| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
[ OT ] Is our climate nearing the tipping point?
A report that argues global warming is a greater threat to world security than terrorism and predicts a warming future where "disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life," may sound like it came from a radical environmental group - but it didn't. Unless you consider the Pentagon a radical environmental group. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/...03/368968.html |
= = = (Soames123) wrote in message
= = = ... A report that argues global warming is a greater threat to world security than terrorism and predicts a warming future where "disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life," may sound like it came from a radical environmental group - but it didn't. Unless you consider the Pentagon a radical environmental group. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/...03/368968.html - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SOAMES 123, Thank You for: * Using (OT) in the Subject Line. * Stating your Point of View. * Providing a Link for Validation. To QUOTE you Source: "Of course, this is the Pentagon talking about worst-case scenarios." But, David Suzuki does give Us All... Something to Think About ! jm2cw ~ RHF .. |
"Soames123" wrote in message ... A report that argues global warming is a greater threat to world security than terrorism and predicts a warming future where "disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life," may sound like it came from a radical environmental group - but it didn't. Unless you consider the Pentagon a radical environmental group. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/...03/368968.html This has been out for awhile but it's legitimate with two qualifications. The report was not really produced by the Pentagon per se but by a consultant under a commission. This isn't that big a deal, but to say it "came from" the Pentagon is a slight stretch. Second, AFAIK, the report did not say that this degree of global warming is preventable in the sense that "man-made" (as opposed to "natural") events are driving the issue. Expect a lot of attention to this problem after "The Day After Tomorrow" hits the theaters. I wonder if Art Bell is getting any points on the net revenue. |
In article ,
"T. Early" wrote: "Soames123" wrote in message ... A report that argues global warming is a greater threat to world security than terrorism and predicts a warming future where "disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life," may sound like it came from a radical environmental group - but it didn't. Unless you consider the Pentagon a radical environmental group. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/...03/368968.html This has been out for awhile but it's legitimate with two qualifications. The report was not really produced by the Pentagon per se but by a consultant under a commission. This isn't that big a deal, but to say it "came from" the Pentagon is a slight stretch. Second, AFAIK, the report did not say that this degree of global warming is preventable in the sense that "man-made" (as opposed to "natural") events are driving the issue. Expect a lot of attention to this problem after "The Day After Tomorrow" hits the theaters. I wonder if Art Bell is getting any points on the net revenue. You have to be a total nut-case to argue global warming is man made. There is billions of watts of energy going in and out of the atmosphere on a daily basis that eventually determines the air temperature. Man's energy output and use is negligible by comparison. Changes in the atmospheric chemistry are natural and changes in climate are natural whatever direction it is going. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Is that your mantra?
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been going pretty radically up since we started burning coal. Patterns is the last 600 years are unique. They do not have historical precedent that we can discern from ice and geological records. Regardless, if we are near the tipping point, it's way too late to reverse the inevitable. Man, we live in interesting times! On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:51:58 GMT, Telamon wrote: You have to be a total nut-case to argue global warming is man made. There is billions of watts of energy going in and out of the atmosphere on a daily basis that eventually determines the air temperature. Man's energy output and use is negligible by comparison. Changes in the atmospheric chemistry are natural and changes in climate are natural whatever direction it is going. |
Well, tel, you 'd better put George
( "Hi , My Names, George, I'm An Alchoholic") Bush and his administration in the total nut-case column; They admit they have found sections in The Bible that show Greenhouse Gases deforestation and other activitied of man are very suspect affecting our climate worldwide. Dan In article , Telamon writes: Subject: [ OT ] Is our climate nearing the tipping point? From: Telamon Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 20:51:58 GMT In article , "T. Early" wrote: "Soames123" wrote in message ... A report that argues global warming is a greater threat to world security than terrorism and predicts a warming future where "disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life," may sound like it came from a radical environmental group - but it didn't. Unless you consider the Pentagon a radical environmental group. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/...03/368968.html This has been out for awhile but it's legitimate with two qualifications. The report was not really produced by the Pentagon per se but by a consultant under a commission. This isn't that big a deal, but to say it "came from" the Pentagon is a slight stretch. Second, AFAIK, the report did not say that this degree of global warming is preventable in the sense that "man-made" (as opposed to "natural") events are driving the issue. Expect a lot of attention to this problem after "The Day After Tomorrow" hits the theaters. I wonder if Art Bell is getting any points on the net revenue. You have to be a total nut-case to argue global warming is man made. There is billions of watts of energy going in and out of the atmosphere on a daily basis that eventually determines the air temperature. Man's energy output and use is negligible by comparison. Changes in the atmospheric chemistry are natural and changes in climate are natural whatever direction it is going. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
David wrote:
Is that your mantra? Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been going pretty radically up since we started burning coal. Patterns is the last 600 years are unique. They do not have historical precedent that we can discern from ice and geological records. Regardless, if we are near the tipping point, it's way too late to reverse the inevitable. Man, we live in interesting times! On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:51:58 GMT, Telamon wrote: You have to be a total nut-case to argue global warming is man made. There is billions of watts of energy going in and out of the atmosphere on a daily basis that eventually determines the air temperature. Man's energy output and use is negligible by comparison. Changes in the atmospheric chemistry are natural and changes in climate are natural whatever direction it is going. There may be a problem with the oceans absorbing co2. When the water gets warmer it can hold less gas in solution. If it ever starts giving OFF this stored gas, we're doomed, as the cyle will be self perpetuating. The above hypothesis is not at this site, but some good numbers, regardless. http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002...mancarbon.html Add water vapor to the mix and the problem compounds exponentially http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...104254688.html mike |
Yeah, evidence around the world from Coral die -off indicates the water temp is Rising; - - Which Means tha it's load of Dissolved Gases will be headed into the Atmosphere. Coral skeleton disintegration will release more CO2 into the surrounding water.. Accelerating CO2 content of the Atmosphere.. - AND ( We're Doomed... ) - Either that or just Pump More Oil to Burn to either Warm Us Up ( Cooling / Ice Age) Or Cool Us Down & Pump the water elsewhere ( Warming trend / Rising Sea Level) - So , Thanks to our Good Freinds Who Supply The Oil, you really don't have a thing to worry about.. In article EPNpc.10767$RM.5570@edtnps89, m II writes: Subject: [ OT ] Is our climate nearing the tipping point? From: m II Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 17:48:20 GMT David wrote: Is that your mantra? Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been going pretty radically up since we started burning coal. Patterns is the last 600 years are unique. They do not have historical precedent that we can discern from ice and geological records. Regardless, if we are near the tipping point, it's way too late to reverse the inevitable. Man, we live in interesting times! On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:51:58 GMT, Telamon wrote: You have to be a total nut-case to argue global warming is man made. There is billions of watts of energy going in and out of the atmosphere on a daily basis that eventually determines the air temperature. Man's energy output and use is negligible by comparison. Changes in the atmospheric chemistry are natural and changes in climate are natural whatever direction it is going. There may be a problem with the oceans absorbing co2. When the water gets warmer it can hold less gas in solution. If it ever starts giving OFF this stored gas, we're doomed, as the cyle will be self perpetuating. The above hypothesis is not at this site, but some good numbers, regardless. http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002...mancarbon.html Add water vapor to the mix and the problem compounds exponentially http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...104254688.html mike |
Do a Nexus search. You'll see that in the 1970's that the fear was "Global
Cooling." It was actually a cover story for Time magazine. -- Stinger "Diverd4777" wrote in message ... Yeah, evidence around the world from Coral die -off indicates the water temp is Rising; - - Which Means tha it's load of Dissolved Gases will be headed into the Atmosphere. Coral skeleton disintegration will release more CO2 into the surrounding water.. Accelerating CO2 content of the Atmosphere.. - AND ( We're Doomed... ) - Either that or just Pump More Oil to Burn to either Warm Us Up ( Cooling / Ice Age) Or Cool Us Down & Pump the water elsewhere ( Warming trend / Rising Sea Level) - So , Thanks to our Good Freinds Who Supply The Oil, you really don't have a thing to worry about.. In article EPNpc.10767$RM.5570@edtnps89, m II writes: Subject: [ OT ] Is our climate nearing the tipping point? From: m II Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 17:48:20 GMT David wrote: Is that your mantra? Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been going pretty radically up since we started burning coal. Patterns is the last 600 years are unique. They do not have historical precedent that we can discern from ice and geological records. Regardless, if we are near the tipping point, it's way too late to reverse the inevitable. Man, we live in interesting times! On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:51:58 GMT, Telamon wrote: You have to be a total nut-case to argue global warming is man made. There is billions of watts of energy going in and out of the atmosphere on a daily basis that eventually determines the air temperature. Man's energy output and use is negligible by comparison. Changes in the atmospheric chemistry are natural and changes in climate are natural whatever direction it is going. There may be a problem with the oceans absorbing co2. When the water gets warmer it can hold less gas in solution. If it ever starts giving OFF this stored gas, we're doomed, as the cyle will be self perpetuating. The above hypothesis is not at this site, but some good numbers, regardless. http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002...mancarbon.html Add water vapor to the mix and the problem compounds exponentially http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...0104254688.htm l mike |
|
Michael 'I don't know how many trash degrees I have, but it's a bunch. And what I don't have, heck, I'll lie about' Bryant wrote: From: "Stinger" Do a Nexus search. You'll see that in the 1970's that the fear was "Global Cooling." It was actually a cover story for Time magazine. And you'll see that that research was sponsored by the CIA to counter global warming scientists who were starting to emerge in the early 70's. Some of the reports even encouraged CO2 emissions to "balance out" cooling trends. Do a search on a guy named Idso. Interestingly, the latest models of greenhouse dynamics actually do predict localized cooling trends as warmer ocean temperatures disrupt traditional oceanic currents. Scientists studying greenhouse dynamics have long predicted an ice age in Europe from the disruption of the North Atlantic current. The consenus among reputable scientists on greenhouse warming is overwhelming. Is there anything the Fat Boy doesn't know or can't expound upon? Simply amazing for a guy who had to lie about a PhD. |
Depends on the pH of the water. Disintegration would occur far more readily in
water that is acidic and would occur much more slowly in alkaline water. Unless there is a tramatic alteration in the pH of the oceans and that is unlikely as CO2 dissolved in water can form a slightly alkaline buffer then I wouldn't think that CO2 released from coral skeletons would be a big problem. Regards John Barnard Diverd4777 wrote: Yeah, evidence around the world from Coral die -off indicates the water temp is Rising; - - Which Means tha it's load of Dissolved Gases will be headed into the Atmosphere. Coral skeleton disintegration will release more CO2 into the surrounding water.. Accelerating CO2 content of the Atmosphere.. - AND ( We're Doomed... ) - Either that or just Pump More Oil to Burn to either Warm Us Up ( Cooling / Ice Age) Or Cool Us Down & Pump the water elsewhere ( Warming trend / Rising Sea Level) - So , Thanks to our Good Freinds Who Supply The Oil, you really don't have a thing to worry about.. In article EPNpc.10767$RM.5570@edtnps89, m II writes: Subject: [ OT ] Is our climate nearing the tipping point? From: m II Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 17:48:20 GMT David wrote: Is that your mantra? Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been going pretty radically up since we started burning coal. Patterns is the last 600 years are unique. They do not have historical precedent that we can discern from ice and geological records. Regardless, if we are near the tipping point, it's way too late to reverse the inevitable. Man, we live in interesting times! On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:51:58 GMT, Telamon wrote: You have to be a total nut-case to argue global warming is man made. There is billions of watts of energy going in and out of the atmosphere on a daily basis that eventually determines the air temperature. Man's energy output and use is negligible by comparison. Changes in the atmospheric chemistry are natural and changes in climate are natural whatever direction it is going. There may be a problem with the oceans absorbing co2. When the water gets warmer it can hold less gas in solution. If it ever starts giving OFF this stored gas, we're doomed, as the cyle will be self perpetuating. The above hypothesis is not at this site, but some good numbers, regardless. http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002...mancarbon.html Add water vapor to the mix and the problem compounds exponentially http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...104254688.html mike |
Dan wrote: On 16 May 2004 20:10:55 GMT, ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote: The consenus among reputable scientists on greenhouse warming is overwhelming. Only if you define "reputable scientists" as "those who believe in greenhouse warming". And in MWB's world, those are the only scientists there are. |
Dan:
