New Scientific Report Destroys Global Warming!

reply to post by wittgenstein


Your posts are a joke.

You can't even figure out how to use the quote button to properly quote posts on here, but I'm supposed to believe you've done your due diligence and critical thinking because you post links from Wikipedia and NASA?

Please...

You're free to believe anything you want, but your arrogance and ignorance is astounding to everyone on this thread.

I'm done wasting my time with your antics.

Go get a PhD and come back when you understand what real science is.

Consensus does not equal experimental verification.

~Namaste

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


That's gotta be the most condescending use of "~ Namaste" I've ever seen! lol

Originally posted by sinza
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

That's gotta be the most condescending use of "~ Namaste" I've ever seen! lol

Just because I disagree with someone or don't like them doesn't mean I don't respect their right to expression or to having the same spirit as I.

~Namaste

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Originally posted by wittgenstein
“You keep asking me to read when you yourself do not read. All of these organization fall under the UNS. WHY in the world would they go against the authority they fall under? Is is a conspiracy that police officers follow the orders of the sergeant?”
rwfresh
AHH, there we have it! They are all working together to promote a lie! Scientific American, National Geographic, NASA, en.wikipedia.org... and of course EVERY scientific organization in the world of national and international reputation.
I’d imagine that when you said uns you meant en.wikipedia.org... The American Meteorological Association, NASA, the Royal Academy… are part of the UN??????

Dude, USE THE QUOTE BUTTON!!!!

EVERY scientific organization in the world, eh?

That's an outright falsification. Please list for us, every single organization that irrefutably claims that global warming is man-made? Do you understand the difference between an assertion and a confirmation? A theory/hypothesis and experimental affirmation? I would bet not...

Here is my list of over 30,000 scientists that say otherwise.

I've watched you post the same sources over and over again, most of which come from Wikipedia, which in itself asks for input and feedback to confirm facts. You are spewing opinionated rhetoric all over this thread and I respectfully ask that you back your claims up with some facts, because frankly, I don't believe you have any.

~Namaste

edit on 6-9-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

Seriously, why do people like you not ACTUALLY verify things? It just boggles the mind, when you consider how condescending you are, and how much you PRETEND to only be following the facts.

The Oregon Petition is a very duboius petition.

Why?

Well, for one thing, it misrepresents or at leasts misleads people, in that it appears to be connected to the National Academy of Sciences, to the point where NAS complained about it publicly.

The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.

The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.

On top of that, MANY of it's signatories have changed their mind:

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

So, Scientific American was able to follow-up and find that, of the 30K, only 200 were ACTUALLY climate scientists and of those, 8 out of 11, didn't actually, "evaluate the relevant data," but instead, "signed based on an informal evaluation".

Kinda like the way Seitz, himself made up his mind, as he WAS NOT a CLIMATE SCIENTIST.

Let's quote one of his friends:

Dr. Press, who was also President Jimmy Carter’s science adviser, said that while he and Dr. Seitz were good friends, Dr. Seitz “was not a specialist in this field.”

“Most top scientists in the field disagreed with him, I among them"

More info here: en.wikipedia.org...
www.nytimes.com...

I'd rather someone have facts than know how to use the quote button... though a combo of both is nice.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by acmpnsfal

 

They are designing planes that are very efficient and safe. these planes aren't as fast as conventional jets. They have much less impact on the environment but people want to get everywhere super fast, the faster the better. This has to stop. If your trip takes twenty five percent longer and it cuts the negative effect on the environment in half it is a very good investment in our future. The cost of fuel will be much less so prices don't have to increase at all. No tax necessary and it can make a flight more enjoyable. People need to just get more patience and stop this insane fast pace we have demanded. This concept is hard on tptb though, they want us to go fast so we can't think things over. That way we do things on impulse.

Current airplanes do not have a huge negative impact on anything, lol. I mean if someone creates a more efficient design with no impact im all for it. But in today's world some people do need to be places fast. Business people and politicians for example, travel constantly for various reasons that can be time sensitive. Sometimes doctors and patients have to travel quickly as well. The cost vs benefits here just doesn't seem worth it to me. Airplanes account for about 3% of co2 emissions per year in the US. That is an extremely small percent and contrails really do nothing at all that would have a lasting affect on the environment. So why slow down air travel? Its really not worth focusing on unless someone creates an airplane that can travel the same speed without emitting any co2 at all.

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
reply to post by wittgenstein

 

Your posts are a joke.

You can't even figure out how to use the quote button to properly quote posts on here, but I'm supposed to believe you've done your due diligence and critical thinking because you post links from Wikipedia and NASA?

Please...

You're free to believe anything you want, but your arrogance and ignorance is astounding to everyone on this thread.

I'm done wasting my time with your antics.

Go get a PhD and come back when you understand what real science is.

Consensus does not equal experimental verification.

~Namaste

edit on 6-9-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

I never said that consensus equals experimental verification. That is an example of en.wikipedia.org... I strongly suggest you take a basic logic class. I was challenged to provide proof that ALL scientific organizations of national and international reputation have provided statements that endorse AGW, and I did. You even asked for the proof.
I also provided the experimental verification for AGW.
Obviously all you have to offer is childish name-calling and a refusal to engage the facts ( that I have supplied with abundance ). You also never offer any substantial evidence, only fraudulent petitions. Anyone can scroll back and check the record.
The extreme emotional tone of your en.wikipedia.org... s and the absence of any reasoning are proof that you are frustrated by your inability to deal with the facts . When one's opponent starts calling one a "poopy head" etc, it is obvious that your opponent has lost the debate.

