Crosswords0 min ago
Global Warming
As the global temperature has remained steady for the past 10 consecutive years can we assume the panic is over? Or is it that Britains efforts (only 2% of the world's emitters) have succeeded in creating equilibrium?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I stated a fact that there would be chaos if the financial sector collapsed because the Y2K bug was ignored. You denied it.
Seems to me that it is a fact that you are serial denier.
There is no plausible case that continuing to burn fossil fuels won't have a bad effect on the climate. Like David you simply assume that it won't be a problem despite the "evidence" you provide being hogwash.
Like so many others you are willing to squander the future of humanity for you own selfish greed because the problem won't be yours.
Seems to me that it is a fact that you are serial denier.
There is no plausible case that continuing to burn fossil fuels won't have a bad effect on the climate. Like David you simply assume that it won't be a problem despite the "evidence" you provide being hogwash.
Like so many others you are willing to squander the future of humanity for you own selfish greed because the problem won't be yours.
-- answer removed --
Birdie // Don't you get it? The people alive and breathing today take presidence over people who have yet to exist 'in potentia'. You're a particularly strange individual if you think that it is preferable for people to suffer and die today so that as yet unborn people can have a better life. //
Even if doing nothing now means a cost in the future a thousands of times more? So much that the challenge of the future is insurmountable?
Perhaps you could have that inscribed as your epitaph so your great grand children can admire your character.
And as I said before, the real scare factor is the myth that any change to our energy sources spells economic disaster and misery for the poor. You obviously have just as a simplistic understanding of economics as you do of climate science.
Even if doing nothing now means a cost in the future a thousands of times more? So much that the challenge of the future is insurmountable?
Perhaps you could have that inscribed as your epitaph so your great grand children can admire your character.
And as I said before, the real scare factor is the myth that any change to our energy sources spells economic disaster and misery for the poor. You obviously have just as a simplistic understanding of economics as you do of climate science.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Unfortunately I think someone here's a victim of a professional scare campaign that hooks into some of the most susceptible minds and means the belief in the imaginary trumps actual reality. And if you are employed to maintain the message beso you're not very good at it.
Once someone's lost within the cloud of fear and delusion nothing anyone else can say can get in. It can wear off on its own, and in a perfect world it will change and reveal the complete picture which will clear the delusion in everyone not suffering from psychosis.
But for everyone else except beso, imagining a non-existent fear in the future, especially so far ahead they'll never be able to see it, is clearly not the operation of sense and logic. It is imitating a psychotic delusion through a concerted PR campaign by the authorities to convince enough people there is a problem to justify and allow their policies. Some people will always be on the extreme fringes of susceptibility and once affected see it as their mission as anyone not affected has to be scared into understanding.
This is no different to someone drunk, on drugs or suffering from schizophrenia, where they are always right and although the vast majority of people 'don't get it' there must be something wrong with them and they'll rattle on to anyone who can hear as it's so terrible we must know so we can do something about it, and any actual logic we offer, eg 3000 old people dying of cold in the UK the last two years as they couldn't afford the higher bills, or people starving where their food crops have been replaced by biofuel are just seen by beso as accounting sacrifices of deaths in the present to save many more in the distant future.
I know everyone else who reads this can understand, but beso possibly never can or will.
Once someone's lost within the cloud of fear and delusion nothing anyone else can say can get in. It can wear off on its own, and in a perfect world it will change and reveal the complete picture which will clear the delusion in everyone not suffering from psychosis.
But for everyone else except beso, imagining a non-existent fear in the future, especially so far ahead they'll never be able to see it, is clearly not the operation of sense and logic. It is imitating a psychotic delusion through a concerted PR campaign by the authorities to convince enough people there is a problem to justify and allow their policies. Some people will always be on the extreme fringes of susceptibility and once affected see it as their mission as anyone not affected has to be scared into understanding.