- Can you Please Provide us with a list of Scientists ( Sans Bible Beaters ) Who Do NOT believe in Global Warming Please... Name Some Names.. Thanks Dan In article , Dan writes: Subject: [ OT ] Is our climate nearing the tipping point? From: Dan Date: 16 May 2004 16:55:05 -0500 On 16 May 2004 20:10:55 GMT, ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote: The consenus among reputable scientists on greenhouse warming is overwhelming. Only if you define "reputable scientists" as "those who believe in greenhouse warming". Dan Grundig S800, S650, S700, YB400, YB550PE Degen DE1102, Kaito KA1102 Drake R8, Radio Shack DX-440 Hallicrafters S-120 (1962) Zenith black dial 5 tube Tombstone (1937) E. H. Scott 23 tube Imperial Allwave in Tasman cabinet (1936) |
In article ,
ocom (Michael Bryant) King of Trolls scribbled: From: "Stinger" Do a Nexus search. You'll see that in the 1970's that the fear was "Global Cooling." It was actually a cover story for Time magazine. And you'll see that that research was sponsored by the CIA to counter global warming scientists who were starting to emerge in the early 70's. Some of the reports even encouraged CO2 emissions to "balance out" cooling trends. Do a search on a guy named Idso. Interestingly, the latest models of greenhouse dynamics actually do predict localized cooling trends as warmer ocean temperatures disrupt traditional oceanic currents. Scientists studying greenhouse dynamics have long predicted an ice age in Europe from the disruption of the North Atlantic current. The consenus among reputable scientists on greenhouse warming is overwhelming. Not true. More BS from the king of Trolls. The only thing overwhelming is your fabricating. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
In article , John Barnard
wrote: Depends on the pH of the water. Disintegration would occur far more readily in water that is acidic and would occur much more slowly in alkaline water. Unless there is a tramatic alteration in the pH of the oceans and that is unlikely as CO2 dissolved in water can form a slightly alkaline buffer then I wouldn't think that CO2 released from coral skeletons would be a big problem. That is just part of the explanation for the very complex system of gases, temperatures, currents and chemical composition of the oceans. The oceans are a large part but still a portion of climate stability. The jury is still out on what is going to happen 10, 50 or 500 years from now. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
It's not the man-made energy output that is directly causing the problem.
It is the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are the problem. CO2 emissions are causing the atmosphere to behave somewhat as a two-way mirror in that energy can still get in easily enough but re-radiation from earth back into space decreases. It doesn't take much of an increase in CO2 levels to decrease the rate of re-radiation. Regards John Barnard Telamon wrote: In article , "T. Early" wrote: "Soames123" wrote in message ... A report that argues global warming is a greater threat to world security than terrorism and predicts a warming future where "disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life," may sound like it came from a radical environmental group - but it didn't. Unless you consider the Pentagon a radical environmental group. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/...03/368968.html This has been out for awhile but it's legitimate with two qualifications. The report was not really produced by the Pentagon per se but by a consultant under a commission. This isn't that big a deal, but to say it "came from" the Pentagon is a slight stretch. Second, AFAIK, the report did not say that this degree of global warming is preventable in the sense that "man-made" (as opposed to "natural") events are driving the issue. Expect a lot of attention to this problem after "The Day After Tomorrow" hits the theaters. I wonder if Art Bell is getting any points on the net revenue. You have to be a total nut-case to argue global warming is man made. There is billions of watts of energy going in and out of the atmosphere on a daily basis that eventually determines the air temperature. Man's energy output and use is negligible by comparison. Changes in the atmospheric chemistry are natural and changes in climate are natural whatever direction it is going. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
I agree that it is impossible to predict what will happen 10, 50 or 100
years from now. This entire globe is one great big "mess" of complex chemistry and reactions and the best models aren't that great at predicting how the biosphere responds to a single input let alone to all the things that happen simultaneously. However, it is known that a single catastrophic event can have dire climatic effects. For example, the quantity of material tossed out by Krakatoa in 1883 had world-wide effects on climate. Such a large quantity of material tossed into the atmosphere does cut down on the amount of sunlight getting in and cooling tend to follow such tremendous volcanic eruptions. From such observations came the idea that multiple nuclear explosions would result in a nuclear winter. I also have no doubt that mankind is very good at destroying or negatively altering the earth's ecosystems. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) can destroy ozone quite readily and they destroy ozone in a quasi-catalytic manner (ie. CFCs can eventually be consumed during the process of ozone destruction). I would also think that dumping tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, potentially beyond the capabilities of the biosphere to handle it, is also quite self-destructive. Regards John Barnard Telamon wrote: In article , John Barnard wrote: Depends on the pH of the water. Disintegration would occur far more readily in water that is acidic and would occur much more slowly in alkaline water. Unless there is a tramatic alteration in the pH of the oceans and that is unlikely as CO2 dissolved in water can form a slightly alkaline buffer then I wouldn't think that CO2 released from coral skeletons would be a big problem. That is just part of the explanation for the very complex system of gases, temperatures, currents and chemical composition of the oceans. The oceans are a large part but still a portion of climate stability. The jury is still out on what is going to happen 10, 50 or 500 years from now. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Only a small lunatic fringe of real climatologists dispute that we are
