Thanks Thanks:  0
LMAO LMAO:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Ignorant Ignorant:  0
Moron Moron:  0
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 233

Thread: The Great Global Warming Swindle

  1. #201
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Dr. David M. W. Evan's presents a 12 minute discussion on the Global Warming Skeptic's case:


    1) The observable Climate data clearly shows no CO2 feedback system exists; which is the underlying foundation for Man Made Global Warming.

    2) The observable facts are constantly being replaced with flawed computer models as a basis for proof, but the observable data clearly shows the opposite.




  2. #202
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    More of the Junk Science of Man Made Global Warming exposed for what it is; JUNK SCIENCE:

    There isn't a shred of observable data that supports one single shred of evidence of Man Made Global Warming.





    The EPA has already shut down over 300 coal fired power plants with the war on greenhouse gases. And have put 90 million Americans out of work permanently.

    If the science were settled on global warming there should only be one computer model and not many different climate models.

    CO2 levels are now lower than they have been in over 300 million years, and because of this low level, dinosaurs couldn't survive because low CO2 levels couldn't support huge amounts of vegitagen like it had been during the time of the dinosaurs when CO2 levels were many times higher than today.


  3. #203
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by baylee View Post
    The signers name, titles and such are there. Private religious college?
    I'm sorry baylee i've been typing from a cell phone so somethings were probally not as clear as they could have been.

    I'll i'm siimply saying is that I don't really trust lists like this. I've seen the ones creationists produce and there methods and a lot of those methods have been transfered over to climate change.

    The average person who looks at the list would see a list of prominent and important sounding titles and names.

    After reading through the names, titles and locations several things pop out too me.

    -17% have the title emaritus. Meaning they are retired. Having such a large number stands out. (this over laps the other titles)
    -32% have the title of meterologists. Experts in weather not necissarily climate. It's also a title that up till the last 10-15 years didn't require any education in climate to hold the title. Several are local news casters.
    - 23% are geologists...... Are geologists experts in climate? or are they experts in oil?

    To me this sounds like someone is padding the list.

    Does this mean this list is fake.... Certainly not. Does it mean it deserves extra scrutiny.... certainly.
    Does this override the several thousand experts who disagree with the people in the list.... No.

    However, that's just my take on things.

  4. Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post
  5. #204
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund129 View Post
    More of the Junk Science of Man Made Global Warming exposed for what it is; JUNK SCIENCE:

    There isn't a shred of observable data that supports one single shred of evidence of Man Made Global Warming.





    The EPA has already shut down over 300 coal fired power plants with the war on greenhouse gases. And have put 90 million Americans out of work permanently.

    If the science were settled on global warming there should only be one computer model and not many different climate models.

    CO2 levels are now lower than they have been in over 300 million years, and because of this low level, dinosaurs couldn't survive because low CO2 levels couldn't support huge amounts of vegitagen like it had been during the time of the dinosaurs when CO2 levels were many times higher than today.

    Ed.... You are literally repeating your claims over and over. We have already discussed most of this within this thread. Repeating the claim over and over will not make it any more true than the first time you did it.

  6. #205
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    19,835
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund the Exaggerator
    The EPA has already shut down over 300 coal fired power plants with the war on greenhouse gases. And have put 90 million Americans out of work permanently.
    The current population of the USA stands at just over 313 million people.

    Are you saying that 28% of the entire American population has been put out of work by the EPA ??

    Bullshit, Edmund.

    Sources for your nonsense claims, Edmund or you'll become the ex Edmund.
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

  7. Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post
  8. #206
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    The EPA has already shut down over 300 coal fired power plants with the war on greenhouse gases. And have put 90 million Americans out of work permanently.

    If the science were settled on global warming there should only be one computer model and not many different climate models.

    CO2 levels are now lower than they have been in over 300 million years, and because of this low level, dinosaurs couldn't survive because low CO2 levels couldn't support huge amounts of vegitagen like it had been during the time of the dinosaurs when CO2 levels were many times higher than today.

    Ed I'll point you to bluewolf post from over a month ago when he responded to you then.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Wolf View Post
    Like I mentioned before, most of those people choose not to work or don't need to work. It has nothing to do with the unemployment rate. Or global warming.

    From the U.S. Department of Labor:

    Not in the labor force

    Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work.
    I'll also point out that your article you posted at the time pointed out that.
    - Coal prices have vastly increased
    - Power consumption has gone down
    - Natural gas prices have dropped (Fracking anyone?) Natural gas plants being built?

