Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Grabthaw the Hammerslayer

Some Interesting Articles On Global Warming

Recommended Posts

Since it'll take us a while to read it, I'd be interested to know what in the book disproves the known science. The hockey stick experiment, for example, has been repeated with almost identical results. Does Solomon explain this? Or does he resort to claiming that errors in Mann's experiment disprove the hypothesis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Divide and Conquer!

It's all to do with Power and control that the states and those in power want. GW is another idea brought to the fore to cover what the Bilderberg group are aiming to acheive, world government by 2020. You can see it with the EU, the North American Alliance is being put in place by stealth, and next on their list is the Asian Union. 3 Super countries, all governed by a central government, with a world population of 500million!

This may sound like I have gone off topic, but it's very relevent to the conspiracy of global warming. Much like the term terrorism is used to unite a nation, and justify a war. Iran is next, and the US will use Israel to jump start that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Divide and Conquer!

It's all to do with Power and control that the states and those in power want. GW is another idea brought to the fore to cover what the Bilderberg group are aiming to acheive, world government by 2020. You can see it with the EU, the North American Alliance is being put in place by stealth, and next on their list is the Asian Union. 3 Super countries, all governed by a central government, with a world population of 500million!

This may sound like I have gone off topic, but it's very relevent to the conspiracy of global warming. Much like the term terrorism is used to unite a nation, and justify a war. Iran is next, and the US will use Israel to jump start that!

Bilderberg group eh? I read about that on Wikipedia, but then again, can you trust anything written on Wikipedia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch Endgame and you will understand what it is truly about!

Kill the Rockefella & Rothschild families, Bush, Blair, Queen Beatrix of Netherlands and the rest of the 125 and we might actually have some order in the world!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My frustration (and anger, to be honest) is that no-one has provided irrefutable evidence in a way that anyone can understand. The vast majority of people being asked to believe GW aren't scientists, indeed a great many won't be educated enough to understand a word that's said about it. So now what do we have? A situation where science/GW has become God and all must worship those that sail in Him?

This is an interesting point, even if as a scientist I naturally have a different perspective. I don't mind you saying mean things about scientists and their social skills. :P Hell, you'd be right! But I think some scientists do make an effort to communicate, even if they don't do it perfectly. The problem is that we're trying to explain very complicated things. It's easy to ask a science question, but much harder to answer it.

If you want the gist of GW to be explained in 5 minutes, then sure: we can easily do that. But if you want us to answer every single question skeptics will ask, then clearly that takes much longer. Look at Piotr's posts: how can we refute every single graph he posts up, and every study he takes out of context, in 5 minutes?

The science of GW is complicated, and scientists are still trying to understand the details themselves. Many aspects of GW are still being researched and debated by scientists, so it is easy for people to ask complicated and confusing questions. Very often scientists can't answer these questions at all, because we don't have all the answers yet. But the vast majority of scientists are convinced that GW is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, not some ridiculous conspiracy.

Maybe you should read Lawrence Solomons the book The Deniers

I wouldn't recommend it. Your post was interesting but imho you have reached the wrong conclusions. First let's look at your book, then we'll look at your motivations for reading it, which are more interesting to me.

The book is called 'The Deniers' but hardly any of those scientists do in fact deny the gist of GW! Most of them just quibble about the details. This is a very important point, so I will illustrate how in fact the book has completely misled you. Here is the list you gave of people who supposedly deny GW:

Dr. Edward Wegman—former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences—demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic. Dr. David Bromwich—president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology—says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.” Prof. Paul Reiter—Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute—says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases. Prof. Hendrik Tennekes—former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute—states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts. Dr. Christopher Landsea—past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones—says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.” Dr. Antonino Zichichi—one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter—calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.” Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski—world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research—says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.” Prof. Tom V. Segalstad—head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo—says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.” Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.” Dr. Claude Allegre—member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.” Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right.” Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says “the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations." Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent." Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures." Prof. Freeman Dyson—one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.” Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun’s behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon’s devastating new book,The Deniers

Here is a rebuttal someone else compiled:

[*]Dr. Edward Wegman, a mathematician, said "We were not asked to assess the reality of global warming and indeed this is not an area of our expertise."

[*]Dr. David Bromwich - his research is based primarily on single site assessments at Amundsen-Scott Research Station. He does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

[*]Prof. Paul Reiter is a medical entomologist (he studies insect-borne disease) and therefore has no training in climate science. He has not denied the reality of global warming, he has merely questioned the relationship between it and the effects on mosquito-borne diseases. He sits on the council of an organization called the 'Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy' which has received $763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil.

