Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 37 to 45 of 54

Thread: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

  1. #37

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    (Cont.)
    Graph D


    The 3300 Argo bathythermograph buoys deployed throughout the world?s oceans since late in 2003 have shown a slight cooling of the oceans over the past five years, directly contrary to the official theory that any ?global warming? not showing in the atmosphere would definitely show up in the first 400 fathoms of the world?s oceans, where at least 80% of any surplus heat would be stored. Source: ARGO project, June 2009.
    All of this data leads to the conclusion that the UN/IPCC models are not only wrong, they are so far off the mark as to be laughable. The satellite and bathythermograph data clearly do not match the IPCC theory, which means that the theory is incorrect.
    What this data does tell us is if CO2 concentration should double, global temperatures will not rise by the devastating 6 degrees F the UN predicts, but by a completely harmless 1 degree F. The ERBE data shows an Earth system that is radiating more heat into space as sea surfaces warm, in other words a system at equilibrium, and is clearly demonstrated by observed data. The UN theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is dead wrong.
    The UN/IPCC have been using models that give a result that allow them to tell Nation States they must reduce and cap Carbon Emissions or the earth?s climate will warm by a devastating 6 degrees F. When in reality, more heat is simply radiated out into space as the ERBE OBSERVED DATA (Not a computer model) PROVES.
    The United States House of Representatives has passed a Carbon tax (Cap and Trade) as have other governments in Europe, based on these completely erroneous models.
    There are only a couple of conclusions to be made of this. Either the world has been misled by scientists working for the UN and IPCC due to faulty science, or faulty science has been deliberately used in a global scheme to generate tax revenues for the Governments instituting Cap and Trade Taxation policies.
    Either way, the world has been the victim of some very bad science. The results of which can be seen in drastically reduced GDP in countries with the Cap and Trade laws in place, as well a a 5 - 10% decrease in standard of living for those citizens living there (Taxing Carbon designed to fail.), all with little or no effect on emissions globally.
    Perhaps this will finally end the attempt by the Obama Administration as well as congress to tax a substance that trees need to survive, the very air we exhale thousands of times a day.
    Thank you Professor Richard Lindzen, Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi, Dr. Mikl?s Z?goni, Dr. Mike Fox here in Oregon, and a great many other Scientists the world over, who decided to look at facts, instead of playing with models. Science is based on data, facts not theories. They took the facts, and let the theory write itself. The IPCC took theories and tried to cherry pick only the details that fit, and in the end failed to do even that.
    Public policies should also be based on facts, not on unproven and in the end disproven theories. The United States and indeed the world is in the debt of these and other scientists, who relied on data and facts to describe our world and its climate! We are in their debt!
    For more info: Science and Public Policy Institute, Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong. Climate change? Not so fast say Scientists, Have it your way - Global warming is baloney, Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science (Part 1), Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science (Part 2), Oregon legislature plays Cap-n-Trade shell game, Democrats say Cap and Trade is a big tax, Taxing Carbon designed to fail
    Updated to clarify sourcing. All information in this article is directly from SPPI June Report. as is stated in the beginning of article. 8-18-2009 2:02pm Pacific

  2. #38

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    His irrefutable evidence hasn't convinced 97% of climatologists actively involved in studying it (ie, the people who understand the data best.) This is a very difficult thing to understand, so I think I'll listen to overwhelming majority of people who know best. Neither one of us is going to change the other's mind, so I think I'll leave it at that.

    http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html


    "The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change. "

  3. #39

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Quote Originally Posted by rustyshackleford View Post
    His irrefutable evidence hasn't convinced 97% of climatologists actively involved in studying it (ie, the people who understand the data best.) This is a very difficult thing to understand, so I think I'll listen to overwhelming majority of people who know best. Neither one of us is going to change the other's mind, so I think I'll leave it at that.

    http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html


    "The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change. "
    The arrogance (and ignorance) of your statement is typical of those who are at odds with the FACTS! As I said before, your adherence with faulty science is eerily similar to those using "science" to argue against evolution. One thing that has been PROVEN about your side is that they are perfectly willing to ignore and hide any data that conflicts with their agenda. If these are the people who you consider to "understand the data best" you only prove that just like them, you are driven to achieve an agenda, not to learn the truth.

  4. #40

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    How arrogant to think the people who thoroughly understand and study the subject are probably right. Listening to the people who know best is a quite the agenda. Silly me. Maybe I should just claim it is all a political ploy while quoting the renowned scientist Rush Limbaugh (Algore, hilarious) like you.

  5. #41

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Quote Originally Posted by rustyshackleford View Post
    How arrogant to think the people who thoroughly understand and study the subject are probably right. Listening to the people who know best is a quite the agenda. Silly me. Maybe I should just claim it is all a political ploy while quoting the renowned scientist Rush Limbaugh (Algore, hilarious) like you.
    Given their well documented tract record of ignoring and omitting data that contradicts their agenda and encouraging others to do the same...how can you believe their "science"? No wonder they want to "end the debate". Face it Rusty, the biggest enemy of your agenda isnt those who disagree with your scientists, its your scientists themselves.

  6. #42

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    Given their well documented tract record of ignoring and omitting data that contradicts their agenda and encouraging others to do the same...how can you believe their "science"? No wonder they want to "end the debate". Face it Rusty, the biggest enemy of your agenda isnt those who disagree with your scientists, its your scientists themselves.
    Sorry to have doubted you. Its a giant conspiracy. Got it. I will no longer listen to scientists on any matter, esp. when there is a near consensus, as there is here, and instead will listen to Rush Limbaugh and his enlightened minions who are kind enough to share his teachings on internet web boards. Thanks for opening my eyes.

  7. #43

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Quote Originally Posted by rustyshackleford View Post
    Sorry to have doubted you. Its a giant conspiracy. Got it. I will no longer listen to scientists on any matter, esp. when there is a near consensus, as there is here, and instead will listen to Rush Limbaugh and his enlightened minions who are kind enough to share his teachings on internet web boards. Thanks for opening my eyes.
    Well if you think there is ANY kind of "consensus" then you DO need your eyes opened.

    If you were intellectually honest on this issue you SHOULD be asking yourself... Why do they find a need to hide and ignore data and encourage others to do the same? And is THAT why they want to "end the debate"?

    And if this is such and open and shut case..... WHY would an MIT (certainly one of the most, if not THE, most prestigious universities in this nation) professor of climatology risk his reputation saying how easily debunked all this "settled science" is? And NO he's NOT in the pocket of big business. His only employer is MIT.

  8. #44

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    I don't know why the hostility. I told you, I am joining the 3% of climatologists who agree with you. You said the other 97% are liars, and you couldn't possibly be wrong. Of course most researchers just work for a university, including the 97% who disagree with you, but I'd rather cherry pick the guys Rush tells me to, and ignore the vast majority that don't, and then claim an unquestionable victory. You are truly wise beyond your years, and I am thankful this Christmas Eve to even be in the cyber-presence of such an enlightened soul.

  9. #45

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Got a source for that 97% you quote and what % of those are actually climatologists and what % HAVENT asked their names NOT to be used to promote junk science?
    Last edited by Tight-Waist; 12-24-2009 at 10:56 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •