Godfather of global warming predictions, "incorrect"

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


I have read similar studies. Lovelock at least will change his outlook on the issue, where many will not. If the information changes, so should the community as a whole, however this isn't the case. Man's impact on the environment isn't a concrete fact, but as long as the scientific community continues to predict such massive changes they are not going to delve into just how much damage, if at all, we have created.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Indeed, as far as I have been able to ascertain the eco-alarmists’ ‘climate science’ is not based on any actual science at all, but only on the virtual reality of fictitious computer models whose behaviour is completely unrelated to that of the real world! Certainly I have never seen any of the global warming alarmists who frequent this site justify their so-called ‘climate science’ on objective scientific grounds with solid empirical facts and compelling rational arguments.

All of the vociferous eco-zealots have been tireless, relentless and remorseless in pouring forth their invective against dissenters to their unproven, quasi-scientific belief-system who they have insultingly labelled ‘deniers’. Yet not a single one of them has been able to demonstrate that the ‘climate science’ that they are advocating actually works and accurately reflects the true behaviour of the real world. It’s nice to see Lovelock speaking out against this insidious religion.

reply to post by Nathan-D


Otherwise you wouldn't have quacks making money off this. Sad, eh?

Of course I just found this article today, to help stir this debate,

The sea level on a stretch of the US Atlantic coast that features the cities of New York, Norfolk and Boston is rising up to four times faster than the global average, a report said Sunday.

news.yahoo.com...

reply to post by RoyalBlue

It is physically impossible for the ocean to rise along one area only. Water seeks its own level, and that level will be the same worldwide (on average, which allows for tidal forces). If the water shows to be getting higher relative to one area of land, it is actually the land which is getting lower.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Covertblack

 

He was wrong once, he can be wrong again.
I am guessing some oil producer is paying him a hefty sum to lie like this.

wow...really?... so every time a scientist speaks against AGW "it must have been an oil producer who paid him to say this"?...

People change their minds, more so if they have an open mind and take in new evidence and facts...

I also used to believe, years ago, the AGW lie, at least that mankind was helping accelerate this, but the more I informed myself, and read peer-reviewed research, the more I came to understand that this is nothing but a lie/scam that has turned into a religion for many.

I can tell you for certain who is wrong... YOU...

reply to post by TheRedneck


Actually that is not entirely true. Gravity is not equal all around the world and because of this there are differences in the mean sea level.

There are other factors which cause sea level differences, for example; rock crust of different densities, water temperature, and there is also the global variation which increases from the equator to the pole, also due to gravity. Because the Earth spins around the equator the mean sea level around the equator is lower than around the poles.

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Covertblack

 

Oh well then, he must be telling the truth.
My bad.

Believe what you wish. If you want to think that he was told to say these things than prove it. Are you suggesting that he originally came up with his theories because he was paid by the green movement? I too can throw out wild accusations.

Why don't you weigh what the green group has invested and what they stand to lose (and gain) with what global energy and oil companies have invested and stand to lose and then maybe stretch your brain a little and figure it out yourself. Who has the power to regulate the science?


Maybe a quick check of profits from oil companies would open your eyes and not let you be blind to the truth.
And furthermore if you are wrong we have massive plant and animal kills and eventually human death unhindered. If I am wrong somebody is going to make a few hundred extra dollars saving carbon credits and the earth will be a more hospitable climate for humans. Nobody dies.

Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by Nathan-D

 

Otherwise you wouldn't have quacks making money off this. Sad, eh?

Ignorance is sadder.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Covertblack

 

He was wrong once, he can be wrong again.
I am guessing some oil producer is paying him a hefty sum to lie like this.

wow...really?... so every time a scientist speaks against AGW "it must have been an oil producer who paid him to say this"?...

People change their minds, more so if they have an open mind and take in new evidence and facts...

I also used to believe, years ago, the AGW lie, at least that mankind was helping accelerate this, but the more I informed myself, and read peer-reviewed research, the more I came to understand that this is nothing but a lie/scam that has turned into a religion for many.

I can tell you for certain who is wrong... YOU...

And how do you happen to know so much? Guessing you are an idiot savant. See 2 posts up for expansion of this reply. I don't feel like saying it again. Sometimes I think I am talking to the pollution itself.

reply to post by newcovenant


Yes, surely they must have been bought off. See earlier post about posting evidence of your claims.

reply to post by newcovenant


So because one side has more money it would be impossible for the green party to buy someone off? Surely the green party has enough money to buy lobbyists and scientists. Have you forgotten the millions that the US government has dumped into failing green programs, such as solar, and wind energy? I'm sure those politicians put forth the money from the bottom of their hearts.

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by Nathan-D

 

Otherwise you wouldn't have quacks making money off this. Sad, eh?

Ignorance is sadder.

Becoming dogmatic is worse.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Actually that is not entirely true. Gravity is not equal all around the world and because of this there are differences in the mean sea level.

Yes, there are geographic differences (extremely minor) due to density variations in the crust. But the density is not changing; ergo, the sea level in an area cannot change due to density variations. (AFAIK, this is still actually a theoretical situation; the differences are so minor as to be practically undetectable compared with tidal forces.)

Yes, the centrifugal force generated by the planet's rotation causes sea level around the equator to be higher than at the poles. But the rotation of the planet is not changing and therefore the sea level cannot change due to this force.