“to believe you've done your due diligence and critical thinking because you post links from Wikipedia and NASA?”
SonOfTheLawOfOne
I already showed that wiki gave the primary sources for those statements. So your opposition is silly. If you do not trust wiki simply click on the primary sources. As for NASA , WOW, I forgot, they are part of the conspiracy along with the American Meteorological society …..etc.

Also, this is not about me .One of the first things you learn in logic 101 is attack the argument, not the person. ( I know that is probably a surprise to you!) If I am diligent or not is not the issue. My well documented evidence is and that was obviously in order. However, because you deal only in en.wikipedia.org... I’m sure you believe that they are a legitimate way to debate. As I said, take a logic course and stop the emotional rants and you will not be seen as silly.
Good grief! Now you got me doing it. I cannot resist! I will now debate in your style!
www.youtube.com...


PS:
I am sorry that I hurt your feelings. However, I will continue to give facts and sources.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


The title of your thread is misleading and deceitful. Did you even read your own link. Please explain how the paper destroys the axiom of global warming. The paper is based on the premise that global warming exists and that a warm planet over a very long period of time is good for biodiversity. We are living through a mass exinction at the moment.

"Our results seem to show that temperature improves biodiversity through time as well as across space. However, they do not suggest that current global warming is good for existing species. Increases in global diversity take millions of years, and in the meantime we expect extinctions to occur," concluded Tim Benton, of the Faculty of Biological Sciences at the University of Leeds

reply to post by jjf3rd77

OOOOOh scary images. Again facts? In fact, American corporations have the strictest Green laws in the developed world

Rubbish.
The USA supports the use the trading of fossil fuels, this is what funds keeps the US dollar in value. That is why there are so many wars over oil and why the US throws here toys out of the pram everytime a country decides not to trade oil in dollars..

The US accounts for about 5% of the worlds population and uses over 20% of the worlds resources. There is nothing green about that..

“"Our results seem to show that temperature improves biodiversity through time as well as across space. However, they do not suggest that current global warming is good for existing species. Increases in global diversity take millions of years, and in the meantime we expect extinctions to occur," concluded Tim Benton, of the Faculty of Biological Sciences at the University of Leeds”


WOW! So the OP’s site is saying that for now we will suffer massive extinctions but don’t worry! In a million years everything will be fine!

reply to post by acmpnsfal


You have been misguided in your thought. Most of the people taking these flights would not have traveled as far if the costs were more expensive or if they would have had to drive. The convenience of air travel and the lowering of air travel costs has accelerated the CO2 and NO2 emissions world wide. These figures I am referencing in the threads below are estimated and some of the costs would still have occurred but not nearly as much as the rise created by convenience and price reduction that resulted in boosting overall use. There are no trees up there to convert the carbon emissions and the increasing NO2 emissions are worse than carbon emissions by tenfold with respect to global warming.

www.indexmundi.com...

www.usatoday.com...

Maybe you like to fly or are employed by the industry so you cannot see what is happening. People personally involved in something rarely see things that contradict their perceptions.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Great, another report that the eco terrorists where lieing through their collectivist teeth, not surprised.

I wonder if this whole debate on VAT and Carbon taxes is a ruse to prevent us from thinking about the imprtant stuff like pollution and deforestation(reason why I come close to being violently against lefty eco terrorists on the global warming issue is because there solution is communism, when if CO2 is a problem, protecting old growth trees and massive re-forestation would be the most efficient solution).

S+F

All planets throughout the solar system are heating up. We are definitely not alone. Especially the sun. It is transforming into the next stage of star. Thanks for this post! We have the resources to deal with these climate changes but TPTB would rather see us dead.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

SnF op

I thought it was already common knowledge that anyone with even a tiny understtanding of science knew this to be the case, and that the gaping holes in AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theory pretty much already debunked themselves.

Good thread, good science, great post!

Get ready for the "greenie" nazis to flame you thought, you know fanatics will never accept any proof as proof of anything.

You have to understand that the "greens" today are the "red" commies of yesterday. The tell tale sign was the whole carbon tax regime and the push for greater centralization. You have to understand the vast majority of green/reds are psychopaths and sociopaths. Psychopaths and Sociopaths are the main neurological type that love centralization.

If the so called greens cared about the environment they would be pushing for protecting old growth forests, the end of corporate farms and a return to smaller private farms, hemp and sensible renewable strategies. Instead their solution is "Global Communism".


That said though: pollution is real and we need to do more to protect old growth forests, sensible city planning(rooftop gardens to better regulate building temperatures) and just plain common sense in society. The main thing though is cleaning up the pollution in the rivers and ocean. Tax a problem to death will just make the poor suffer and make more people poor. I know communists want everyone to be equally poor, starving and freezing to death(except the proletarian that live like feudal lords), that is why they want to tax a problem to death. The people who adhere to global warming want to see people suffer and belong in a prison cell.