    Apparently you are opposed to capitalism.



    Ed. If i may make 3 suggestions.
    - READ PEOPLES POSTS
    - READ PEOPLES POSTS
    - READ PEOPLES POSTS

    For God sake you are literally repeating mistakes over and over. You spent a couple of hours looking up videos on stuff that had already been debunked. It was a complete waste of your time.

  9. Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post
  10. #207
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    19,835
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund the Exaggerator
    The EPA has already shut down over 300 coal fired power plants with the war on greenhouse gases.
    What is the average age of a coal fired power station in the USA, Edmund ???

    What is the life expectancy of a coal fired power station, Edmund ??

    How much does it cost to refurbish a power station, Edmund ???

    In 2013, what form of power generation is the most cost efficient in terms of building / maintaining / power output, Edmund ??

    Can you provide us with a list of the 300 coal fired power stations you claim were "already shut down by the EPA" together with a list showing they had not simply reached the end of their useful life and needed to be refurbished or replaced and were NOT shut down by the EPA ?
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

  11. #208
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,006
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Spector567 View Post
    I'm sorry baylee i've been typing from a cell phone so somethings were probally not as clear as they could have been.

    I'll i'm siimply saying is that I don't really trust lists like this. I've seen the ones creationists produce and there methods and a lot of those methods have been transfered over to climate change.

    The average person who looks at the list would see a list of prominent and important sounding titles and names.

    After reading through the names, titles and locations several things pop out too me.

    -17% have the title emaritus. Meaning they are retired. Having such a large number stands out. (this over laps the other titles)
    -32% have the title of meterologists. Experts in weather not necissarily climate. It's also a title that up till the last 10-15 years didn't require any education in climate to hold the title. Several are local news casters.
    - 23% are geologists...... Are geologists experts in climate? or are they experts in oil?

    To me this sounds like someone is padding the list.

    Does this mean this list is fake.... Certainly not. Does it mean it deserves extra scrutiny.... certainly.
    Does this override the several thousand experts who disagree with the people in the list.... No.

    However, that's just my take on things.
    For many years I volunteered time, resources and money for climate study sponsored Oxford University (Bonic) but I am now withholding my time, resources, and money because of known errors in data collection points. It surely seems to me that the same scrutiny should apply to either side. After all incorrect data imputed equals incorrect conclusions.

    This is my take on it.

  12. #209
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    3,023
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund129 View Post
    CO2 levels are now lower than they have been in over 300 million years, and because of this low level, dinosaurs couldn't survive because low CO2 levels couldn't support huge amounts of vegitagen like it had been during the time of the dinosaurs when CO2 levels were many times higher than today.

    This is patently ludicrous.
    First of all, the dinosaur extinction was not caused by atmospheric conditions, but rather by a natural disaster. And it wasn't 300 million years ago which was at the end of the Carboniferous period / beginning of the Permian period. The dinosaur die-out was at the end of the Cretaceous period 65 million years ago.
    Secondly, CO2 levels do not control plant growth in the long term. Life adapts, and alters its' environment around itself.
    Third, flowering plants did not yet exist during the Permian. The majority of modern plants are flowering. Different biology, Edmund, different biology. For that matter, dinosaurs hadn't evolved into a major group yet at that point in time.
    If you are in Prosper With Integrity, and do not like that your personal information has been published here, please talk to these good people: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov http://www.ic3.gov http://www.fbi.gov

  13. #210
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    19,835
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Here ya go, Edmund,

    how many of your "300" power stations allegedly "closed by the EPA" appear on this list ??



    See the column highlighted in pink, Edmund ???

    How much does it cost to upgrade / refurbish a 50 year old power station, Edmund ??
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

  14. #211
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    WHAT ABOUT THE TERROR OF GLOBAL WARMING?

