Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Global Waming Scam Exposed As A Sham


  • Please log in to reply
245 replies to this topic

#31    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 20 March 2013 - 11:21 AM

Quote

i think you have that backwards, CFCs were banned because of their alleged destruction of ozone. ozone is a GHG (~5%), so a reduction in CFCs should theoretically cause global warming as ozone recovers.

So a healthy ozone layer is a bad thing. WoW. ok.. There is no Lions Tigers and Bears causing it. Perhaps some dairy farms....But I cant think of any other animals causing global warming except perhaps the NYC Zoo.

Again you look at a single piece and pick at it instead of looking at the big picture.

Edited by AsteroidX, 20 March 2013 - 11:23 AM.


#32    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,791 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 20 March 2013 - 12:23 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 20 March 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

we are only interested in co2, so we can ignore methane, cfcs and ozone, that leaves you with the red circle on the left.
the comparison are a few years of data from 1969-71 with 1996-97. too few data given the OLR has wide variance year to year.
also the measurements are from 2 different satellites. your data is too shaky to be meaningful. what you've effectively done is cherry picked 2 data points from a large varying dataset to create a downwards line. if i was a fear mongering religious anti-science terrorist doomsday cultist, i'd call you a liar, but i'm not.

why use that graph when you could have displayed the OLR measurements over time.
Where did you get that strange idea from. Man has contributed many different greenhouse gases and caused many of the sinks of these gases into becoming sources.
As Astroid said - always looking at the tiny detail to ignore the big picture.

CFC's have caused a steady decline in atmosphereic CO3 which has only recently levelled off. It will be a considerable time before CO3 stops been a net cooling element and becomes a net warming element. Chlorinated compounds are another one of theose atmospheric gases with extreme potentency relative to their atmospheric concentration, and extremely long residence times.

PS- I will look at your OLR time series when I know how it was produced and by who :tu:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 20 March 2013 - 12:29 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#33    Essan

Essan

    Recruitment Agent for the 'B' Ark

  • Member
  • 2,365 posts
  • Joined:18 Mar 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The other side

  • Stop Climate Change: Plant a Rain Forest Today!

Posted 20 March 2013 - 12:55 PM

Maybe the thead title ought be changed?  Something like "David Rose Scam Exposes as a Sham"?  :D

This is the comment from my blog - with relevant links embedded:

Quote

And finally,  David Rose - whom I've briefly criticised before and, er, once again in more detail - continues to reguritate the same lies and disinformation to the public, in direct contravention of the journalists' code of conduct: claiming once again that that there is no global warming.   My friends at Skeptical Science have been on the case though, explaining somewhat more accurately how  David Rose hides the rise in global warming, and Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer also wades in to point out that no, global warming has NOT stopped.  See also scientists set straight the latest Mail on Sunday climate contortion.  Well done guys.  But sadly, when Rose steadfastly refuses to listen to what the Met Office tell him, I doubt anything we say will temper this religious zealot's fervour.  All we can do is try and ensure the public are aware of his disingenous lies and that nothing he says can be trusted.

;)

Andy

Weather & Earth Science News
The independent climate blog

#34    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,816 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 20 March 2013 - 01:16 PM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 19 March 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

So this is all lies then? The information shown is not true? That's the trouble with this interminable Global Climate Change industry; everyone has their pet experts to say what they want them to say. One Expert says something, and then another flatly contradicts it. so is this not actually true and it is a lie? What is true? Who can we trust to tell us what is true? never mind trying to discredit anybody who doesn't say what you believe; If someone is a "has-been" or "sidelined", does that mean that they're lying?

Global climate change is just a campange to still money from the usa to give it to more deserving countries.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#35    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 March 2013 - 01:28 PM

AsteroidX said
"So a healthy ozone layer is a bad thing."
i did not say a "healthy ozone is a bad thing", i said more ozone should theoretically produce more warming.
if you think warming is a "bad thing", then i'll ask the same as i did to another poster - how cold do you want to be?

"I cant think of any other animals causing global warming except perhaps the NYC Zoo."
so it has to be animals causing global warming and cooling?

"Again you look at a single piece and pick at it instead of looking at the big picture."
the "big picture" is derived from the details, if the details are incorrect, then the big picture is incorrect.
co2 alone is not enough to cause dangerous global warming. the climate model projections as shown in the OPs chart boost the co2 effect by assuming there is an amplifying feedback. all the evidence indicates there is a dampening feedback.

if you are worried about it, you don't have to wait for the government to take your money away, you can go directly to the federal reserve website right now and donate half your salary.

