Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[sargeant]

Again you show your ill mannered rhetoric
Had you read what i wrote after doing as you demanded you would have seen clearly that I DO NOT adhere to the global warming fraternity. I have a personal view which is different and adds to the debate did-didnt, did-didnt, did-didnt, did-didnt

I believe that natural warming (malankovic theory) is happening (and man can do diddly squat about it)
I believe that man IS effecting the atmosphere (and it takes a fool to even think it is not)
I believe DEFORESTATION and the subsequent URBANISATION is the main warming effect
I believe fossil fuels are also playing a part but is minor in comparison (which is where i part company with the believing faithful)
I believe that OVER POPULATION is the main and total cause of man made global warming
I also believe man cannot and will not tackle the population issue which makes all the PS from septics like you and the believers nothing more than a mute point
I firmly believe carbon taxes are a fraud and will do NOTHING to stop mans effect on the atmosphere (again i part company with the believers)

I do believe the believers like steve g are more honest and closer to REALITY than the septics whose downright lies, twisting, smearing and sliming of honest science is just plain uninteligent

whether you choose not to debate is up to you but accept (whether you like it or not) i can also choose to answer any of your posts that i disagree with
and Mods please note i have listened (BB) no name calling and reasoned debate which i shall adhere to

edited because i just noticed

So when challenged to demonstrate your knowledge of 'simple science', with what should be a straightforward search, you pointedly avoid doing so.

Unlike you i do not need someone to tell me what to believe THANKs to YOU i researched and using something between my ears made up my own mind and as i am not a sheep and certainly not a follower of anyone or thing i allow my own inteligence to decide.
That you need a search shows that you do not trust your own inteligence but demand others should

I dont think so not in my house anyway

[MrPlum]

'Breakthrough in Hydrogen Fuel Production Could Revolutionize Alternative Energy Market'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... ce+News%29

[Bristolian]

'Breakthrough in Hydrogen Fuel Production Could Revolutionize Alternative Energy Market'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... ce+News%29

Nice link Mr P. I do not understand the science behind it and will do some more research but anything that has the potential to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels must be positive provided that the biomass can be produced in a sustainable way and not lead to further deforestation or growing cash crops at the cost of needed food crops.

[MrPlum]

Nice link Mr P. I do not understand the science behind it and will do some more research but anything that has the potential to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels must be positive provided that the biomass can be produced in a sustainable way and not lead to further deforestation or growing cash crops at the cost of needed food crops.

Glad you mentioned this. One reason why I don't fill up using E20 fuel at the gas station.

[STEVE G]

Yes and certainly China needs to look at alternative energy from an economic standpoint as well as environmental due to the fact that if the Chinese start to buy vehicles like the West, there isn't enough oil to go around and energy prices will go through the roof.

[MrPlum]

...there isn't enough oil to go around and energy prices will go through the roof.

Isn't the 'peak oil' claim a dog that no longer hunts? The U.S. has more reserves than the entire Middle East...

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

...and will be a net exporter of oil by 2030.

'3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate'




Add the finds, off the coast of Brazil, which are even bigger, plus continual discoveries around the world... http://www.ogj.com/oil-exploration-and- ... eries.html

[charlesh]

I believe that natural warming (malankovic theory) is happening (and man can do diddly squat about it)
I believe that man IS effecting the atmosphere (and it takes a fool to even think it is not)
I believe DEFORESTATION and the subsequent URBANISATION is the main warming effect
I believe fossil fuels are also playing a part but is minor in comparison (which is where i part company with the believing faithful)
I believe that OVER POPULATION is the main and total cause of man made global warming
I also believe man cannot and will not tackle the population issue
I firmly believe carbon taxes are a fraud and will do NOTHING to stop mans effect on the atmosphere (again i part company with the believers)

Totally agree Sarg however the science aspect reference is 1 that I am open for further convincing owing to the bias associated with people getting their bread from the providers with an agenda!

[MrPlum]

It is malevolent politics to introduce Soviet-style, Central planning global 'governance', involving $Trillions in taxes, population control (which is already occurring in the west, due to higher living standards, reduced fertility and abortion) and the criminalization of the individual, on the basis of fear-mongering alarmism and not 'basic science'. The totalitarian nanny state will be filling up jails with their new laws and taxes will be applied to almost every aspect of human life.