    One can understand fully why the citizens of earth will fall in with any plan which will save them from the crisis of the dread "greenhouse effect"! They have visions of disasters horrific, icecaps melting with civilizations being wiped out along coastlines as the oceans overflow, extremely high temperatures causing gigantic bush fires beyond imagination, no rain, no water, everyone getting melanomas on their skins - a hell on earth! There are a number of points of immense importance we should consider straight away here:

    1. ALL scientists do NOT agree that there is any catastrophic greenhouse warming happening. The facts are startling, as pointed out on page 39 of "Saviours of the Earth"; "Some environmental leaders and politicians would have you believe that almost all scientists agree global warming is occurring. Vice President Albert Gore asserts that 98 percent of all atmospheric scientists agree that catastrophic greenhouse warming has begun. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. A February 1992 Gallup poll of climatologists and atmospheric physicists yielded the conclusion that only SEVENTEEN PERCENT of these scientists believed there was scientific evidence for greenhouse-caused global warming." (Emphasis added). (The poll was taken within the members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorlogical Society. from National Review, March 16 1992, 17.)

    2. Therefore, a massive EIGHTY THREE PERCENT of those scientists cited above actually believe that there is NO EVIDENCE for greenhouse warming. A small sample only of the scientific facts should go a long way towards convincing the reader that something "smells fishy" about this whole global warming fiasco.

    3. We have been told that the warmest global temperatures occurred in the 1980s. That is true enough, but what they did not tell us was that 90 percent of the warming during the past 100 years had already occurred by 1940:"In fact, the entire 100-year increase in temperature can be explained by a five-year increase that took place between 1917 and 1921. But the increase was so benign that nobody noticed it for sixty-five years. Although the biggest temperature increases occurred during the first half of the twentieth century, the big increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases did not occur until AFTER 1950." ("Saviours of the Earth", p. 40). (Robert Balling, The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1992), 87. Patrick Michaels, Sound and Fury (Washington, D.C.: CATO Institute, 1993. 55.63.) Most of the warming had really happened BEFORE greenhouse gas emissions started to accelerate!

    4. From a scientist that should know, Patrick Michaels, associate professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, he says: "Northern Hemisphere satellite data, like those for the Southern Hemisphere, show no warming since the platforms were launched in 1979. Moreover, the very warm years of the 1980s, which are so evident in the land-based record, simply do not appear in the satellite readings." (: Ibid. 55.) Scientists have also shown that "extensive tree ring analyses show the same result - no warming in the past twenty five years." ("Saviours of the Earth", p.40.

    5. A great exaggeration has accompanied the environmentalists' forecasts about the climate, it seems. The climate models are not accurate, indeed illogical. Looking at the past 100 years we should be able to test this. The environmental climate models of the mid-80s predict that the 40 percent increase in greenhouse gases happening since the beginning of this century should have caused a temperature rise of over 2 degrees C. This hasn't happened, however. What is the increase in global temperature? At the very worst, only 0.45 degrees C. (Michaels, Sound and Fury, p. 40).

    6. Dr Coffman, using the findings of climatologist Patrick Michaels, and the investigations of Thomas Karl, gives these comforting comments on current trends: "They describe a pattern of cooler summers, warmer winters, and longer growing seasons. OUR CLIMATE IS ACTUALLY GETTING BETTER....Rather than being a disaster, increasing carbon dioxide has greater chance of being a major boon to life on earth!" ("Saviours of the Earth?" p.43).

  15. #212
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by littleroundman View Post
    Here ya go, Edmund,

    how many of your "300" power stations allegedly "closed by the EPA" appear on this list ??



    See the column highlighted in pink, Edmund ???

    How much does it cost to upgrade / refurbish a 50 year old power station, Edmund ??
    The Cost is over $500 million per coal fired power plant. (Source: Actual Employees of Coal Fired Power Plants that I have personally know and talked to)

    The official number of Coal Fired Power plants shut down by the EPA is over 300. Retired is just a code word for: SHUT DOWN BY THE EPA and put millions of Tax paying Americans out of work.

    Coal Fired power plants can run for hundreds of years, not decades, after they were built.

  16. #213
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    19,835
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    O.K. Edmund.

    In the words of that great philosopher and raconteur, Popeye; "That's all I can stand, I can't stands no more."

    The forum is not a soapbox for conspiracy theorists who quote unknown sources and refuse to answer questions or properly debate the subject.

    You're welcome to return during your next school holidays.
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

  17. Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post
  18. #214
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    19,835
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund the expert
    Coal Fired power plants can run for hundreds of years, not decades after they were built.
    Nonsense.