This is no different to someone drunk, on drugs or suffering from schizophrenia, where they are always right and although the vast majority of people 'don't get it' there must be something wrong with them and they'll rattle on to anyone who can hear as it's so terrible we must know so we can do something about it, and any actual logic we offer, eg 3000 old people dying of cold in the UK the last two years as they couldn't afford the higher bills, or people starving where their food crops have been replaced by biofuel are just seen by beso as accounting sacrifices of deaths in the present to save many more in the distant future.
I know everyone else who reads this can understand, but beso possibly never can or will.
There are too many bloody good independent scientists producing quite different figures as just mentioned for them all to be wrong. CO persistence is little known and understood and more studies like this one claim it lasts decades and no more
http://science-learni...6+-+Errors+in+CO2.pdf
Having just mentioned all these western emissions, I (but not the media as per) found it fascinating the JAXA Japanese satellite spent two years measuring world CO2 and found industrialised nations absorbed it while deserts emitted it the most. Now how and why this is remains to be seen, but pretty much kills off all the CO2 emitting botox (can we say that here?) stone dead. Just as a tangent, why don't the media bother with these reports the Japanese spent two years collecting as if nothing else it turns beso's simplistic theory on its head?
http://science-learni...6+-+Errors+in+CO2.pdf
Similarly they also ignored NASA's own AQUA satellite which found CO2 was replacing water vapour where it counted, actually replacing a powerful greenhouse gas with a weak one. Where are the journalists when you actually need one (ask Hugh Grant I suppose...).
Did beso respond to my figure on CO2? If so I didn't see it.
http://science-learni...6+-+Errors+in+CO2.pdf
Having just mentioned all these western emissions, I (but not the media as per) found it fascinating the JAXA Japanese satellite spent two years measuring world CO2 and found industrialised nations absorbed it while deserts emitted it the most. Now how and why this is remains to be seen, but pretty much kills off all the CO2 emitting botox (can we say that here?) stone dead. Just as a tangent, why don't the media bother with these reports the Japanese spent two years collecting as if nothing else it turns beso's simplistic theory on its head?
http://science-learni...6+-+Errors+in+CO2.pdf
Similarly they also ignored NASA's own AQUA satellite which found CO2 was replacing water vapour where it counted, actually replacing a powerful greenhouse gas with a weak one. Where are the journalists when you actually need one (ask Hugh Grant I suppose...).
Did beso respond to my figure on CO2? If so I didn't see it.
More human sacrifices
"Malaria is only weakly related to temperature; it is strongly related to poverty. It has risen in sub-Saharan Africa over the past 20 years not because of global warming, but because of failing medical response. The mainstay treatment, chloroquine, is becoming less and less effective. The malaria parasite is becoming resistant, and there is a need for new, effective combination treatments based on artemisinin, which is unfortunately about 10 times more expensive.
Mr. Samson is right to ask what spending money on global warming could do for him and his family. The truthful answer? Very little. For a lot less, we could achieve a lot more."
http://online.wsj.com...4505722902620770.html
Think of how these people could have been helped with clean water now instead of renewable energy projects?
http://www.charitywater.org/whywater/
Clean water and malaria are so easy to sort out, the money spent on climate projects already could have fixed them both and all lost now. That's what normal people care about, real problems where millions of innocent people are suffering by our governments' choice.
"Malaria is only weakly related to temperature; it is strongly related to poverty. It has risen in sub-Saharan Africa over the past 20 years not because of global warming, but because of failing medical response. The mainstay treatment, chloroquine, is becoming less and less effective. The malaria parasite is becoming resistant, and there is a need for new, effective combination treatments based on artemisinin, which is unfortunately about 10 times more expensive.
Mr. Samson is right to ask what spending money on global warming could do for him and his family. The truthful answer? Very little. For a lot less, we could achieve a lot more."
http://online.wsj.com...4505722902620770.html
Think of how these people could have been helped with clean water now instead of renewable energy projects?
http://www.charitywater.org/whywater/
Clean water and malaria are so easy to sort out, the money spent on climate projects already could have fixed them both and all lost now. That's what normal people care about, real problems where millions of innocent people are suffering by our governments' choice.