[*]Prof. Hendrik Tennekes is a retired aeronautical engineer. He has provided no evidence to counter the accepted scientific consensus, and seems mainly concerned with the effect of turbulence on climate models.

[*]Dr. Christopher Landsea has said "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades ..., and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming."

[*]Dr. Antonino Zichichi has made a career out of controversy. He is widely ridiculed in the scientific community for his error-strewn publications.

[*]Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski is criticised by Professor Hans Oeschger who says that some of Jaworowski claims are "drastically wrong from the physical point of view".

[*]Dr. Tom V. Segalstad - he provides no evidence for his claim re. "most leading geologists". He claims "Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 .... is small" and has, again, provided no evidence for this claim which runs counter to all other measurements (atmospheric CO2 has increased from 315ppm to 387ppm in the past 45 years). He collaborates with the discredited Dr. Jaworowski on many of his published articles.

[*]Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu - "it is in the best interests of mankind to reduce the rate of increase of our release of CO2 ... Prominent climate change is in progress in the Arctic"

[*]Dr. Claude Allegre - 20 years ago in "Cl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Watch Endgame and you will understand what it is truly about!

Kill the Rockefella & Rothschild families, Bush, Blair, Queen Beatrix of Netherlands and the rest of the 125 and we might actually have some order in the world!

Yes, killing your enemies because they disagree with you really helps much :rolleyes:

I believe that a few old magicians will help state my point better about GW:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3InQzsLltHE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7YG3Bc34hg...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J29CP736yEg...feature=related

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Autoracer, loved the dim sod that led the rally, proof that band-wagon-jumping is damn dangerous :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for that Autoracer, loved the dim sod that led the rally, proof that band-wagon-jumping is damn dangerous :lol:

How about the bitch that lived in the tree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about the bitch that lived in the tree?

As thick as pig sh!t, full of herself.

The survey for banning water just proved what a bunch of dorks they all are :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome :lol:

Righteous outrage is as annoying to me as it is to you- but of course a lot of people are guilty of that.

My least favourite example is the animal rights protesters in Oxford Street who try and tell me the world would be better off if there was no animal testing. As an ex-Pharmacologist this gets my back up quite a lot and I usually get into a huge argument with some sniping scum-queen and end up being nearly beaten up by her huge tattooed father/boyfriend/lesbian lover.

Ahhhh memories......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually there are lots of reasons to bring it up. You keep trying to pretend there is no consensus, so I keep disputing that.

False. You brought it up from the beginning and keep using it as an argument. Just look at the next thing you write. It is all based on this imaginary consensus of scientist that _you_ say BELIEVE (bolded and underlined below for my amusement).

I've already agreed that politicians are opportunistic and that many scientists are under some pressure to go along with GW. If only a few scientists were defending GW then you would have a plausible case that they are 'prostituting' themselves, especially if you could show that they had benefited from that stance. But when the vast majority of scientists genuinely believe in GW, you have no case. Can you give me one major scientific organisation that stands up for its supposed principles and denies GW?

The fabrication of data is a well known problem in the academic world and not something necessarily related to the GW. Your conclusions are excused on account of your ignorance of the subject. Here are a couple of quotes regarding academic publishing on a matter far more serious (medicine) than the scary GW bullsht that frightens your lonely nights.

Pay attention now:

There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print. (Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association)

And here is another observation regarding the peer review process that should prevent crap from being published in the first place:

Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong. (Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet)

Do you think we should reduce CO2 emissions now or not?

I told you earlier. I know it is not possible to determine what effect human activity has on the planet. Sure, we can informally conclude that we suck. It ain't difficult to do. Look at our cities, look at our rivers and seas. Humanity is a mess and it is transforming the planet to its own image. That being said, I cannot endorse the next armagedon because it is fashionable, just like I didn't endorsed others in the past. Nothing of what is freaking people out today is really new anyway... the btching about global warming, global cooling, whatever started back in the 1880, at least.

By the way, not long back there was "debate" around here about the theory of evolution. One of its basic tenants avers that any species will consume all resources if unopposed... you see, it isn't even about temperatures...