    Coal powered generating plants built in the 1950s / 60s / 70s using the technology available at the time either have, or are about to reach the end of their lifespan with or without the EPA interfering.
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

  19. #215
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by ProfHenryHiggins View Post
    This is patently ludicrous.
    First of all, the dinosaur extinction was not caused by atmospheric conditions, but rather by a natural disaster. And it wasn't 300 million years ago which was at the end of the Carboniferous period / beginning of the Permian period. The dinosaur die-out was at the end of the Cretaceous period 65 million years ago.
    Secondly, CO2 levels do not control plant growth in the long term. Life adapts, and alters its' environment around itself.
    Third, flowering plants did not yet exist during the Permian. The majority of modern plants are flowering. Different biology, Edmund, different biology. For that matter, dinosaurs hadn't evolved into a major group yet at that point in time.
    Plant life does thrive better with higher levels of CO2, just watch the video documentary I posted in the previous link. A doubling of CO2 permits plants to live on 1/4 as much water. The higher the CO2 levels, the less water that is needed.

    Yes the Dinosours were whiped out by a meteor impact about 65 million years ago, but if you were to teleport those exact same dinorsours into days world, they would starve to death, because there wouldn't be enough vegitation to support their huge diet needs.

  20. #216
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    3,023
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund129 View Post
    Plant life does thrive better with higher levels of CO2, just watch the video documentary I posted in the previous link. A doubling of CO2 permits plants to live on 1/4 as much water. The higher the CO2 levels, the less water that is needed.

    Yes the Dinosours were whiped out by a meteor impact about 65 million years ago, but if you were to teleport those exact same dinorsours into days world, they would starve to death, because there wouldn't be enough vegitation to support their huge diet needs.
    Even more stupidity, with laughable spelling errors.

    Increasing carbon dioxide does not change the fact that photosynthesis uses CO2 and H2O in specific proportions to build glucose. Increasing CO2 can result in plants growing faster, but at the cost of being less nutritious per unit of plant tissue.

    Also, not all dinosaurs were huge. Look at your local sparrows. Those are descendants of dinosaurs, from the same lineage that produced T. Rex. Are sparrows humongous? No.
    If you are in Prosper With Integrity, and do not like that your personal information has been published here, please talk to these good people: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov http://www.ic3.gov http://www.fbi.gov

  21. #217
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Is Eireannach mise
    Posts
    1,245
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by baylee View Post
    For many years I volunteered time, resources and money for climate study sponsored Oxford University (Bonic) but I am now withholding my time, resources, and money because of known errors in data collection points. It surely seems to me that the same scrutiny should apply to either side. After all incorrect data imputed equals incorrect conclusions.

    This is my take on it.
    Fallacy: Red Herring

    This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

    Topic A is under discussion.
    Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
    Topic A is abandoned.

    This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

    The fact that a list is undependable has nothing whatsoever to do with the totally separate issue that data collection might be questioned.

    That's not MY take on it it is logic's and reasons take on it.

  22. #218
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Is Eireannach mise
    Posts
    1,245
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund129 View Post
    The Cost is over $500 million per coal fired power plant. (Source: Actual Employees of Coal Fired Power Plants that I have personally know and talked to)

    The official number of Coal Fired Power plants shut down by the EPA is over 300. Retired is just a code word for: SHUT DOWN BY THE EPA and put millions of Tax paying Americans out of work.

    Coal Fired power plants can run for hundreds of years, not decades, after they were built.
    Indeed, I have a hammer my grandfather had that is over a hundred years old in my shed. It is as good as new. We have only changed the head twice and the handle three times. One could do the same with power plants but the costs would be astronomical.

    Ripe For Retirement: The Case for Closing America's Costliest Coal Plants | Union of Concerned Scientists
    As many as 353 coal-fired power generators in 31 states — representing up to 59 GW of power capacity — are no longer economically viable compared with cleaner, more affordable energy sources
    ...
    The nation's current natural gas power plant fleet operated at only 39 percent of its design capacity in 2010. Running these plants at 85 percent capacity would generate more electricity than is currently being produced by all ripe-for-retirement coal generators, plus an additional 288 coal-fired generators that have already been scheduled for closure.
    Ed apparently opposes Oil and Gas :)

  23. #219
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Is Eireannach mise
    Posts
    1,245
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Some of the problem with Ed seems to be his mindset as to
    1. His sources of information e.g. video snips and Fox news
    2. His logical thinking ( or lack thereof) e.g. he expects Global Warming is a fraud so rather than approach with an open mind depend on actual "objective" evidence he goes to biased sources which will confirm his own bias.
    3. He avoids actually looking at the evidence and when gioven an opinion about a report takes the unsupported opinion rather that actually read the report.