Edited by Little Fish, 20 March 2013 - 01:30 PM.


#36    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 20 March 2013 - 01:37 PM

Quote

"I cant think of any other animals causing global warming except perhaps the NYC Zoo."
so it has to be animals causing global warming and cooling?

Ya know a kiddin when ya see one right ? I like to maintain dialogue and a bit of humor is a good way to keep it on a agreeable level.

Quote

"So a healthy ozone layer is a bad thing."
i did not say a "healthy ozone is a bad thing", i said more ozone should theoretically produce more warming.
if you think warming is a "bad thing", then i'll ask the same as i did to another poster - how cold do you want to be?

I live in the PNW. We are getting warmer and drier. Its been noticable. I dont mind cold and wet.

Quote

"Again you look at a single piece and pick at it instead of looking at the big picture."
the "big picture" is derived from the details, if the details are incorrect, then the big picture is incorrect.
co2 alone is not enough to cause dangerous global warming. the climate model projections as shown in the OPs chart boost the co2 effect by assuming there is an amplifying feedback. all the evidence indicates there is a dampening feedback.

If we did a little less deforestation or hemp production it could offset a good deal of Co2 accumulation <--------DETAIL.... so I find that a hollow argument and again ask you to look at the big picture and for practical solutions to a perceived problem.


#37    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 March 2013 - 01:41 PM

Posted Image


#38    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,791 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 20 March 2013 - 01:45 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 20 March 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

Posted Image
That crazy cherry picking of start dates and statistical analysis again. You tell them Little Fish, one day some fool might buy it :clap:

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#39    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 March 2013 - 02:02 PM

this is the chart from the leaked ipcc report due out soon.
do you think the ipcc are cherry picking?


#40    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 20 March 2013 - 02:09 PM

Yes IPCC are exactly the type of group I expect to not have Mother Earths interest first but the are the lapdogs to there Funding...Ala Big Corps and Banking. and all the other devils that control multinational agencies. Might as well have sent me to a UN sight. Oh my bad it is a UN agency.

Quote

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

Quote

The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

Ill be right back with my bluehat

Edited by AsteroidX, 20 March 2013 - 02:10 PM.


#41    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 March 2013 - 02:18 PM

View PostAsteroidX, on 20 March 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

Ill be right back with my bluehat
so, even the chart from the alarmist ipcc vindicates the graph in the original OP.


#42    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 20 March 2013 - 02:27 PM

The IPCC is anything but alarmist. There lapdogs. I ask again look at the whole picture of the health of our Mother Earth and tell me we dont have a problem.....I dare you.


#43    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,375 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 20 March 2013 - 03:57 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 20 March 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

That crazy cherry picking of start dates and statistical analysis again. You tell them Little Fish, one day some fool might buy it :clap:

Br Cornelius
It's not so much cherry-picking as it is the implication that a projection made 20 years ago with technology that was obsolete fifteen years ago is somehow relevant to today.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#44    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 20 March 2013 - 04:03 PM

I believe the early data were called "models" meaning educated guesses. 20 years is a bit of time. Can you predict the tech we will have 2o years from now or the changes we may be able to do if we are responsible with our planet and allow our brilliant engineers to further us into the 21st century instead of keeping the 20th century industrial age mentality.


#45    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 March 2013 - 04:03 PM

View PostAsteroidX, on 20 March 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

The IPCC is anything but alarmist. There lapdogs. I ask again look at the whole picture of the health of our Mother Earth and tell me we dont have a problem.....I dare you.
any problems you might perceive are being exaggerated by the ipcc "consensus" and their climate models. the UN and their ipcc have an agenda and they are promoting and exaggerating global warming as a power grab to do away with national sovereignty and bring in a dictatorial global government to institute their agenda 21.

i just look at the science and currently find that it supports the skeptical side, not the alarmist side, meaning there is no evidence for dangerous climate change that warrants the expenditure and changes being proposed.

"I like to maintain dialogue and a bit of humor. I ask you to look at the big picture and for practical solutions to a perceived problem.
ok, as JFK said "ask not what your Canute-ary can do for you ask what you can do for your Canute-ary"





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users