Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

Thankfully there are more scientists, climatologists and meteorologists that are taking a long hard look at the debate and signing up against the AGW theory. Maybe the funding for AGW theory advancement has run out, this fashionable fad is stating to wane or maybe their conscience has got the better of them. In any case, as you rightly point out Nathan, the list is growing and growing and the people are starting to realise that this exercise in social propaganda is coming to an abrupt end. The people have had enough and won’t stand for it anymore. The flimsy evidence based on the fraudulently obtained measurements and results are paling into insignificance actually as we watch the AGW movement unravel with our own eyes. Unscrupulous inter-governmental dealings at the behest of the UN (USA) and EU are now seen for what they are; carbon credits and cap-and-trade are a tax on the individual and the poorer nations that require fossil fuel energy to provide a safe and modern standard of living. Large industrial nations can pay their way out of the enigma, poorer nations will be crippled by it and that is the agenda, to cease the development of poorer nations and to keep the downtrodden down.

reply to post by melatonin


Hey mel, have you noticed a lot of the local maroons are using this "Canada Free Press" as their denialist weapon of choice lately? I find it pretty hilarious (as usual) - they're accusing everyone of being politically brainwashed (as usual), and then pointing you to a source that has a google counter in the top right hand corner counting down the seconds "until Obama leaves office".

This "Canadian Free Press" also states in it's header "...Because without America there is no free world", and some of it's favorite topics in the menu bar, apart from Global Warming denial, include 'Christianity - Religion' and 'American Freedom'

But nooooooo - it's just a crazy, lame excuse that us shhcared wittle warmists made up to say climate change skepticism is being manufactured by a right wing extremist astroturf lobby, who's using the incredibly poor judgment and critical thinking skills of conspiracy automatons everywhere, to spread their propaganda for them.

I mean - where do we come up with this stuff lol?

reply to post by mc_squared


You’re 12 or 13 years old right? Thought so. 'Christianity - Religion' is a massive and integral part of North, and South American morality, lifestyle and culture so that may explain why they have a section on it and 'American Freedom', isn’t that what has been constantly rammed down our throats and is the backbone of every speech by every POTUS since Woodrow Wilson so I’m unsure what your point is? Slagging of Canada Free Press is as lame as slagging off the Guardian newspaper, people who do it are the same people who are jumping on a bandwagon that labels something left or right wing or liberal or conservative even though they’ve never read it to make their own informed opinion. Word of advice – read what is written and consider it before judging the article based on nothing more than juvenile opinion on the site’s header. We could all say the same about ATS, Rense, GLP etc – you gotta separate out the white noise. But then again, you reflect on nothing of what you read if it conflicts with your opinion do you? You are a marketers dream ticket and the big sell is AGW.

reply to post by Mez353


I am reading what is written. I'm reading a google counter counting down the days, hours, minutes, seconds until Obama leaves office. Shucks, if that's not the pinnacle of non-politicized, unbiased, balanced & fair journalism - I don't know what is!

'American Freedom', isn’t that what has been constantly rammed down our throats and is the backbone of every speech by every POTUS since Woodrow Wilson so I’m unsure what your point is?

Yeah I don't know either, but maybe it has something to do with the fact this is supposed to be a CANADIAN news source? You're from Ireland I see - how many Dublin newspapers do you know that have an entire section dedicated to "American Freedoms"??

So you're preaching how easily brainwashed people are by political agendas, and simultaneously defending this beyond obvious piece of tea party McCarthyism hogwash?

Good luck in life Mez

To be very honest we do, the media on both sides of the Atlantic constantly portray the US as the main provider of freedom, whatever US freedom actually means.