But I like you, Murray, so I'll tell you a little annecdote. A couple of months back a group of european physicist came to visit. My work has nothing to do with them so I didn't have an opportunity to chat with any of them until we happened to coincide on a hike. These guys' work was on the atmosphere so I took the chance to ask about the GW rave and such. Funny guys. They looked at each other and around (we were in the middle of the forest) and then explained in a hush-hush voice that compared to the effect of solar weather, human activity cannot amount to much. I looked it up, fascinating stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah blah, everyone blah blah! You all speak as if you know everything, well, read this.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20080717/981/...of-the-glo.html

Thu, Jul 17 02:35 PM

Washington, July 17 (ANI): A report by the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has stated that 18% of greenhouse gases are coming from animal agriculture - meat and dairy, used in making burgers.

According to ENN (Environmental News Network), the 408-page report states that what many people are eating is contributing more to global warming than the entire transportation sector of the United States.

The report said that the Earth, and all who reside here, are in grave peril like never before.

It added that everybody has a moral, ethical responsibility and imperative to face up to the truth, even if it means changing their daily habits.

There has never been a time in man's existence when it is so critical to move away from the Standard American Diet (SAD) and embrace an Earth-friendly and sustainable plant-based diet - a vegan diet, the report said.

By switching to a plant based diet, mankind will instantly eradicate nearly 20% of the global warming problem.

If that isn't amazing enough, this simple yet profound change would greatly curtail further deforestation, top soil erosion and even the ever-worsening tainting of the world's waters.

Also, high cholesterol and heart disease, hypertension, obesity, adult-onset diabetes, kidney disease and many cancers would virtually disappear.

But, the great news is that people don't have to give up on eating burgers, they just have to make them from plant-based ingredients.

Veggie burgers have the taste, smell and texture of the traditional burger, but without the harmful ramifications. (ANI)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. Well, I started out relatively skeptical about climate change but the quality of arguments against it is so poor that I get more convinced each time I read an attack on it. I see Piotr and Spitfire have left, despite Piotr saying it was his favourite subject. :lol:

The fabrication of data is a well known problem in the academic world and not something necessarily related to the GW. Your conclusions are excused on account of your ignorance of the subject. Here are a couple of quotes regarding academic publishing on a matter far more serious (medicine) than the scary GW bullsht that frightens your lonely nights.

The peer review process is imperfect, yes - no one said otherwise. Scientists can be biased, yes. Politicians can influence research, yes. Blah blah yes blah. However, there is so much overwhelming support for the existence of a consensus that you have no case that scientists are 'prostituting' themselves, or in your latest accusation, manipulating the peer-review process so as to pretend that there is a consensus.

In a study of 928 peer reviewed articles related to GW, Oreskes found precisely none that contradicted the consensus position. Her report was subjected to intense scrutiny by people like Benny Peiser, but he eventually admitted he was almost completely wrong. Opinion polls amongst scientists routinely indicate a vast majority accept the consensus view. Every major scientific body that I know of accepts the consensus (can you think of one that doesn't yet?). But some of the best evidence comes from the deniers themselves. Just look at the list Spitfire produced and you will quickly see how ridiculous this is: almost all of the 'deniers' he can find actually support GW! :lol: A BBC correspondent asked for GW skeptics to write in with stories of how the peer review process had stifled their research. He found virtually no cases at all.

I told you earlier. I know it is not possible to determine what effect human activity has on the planet. Sure, we can informally conclude that we suck. It ain't difficult to do. Look at our cities, look at our rivers and seas. Humanity is a mess and it is transforming the planet to its own image. That being said, I cannot endorse the next armagedon because it is fashionable, just like I didn't endorsed others in the past. Nothing of what is freaking people out today is really new anyway... the btching about global warming, global cooling, whatever started back in the 1880, at least.

Hmm. I'm still not clear where you stand. You think that we should reduce emissions only when the science is proven beyond any doubt whatsoever? Hypothetically speaking, if GW were 90% likely to cause serious problems, you would do nothing until we knew for sure?

But I like you, Murray, so I'll tell you a little annecdote. A couple of months back a group of european physicist came to visit. My work has nothing to do with them so I didn't have an opportunity to chat with any of them until we happened to coincide on a hike. These guys' work was on the atmosphere so I took the chance to ask about the GW rave and such. Funny guys. They looked at each other and around (we were in the middle of the forest) and then explained in a hush-hush voice that compared to the effect of solar weather, human activity cannot amount to much. I looked it up, fascinating stuff.

You think solar activity is responsible for the warming we've seen? Those theories are only believed by a small minority of astronomers, and have been rejected in a huge number of recent papers. If you show me the ones you looked up we can easily see how credible they are. Perhaps you have been misled by a few dodgy physicists and your own lack of expertise in the field. After all, physics is much harder to understand than medicine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When so many goverments want us talking about Global Warming it is because there are more important problems they want to hide. Global Warming is a smokescreen and a prosperous business, although we should reduce our CO2 emisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm. Well, I started out relatively skeptical about climate change but the quality of arguments against it is so poor that I get more convinced each time I read an attack on it. I see Piotr and Spitfire have left, despite Piotr saying it was his favourite subject. :lol:

The arguments against it? You still don't get it. There is no _need_ for arguments against it. If I claim ghosts exist, I not you have to prove it.

The burden of proof falls on those _proposing_ a theory. You choose to believe GW has been proven on account of a "consensus" of people you claim exist and _apparently_ you deify. Ok, at your risk. I remain laughing when the latest scientic religion flips out because I don't follow creed. To be honest, I think most people pay lip service to GW so that they are left the fck alone... as it is the case with most of these nagging fads whose _only_ objective seems to be to find dissenters and lynch them.

The peer review process is imperfect, yes - no one said otherwise. Scientists can be biased, yes. Politicians can influence research, yes. Blah blah yes blah. However, there is so much overwhelming support for the existence of a consensus that you have no case that scientists are 'prostituting' themselves, or in your latest accusation, manipulating the peer-review process so as to pretend that there is a consensus.

Here you go again. Your "argument" is always the same innane thing, everyone agrees... _that_ ain't science.

One of your enlightened compatriots put it nicely: "If I think I'm flying and you think I'm flying, then I must be flying.". Or, in other words, I might as well be flying since "everyone" says so.

You simply don't understand the mechanisms of the scientific community. That's fine.

In a study of 928 peer reviewed articles related to GW, Oreskes found precisely none that contradicted the consensus position. Her report was subjected to intense scrutiny by people like Benny Peiser, but he eventually admitted he was almost completely wrong. Opinion polls amongst scientists routinely indicate a vast majority accept the consensus view. Every major scientific body that I know of accepts the consensus (can you think of one that doesn't yet?). But some of the best evidence comes from the deniers themselves. Just look at the list Spitfire produced and you will quickly see how ridiculous this is: almost all of the 'deniers' he can find actually support GW! :lol: A BBC correspondent asked for GW skeptics to write in with stories of how the peer review process had stifled their research. He found virtually no cases at all.

Yep, it is definetely true that when I hear on TV or read on a newspaper, "A new study says that...", I start chuckling...

You think solar activity is responsible for the warming we've seen? Those theories are only believed by a small minority of astronomers, and have been rejected in a huge number of recent papers. If you show me the ones you looked up we can easily see how credible they are. Perhaps you have been misled by a few dodgy physicists and your own lack of expertise in the field. After all, physics is much harder to understand than medicine.

Thank you for the closing joke. Your expertise of medicine and physics leads you to this conclusion? Is there consensus on this conclusion of yours? Do I need to provide overwhelming evidence to disprove the yet to be proved claim that "physics is much harder to understand than medicine"? My friend, take a deep breath.

I neither agree nor disagree regarding the effect of solar weather on our planet... nor do I feel I have to, why should I? What's wrong with you, maaaan? Interestingly, look how eagerly you attempt to quash any thought whatsoever that deviates from the creed... no room for discussion, eh? Nothing but simple answers for complex problems, funny man. Everything is understood, you've been told by "consensus", every single thing is known.

Anyway, I told the annecdote to you so that, once again, you can appreciate the complexity of the subject against the almost fanatical certainity of your assessment of something as large and, again, as complex as an entire planet..

Hmm. I'm still not clear where you stand. You think that we should reduce emissions only when the science is proven beyond any doubt whatsoever? Hypothetically speaking, if GW were 90% likely to cause serious problems, you would do nothing until we knew for sure?

Wouldn't we need to know if the hypothesis holds true? Why jump ahead, buddy? Do you demand surgery with a happy shout without obtaining first a definite diagnosis?

Look. It makes little difference to me if politicians make cosmetic changes (you are still driving your car, catching planes whenever you feel like it, you can still buy food or clothing for nothing much, right?) to appear as if they are doing something and get your vote. It also makes little difference to me if, for example, a team of paleoanthropologist decides to spice their papers with left-field statements-as-truth such as "...and the effect of human activity is changing the planet, therefore,.." in order to get grants and media attention on subjects that otherwise no one would give a crap about.