-- answer removed --
David H // There are too many bloody good independent scientists producing quite different figures as just mentioned for them all to be wrong. //
You mean like the doctored graph that you suggested would have to be right?
Good scientists? Judged as good by you because they say what you want to hear. Their work does not stand up to scrutiny. Your logic is flawed yet again.
Indeed there are far more scientists supporting the AGW hypotheses. So many they could not all be wrong?
// CO persistence is little known and understood and more studies like this one claim it lasts decades and no more
http://science-learni...-+Errors+in+CO2.pdf//
Read the article. It is rubbish. Over an over again the skeptics rely on a pretence that large parts of the mechanisms in CO2 cycle are misunderstood.
Yes all the CO2 does not persist in the atmosphere. About half of what we produce is being absorbed into the ocean. This is because, like any system, it seeks equilibrium. The atmospheric concentration is rising so some of it gets abosorbed into the ocean. Reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and it will come back out of the ocean.
In fact the ocean holds far more CO2 than the atmosphere. Pushing up its temperature reduces its ability to hold that CO2 which is one reason why the proportion being absorbed is falling.
You mean like the doctored graph that you suggested would have to be right?
Good scientists? Judged as good by you because they say what you want to hear. Their work does not stand up to scrutiny. Your logic is flawed yet again.
Indeed there are far more scientists supporting the AGW hypotheses. So many they could not all be wrong?
// CO persistence is little known and understood and more studies like this one claim it lasts decades and no more
http://science-learni...-+Errors+in+CO2.pdf//
Read the article. It is rubbish. Over an over again the skeptics rely on a pretence that large parts of the mechanisms in CO2 cycle are misunderstood.
Yes all the CO2 does not persist in the atmosphere. About half of what we produce is being absorbed into the ocean. This is because, like any system, it seeks equilibrium. The atmospheric concentration is rising so some of it gets abosorbed into the ocean. Reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and it will come back out of the ocean.
In fact the ocean holds far more CO2 than the atmosphere. Pushing up its temperature reduces its ability to hold that CO2 which is one reason why the proportion being absorbed is falling.
David H // I (but not the media as per) found it fascinating the JAXA Japanese satellite spent two years measuring world CO2 and found industrialised nations absorbed it while deserts emitted it the most. //
Riiiiiiiiight. Are there no limits to your gullability?
The link provided is the same link as you had already posted for the "CO2 only lasts a few years" myth.
Please do find the real source one because I am sure it will be fascinating.
Riiiiiiiiight. Are there no limits to your gullability?
The link provided is the same link as you had already posted for the "CO2 only lasts a few years" myth.
Please do find the real source one because I am sure it will be fascinating.
David H //Similarly they also ignored NASA's own AQUA satellite which found CO2 was replacing water vapour where it counted, actually replacing a powerful greenhouse gas with a weak one. Where are the journalists when you actually need one //
And where did you get that rubbish from. The partial pressures of various components of the atmosphere have little effect on eah other.
And where did you get that rubbish from. The partial pressures of various components of the atmosphere have little effect on eah other.
David H // But there is the wild card, spectrum saturation. Every scientist knows at some future point the absorption potential of CO2 will reduce to zero for every added amount. It is unknown and as a result impossible to factor in any model (and as such a vital omission). //
This is ridiculous. Firstly because the interaction of radiation and gasses is thoroughly understood. Secondly because the gas does not saturate like a sponge that can hold no more water.
The radiation is absorbed strongly because its molecualr resonance matches a specific band of infrared emmissions. Once responding to the absorption the molecule transfers its newly acquired energy to the other types of molecules around it and is free to absorb another photon.
You lack any capacity to perfom a critical analysis not only on the basic physics but also on the determatinon of the veracity of the information.
Yet you presume you have the ability to "debate with the heavyweights" and discount the accumulated works of thousands of scientist on the basis of your supposedly superior understanding.
