New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

Originally posted by angst18

If I can call into question the validity of "scientific" sstudy, without a scientiffic background, I think that says something about the science itself. Too many questions, not enough answers, and plenty of theory just do not add up to the already arrived upon ending. You can't create science by taking an end result and making data fit.

This statement is ridiculous.
Sorry, but you could probably also call into question the FACT that an electron can't possibly be in an infinite number of places at the same time, or that a photon can't possibly be both a particle and a wave at the same time, but it's because you aren't a scientist that you can assert this disbelief.

Someone trained in Quantum theory knows that, in fact, these things are accepted as facts in the scientific community. Those that are versed in multi-dimensional mathematics and probability theory have confirmed the likelyhood.




[edit on 11-12-2007 by angst18]

Never claimed to do it with quatum theory. I admittedly know NOTHING about that. But global warming......on the other hand I could add alot to a discussion on that. Keep them coming, but I will be in a meeting for about 2 hours, so I will see you all around 4:00 my time.

reply to post by jimbo999


As compared to everything the Clinton administration did? Hell, they sent their whipping boy all the way to Kyoto, then did not sign the damn treaty he helped influence.

Now thats doing something!!!!

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by angst18

 

Well said my friend.

Unfortuately, if there were minimum IQ requirements for computer use - things would be civilized - but very quiet around here

Sometimes I think it should be a viable option though... This 3 minutes of fame thing can get pretty tedious at times.

J.

Are you enjoying your 3 minutes? Your time is just about up.

Got to go to a meeting. Catch up with ya later.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
reply to post by jimbo999

 

As compared to everything the Clinton administration did? Hell, they sent their whipping boy all the way to Kyoto, then did not sign the damn treaty he helped influence.

Now thats doing something!!!!

Erm...actually it was the Bush admin. that refused to ratify the agreement as I recall..

J.

Originally posted by traderonwallst

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by angst18

 

Well said my friend.

Unfortuately, if there were minimum IQ requirements for computer use - things would be civilized - but very quiet around here

Sometimes I think it should be a viable option though... This 3 minutes of fame thing can get pretty tedious at times.

J.

Are you enjoying your 3 minutes? Your time is just about up.

Got to go to a meeting. Catch up with ya later.

My time? Nope - but perhaps yours... Endless tirades using critically flawed information is a pointless endeavour.

J.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by jimbo999]

[edit on 11-12-2007 by jimbo999]

reply to post by jimbo999


The Bush administration can not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, just as the previous administration could not as well, they can only submit it for ratification to the Congress. If I recall, President Clinton did not submit the Kyoto Protocol due to the unanimous vote in the Senate rebuking the treaty and President Bush is withholding it from submission because China's exemption from many of the protocol's mandates.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by AugustusMasonicus]

[edit on 11-12-2007 by AugustusMasonicus]

Originally posted by TrentReznor
RIGHT!

I was just abpout to go to bed and low an behold........I chk my homepage news and find this!

"Parents should pay climate change tax on extra kids: expert"

source:

uk.news.yahoo.com...


Life long tax for parents with more than two children to account for the Extra greenhouse gasses..........?

as if parents with more than two children don't have enough to pay for...


Somthing isent right here. Its BULL.

I don't think I need figures anymore.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by TrentReznor]

[edit on 10-12-2007 by TrentReznor]

Wow. I would love to see how all the wellfare people here in the USA would be affected. Some have 6,7,8, or more kids just to get more money. I guess they will get more something to cover it. It already pisses me off that some of these people with no job get money back from their taxes each year on money they didnt earn.

reply to post by jimbo999


OK - your 3 minutes are up!

''In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed an internal “Communications Action Plan” that stated: “Victory will be achieved when … average citizens ‘understand’ uncertainties in climate science … [and] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” The Bush Administration has acted as if the oil industry’s communications plan were its mission statement. White House officials and political appointees in the agencies censored congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of global warming, controlled media access to government climate scientists, and edited federal scientific reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into discussions of climate change and to minimize the threat to the environment and the economy.''


Feel a little cheated now?

J.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by jimbo999]

reply to post by jimbo999


A symbolic ratification already knowing the Senate voted 95-0 against him is not doing anything. So, What did he really do?

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by jimbo999

 

OK - your 3 minutes are up!