in a period of rather dramatic warming. The question about whether it's human or cyclical may never be answered. If I lived in New Orleans or Huntington Beach, I'd move. On 16 May 2004 16:55:05 -0500, Dan wrote: On 16 May 2004 20:10:55 GMT, ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote: The consenus among reputable scientists on greenhouse warming is overwhelming. Only if you define "reputable scientists" as "those who believe in greenhouse warming". Dan Grundig S800, S650, S700, YB400, YB550PE Degen DE1102, Kaito KA1102 Drake R8, Radio Shack DX-440 Hallicrafters S-120 (1962) Zenith black dial 5 tube Tombstone (1937) E. H. Scott 23 tube Imperial Allwave in Tasman cabinet (1936) |
|
|
- Interesting Article:
"Aliens Cause Global Warming" http://adsl-68-88-67-252.dsl.rcsntx....s/chriton.html A lecture by Michael Crichton Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003 He raises valid points about Consensus, and treatment of scientists who find evidence that goes against the mainstream. Eventually Suggesting a " Double Bind" scientific methodology for Global Climate Models.. Such as is currently used in Drug tests.. In article , ocom (Michael Bryant) writes: Subject: [ OT ] Is our climate nearing the tipping point? From: ocom (Michael Bryant) Date: 17 May 2004 00:44:48 GMT From: N8KDV Only if you define "reputable scientists" as "those who believe in greenhouse warming". And in MWB's world, those are the only scientists there are. No, there are plenty of scientists producing findings that will enhance their research subsidies. Interestingly, most of the research that denies global warming can be traced to subsidies coming from yje oil industry. But, what am I thinking?! I'm trying to be rational with Steve "Better Grip on Reality" Lare. Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) |
Scientist Statement World Scientists' Warning to Humanity (1992) Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was written and spearheaded by the late Henry Kendall, former chair of UCS's board of directors. http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/page.cfm?pageID=1009 From: N8KDV Only if you define "reputable scientists" as "those who believe in greenhouse warming". And in MWB's world, those are the only scientists there are. No, there are plenty of scientists producing findings that will enhance their research subsidies. Interestingly, most of the research that denies global warming can be traced to subsidies coming from yje oil industry. But, what am I thinking?! I'm trying to be rational with Steve "Better Grip on Reality" Lare. Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) |
|
From: Dan
On 17 May 2004 01:29:00 GMT, ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote: The consensus of research supports global warming. The research that doesn't is usually tied to oil companies. You figure it out. Interesting how you "know" that " The research that doesn't is usually tied to oil companies", yet you don't seem to know who is paying for the "The consensus of research supports global warming" I spent a whole year researching the topic when it was the intercollegiate debate topic. As DiverDan's earlier post pointed out, the vast majority of related scientists have agreed that the link is overwhelming. Research supporting the link comes from a variety of sources, mainly regular funding sources drawn from institutional basic research budgets. The research denying the links is primarily funded by oil companies. By the way, few of the nation's best intercollegiate debaters could defend the negative research. Wake Forest won a national championship defending the quality of the research supporting the link. When you examine all the studies, it's a fairly one-sided issue. But not if you rely on Rush Limbaugh to interpret scientific studies! Though I understand that his pharmacological research credentials are outstanding! Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) |
Michael 'I abuse drugs' Bryant wrote: From: Dan On 17 May 2004 01:29:00 GMT, ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote: The consensus of research supports global warming. The research that doesn't is usually tied to oil companies. You figure it out. Interesting how you "know" that " The research that doesn't is usually tied to oil companies", yet you don't seem to know who is paying for the "The consensus of research supports global warming" I spent a whole year researching the topic when it was the intercollegiate debate topic. As DiverDan's earlier post pointed out, the vast majority of related scientists have agreed that the link is overwhelming. Research supporting the link comes from a variety of sources, mainly regular funding sources drawn from institutional basic research budgets. The research denying the links is primarily funded by oil companies. By the way, few of the nation's best intercollegiate debaters could defend the negative research. Wake Forest won a national championship defending the quality of the research supporting the link. When you examine all the studies, it's a fairly one-sided issue. But not if you rely on Rush Limbaugh to interpret scientific studies! Though I understand that his pharmacological research credentials are outstanding! And so are yours, Fat Boy... you are a drug abuser. |
