That wouldn't make anyone huge gobs of money except the Chinese, much easier to fine people and trade a idea around, that way no production of anything is necessary in order for some asshole to get excessively wealthy.
Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.
- Thread starter jahbrudda
- Start date
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Oh I do follow my own advice, that's why I researched this website prior to posting a link.
Below is from your wiki link, exposing your deception.
When people like you have to rely on ad hominem attacks and deceptive faulty generalizations in order to bolster their position, I know they are running short on knowledge or laking sound evidence.
"One of their problems is that they were unable to "attract money from corporations",[36][notes 14] although their antagonists claim the Friends of Science are funded by the petroleum industry.[36]Critics have asserted that the Friends of Science has close links to the oil and gas industry.[37] In April 2007, The Friends of Science newsletter claimed their "efforts to bring balance to the climate change debate are being restricted because of our lack of funding. We have mostly relied upon the good nature of our members, with some contributions from Charitable Foundations. There has also been some funding from “big oil”. But they seldom smile on us. They appear to believe that marketing is more important than historical climate information"."[38]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science#Funding
You keep trusting what the government and media tell you and I'll rely on my sources.
I think that would be a hard sell seeing as how its unconstitutional. Somehow we would be taxed for it and then get a "free" one.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
The last time "we" did that was now (or at t-ε to be "exact"). Along with the rest of the planet, which again outpaces us when it comes to rates of evaporation and condensation. Can California refill its reservoirs when it wants? No...it is a servant of Nature.
CO2 sinks are on the order of 760Gt/yr... Are you telling me that is not "plentiful"?
(Source: New Scientist)
Look very carefully at that graphic.
Do you see those thinly weighted arrows at the left? That's you.
Now put aside the peculiar "balance" in the green arrows (which are presented without errors) and consider the difference in magnitude.
Then ponder how that "extra" amount strangely is being taken up in those red arrows which reflect a dynamic adjustment by the system outside of human intervention.
CO2 in the atmosphere is processed by the ocean at a rate of 1/8th Volume per annum. That is, the whole atmosphere is "scrubbed" by the oceans every 8 years (kind of like your skin which cycles every 7 years IIRC...I am not a biology fan).
Remember this from several pages back?
It means a pile of mashed potatoes of the Third Kind, eh.
And then there is iron...Do you know what happens when you add 1kg of iron to the ocean? You get 5-20 tonnes of phytoplankton. So...do you wanna fix the planet and get rid of all that nasty CO2? Pay our resident right-wing fisherman to dump some rusty nails into the Ocean next time he goes out on the "Manly Love Boat", and you'll offset your entire town's "carbon footprint".
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Martin/martin_4.php
I don't know if you purposely loaded that question, but I can see how it would be a slippery slope depending on the answer. Also, just to reiterate, I am not denying we have an effect on climate/environment; a physical house is technically changing the climate by its very existence. But the unfounded alarmism needs to be checked against reality with more scrutiny. If the surreptitious goal is to put a leash on industry, there are other reasons that can be used which are far more basic and verifiable.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
straight from the mouth of your own source.
good job, beenthere.
you keep citing jared taylor and victor thorn while calling NASA a george soros funded communist conspiracy.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
There are some fundamental questions not being addressed.
One of them comes straight from NOAA, they claim that the hottest 30 yr period in 1400 years was from 1979-2012. So if it was just as hot only 1400 years ago, what warmed the earth up back then, what cooled it down if it wasn't a natural cycle ?
One of them comes straight from NOAA, they claim that the hottest 30 yr period in 1400 years was from 1979-2012. So if it was just as hot only 1400 years ago, what warmed the earth up back then, what cooled it down if it wasn't a natural cycle ?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
The last time "we" did that was now (or at t-ε to be "exact"). Along with the rest of the planet, which again outpaces us when it comes to rates of evaporation and condensation. Can California refill its reservoirs when it wants? No...it is a servant of Nature.
CO2 sinks are on the order of 760Gt/yr... Are you telling me that is not "plentiful"?
(Source: New Scientist)
Look very carefully at that graphic.
Do you see those thinly weighted arrows at the left? That's you.
Now put aside the peculiar "balance" in the green arrows (which are presented without errors) and consider the difference in magnitude.