Few have said it as well as Stephen Hawking:
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
This is ridiculous. Firstly because the interaction of radiation and gasses is thoroughly understood. Secondly because the gas does not saturate like a sponge that can hold no more water.
The radiation is absorbed strongly because its molecualr resonance matches a specific band of infrared emmissions. Once responding to the absorption the molecule transfers its newly acquired energy to the other types of molecules around it and is free to absorb another photon.
You lack any capacity to perfom a critical analysis not only on the basic physics but also on the determatinon of the veracity of the information.
Yet you presume you have the ability to "debate with the heavyweights" and discount the accumulated works of thousands of scientist on the basis of your supposedly superior understanding.
Few have said it as well as Stephen Hawking:
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
Ah, you missed the subtlelty of debating with the heavyweights. I wasn't talking about experts, but total ***. After that lot of professional muckspreaders you are a doddle in comparison. But my science is from peers, peers of the same ones who lied and cheated and basically did everything they could to cheat you and me, and in one of these cases they did manage.
You so fear some fate which basically is beyond even the furthest delusions of your average mental patient (as they at least are scared for the present, you are not even scared of something you will be here to experience) anything which goes against your anti-faith (as your faith is in the dark side rather than something positive) you just switch off when faced with it.
So if global warming is such a bad thing, why did Phil Jones say he hoped it wasn't cooling for at least another 10 years? Surely to him that would have been good news?
Or to break the law to conceal evidence?
“One way to cover yourself,” wrote professor Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia “would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember to do it.” [climategate 2.0]
Phil Jones is in charge of this bunch of greedy crooked gobshites (I'm swearing now just for the fun of seeing AB's alternative words) and if it's rotten at the top you can guarantee it's all rotten.
beso, calm down, have some decent sex and go on a holiday. This obsession with an imaginary future is diverting your attention from the present, wrecking your wellbeing and mental health, and seriously peeing off every normal person you come into contact with. Your personal health is the most important issue here and unfortunately I'm not unique in seeing it unravel here in a pretty frightening way, and rather than join the rest of the world in living for the present and dealing with things as and when they come along you have made your own life clearly a misery and as a result lost all touch with reality.
I've seen your other posts and you're clearly not a total onanist like the thorough scum at Skeptical Science who are paid to work by the University of Queensland for $640,000 (is it a year or altogether, it's still more than I've seen in my whole life) and talk to every questioner like they are dirt. You are clearly a victim and not a perpetrator and although you are bloody rude to me and everyone else here who disagrees with your delusion that is from fear and not an inherent badness. If anyone can read all the open confessions I've posted and read elsewhere from the latest CRU emails and not realise how and why we've been tricked by vested interests, the very same ones who refuse to bring them to justice as they were the ones who told them to lie in the first place, they cannot see what is the clearest evidence we have on global warming. The scientists need to cheat to maintain the illusion.
That I would suggest is the biggest crime since the holocaust, and one which will kill as many people albeit over a much longer period.
You so fear some fate which basically is beyond even the furthest delusions of your average mental patient (as they at least are scared for the present, you are not even scared of something you will be here to experience) anything which goes against your anti-faith (as your faith is in the dark side rather than something positive) you just switch off when faced with it.
So if global warming is such a bad thing, why did Phil Jones say he hoped it wasn't cooling for at least another 10 years? Surely to him that would have been good news?
Or to break the law to conceal evidence?
“One way to cover yourself,” wrote professor Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia “would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember to do it.” [climategate 2.0]
Phil Jones is in charge of this bunch of greedy crooked gobshites (I'm swearing now just for the fun of seeing AB's alternative words) and if it's rotten at the top you can guarantee it's all rotten.
beso, calm down, have some decent sex and go on a holiday. This obsession with an imaginary future is diverting your attention from the present, wrecking your wellbeing and mental health, and seriously peeing off every normal person you come into contact with. Your personal health is the most important issue here and unfortunately I'm not unique in seeing it unravel here in a pretty frightening way, and rather than join the rest of the world in living for the present and dealing with things as and when they come along you have made your own life clearly a misery and as a result lost all touch with reality.