In article , John Barnard
wrote: It's not the man-made energy output that is directly causing the problem. It is the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are the problem. CO2 emissions are causing the atmosphere to behave somewhat as a two-way mirror in that energy can still get in easily enough but re-radiation from earth back into space decreases. It doesn't take much of an increase in CO2 levels to decrease the rate of re-radiation. snip The problem is most man-made energy generates CO2 and some people who think to simplistically think the atmospheric increase is due to man. This is unproven. Also unproven is that the increase in CO2 will cause global temperatures. Earth climate is a very complex system where a change in one variable will not necessarily force the system in one direction. Just because the CO2 is going up does not mean global temperatures will rise. If you are willing to jump to conclusions like the King of Trolls has on this newsgroup then be my guest. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
In article ,
ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote: From: Dan Of course, the scientists who believe in global warming have *no* axes to grind, right? All of them are pure and true, right? Who is paying for *their* research? Why don't you tell us? Rich liberals? Yeah rick liberals like Kerry that own 3 SUVs. Oh yeah his FAMILY owns the SUVs not him. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
In article ,
ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote: From: "Stinger" Do a Nexus search. You'll see that in the 1970's that the fear was "Global Cooling." It was actually a cover story for Time magazine. And you'll see that that research was sponsored by the CIA to counter global warming scientists who were starting to emerge in the early 70's. Some of the reports even encouraged CO2 emissions to "balance out" cooling trends. Do a search on a guy named Idso. Interestingly, the latest models of greenhouse dynamics actually do predict localized cooling trends as warmer ocean temperatures disrupt traditional oceanic currents. Scientists studying greenhouse dynamics have long predicted an ice age in Europe from the disruption of the North Atlantic current. The consenus among reputable scientists on greenhouse warming is overwhelming. The only thing overwhelming is your ignorance but you are great entertainment. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
In article ,
N8KDV wrote: Dan wrote: On 16 May 2004 20:10:55 GMT, ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote: The consenus among reputable scientists on greenhouse warming is overwhelming. Only if you define "reputable scientists" as "those who believe in greenhouse warming". And in MWB's world, those are the only scientists there are. He just dreams of a warmer and wetter climate better for pot growing. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
In article ,
ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote: From: Dan On 17 May 2004 01:29:00 GMT, ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote: The consensus of research supports global warming. The research that doesn't is usually tied to oil companies. You figure it out. Interesting how you "know" that " The research that doesn't is usually tied to oil companies", yet you don't seem to know who is paying for the "The consensus of research supports global warming" I spent a whole year researching the topic when it was the intercollegiate debate topic. As DiverDan's earlier post pointed out, the vast majority of related scientists have agreed that the link is overwhelming. Research supporting the link comes from a variety of sources, mainly regular funding sources drawn from institutional basic research budgets. The research denying the links is primarily funded by oil companies. You are a complete fabricating lier. More than a year ago there was no conclusive data that showed the global temperature going up so how could any research last year have that conclusion. What a lier. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
In article ,
ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote: From: (Diverd4777) - Can you Please Provide us with a list of Scientists ( Sans Bible Beaters ) Who Do NOT believe in Global Warming Please... Name Some Names.. There are many, though not nearly the same number that support that CO2 emissions are increasing global temperatures. Close scrutiny will reveal that most of the scientists denying global warning have their research funded by groups that want to deny the connection,ie, oil companies and business groups. Well you lie about everything so where do you get your money from? -- Telamon Ventura, California |
MWB,
