The Global Warming Challenge

[darin]

SANTA IS REAL!!!!

[diuretic]

SANTA IS REAL!!!!

I knew it! After all these years! I KNEW it!

[Nukeman]

Ad hom?

Yes and no!!! If you had spent any time at the other board you would maybe understand my reasoning for not taking the bait on his little antics.

Anthropogenic global warming has not been conclusively proven nor has it been disproven.

Personaly do I think we have an impact on the environment?? Hell yes!! Do I think we are the harbingers of our own climatic demise?? NO. Can we do things to help? Of course, any conservation is good.


Tuba is a tool that doesn't listen to any opposing view points, he is only interested in spewing his thoughts than he runs away for a few weeks than comes back and rants a little more...

Go to the other board and see how he post and you may understand some of our frustration wtih this individual....

[diuretic]

Can we do things to help? Of course, any conservation is good.

Yeppers! I refuse to do some really stupid things and get all guilty but I am quite happy to lend my voice/vote to broader efforts to do the best I can for our environment in toto.

Oh, on the poster - I'll take that on advice. I just get a kick out of discussing the issues

[Nukeman]

Yeppers! I refuse to do some really stupid things and get all guilty but I am quite happy to lend my voice/vote to broader efforts to do the best I can for our environment in toto.

Oh, on the poster - I'll take that on advice. I just get a kick out of discussing the issues

I enjoy discussing with you!!! Your always willing to concede a point when it has been made. That sometimes takes a very big man to do.

Tuba is just such a tool I cant even begin to discribe him....

[diuretic]

Nah I was just born with a really big..........."reasonable" gene

I'd have preferred a really big...........ego, but t'weren't to be

[SpidermanTUba]

Oh, I see, you are a literalist. Let's try it this way: the Weather Channel was a high-profile example of the pressure on scientists to conform to the current thinking on global warming. I am willing to bet that in the uber-liberal atmosphere of academia, the pressure to jump on the g.w. band-wagon is many times greater.

So, it looks like I do have a point.

If you're willing to bet that, then go ahead and do it, and then provide a single example of it happening in an actual research environment, not the environment of a for-profit media corporation. You haven't yet.

[SpidermanTUba]

And I'd like a single peer reviewed scientific paper claiming Santa is Fake. If none exists then you can just say so.

See? Your 'challenge' means nothing.

It only means nothing if you assume there are no scientific papers which claim anthropogenic global warming is incorrect. If that is your assumption, I find it strange that you feel you can make the claim that science says anthropogenic global warming is incorrect - when you can provide no actual examples of it saying that.

[SpidermanTUba]

I don't think there is really any serious way to either prove or disprove "anthropogenic" global warming. Leaving out the "anthropogenic", we already know that the Earth's temperature used to be much warmer than it is today, then went into an Ice Age which ended 10,000 years ago. Ever since then the Earth has been warming up. Since there is no dispute that the Earth has been naturally warming up for the last 10,000 years, there is virtually no way to tell the degree at which our pollution today is effecting the Earth. Even if it was, it might just be speeding up an already natural process. But so many factors determine the Earth's weather and temperature that in order to prove "anthropogenic global warming" you'd have to prove that all of those other factors are not increasing the global temperature, and that the small percentage increase of CO2 is increasing it.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased 30% since the industrial revolution. You appear to not know what you're talking about.


And like I said, I'm not trying to prove anthropogenic global warming. I'm just asking for one solitary single peer reviewed scientific paper which has disproved it. Since we all know anthropogenic global warming is such a big hoax, you'd figure that there would be actual science which disproves it. I don't want your layman's opinions of why you "feel" anthropogenic global warming "just isn't possible" because the world is just so gosh darn big - I want the opinion of an expert in the field who claims anthropogenic global warming to be incorrect.


Is that really too much to ask?

[SpidermanTUba]

FOUR PAGES now....


and after four pages we have learned so much about Al Gore's light bill and how global warming is a big hoax and how its definitively not anthropogenic in nature....



yet not one single solitary peer reviewed scientific paper claiming anthropogenic global warming to be incorrect.


STILL WAITING.....