Read the article and form an opinion on the article, don’t just assess the website on its banners and then make up your mind. I know where you’re coming from and yeah, you are right in that there are extremely obvious sites, news programmes and papers out there that are completely biased in their opinion because they’re politically motivated. But that’s what gets my goat, you and others take a brief look at the source of the article, dismiss it completely out of hand because of your opinion (at first glance) of the source and then refuse to take it any further, or critique the article that you’ve not read by analysing other article headlines from the source and make up your mind from that. What’s wrong with reading the actual article and making up your own mind? By the way, I don’t believe in luck. I try to work hard at everything I do and get rewarded by the effort I put in. Try it sometime.

Originally posted by Mez353
But that’s what gets my goat, you and others take a brief look at the source of the article, dismiss it completely out of hand because of your opinion (at first glance) of the source and then refuse to take it any further, or critique the article that you’ve not read by analysing other article headlines from the source and make up your mind from that. What’s wrong with reading the actual article and making up your own mind? By the way, I don’t believe in luck. I try to work hard at everything I do and get rewarded by the effort I put in. Try it sometime.

That is exactly what you do to science.
You dismiss it purely based on your opinion, and nothing more.

I am still waiting for you to explain to me how temperature is a driver of our contemporary CO2 rises.
post by atlasastro

You consistently stated that the debate is ongoing regarding the claim that temperature is driving CO2, I suspect that this is to support a claim that temperature is rising independant of the current CO2 rises. I suspect that this is simply a device of denial that you have embraced wholesale.

try to work hard at everything I do and get rewarded by the effort I put in. Try it sometime.

The only thing working hard is you ability to ignore reality, and the facts.

You provided information that specifically stated that CO2 is rising independant of temperature. This information, that you provided, also pointed out that CO2 and temperature have a perservering relationship and that CO2 will effect temperature. The information you provided also stated that historically, CO2 has effected temperature.
The information you provided stated that the cause of this rise in CO2 was anthropogenic in nature.
So, you source states that Anthropgenic CO2 is rising idependant of temperature but that the relationship of CO2 and temperature, one noted historically, will see CO2 effect temperature.

When confronted with the reality of the information you provided, you simply ignored it by spamming more material quote mined from material you haven't looked at, but merely supports you opinion that AGW is not real.

I find the deliberate hypocrisy and ignorance that you serve as debate to be far more insulting than your attempt at the denial of AGW, what is worse is that you aggrandize your own "effort" at finding the truth in this debate whilst accusing others of being dismissive or ignorant of the truth.

try to work hard at everything I do and get rewarded by the effort I put in. Try it sometime.

Let me point out to the members here, just how hard you work.
Here is a thread you started in the short stories forum.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
That you totally plagerized.
The whole OP.
Plagerized.
Word for word.

Cut and Paste. I can see a trend here. Can you Mez?

try to work hard at everything I do and get rewarded by the effort I put in. Try it sometime.

That's just weird. I gave you what you asked for, I suppled a discussion paper and alot more. You just won't accept any of it.
As for the post in short stories that you had removed, I was unaware that the stories had to be authored by the poster and I've emailed the mod about that. I never implied I wrote it either. Strange type of snooping you do, but don't try to portray me as something I'm not squirt.

reply to post by Mez353


You did not answer the questions, you simply spammed material, cut and paste.

You just cut and paste. That is my point. You are dishonest and a liar. That is my point. You don't have an original thought in your mind, that is also my point.
Cut and Paste.
That is all you do.

BTW, you lame excuses just keep pilling up. As do the instances where you plagerize material.

I like to work hard Mez, at denying ignorance. You shoud try it.

I guess somebody will have to come up with what the optimal temperature of the earth should be and go from there. All these rants about warming since measurements have been taken means nothing. Measurements have been taken for only a couple hundred years if that. Don't bring up ice core BS either. Go look up the history channel documentary made in the seventies where the took the same exact ice cores and ocean sediments and declared an ice age coming. Fact is the earth isn't a static environment, atmosphere isn't a static environment and human co2 which only makes up .04 percent of the atmosphere at measured times has basically zero effect on anything. Factor in most climate data modeling doesn't even take into effect water vapor or clouds and you have garbage in garbage out. I'm not even gonna mention the origional climate data destroyed by the CRU which they admitted to doing or NASA caught with inacurate data.