    Now there seems to be a pattern here of a particular mindset
    This is supported by the following
    Fox News Channel controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland School of Public Affairs, as published in the Winter 03-04 issue of the Political Science Quarterly,[47] reported that poll-based findings[48] indicated that viewers of Fox News, the Fox Broadcasting Company and local Fox affiliates were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three misperceptions:[47]
    I have hinted at these misconceptions in earlier posts but ED didn't reply as to his belief.


    47: ^ a b Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis, Evan (2003). "Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War". Political Science Quarterly (The Academy of Political Science) 118 (4): 569–598. Retrieved July 28, 2011.

    48: ^ PIPA / Knowledge Networks Poll Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War. Program on International Policy Attitudes October 2003

    What did those sources find?


    67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).

    The belief that "The U.S. has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" was held by 33% of Fox viewers and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS

    35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)

    I suspect Ed is of that mindset.

    A 2010 Stanford University survey found "more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming, [and] with less trust in scientists"
    http://woods.stanford.edu/docs/surve...g-Fox-News.pdf

  24. #220
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kent Ohio, Sol III
    Posts
    259
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Beacon View Post
    Some of the problem with Ed seems to be his mindset as to
    1. His sources of information e.g. video snips and Fox news
    2. His logical thinking ( or lack thereof) e.g. he expects Global Warming is a fraud so rather than approach with an open mind depend on actual "objective" evidence he goes to biased sources which will confirm his own bias.
    3. He avoids actually looking at the evidence and when gioven an opinion about a report takes the unsupported opinion rather that actually read the report.

    Now there seems to be a pattern here of a particular mindset
    This is supported by the following
    Fox News Channel controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    I have hinted at these misconceptions in earlier posts but ED didn't reply as to his belief.
    ..........
    I prefer the term Pseudoscience (Wiki).



    Of course, it isn't just Creationists (of any Religion, there are Hindu creationists too. ) or Climate Change deniers that use pseudoscience.

    Wiki has a decent list at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience.
    You've likely heard of many of those topics.
    You might even believe in a few of them yourself.

    Umm, I don't see the Aquatic ape hypothesis (Wiki) on that list. But, at least the give a kudos to the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax (Wiki)

    Remember that everything on the below list is 100% true.
    dhmo.org/facts;
    Quote Originally Posted by dhmo.org
    What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?
    Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
    * Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
    * Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
    * Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
    * DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
    * Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
    * Contributes to soil erosion.
    * Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
    * Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
    * Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
    * Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
    * Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
    * Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
    * Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
    Once you realize what Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is, your like .
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. -C. Darwin

  25. Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post
  26. #221
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Is Eireannach mise
    Posts
    1,245
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by nomaxim View Post
    I prefer the term Pseudoscience (Wiki).


    dhmo.org/facts;Once you realize what Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is, your like .
    Yeah . About ten years ago I though some high school students about the dangers of DHMO. I kept hinting for two classes for them to do some research but none of them twigged. They were so used to being spoonfed the "truth".
    Indeed everything I told them was factually correct. I mean about DHMO being widely used in agriculture and that it causes death if inhaled. And the Military and government are huge consumers of DHMO etc.

    In the end I had to ask them to draw atoms of DHMO - they still didn't twig!
    I blame the teacher. :)

    The big difference though is they didn't have the "truth" and look for facts to fit like in your cartoon.

    By the way I dont accept the Darwinean Theory of gradualist evolution of species over long periods . I go more for the catastrophist theory like world wide deluges . Puncuated evolution where species settle down and dont evolve much an then a catastrophe ( of Biblical proportions) and rapid evolution to fill the spaces and then things settle down again until the next catastrophe.

    Ironcially the christian fundamentalists opposed the gradualist philosophy and insisted on catastrophism but gradualism is now scientific mainstream and catastrophism was promoted by people like Gould, Muller, Alvarez, Raup and Sekowski,
    Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  27. #222
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by baylee View Post
    For many years I volunteered time, resources and money for climate study sponsored Oxford University (Bonic) but I am now withholding my time, resources, and money because of known errors in data collection points. It surely seems to me that the same scrutiny should apply to either side. After all incorrect data imputed equals incorrect conclusions.

    This is my take on it.
    baylee i've took some time to read up on this crowd sourcing study.

    You complained about the errors and the data collection points. I hope you understand that these are largely accounted for and that they are looking more at the change in temperature over time.