Even when the excuse of X or Y is used to rise my taxes, I still care little. I can afford it.

But no worry. The sea level is supposed to rise 20 meters in... what is it again? 5 years? 7.3452 years? The lack of fulfillment of predictions, so far, is why some of the clever ones are suggesting a change of name from global warming to climate change. The point apparently is to blame it on human activity no matter what. Cool. Let's hope it means humanity will clean house, true or not,... even though I so much doubt this has anything to do with anything more than a few creeps making a buck of you.

You know, a similar situation happened with the Y2K bug scare. The consensus was that "no one" knew if computers were going to blow up come the new century (of course, those in the field knew better). But it was "good" because it forced many companies to update their software/hardware even though the "threat" was imaginary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When so many goverments want us talking about Global Warming it is because there are more important problems they want to hide. Global Warming is a smokescreen and a prosperous business, although we should reduce our CO2 emisions.

It is the new political correctness. If you dare not to chant in synch, you will be found and eliminated. There is no room for anything than blind support... JOIN THE CONSENSUS OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES!!!!

No need to get our panties in a bunch, though. New fads will replace this one just like this one follows other fads...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After all, physics is much harder to understand than medicine.

Today's medicine is rubbish too, it is not science and when some doctor/scientist try to bring science back to medicine they're lynched. We have many examples to prove how wrong medicine&doctors have been until a real scientist prove them wrong and some times it wasn't even a doctor.

Many Doctors still say stomach ulcers and gastritis are psicosomatic diseases caused by too much stress, but they're wrong. They have been saying that same stupid thing for ages and science is not enough to make their minds change. Read about the Helicobacter pylori and how two scientist won the Nobel prize, how they were lynched for questioning old medical myths...

http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/pylori.pdf

How many other diseases are considered psicosomatic because medicine don't know what produces such condition? Probably all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By switching to a plant based diet, mankind will instantly eradicate nearly 20% of the global warming problem.

If that isn't amazing enough, this simple yet profound change would greatly curtail further deforestation, top soil erosion and even the ever-worsening tainting of the world's waters.

Also, high cholesterol and heart disease, hypertension, obesity, adult-onset diabetes, kidney disease and many cancers would virtually disappear.

But, the great news is that people don't have to give up on eating burgers, they just have to make them from plant-based ingredients.

Veggie burgers have the taste, smell and texture of the traditional burger, but without the harmful ramifications. (ANI)

What? Don't people fart? And as for curtailing deforestation, tell that to the orangutans. If you think a veggie burger tastes anything at all like a real one then you have no taste buds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Today's medicine is rubbish too, it is not science and when some doctor/scientist try to bring science back to medicine they're lynched. We have many examples to prove how wrong medicine&doctors have been until a real scientist prove them wrong and some times it wasn't even a doctor.

Many Doctors still say stomach ulcers and gastritis are psicosomatic diseases caused by too much stress, but they're wrong. They have been saying that same stupid thing for ages and science is not enough to make their minds change. Read about the Helicobacter pylori and how two scientist won the Nobel prize, how they were lynched for questioning old medical myths...

http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/pylori.pdf

How many other diseases are considered psicosomatic because medicine don't know what produces such condition? Probably all of them.

The interesting thing to observe is that, out of this mess and by means of this mess, we advance as a species... where? No one knows but some of us are laughing up the ride...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What? Don't people fart? And as for curtailing deforestation, tell that to the orangutans. If you think a veggie burger tastes anything at all like a real one then you have no taste buds.

To make matters worse, humans are omnivores.

Who knows what kind of medical problems will come about from eating grass and only grass...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only know what happens when you smoke it. Although seeing the entire human race transformed into ruminant bovines has a certain irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I only know what happens when you smoke it. Although seeing the entire human race transformed into ruminant bovines has a certain irony.

We'll all look like Kimi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maure, I may not agree with you on F1-related issues, but your comments on the previous page are spot on.

What I dislike about the pro-GW fraternity is the rabid insistence that they are right and that everyone else is wrong, and here's 10 million URLs to look at. There's no room for sensible debate and has grown almost into an element of political correctness. Post Al Gore it is now accepted as being correct and denyers are treated as heretics.