Then ponder how that "extra" amount strangely is being taken up in those red arrows which reflect a dynamic adjustment by the system outside of human intervention.
CO2 in the atmosphere is processed by the ocean at a rate of 1/8th Volume per annum. That is, the whole atmosphere is "scrubbed" by the oceans every 8 years (kind of like your skin which cycles every 7 years IIRC...I am not a biology fan).
Remember this from several pages back?
It means a pile of mashed potatoes of the Third Kind, eh.
And then there is iron...Do you know what happens when you add 1kg of iron to the ocean? You get 5-20 tonnes of phytoplankton. So...do you wanna fix the planet and get rid of all that nasty CO2? Pay our resident right-wing fisherman to dump some rusty nails into the Ocean next time he goes out on the "Manly Love Boat", and you'll offset your entire town's "carbon footprint".
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Martin/martin_4.php
I don't know if you purposely loaded that question, but I can see how it would be a slippery slope depending on the answer. Also, just to reiterate, I am not denying we have an effect on climate/environment; a physical house is technically changing the climate by its very existence. But the unfounded alarmism needs to be checked against reality with more scrutiny. If the surreptitious goal is to put a leash on industry, there are other reasons that can be used which are far more basic and verifiable.
that's great and all, but neglects to address that CO2 levels have skyrocketed to levels not seen in 800,000 years.
those "thinly weighted arrows on the left" sure do add up quickly! some might say that CO2 levels higher than they have been in 800,000 years is quite the cause for alarm.
since we are doing the same with water vapor, as you claim, then why are water vapor levels not similarly skyrocketing to levels not seen in the last half a million years?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
probably all explained by termite farts, right?
I pondered this very same thing, but then someone complained that science cannot ever provide proof of anything, so I had to prove that person wrong.
That's how far that went.
My entire living is based upon mother nature, the last 10 have been the best ever. Which I know is anecdotal, but still.
Some might say that, other might say that it's no reason to get excited at all, some others are saying that it is going to improve things.
Where is all this evidence that the sky is falling?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
tractors with GPS, crops altered by man, and government welfare checks aren't exactly "mother nature".
Nope, but stuff growing in the dirt sure is. That's where the money is.
oh and FYI, mother nature can wipe all of it out in a single hail storm that lasts 10 minutes. IF you think farmers insure all of their crops you would be wrong, we use actuarial tables that figure out the odds for us and hedge our bets accordingly. Math is involved so doubt you are interested.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you'd go broke without the $18 an acre subsidy from the government. so no, those crops are not where the money's at. the welfare check is.
what's 10 - 8.7?
does 110 = 610?
LOL $18 an acre? That total amount wouldn't even pay for 1 week of operations you insipid fool.
You are clearly ignorant and confused.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
wow, it looks like it went up quite a bit in the meantime. $29 an acre for corn in illinois. plus a price floor for the crop itself.
pretty sweet welfare yo got there.
Tell me beaver boy, what does a farmer have to do to receive that $29 an acre in Illinois?
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
I've never had much trust in our government, they've been caught many times screwing us one way or another, in fact I don't know anyone personally who disagrees with my on this.
But Buckroast includes himself in the people represented in the dark green line, he believes just about anything the media and government tells him, I'd consider this a radical view myself.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Yes, I stole their data representations.
Which they stole from someone else. If I had my own lasers and bolometers (and maybe a 2m column) I could derive my own data set, empirically. I'd ideally like to do that one day. But even then, it is a static measure under constrained conditions.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, exactly (Optical? ...? ). Either way, no. I'm not at a point where modelling is concerned. If you mean the NIST spectra, I didn't mean to literally integrate them. But I suppose one could by pulling the data using something like DataThief (I was just introduced to that program recently...great time saver).
Then one could try to interpolate a function from the resulting table. I don't believe there is an optical transfer function for them written in stone. They have to be guesstimated depending on the system under consideration, no?[1] Regardless, one's "eyecrometer" should be adequate to sum the general curves and compare (which is all I've done so far). When the BBR curve for average surface temperatures is considered, it cuts CO2's effect in relation to H2O further, from a qualitative perspective.
If you have anything on the subject, I'd appreciate seeing it.
References:
[1] DAVID J. THOMSON , Dependence of global temperatures on atmospheric CO2 and solar irradiance, 1997