    Eg if one data point is showing a +1 degree over the actual temperature than a few degree change over the years is still going to show the same increase as the errors cancel each other out.

    A climate deinale group claimed that several stations were in error due to heat islands or other items.

    Scientists inturn removed those stations and produced the graph again. The change in temperature was almost the exact same.



    Also the study was designed to check random factors, and a wide range of variables to see what the results would cause. Eg. what would happen if they increased the solar output, or on set of data was wrong. etc.



    As to equal scrutiny. I couldn't agree more.
    Sadly that is not the case. Climate denile groups feel that misquoting/lying about studies and people. , ignoring a hundred years of scientific principals, and insinuating massive world wide conspiracies is acceptable practice.
    Afterall just look at ED.... No one in this forum had to do indepth review to prove ED wrong. We just checked his sources. It's the same with most denier cliams.

    Meanwhile climate deniers will jump all over the declare everything false if they find one typo, one wrong source, or a hair out of place on anything. I once saw the heartland institute try to dismiss climate change over the difference of 0.01m. Ignoring the other 0.99m.

    In short I think there should be equal scrutiny. However, the scientists that are being held to an almost impossible standard while the deniers have little to no standards at all.

  28. #223
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,006
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Spector567 View Post
    baylee i've took some time to read up on this crowd sourcing study.

    You complained about the errors and the data collection points. I hope you understand that these are largely accounted for and that they are looking more at the change in temperature over time.

    Eg if one data point is showing a +1 degree over the actual temperature than a few degree change over the years is still going to show the same increase as the errors cancel each other out.

    A climate deinale group claimed that several stations were in error due to heat islands or other items.

    Scientists inturn removed those stations and produced the graph again. The change in temperature was almost the exact same.



    Also the study was designed to check random factors, and a wide range of variables to see what the results would cause. Eg. what would happen if they increased the solar output, or on set of data was wrong. etc.



    As to equal scrutiny. I couldn't agree more.
    Sadly that is not the case. Climate denile groups feel that misquoting/lying about studies and people. , ignoring a hundred years of scientific principals, and insinuating massive world wide conspiracies is acceptable practice.
    Afterall just look at ED.... No one in this forum had to do indepth review to prove ED wrong. We just checked his sources. It's the same with most denier cliams.

    Meanwhile climate deniers will jump all over the declare everything false if they find one typo, one wrong source, or a hair out of place on anything. I once saw the heartland institute try to dismiss climate change over the difference of 0.01m. Ignoring the other 0.99m.

    In short I think there should be equal scrutiny. However, the scientists that are being held to an almost impossible standard while the deniers have little to no standards at all.
    OK, what you said is reasonable.

  29. #224
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    The book of Bad Arguments.

    https://bookofbadarguments.com/?view=allpages

    This is not in response to any global warming discussion but I thought it was an interesting read and description of logical fallices and how they have been used.

  30. #225
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Spector567 View Post
    baylee i've took some time to read up on this crowd sourcing study.

    You complained about the errors and the data collection points. I hope you understand that these are largely accounted for and that they are looking more at the change in temperature over time.

    Eg if one data point is showing a +1 degree over the actual temperature than a few degree change over the years is still going to show the same increase as the errors cancel each other out.

    A climate deinale group claimed that several stations were in error due to heat islands or other items.

    Scientists inturn removed those stations and produced the graph again. The change in temperature was almost the exact same.



    Also the study was designed to check random factors, and a wide range of variables to see what the results would cause. Eg. what would happen if they increased the solar output, or on set of data was wrong. etc.



    As to equal scrutiny. I couldn't agree more.
    Sadly that is not the case. Climate denile groups feel that misquoting/lying about studies and people. , ignoring a hundred years of scientific principals, and insinuating massive world wide conspiracies is acceptable practice.
    Afterall just look at ED.... No one in this forum had to do indepth review to prove ED wrong. We just checked his sources. It's the same with most denier cliams.

    Meanwhile climate deniers will jump all over the declare everything false if they find one typo, one wrong source, or a hair out of place on anything. I once saw the heartland institute try to dismiss climate change over the difference of 0.01m. Ignoring the other 0.99m.

    In short I think there should be equal scrutiny. However, the scientists that are being held to an almost impossible standard while the deniers have little to no standards at all.
    There should be strict laws to check rising earth temperature.. Green ways of generating energy must be implemented all around the world along with cutting down of fossil fuel usage

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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