Anyone want to make bets on when such a reference will be posted? I'm betting it will take 20 pages.

[PostmodernProphet]

yet not one single solitary peer reviewed scientific paper claiming anthropogenic global warming to be incorrect.

Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument? "It's the money!" said Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015&page=1

In 2003, Baliunas and Willie Soon (also an astrophysicist) published a review paper on historical climatology which concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium." With Soon, Baliunas investigated the correlation between solar variation and temperatures of the earth's atmosphere. When there are more sunspots, the total solar output increases, and when there are fewer sunspots, it decreases. Soon and Baliunas attribute the Medieval warm period to such an increase in solar output, and believe that decreases in solar output led to the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from which the earth has been recovering since 1890.[10]

A few months afterward, 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work.[11] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.[12]

Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[13][14] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#_note-7
all hail the politics of science journals......

[SpidermanTUba]

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015&page=1
Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument? "It's the money!" said Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."

If Dr. Baliunas truly feels that way about the way science is done, then the fact that she has worked for numerous Exxon front organizations in the past should be enough to convince you she is biased.

[red states rule]

Never got a satisfactory repsonse from our friends in the conservative community to the allegations made by former Bush administration Surgeon General Richard Carmona to supress certain evidence which may contradict polices supported by the President and his supporters...and this supression included many other scientists that have stepped forward and reported the same thing....specifically about global warning. I have never heard of any prior administration doing this....not Republican or Democrat.....huh?

BRS - do not go on that diet you were talking about. You will add to the crisis of global warming!!!!!!!!!!!!


Exercise Causes Global Warming
By Noel Sheppard | August 8, 2007 - 14:07 ET
In the '80s, rock musician Joe Jackson published a song called "Everything Gives You Cancer."

Recent assertions by England's Green Party parliamentary candidate Chris Goodall suggest that sometime soon, someone - maybe Al Gore sycophant Sheryl Crow - is going to write a hit song called "Everything Causes Global Warming."

As reported by the Times Online Saturday in a piece hysterically titled "Walking to the Shops ‘Damages Planet More Than Going By Car'" (grateful h/ts to all NBers and readers who forwarded this article for consideration, emphasis added throughout):

Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated.

Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby.

Absolutely amazing. But there was more:

The sums were done by Chris Goodall, campaigning author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, based on the greenhouse gases created by intensive beef production. "Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere," he said, a calculation based on the Government's official fuel emission figures. "If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You'd need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.

"The troubling fact is that taking a lot of exercise and then eating a bit more food is not good for the global atmosphere. Eating less and driving to save energy would be better."

Now, just imagine where this insanity could go:

Gymnasiums and athletic clubs closed to slow global warming
Jogging made illegal to slow global warming
Golf banned to slow global warming
All organized sporting events including amateur, collegiate and professional banned to slow global warming.
Is it becoming obvious the amount of control environmentalists seek over personal behavior all in the name of global warming?

If you doubted for a second just how far socialists around the world are looking to take this issue, doubt no further.

Talk to you all later. I'm heading to the gym to add some CO2 to the atmosphere, and consume a huge amount of calories after my workout to compensate for those burned during it.

Here's hoping you all do the same.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...global-warming

[red states rule]

FOUR PAGES now....


and after four pages we have learned so much about Al Gore's light bill and how global warming is a big hoax and how its definitively not anthropogenic in nature....



yet not one single solitary peer reviewed scientific paper claiming anthropogenic global warming to be incorrect.


STILL WAITING.....


Anyone want to make bets on when such a reference will be posted? I'm betting it will take 20 pages.

Global warming is a hoax. Al Bore is not living his life as he demands we live ours - why does he not lead by example?

[red states rule]

I feel the need to stand up for Al Gore. I think the guy truly believes that the Earth is in the balance. The thing everybody fails to mention when they're railing against Gore for his large house, SUV, etc., is that he offsets it all. He lives a completely carbon-neutral lifestyle and he does it by planting trees, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances, electronics, etc and by purchasing carbon offsets. The guy walks the walk so I'm tired of hearing all these dim-witted assaults on his character. Gore's a good guy.

Offsets are worthless - they are nothing more then a scam

and Al buys his offsets from his own company