''In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed an internal “Communications Action Plan” that stated: “Victory will be achieved when … average citizens ‘understand’ uncertainties in climate science … [and] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” The Bush Administration has acted as if the oil industry’s communications plan were its mission statement. White House officials and political appointees in the agencies censored congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of global warming, controlled media access to government climate scientists, and edited federal scientific reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into discussions of climate change and to minimize the threat to the environment and the economy.''


Feel a little cheated now?

J.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by jimbo999]

Just who are you quoting? Isn't there something against the rules quoting someone without giving the source? Or are you afraid the source will give it away that this is a blantantly left leading news source?

Originally posted by melatonin

Eh? I wasn't being deadly serious, just playing on the tendency for certain people to accept a very tentative hypothesis that needs lots more work which essentially has data that shows no trend (i.e. cosmic rays)[snip]

Not deadly serious eh? But you understand why I corrected the premiss of your post? This is a thread based on science, I like threads based on science and when I see some 'wrong' info I like to butt in and correct it.

What I said was simple. Planets further away are less affected by solar radiation than those closer to the sun. No need for whatever you are attempting to do. An atmosphere is able to better hold this radiation.

It may sound simple but it is incorrect. Solar radiation, aka plasma fills our solar system and it is anything but simple.

The radiation still has to travel through space, undergoing diffusion etc, reducing the intensity of impinging energy as it goes.

Determined by the inverse square law, no?

No, sorry. This is where you must brush up on cosmology if you want to argue against the sun causing climate change.

Figure 20.3: Simulation results of Zank et al. [1996] for the temperature (colour coding) and the plasma density relative to the VLISM plasma density (contours), with arrows showing the direction of the plasma flow. The heliopause (HP), termination shock (TS), and bow shock (BS) are clearly visible.

Even solar wind speeds are not linear or the magnetic field lines from the sun which look nothing like a bar magnet but more like a garden sprinkler!

Anyways, I went searching for a nice picture to help explain and I found myself reading about voyager 2 latest discoveries and whatnot and now I have other stuff to do! My point of this post isnt to argue about global warming but to straighten out some ideas about solar wind.

(and to be honest I feel a lil dirty after posting in a GW thread! )

reply to post by jimbo999


And why the hell would I feel cheated. I do not have have to tote the party line or spit back other peoples words. I use logic. I think therefor I am. I have questioned every fact you have brought to the table, although you can thank melatonin for most of your fire power. If the facts can still be questioned, why do you assume the answers are correct.

If you would admit to yourself there are no answers yet, you could possibly see that conclusions are flawed and based on a pre-conceived answer. The IPCC still uses data to fit the model. They are still saying that data that does not fit the model is an anomoly, and not the norm.
But what is the norm?????? How do really know what the levels are supposed to be in order for the earth to function at its peak? Who are we to make such statements? You can;t answer these questions, as I don;t expect you to. But when we can answer them, then we will have all answers.

Originally posted by jimbo999
Please don't start with the whole Bush admin. anti-UN nonsense...

GE obviously see a market for their alternative energy products. They can perhaps also forsee the way sane governments worldwide are headed on this issue.

Then you should not start the whole anti-Bush, anti-oil-company nonsense, and actually debate the science, instead of trying to impune the messangers.

Scientists are unscrupulous for accepting money from oil-companies that want a certain line towed, then they are equally unscrupulous for accepting money from environmental groups who want a certain line towed. Do you really believe these groups are interested in "the truth" or pushing an agenda?

You mentioned earlier that the eeeeevil Bush Administration did not ratify the Kyoto Treaty. Perhaps you should actually do some research into the treaty, before repeating ridiculous urban legends. First, the treaty was finalized in 1997, during the CLINTON Administration. However, the treaty did not require 137 of the signatory countries to do anything about emissions, just monitor and report them. This includes China, which has now over-taken the US as the chief producing of greenhouse gases. Recognizing this inequity 10 years ago, the Senate UNANIMOUSLY (95-0) passed a resolution saying it would not ratify the treaty (Contrary to the ignorant urban legend, Bush cannot sign the treaty and make it law, it requires a vote by the Senate) until this inequity was corrected. And while Al Gore signed the treaty, he agreed 100% with the Senate's action, believing the US should not make the treaty law until other chief polluters had to curtail their emissions. (SOURCE)

Never claimed to do it with quatum theory. I admittedly know NOTHING about that. But global warming......on the other hand I could add alot to a discussion on that. Keep them coming, but I will be in a meeting for about 2 hours, so I will see you all around 4:00 my time.