The worst of the scoundrels have had to concede they do not know what the climate is doing, they have no explanation for the pause in warming, which shows their models are wrong and they do not understand the self-correcting mechanisms and have said so. The anthropogenic influence is minor. it is impossible to quantify. You cannot tax corporations or individuals because it is impossible to show who is polluting and by how much. A search of the scientific literature finds NO evidence of 'catastrophic' warming.

Science is supposed to be about evidence. Disingenuous blow-hards demand it of medicine (double-blind, peer-reviewed, otherwise it is 'quackery') but somehow are able to dispense with this requirement when it comes to AGW, which only apparently requires a hunch, gut feel or a read of granny's tea leaves.

All these charlatans are doing is seeing a climate cycle, then riding it all the way to their next round of research grants.

Warming, Cooling, Warming, Cooling. Just how many times does the world have to end before people get it?

[sargeant]

quote charlesh

Totally agree Sarg however the science aspect reference is 1 that I am open for further convincing owing to the bias associated with people getting their bread from the providers with an agenda!

As i have posted regularly when i did my research it was very difficult trying to find unbiased info as both sides were at it. I read numerous very lengthy websites only to have to discard it as i then found it was written by a biased side.
I was forced on many occasions to have to rely on VERY basic science and then use my own inteligence and logic to come to my conclusions/findings
What i object to is when a certain poster trys to put words into my mouth that i have never uttered ie. CATASTROPHIC global warming. This is a disingenuous attempt to paint people into a corner it is almost always carried out by people who know full well that their argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Ignoring questions is another tactic it is mainly done by people who a.- cannot answer the questions or more often than not they know that the answers destroy the PS arguments they have posted
The biggest problem i have is with those that cannot debate without links to other like minded sources and this demand for peer revue this is because they cannot understand it other than it comes from one side or the other whichever side they have chosen and why? because they have no individual inteligence and are devoid of simple logic

So Yes i agree the science certainly needs to be more convincing as to what it will actually mean in the future but Steve g would probably quote that nero fiddles while Rome burns
I would agree but making the argument and leaving out deforestation urbanisation and over population leaves it like discussing the engine instead of fixing the puncture

[STEVE G]

Isn't the 'peak oil' claim a dog that no longer hunts? The U.S. has more reserves than the entire Middle East...

It's not oil that is running out, it's cheap oil. There are technically recoverable deposits all over the world but often at prohibitive costs. China is in the process of becoming the worlds largest importer of oil (perhaps by 2014) and at prices of over $100 a barrel. That makes investment in alternative energy look very attractive.

[sargeant]

You cannot tax corporations or individuals because it is impossible to show who is polluting and by how much

i agree except the corporations will not pay it working man will in higher prices, lower wages and larger shareholder dividends

and i will reiterate it will not do diddly squat to lower the ammount of co2 in the atmosphere

[sargeant]

It is malevolent politics to introduce Soviet-style, Central planning global 'governance', involving $Trillions in taxes, population control (which is already occurring in the west, due to higher living standards, reduced fertility and abortion) and the criminalization of the individual, on the basis of fear-mongering alarmism and not 'basic science'. The totalitarian nanny state will be filling up jails with their new laws and taxes will be applied to almost every aspect of human life.

and i take it you do NOT consider the above quote to be fear-mongering alarmism

the mind boggles

[MrPlum]

I was forced on many occasions to have to rely on VERY basic science and then use my own inteligence and logic to come to my conclusions/findings

This is neither intelligent, nor logical. Some of the science IS complex, which means you are drawing your conclusions on the basis of incomplete knowledge.

What i object to is when a certain poster trys to put words into my mouth that i have never uttered ie. CATASTROPHIC global warming.

When I said there was no evidence for this, you said 'not in my house'. Ok. Let me add a rider to clarify... 'amongst scientists who have published papers'. I took the view that a global warming researcher of your calibre would, at a minimum, have access to a database of published papers. You do, don't you?

Ignoring questions is another tactic it is mainly done by people who a.- cannot answer the questions or more often than not they know that the answers destroy the PS arguments they have posted

Or they simply ignore fools.

...because they have no individual inteligence and are devoid of simple logic

My Thai 12 year old says she will help you with your spelling.