Anyone who claims to understand our climate is a fool/liar. We just don't know and don't have enough accurate data/models on which to make any claims. This is my main reason for being anti GW as it is largely a bunch of self-serving, subjective, academics feeding juicy morsels to politicians who don't know better (or do and don't care) and companies that can see another way of making a fast buck.

I actually know some people where I work who choose the meat they eat on the basis of the contribution it makes to global warming. Pathetic.

I've also heard that having a baby is now seen as bad, CO2 wise. Unbelieveable.

And Muzza, working as I do in academia I know all too well that it is a myth that peer review works and that scientists are objective.... cold fusion, anyone?

GW is a rallying cause at the moment and a jolly good way to:

1) make money (look at all the businesses that have grown up to support it). I also get reps from computer companies trying to persuade me to trade in my old "dirty" servers for new ones that contribute less to global warming...

2) add weight to your cause (e.g. the veggies are now saying "go veggy, save the planet.....").

I know some guys in climatology and their view is "Ah, let them get on with it. We all know what's really happening". This is one of the reasons why anti-GW don't bother - its not worth them professionally raising their heads above the parapet.

Time will tell. But, I unlike you do care about all the taxes, esp. as in the UK we are stiffed enough as it is on that front by our useless Government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Earths atmosphere is simply a 'blanket' around Earth that reacts to the heat input. So the question for climate science is does mans CO2 emissions change the climate? Firstly CO2 has a very limited warming effect past 22ppm. CO2 has been at 120ppm (ice ages) to over 2,000pm and has had no effect of climate (ie. has not resulted in "scorched Earth") because CO2 cannot warm past 22ppm. Current 380ppm is no different to 22ppm. The 720,000 year old geological records, plus the 420,000 year old ice core records demonstrate unequivicably CO2 cannot 'hold' Earths temperature in a warming state because its warming limits are reached at 22ppm. CO2 simply follows Earths temperature because its atmospheric levels are set by nature and the solubi;lity of CO2 in liquid (the oceans). Does man adding 6 Giga Tons (3%) to the natural 380 Giga Tons added by nature have an impact? No. Firstly because mans CO2 is absorbed by plants and the cold polar oceans as part of the cycle and is no different to far higher CO2 levels Earth has already experienced previously (ie. there's no dangers to higher CO2 levels - it's only a trace element in the air anyway). Secondly as stated CO2 runs out of puff (warming ability) at 22ppm. Todays 380ppm makes no difference. Tomorrows 600ppm will make no difference to warming. CO2's warming ability is scientific knowledge. What the IPCC are pegging their hat on is that CO2 drives temp which drives more water vapour but that is known science too. They've 'omitted' water vapour, the kost powerful greenhouse gas, makes clouds which has a negative (cooling) effect from their calculations. The IPCC only count the warming of water. It is a serious emission/fault to not include the known negative/cooling effect of water vapour. Schoolboy error stuff. Until they include it their advice, as Dr Glassman says, isn't even a theory or thesis. It does not pass even the most basic scientific test of integrity. And the British and European Govts' have all pegged their climate change opinions to this half-baked theory with known flaws in it.

There is no "CO2 storm". It is an ongoing daily/annual natural cycle. CO2 absorbed (dissolved) in cold polar oceans and expelled (outgassed) in warm Equatorial waters such as the Pacific Ocean. This is not just Dr Glassmans' 'theory'. It is known science accepted by 30,000 scientists against the global warming hoax. This carbon cycle was also inlcuded for the first time in the UN's IPCC 2007 Report. The solubility of CO2 in liquid is known science and cannot be disproved (which makes it science). There is no "surplus" CO2. CO2 has always been in natural flux according to the temperature of the Earth. Man adding 3% per annum makes no difference whatsoever. Just as man beathing in more Oxygen has no impact on the Earth. The level changes are trivial. The Mauna Loa, Hawaii CO2 measuring station is not "a 50's study.. almost worthless". It is the IPCC's primary CO2 measuring station set up in the 50's and measuring daily CO2 fluxes today. Finally there is nothing abnormal about todays temperature. It was warmer in 1942 than it was in 1998 the last peak in temperature. There is no link between mans industrialisation and temp. as it was broken during the cooling in the 70's. The last 10 years has been flat despite a 30% increase in natural CO2 levels. Todays weather is the same as it has been for 100 years - there is no "curve". Man has literally no influence on weather. We are as trivial as CO2 on weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I only know what happens when you smoke it. Although seeing the entire human race transformed into ruminant bovines has a certain irony.

Irony or not, as long as you can keep smoking it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...