Mocked Meteorologist Gets Last Laugh

reply to post by SaturnFX

This effect only occurs in certain environmental conditions. In other words sometimes hot water freezes faster than cold water and sometimes not. As far as I am aware nobody has been able to explain why this happens in some instances and not in others.

Returning to the topic of the thread I have never been convinced by the Global warming argument and I have heard from many different sources that there has been no overall rise in Global temperatures since about 2003 maybe earlier and in fact that it has been cooling in that period.

The problem is that any statistics can be manipulated to sell the story you want sell. I learned this when I was doing my GCSE science & maths coursework.

I say "Fight Global Warming with Central Air Conditioning". Tis the height of vanity to believe we will ever have any control over the effects of the sun. Sure, we can pollute a river but destroy the planet? Never in billion years.

Originally posted by shakennotstirred
Returning to the topic of the thread I have never been convinced by the Global warming argument and I have heard from many different sources that there has been no overall rise in Global temperatures since about 2003 maybe earlier and in fact that it has been cooling in that period.

The problem is that any statistics can be manipulated to sell the story you want sell. I learned this when I was doing my GCSE science & maths coursework.

Here is a hint...ignore the discussions..ignore the tit for tat debates between the scientists and the corporate interests and do a simple research

check out the sea levels over the past hundred years. You see what is happening? ok...now do a quick study on why sea levels would rise.

This is the root science behind what is going on..the bit that one side ignores completely and creates these endless soundbites and misleading sciences of atmospheric weather.

We almost got to the debate on what to do and what is causing it...then for some reason, the whole thing was railed back 15 years in discussion to ignoring the basic science again -sighs-.

People are back to thinking that if it snows, the globe is not warming up..like landmass in the north accounts for 100% of the planet, completely forgetting that this is ultimately a water planet.

Originally posted by dillweed
I say "Fight Global Warming with Central Air Conditioning". Tis the height of vanity to believe we will ever have any control over the effects of the sun. Sure, we can pollute a river but destroy the planet? Never in billion years.

Agreed...no matter what we do to our planet today, we will not destroy it

but, we can make it uninhabitable for life fairly easy...turn it into a lifeless rock spinning around the sun...but it will still be here anyhow.

We currently have no control over the sun, no. but we can have control over our own environment if we stop bickering and make a concerted effort.

What you say, the fight global warming with air conditioning...thats actually a good idea, just needs to be on a planetary scale.
Perhaps in a couple hundred years, controlling the planetary ecosystem will be as easy as simply computer designing where we want rain, snow, heat, etc...and what will bring us to that point is the steps on taking environmental control seriously.

What I find funny in all this is the way climate change is waved around as some sort of imminent disaster. It might be - in some places - but not in others. Climate, as has been shown throughout history, is dynamic, NOT static and changes all the time. What the pushers of the IPCC line are doing is trying to blame man for the change in climate and to introduce crippling taxation that will enrich a select few, yet do nothing to address problems.

So much just has not been thought out in the rush to appear "green" or to make money. Just look at the current investigations in many European countries into rampant carbon credit swindles as one example.
Another good one I saw the other day was the light bulb fiasco. Seems traffic lights were all fitted with the new low energy type bulbs. Along came the freezing weather and frost and ice covered the lenses and stopped the lights working, whereas the old bulbs produced heat and never had a problem with ice! So now they have to look at fitting energy eating heater units to the lights....... where is the progress and saving there?

What needs to happen is for all the name calling to stop, and for real useful ideas to be put forward to deal with food production and possible population shifts due to climate changes, NOT how to make a fast £Billion for those setting up, running and swindling the public through carbon trading scams, which is the situation we currently have.

Thoise doing the most harm are currently those who are running the scams and pushing the agendas to further enrich themselves. Make it all non-profit and watch them run!

The whole theoretical basis for the (misnamed) 'greenhouse effect' - ie thought to be responsible for 33C of extra warming at the earths surface - is itself chock full of assumptions and estimates and is not a thing that can be directly measured.

Fact is most of this effect is due to water vapour -95%

Man made contributions to this effect amount to 0.117% - or approximately one thousanth part!

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later. Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%. This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system! While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

www.geocraft.com...


Fact is when you start applying computer models, playing fast and loose with statistics, cherry picked assumptions, fudge factors, cherry picked data, mix in ideology, politics, trillions of $, nationalistic motives etc etc etc - You can use all these to create a case for anything you like - and keep the whole thing aloft forever so long as you build a coalition of people who have a vested interest it the solutions proposed.

It is not about warming it is about climate change.

The climate has proven to have a lot more variables that make it what it is. The warming is just a part of the change and might even triggered a lot bigger problems cause if this leads to an ice age...

I can't even imagine the amount of people dying because of it.
The best part even is that the corporations of the world have created a situation where we can not even rely on ourselves for our basic needs anymore and that means that whenever it gets to cold our stores will become empty and stay empty longer then it takes before the first people will start dying from starvation.

exciting times only the future will tell us what will happen. my guess is that it will not be the best scenario for a lot of people

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
It is not about warming it is about climate change.

It should be about warming - and more specifically wether the miniscule man-made CO2 contribution to the (theorised) warming effect - will have any noticable long term cumulative warming effect.

or is it self limiting, modified by negative feedback effects and negligable in comparison to natural climate variation.

Even if were a long term warming effect was found to occur - would it have more beneficial aspects than harmfull ones (yes).

Even if it were decided to be harmfull - is it far (far) more cost effective to adapt, rather than try and prevent it (yes)

Instead what it is about, is a coalition of groups who are very very interested in the benefits of the solutions proposed and are prepared to go along with (and even manufacture) the idea that there is a problem in the first place!

One thing it is not about is climate change!

Yet this is a solar or cosmic thing and not related to BP oil?
Could have fooled me, and that Italian physicist and the Gulf Stream difficulties.

Disturbed weather and an ice age does hang in the balance with the Gulf Stream.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


it is climate change and warming is just a part of it

The money or carbon tax is just a big scam.

Originally posted by indigothefish
reply to post by L.HAMILTON

 

in the video, he starts to make a point that the whole 'global warming' scheme is utter 'nonsense' and that it is nothing more than a made up political scheme to manipulate carbone trading, tax the public..... and then he gets cut off !!!

hahahahahahahha how obvious can you get on that one?

go to 1min 50 sec, and see him cut off at around 2min 35 sec

edit on 12/30/2010 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/30/2010 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/30/2010 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)

Exactly !! This is all about MONEY and how the public can be manipulated.