I repeat: if sea level were to rise, it would have to do so equally around the globe. There is no physical law or theoretical model that can account for sea level rise in one specific area without a corresponding rise in all other areas.

TheRedneck

lovelock was a theorist, independent scientist, and inventor. he is not the "godfather" of global warming. his opinion really doesn't mean a whole lot in the climate change scientist world.

Originally posted by newcovenant

And how do you happen to know so much? Guessing you are an idiot savant. See 2 posts up for expansion of this reply. I don't feel like saying it again. Sometimes I think I am talking to the pollution itself.

edit on 25-6-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)

The only "idiot" is you... You don't even have the savant capacity... How about instead of CLAIMING "all who don't BELIEVE in AGW are oil kooks" you DEBATE the points of why you think Climate Change is anthropogenic?... You can't because you don't have neither the intelligence, nor the evidence to back your blabbering rhetoric...

BTW, in case you didn't know AGW has become a multi-billion dollar scam... Do you even know how and why companies buy CO2 credits?... Do you know how it works?... I doubt it...

Originally posted by pasiphae
lovelock was a theorist, independent scientist, and inventor. he is not the "godfather" of global warming. his opinion really doesn't mean a whole lot in the climate change scientist world.

Again, not much to corroborate your arguments...

The AGW camp really need to learn how to make concise, intelligent arguments...

All you keep showing is that AGW is a religion to you...

Originally posted by pasiphae
lovelock was a theorist, independent scientist, and inventor. he is not the "godfather" of global warming. his opinion really doesn't mean a whole lot in the climate change scientist world.

A scientific community that is afraid to change their answers. I took the title from the headline of the given article.

Originally posted by newcovenant
...
Maybe a quick check of profits from oil companies would open your eyes and not let you be blind to the truth.
And furthermore if you are wrong we have massive plant and animal kills and eventually human death unhindered. If I am wrong somebody is going to make a few hundred extra dollars saving carbon credits and the earth will be a more hospitable climate for humans. Nobody dies.

Why would there be a "massive kill from plants, animals and humans" with an increase in CO2 when we are nowhere, and will never be near the levels necessary for such a thing to happen?...

Like I was saying, you are not showing much of an argument except to insult people...

It is a known FACT that all plant life, and trees, benefit with higher atmospheric CO2 than at current levels...

Currently there is only 380ppm -390ppm atmospheric CO2 levels, and all experiements show that an increase to 1,200 ppm - 1,500 ppm of atmospheric CO2 is benefitial to ALL plant life, and green biomass on the planet because these levels of atmospheric CO2 allows all green biomass on the planet to grow more and produce more yields/harvests which means MORE FOOD for animals and humans...

Not to mention that with levels of atmospheric CO2 that high allows for plants to make better use of water, which means they use less water and more potble water is left for all animals and humans...

I know this because I INFORMED MYSELF instead of blindly and ignorantly believing in what you are being told about AGW...

...
Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.
.......

www.planetnatural.com...

In order for CO2 to be HARMFUL to humans it would have to reach 5,000 ppm... In order for CO2 to be LETHAL to humans and anmals it would have to reach levels between 30,000 ppm- 100,000 ppm...

Carbon dioxide effects on humans, at increasing levels.


1000ppm - 0.1% - Prolonged exposure can affect powers of concentration



5000 ppm - 0.5% - The normal international Safety Limit



10,000ppm - 1% - Your rate of breathing increases very slightly but you probably will not notice it.



15,000ppm - 1.5% - The normal Short Term Exposure Limit.



20,000ppm - 2% - You start to breathe at about 50% above your normal rate. If you are exposed to this level over several hours you may feel tired and get a headache.



30,000ppm - 3% - You will be breathing at twice your normal rate. You may feel a bit dizzy at times, your heart rate and blood pressure increase and headaches are more frequent. Even your hearing can be impaired.



40,000-50,000ppm - 4-5% - Now the effects of CO2 really start to take over. Breathing is much faster – about four times the normal rate and after only 30 minutes exposure to this level you will show signs of poisoning and feel a choking sensation.



50,000-100,000ppm - 5-10% - You will start to smell carbon dioxide, a pungent but stimulating smell like fresh, carbonated water. You will become tired quickly with labored breathing, headaches, tinnitus as well as impaired vision. You are likely to become confused in a few minutes, followed by unconsciousness.



100,000ppm-1,000,000ppm - 10-100% - Unconsciousness occurs more quickly, the higher the concentration. The longer the exposure and the higher the level of carbon dioxide, the quicker suffocation occurs.



50,000-100,000ppm - 5-10% - You will start to smell carbon dioxide, a pungent but stimulating smell like fresh, carbonated water. You will become tired quickly with labored breathing, headaches, tinnitus as well as impaired vision. You are likely to become confused in a few minutes, followed by unconsciousness.



100,000ppm-1,000,000ppm - 10-100% - Unconsciousness occurs more quickly, the higher the concentration. The longer the exposure and the higher the level of carbon dioxide, the quicker suffocation occurs.

globalripening.com...

How about you inform yourself instead of only using insults as your arguments?...

What about the sun and the solar cycles? Thought that this cycle was a solar max? If Thats so, then its only naturel that the planet is warming up. Then we have all the volcanic action, thats occurring. Surely that will help to heat the planet as well? I think its all a scam to tax us more.