So.... what are you then claiming that you have some insight into climatology, astrophysics, meteorology, mathematics, statistics or anything else that bears on the complexities of the sun's dynamics or the earth's climate?

And you never really addressed the two studies (just two out of literally thousands) that I posted on page 12. You said that words like "likely" and "unlikely" are indicative of falsehood. When I pointed out that they're used in many, if not most, peer-reviewed scientific papers. Response?

I have read the Douglass et al paper and it's conclusion is that we must use caution when using models to predict future climate change. I think that's nothing new and something we all probably agree with. The quotes in the Newsmax article, purportedly from the authors of the Douglass paper, leave me scratching my head as to how the conclusions stated would be drawn from this paper.

I am a global warming skeptic, so I wanted this paper to help prove my position, but I cannot in good conscience agree with most of the Newsmax
statements.

Good show, Melatonin; this round is yours.

[edit on 12/11/2007 by TheAvenger]

reply to post by xmaddness


You mean that the taxes they generate will be so lucrative that they are willing to piss off their highest contributers?

I don't think so.

I can tell you that not amount of green taxes will ever offset the amount of taxes generated by oil use.

If these taxes are so lucrative, why did it take the government over 30 years to finally admit with a mutter under their breath that there is a problem? That is 30 years of taxes they lost out on. If it that profitable, the taxes would have been installed at the first mutter of global warming.

It is highly expensive for companies to become ecologically compatible. The government was reluctant to admit to global warming till now because they were pandering to the industries.

Municipalites are going broke over green initiatives. But they are willing to do it because they are so concerned about the cause.

so the opposite is also true. The government will also lose money compensating and giving tax breaks for green initiatives.

Being green is an expensive process. It means rehabing everything. Buying new technologies.

It is not so cut and dry.

This article contradicts what most anti-global warming propragandists like to say in that we haven't observed the temperatures long enough to know if this is a natural occurence or not. Yet some scientists look at models of the last thirty years(come on now, 30 years?) and lo and behold, they proved all the environmentalists wrong!









[edit on 11-12-2007 by nixie_nox]

Im tryin to think! if nothing was on the news about global warming or how CO2 emissions are causing all these weather abnormalities, would you even think that our planet would be in danger like this.
How long as the planet had such a violent and unpredictable weather system and as soon as the news show us more of this we are scared of what we are doing!

Ive seen proof of noth sides of the argument but my commen sense kicks in all the time with stuff like this, theres about 60-70% of this planet covered in water and despite our dominance of this planet we dont cover too much of this planets land with our cars and buildings etc....

People seem to forget most of world is still covered in forests, amazon jungles, deserts, plains, hills, mountains, swamps, wildlife all that we cannot build on or use.

Just think before you judge......

Originally posted by Dae
Not deadly serious eh? But you understand why I corrected the premiss of your post? This is a thread based on science, I like threads based on science and when I see some 'wrong' info I like to butt in and correct it.

But, as I said, the 'premise' is basically that cosmic rays would have to be magical to have a significant effect on climate change by staying pretty much constant.

No, sorry. This is where you must brush up on cosmology if you want to argue against the sun causing climate change.

I didn't say the sun couldn't cause climate change. That would be pretty silly.

I said that if solar variations were causing 2'C changes as 39AU, we would notice it.

It may sound simple but it is incorrect. Solar radiation, aka plasma fills our solar system and it is anything but simple.

All you appear to be doing is obscuring with plasma stuff. I don't think solar radiation is 'aka plasma', plasma is charged/ionised particles (electrons and protons, for example). Solar radiation is essentially electromagnetic radiation, from UV to IR (i.e. photons).

Are you trying to say that the inverse square law is not important for the intensity of solar radiation over distance? Really? And your telling me I need to brush up on cosmology?


[edit on 11-12-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by angst18


Never said they were indiciative of falsehods, but that they are indicitive of thoeory and not science. They show that there are no answers. Just what I have been saying. We are using assumption to come to conclusions. If this could happen then the impact would be, so then lets spend $10 trillion over the next 10 years and tax people based on their carbon foot print. Please I pay enough in taxes.

sorry for the double post but i missed the point of my last one, the point i was trying to make was that all our pullutants cant over dominate the vast amount of plant life on this planet that naturally consume the CO2 in our atmosphere, if it did we would all be dying of asphyxiation by now!