, and other variables.

This is why global warming is political and religious. It is not debated with a proper discourse using the scientific method.

"Science is always debated theorized and discussed. People come up with theories and try to disprove them.

Global warming there is a single model that everyone basses the science on and there is no debate."


Strange. Some guy debating about no debate.

Some guy debating about no debate.

How about a lack of meaningful debate.

You guys are 100% convinced that man made global warming is melting the ice caps.

The only "debate" you offer is to prsonally attack anyone who dares challenges your beliefs.

Cheers,
Walt

"You guys are 100% convinced that man made global warming is melting the ice caps."

Who is this poster, "You guys"?

Global warming alarmist actually believe the sun has little to no effect on earths weather.

Find one who says that.

Just one.

You can't cos they don't.

The Sun is a factor in the ACC/AGW equation without which we wouldn't even be having a debate because there would be no life on earth. Are you seriously arguning that the scientists who discuss ACC/AGW are unaware of this?

Which one?

Name him or her.

Provide a link.

You can't.

Be Well.

Spud,

The "other planets have global warming too" argument is straight from the think tanks of Exxon and you buy into it because you don't know any better and you simply don't want to know.

And you guys buy into everything that you think is not from them.

It is a silly circle.

You refuse to question your own information.

You think you have it locked up. Case closed.

I don't waste my time posting that many links. The "I believe Man is going to Kill the Planet" crew has already seen those links and flooded the net with spin and disinformation about them.


Cheers,
Walt

Who is this poster, "You guys"?

If you believe in man made global meltdown, you are "you guys".

That wasn't so hard to figure out was it?

Maybe it was.

Cheers,
Walt

If you believe in man made global meltdown, you are "you guys".

If you want to respond to a particular poster or make some kind of point, do so. Until then, you're irrelevant.

If you want to respond to a particular poster or make some kind of point, do so.

You guys can be such assholes.

Cheers,
Walt

"straight from the think tanks of Exxon "

i've been hearing of global warming from scientists since before the turn of the century
including my father.

heard about it the entire 4 years of college at RPI

no exxon money in my house, thats for damn sure
would be nice if there was.

The "other planets have global warming too" argument is straight from the think tanks of Exxon and you buy into it because you don't know any better and you simply don't want to know.

No, wrong on so many levels. First, there is nothing out there, no data that supports "other planets have global warming." The closest argument is about Mars, and having read the links provided by those with a different perspective, none of the links even say that about Mars. Second, it's not dismissed as being "from the think tanks of Exxon", it's dismissed because there is no data to support the contention. Third, opinion pieces funded by Exxon that don't have any data that backs them up should be viewed for what they are - disinformation. There should be a high level of skepticism when reading them. Fourth, when someone that's educated doesn't "buy into it" it's not because they "don't know any better." The operative word is "educated" - and because of that, they do know better.