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by Mez353

 

You did not answer the questions, you simply spammed material, cut and paste.

As explained earlier, I'm not sure how I can show you unless I point you towards articles or discussions on the subject. As this is evidenly not good enough for you, can you suggest to me what it is that you want me to do?
Maybe you want me to take up a career in climate research? Other than show you the plethora of information that's out there discussing the subject I'm at a loss as what it is that you want from me. I have tried to answer your question on numerous occasions, simply saying that I am not doesn't wash, sorry.
Instead of C&P, here are some links that you can click on and read and see for yourself.
nzclimatescience.net...
wiki.answers.com...
pubs.acs.org...

and this ditty from yours and Mel's favourite site:
www.skepticalscience.com...
So again I've tried to point you in the direction of various discussion articles that show you that the debate is still open on which is the driver, thing is you need to actually click on the links and read them instead of dismissing them completely otherwise why are we even having this discussion? Read the links and come back to me when you've grown up a bit and decided to stop your snarling.

reply to post by Mez353


you ought to start reading more. the skeptical science website clearly shows what? That the Co2 lags temperature?
you really have taken that out of context. Clearly you had not read where it explains the co2 anomaly as to why co2 lags temperature (basically its the release of co2 from the oceans as they heat up) nor the end bit

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things: *
Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles *
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone *
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

reply to post by loner007


I'm showing that the debate/discussion is still open by showing both sides of the argument. I shall try to be more one sided and bigoted in the future and dismiss any other point of view.

Watched about 10 mins of the video and turned it off.

"if CO2 drops we would turn into an ice-ball with ice 200 miles thick in New York City"

Where would all the ice come from?

And how can earth tilt away from the sun if it's round

reply to post by Mez353


Dude, you can argue that the world is flat.
You can post material from a website that argues that world is flat.
You can use this to claim that there is an argument that the world is flat.
You can state that there are indeed two sides to the debate regarding whether the world is flat or not.

In the End.
CO2 is rising independantly of Temperature.
Temperature is not isolated from CO2.
So, as your previous link stated, anthropogenic CO2 will effect temperature.
The fact that CO2 is rising independant of temperature makes any historical lag insignificant and redundant because CO2 is rising independant of temperature, ahead of temperature and at rates faster than temperature rises.

So, answer the question.
How is there any debate about Temperature driving CO2.
The earth is flat.
That is the debate you offer.
Sure, its a debate.
Good for you!

reply to post by atlasastro


Whatever. Jerk.

Originally posted by Auxili
Watched about 10 mins of the video and turned it off.

"if CO2 drops we would turn into an ice-ball with ice 200 miles thick in New York City"

Where would all the ice come from?

And how can earth tilt away from the sun if it's round

Actually the earth tilting on its axis is what determines the seasons.

reply to post by HoldTheBeans


I know that, but I didn't know the earth tilted away from the sun.

Perhaps he mean the North Pole.

reply to post by Auxili


Yes, they mean as the Ice caps tilt more towards the sun, it absorbs more sunlight. That combined with the Milenkovich cycles means that at certain points in the earths history, we are a little farther away from the sun AND the ice cap is tilted away from the sun, and this sets in motion a bunch of feedbacks that end up with 2 miles of ice above New York. And it works the other way around too.

And that video could be used in place of water-boarding.....I feel bad for the poor audience. Two and a half HOURS of that crap?? Shoot me....

Funny, I can't believe this thread is still alive and kicking.

I gave up some time ago realizing that people like Mez don't care about facts, they care about being RIGHT. If the evidence shows they are wrong, well....then the evidence must be bull crap because they are RIGHT!!

You just can't argue rationally with irrational people. It will drive you crazy. Oh, and for the record, yes Mez I am a bigot....I'm bigoted against distortion, cherry-picking, and irrationality.