[sargeant]

sargeant wrote:
I was forced on many occasions to have to rely on VERY basic science and then use my own inteligence and logic to come to my conclusions/findings
This is neither intelligent, nor logical. Some of the science IS complex, which means you are drawing your conclusions on the basis of incomplete knowledge.

It was totally logical because it was YOU that demanded that i did the research. Had it been someone else i would have probably approached it differently

I knew YOU were a totally propagandised/brainwashed sceptic and your debating tactics were hardly honorable so i deliberately avoided any obvious GW and sceptic propaganda or anything YOU could use to label me the same as you your goodself propagandised/brainwashed. I am proud to say i have all my faculties including reasoning and thinking and i am fully capable of making decisions based on FACT

I also spent not only many hours at this keyboard reading i also peer revued myself with the great help of HHadFan over a beer and discussed the basic science and discarded anything that was biased

Please note that is a million light years away from your goodself who discards everything on any subject that proves your fixed stance to be wrong

Quote:
What i object to is when a certain poster trys to put words into my mouth that i have never uttered ie. CATASTROPHIC global warming.
When I said there was no evidence for this, you said 'not in my house'. Ok. Let me add a rider to clarify... 'amongst scientists who have published papers'. I took the view that a global warming researcher of your calibre would, at a minimum, have access to a database of published papers. You do, don't you?

So now you add a rider. I do not have a thai 12 year old but i do have a cat i will ask him to teach you simple english as it was obvious i do NOT have a consensus of any sort. I will also state i have never used the word CATASTROPHIC to describe the warming because my jury is still OUT whereas your jury has found them guilty and sentenced them to death

Quote:
Ignoring questions is another tactic it is mainly done by people who a.- cannot answer the questions or more often than not they know that the answers destroy the PS arguments they have posted
Or they simply ignore fools.

thank you by answering you have now stated publicly that i am not a fool simply by answering OOOPs
A far far cry from bragging and boasting about ignoring me methinks

Quote:
...because they have no individual inteligence and are devoid of simple logic
My Thai 12 year old says she will help you with your spelling.

As we are getting on so well i thank you for your daughters help looking forward to it and as we are now mates and buddies pm your address and i will send you my cat

[charlesh]

Ha, ha ha.


WASHINGTON (AP) — Last year's huge drought was a freak of nature that wasn't caused by man-made global warming, a new federal science study finds.
Scientists say the lack of moisture usually pushed up from the Gulf of Mexico was the main reason for the drought in the nation's midsection.
Thursday's report by dozens of scientists from five different federal agencies looked into why forecasters didn't see the drought coming. The researchers concluded that it was so unusual and unpredictable that it couldn't have been forecast.
"This is one of those events that comes along once every couple hundreds of years," said lead author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Climate change was not a significant part, if any, of the event."
Researchers focused on six states — Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Iowa — but the drought spread much farther and eventually included nearly two-thirds of the Lower 48 states. For the six states, the drought was the worst four-month period for lack of rainfall since records started being kept in 1895, Hoerling said.
He said the jet stream that draws moisture north from the Gulf was stuck unusually north in Canada.
Other scientists have linked recent changes in the jet stream to shrinking Arctic sea ice, but Hoerling and study co-author Richard Seager of Columbia University said those global warming connections are not valid.
Hoerling used computer simulations to see if he could replicate the drought using man-made global warming conditions. He couldn't. So that means it was a random event, he said.
Using similar methods, Hoerling has been able to attribute increasing droughts in the Mediterranean Sea region to climate change and found that greenhouse gases could be linked to a small portion of the 2011 Texas heat wave.
Another scientist though, blasted the report.
Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a federally funded university-run research center, said the report didn't take into account the lack of snowfall in the Rockies the previous winter and how that affected overall moisture in the air. Nor did the study look at the how global warming exacerbated the high pressure system that kept the jet stream north and the rainfall away, he said.
"This was natural variability exacerbated by global warming," Trenberth said in an email. "That is true of all such events from the Russian heat wave of 2010, to the drought and heat waves in Australia."
Hoerling noted that in the past 20 years, the world is seeing more La Ninas, the occasional cooling of the central Pacific Ocean that is the flip side of El Nino. Hoerling said that factor, not part of global warming but part of a natural cycle, increases the chances of such droughts.
Some regions should see more droughts as the world warms because of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, he said. But the six state area isn't expected to get an increase of droughts from global warming — unlike parts of the Southwest — Hoerling said.