? Consensus ? The Majority View Point ? {A Opinion 'held' by the Majority ?} Most Americans 'believe' in "A God" ! - MWB - Do You Recognize and Respect their Consensus ? - What Say You MWB ? - Let it be a simple "Yes" or "No". Most Americans 'love' their Country "America" {Our Homeland} ! - MWB - Do You Recognize and Respect their Consensus ? - What Say You MWB ? - Let it be a simple "Yes" or "No". MWB - Do You just simply pick and choose only those "Consensuses" that 'fit' your One World Liberal ELITIST Socialist Views ? ? ? ? MWB - Can You simply be Honest and Admit: - That Your Personal View Point is "One World" [ Vice 'being' an American First. ] - That You are a Liberal. - That You are an Elitist. - That You are basically a Socialist (Ultra-Liberal-Democrat}. MWB - Let Your Answers be a simple "Yes" or "No". What Say You MWB? - America - Nay, The World Awaits Your Answers MWB ! I Want To Know ~ RHF .. .. = = = ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote in message = = = ... From: Dan Of course, the scientists who believe in global warming have *no* axes to grind, right? All of them are pure and true, right? Who is paying for *their* research? Why don't you tell us? Rich liberals? Corruption in scientific research goes both ways, and it's extremely disingenuous of you (at best) to imply otherwise. The consensus of research supports global warming. The research that doesn't is usually tied to oil companies. You figure it out. Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) |
MWB,
? Consensus ? The Majority View Point ? {A Opinion 'held' by the Majority ?} Most Americans 'believe' in "A God" ! - MWB - Do You Recognize and Respect their Consensus ? - What Say You MWB ? - Let it be a simple "Yes" or "No". Most Americans 'love' their Country "America" {Our Homeland} ! - MWB - Do You Recognize and Respect their Consensus ? - What Say You MWB ? - Let it be a simple "Yes" or "No". MWB - Do You just simply pick and choose only those "Consensuses" that 'fit' your One World Liberal ELITIST Socialist Views ? ? ? ? MWB - Can You simply be Honest and Admit: - That Your Personal View Point is "One World" [ Vice 'being' an American First. ] - That You are a Liberal. - That You are an Elitist. - That You are basically a Socialist (Ultra-Liberal-Democrat}. MWB - Let Your Answers be a simple "Yes" or "No". What Say You MWB? - America - Nay, The World Awaits Your Answers MWB ! I Want To Know ~ RHF .. .. = = = ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote in message = = = ... From: Dan Of course, the scientists who believe in global warming have *no* axes to grind, right? All of them are pure and true, right? Who is paying for *their* research? Why don't you tell us? Rich liberals? Corruption in scientific research goes both ways, and it's extremely disingenuous of you (at best) to imply otherwise. The consensus of research supports global warming. The research that doesn't is usually tied to oil companies. You figure it out. Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) |
There is no " Proof" in this kind of Science,
only a " Working Hypootheses" Here's a web site you might like; a voice for Business in the Global Warming Debate" http://www.globalclimate.org/ Dan / NYC In article , Telamon writes: Subject: [ OT ] Is our climate nearing the tipping point? From: Telamon Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 05:11:14 GMT In article , John Barnard wrote: It's not the man-made energy output that is directly causing the problem. It is the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are the problem. CO2 emissions are causing the atmosphere to behave somewhat as a two-way mirror in that energy can still get in easily enough but re-radiation from earth back into space decreases. It doesn't take much of an increase in CO2 levels to decrease the rate of re-radiation. snip The problem is most man-made energy generates CO2 and some people who think to simplistically think the atmospheric increase is due to man. This is unproven. Also unproven is that the increase in CO2 will cause global temperatures. Earth climate is a very complex system where a change in one variable will not necessarily force the system in one direction. Just because the CO2 is going up does not mean global temperatures will rise. If you are willing to jump to conclusions like the King of Trolls has on this newsgroup then be my guest. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
C'mon Tel:
Your an intelligent man.. - Give us some DATA supporting your contention of " Global Warming Is a Leftist Liberal Tax And Spend Media Hoax, Corrupting the Morals Of Our Youth" - or whatever.. Giv us a link to JUST ONE ARTICLE supporting the "No Global Warming" viewpoint ( Sans Bible Beaters.) Just one.. Thanks Dan / NYC ( Watching the Hamptons Wash Away... ) From: (Diverd4777) - Can you Please Provide us with a list of Scientists ( Sans Bible Beaters ) Who Do NOT believe in Global Warming Please... Name Some Names.. There are many, though not nearly the same number that support that CO2 emissions are increasing global temperatures. Close scrutiny will reveal that most of the scientists denying global warning have their research funded by groups that want to deny the connection,ie, oil companies and business groups. Well you lie about everything so where do you get your money from? -- Telamon Ventura, California |
|
Michael 'My daddy was a Klansman' Bryant wrote: From: Dan Though I understand that his pharmacological research credentials are outstanding! Not as good as yours, however. I can guarantee you that Rush's pharmacological research skills far exceed my own! You are in no position to guarantee anything, liar boy. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:26 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com