I've seen your other posts and you're clearly not a total onanist like the thorough scum at Skeptical Science who are paid to work by the University of Queensland for $640,000 (is it a year or altogether, it's still more than I've seen in my whole life) and talk to every questioner like they are dirt. You are clearly a victim and not a perpetrator and although you are bloody rude to me and everyone else here who disagrees with your delusion that is from fear and not an inherent badness. If anyone can read all the open confessions I've posted and read elsewhere from the latest CRU emails and not realise how and why we've been tricked by vested interests, the very same ones who refuse to bring them to justice as they were the ones who told them to lie in the first place, they cannot see what is the clearest evidence we have on global warming. The scientists need to cheat to maintain the illusion.
That I would suggest is the biggest crime since the holocaust, and one which will kill as many people albeit over a much longer period.
As usual you ignore the fact that I have shown your "scientific" arguments are worthless.
Again you try to assert that you have prevailed in the debate and claim that I am a "doddle" with some kind of mental illness.
Denial and baseless character assassination, no matter how many times you say it, won't change the scientific fact.
Ultimately science will be stronger when there is no room left for denial because yet again the science will have prevailed over ignorance. Unfortunately there will always be ignorant fools to argue the ridiculous but hopefully the ordinary person will see through their arrogance.
Again you try to assert that you have prevailed in the debate and claim that I am a "doddle" with some kind of mental illness.
Denial and baseless character assassination, no matter how many times you say it, won't change the scientific fact.
Ultimately science will be stronger when there is no room left for denial because yet again the science will have prevailed over ignorance. Unfortunately there will always be ignorant fools to argue the ridiculous but hopefully the ordinary person will see through their arrogance.
Unfortunately mental delusions, regardless whether innate or in your case induced by a massive government brainwashing, are extremely relevant. By twice confirming you are more concerned with unborn people in a future after we're all gone, and anyone concerned about the wellbeing of people here now are dangerous or whatever, you have abdicated all status for anything else you say. Sorry, but once you've blown it on the big ones then whatever else you say is totally devalued to the point of total irrelevance.
As for my knowledge of science all I do is read the experts, discover they have two different views, and as an outsider have no option but to decide on the weight of the evidence BOTH sides (unlike your avoidance or dismissal of the other side which sadly for you is real and genuine material). So instead of using myself as the messenger will hand it over to Joe Bastardi who earns his living predicting the weather as it is his profession to understand it and can fill a page of others such as Piers Corbyn, Roger Pielke (both), our own slapshot here who I believe is more than qualified to judge, Joe D'Aleo, on and on. If I said these figures you'd dismiss me as unqualified to know, but all I've ever done is quote others who are:
November 29, 2011 at 2:03 pm
How about this for ethics: The misery caused by handcuffing people over an unproven idea and the forcing of an agenda down the throat of a supposedly free people. If climate is proven to be cyclical, then who has been unethical here? The people perpetrating this situation, without allowing the simple test of natural cyclical reversal with an objective measuring device to actually prove what is right or wrong.
So let me ask Brown this. If co2 increases 1.5 ppm a year, and man contributes 3% or 1 part per 20 million, and the US is 5% of the globes population with a contribution of 1 part per 100 million, HOW IS IT ETHICAL TO FORCE CHANGE ON PEOPLE TO SOMETHING THAT IS OBVIOUSLY SO SMALL, IT IS ALMOST INCONCEIVABLE IT CAN DO WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. In addition, the percentage increase is decreasing each year.. as co2 levels rise, the increase is less relative to the total of co2. Given you are now claiming natural variability as the culprit behind the leveling off of global temps, only an unreasonable person would assume that the earth can not adapt to such minute increases, even if man was contributing it all, which obviously man is not.
When this is over and you are most certainly proven wrong, I hope you have the ethics to quit running to hidden heat and natural variability and face the facts, that you are not fit to judge the motives and ethics of people interested in the right answer, not just your answer
I speak for many PSU meteo grads from my era on this matter, btw, for I know many
Joe Bastardi PSU 1978
-------------------------------------
As for the Japanese satellite, you have managed to outdo yourself, which I didn't think was possible, but sending up a satellite for two years which is not done lightly, to do the very job the IPCC needed to be done, and then flushing its results down the toilet on some basis I wasn't able to follow again slides into religious/mental territory. How the heck can two years of data saying developed countries absorb CO2 (we needn't know why, it was a panel of about four IPCC contributing climatologists on a BBC radio interview who unanimously agreed CO2 gradually absorbed less heat up to a totally unknown maximum, who you also dismissed in the same way, making yourself look more and more out on a limb) be wrong because you don't like it?
I only highlighted the brainwashed condition to make you very clear what everyone else could already see but felt it necessary to point out clearly to you directly as unfortunately even if you had the better data the way you have conveyed your actual attitude is not one of a reasonable person and maybe one day it will dawn on you why virtually everyone else here has tried their best to point it out
As for my knowledge of science all I do is read the experts, discover they have two different views, and as an outsider have no option but to decide on the weight of the evidence BOTH sides (unlike your avoidance or dismissal of the other side which sadly for you is real and genuine material). So instead of using myself as the messenger will hand it over to Joe Bastardi who earns his living predicting the weather as it is his profession to understand it and can fill a page of others such as Piers Corbyn, Roger Pielke (both), our own slapshot here who I believe is more than qualified to judge, Joe D'Aleo, on and on. If I said these figures you'd dismiss me as unqualified to know, but all I've ever done is quote others who are:
November 29, 2011 at 2:03 pm
How about this for ethics: The misery caused by handcuffing people over an unproven idea and the forcing of an agenda down the throat of a supposedly free people. If climate is proven to be cyclical, then who has been unethical here? The people perpetrating this situation, without allowing the simple test of natural cyclical reversal with an objective measuring device to actually prove what is right or wrong.
So let me ask Brown this. If co2 increases 1.5 ppm a year, and man contributes 3% or 1 part per 20 million, and the US is 5% of the globes population with a contribution of 1 part per 100 million, HOW IS IT ETHICAL TO FORCE CHANGE ON PEOPLE TO SOMETHING THAT IS OBVIOUSLY SO SMALL, IT IS ALMOST INCONCEIVABLE IT CAN DO WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. In addition, the percentage increase is decreasing each year.. as co2 levels rise, the increase is less relative to the total of co2. Given you are now claiming natural variability as the culprit behind the leveling off of global temps, only an unreasonable person would assume that the earth can not adapt to such minute increases, even if man was contributing it all, which obviously man is not.
When this is over and you are most certainly proven wrong, I hope you have the ethics to quit running to hidden heat and natural variability and face the facts, that you are not fit to judge the motives and ethics of people interested in the right answer, not just your answer
I speak for many PSU meteo grads from my era on this matter, btw, for I know many
Joe Bastardi PSU 1978
-------------------------------------
As for the Japanese satellite, you have managed to outdo yourself, which I didn't think was possible, but sending up a satellite for two years which is not done lightly, to do the very job the IPCC needed to be done, and then flushing its results down the toilet on some basis I wasn't able to follow again slides into religious/mental territory. How the heck can two years of data saying developed countries absorb CO2 (we needn't know why, it was a panel of about four IPCC contributing climatologists on a BBC radio interview who unanimously agreed CO2 gradually absorbed less heat up to a totally unknown maximum, who you also dismissed in the same way, making yourself look more and more out on a limb) be wrong because you don't like it?
I only highlighted the brainwashed condition to make you very clear what everyone else could already see but felt it necessary to point out clearly to you directly as unfortunately even if you had the better data the way you have conveyed your actual attitude is not one of a reasonable person and maybe one day it will dawn on you why virtually everyone else here has tried their best to point it out
Latest Posts
News9 mins ago
Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News9 mins ago
Are We Heading Towards Another...
Politics13 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
