Global Warming Alarmism is Unacceptable and Should be Confronted

[SuddenImpact]

Such as potable water,medical care,feed the poor and so on.Where money spent will produce tangible results.

Try this link:

Copenhagen Consensus

Pretty much. Wow, I'd never even heard of this guy before!

[SuddenImpact]

I run a skeptic forum on global warming.I am well aware of the AGW claims.

But how do you know that your stats are right? Everyone has different numbers.

[Sunsettommy]

Originally Posted by SuddenImpact

But how do you know that your stats are right? Everyone has different numbers.

Hmm did you actually visit my site?

Actually there are only a few climate stats that mean anything.

The rest are made up or are based on assumptions.

It would help if you bring up examples on what "stats" you are referring to.

The ones I consider credible are the ones that have no political bias in it.Such as Satellite Temperature data.

Here is one I have posted to befuddle AGW believers (expose their ignorance) with and when they deny it.I then post the clinching haymaker.They feel dumb about it afterwards.

I am quoting my words:

Surface Ocean contains about 1,000 Gigatons of CO2

Intermediate and deep ocean contains about 38,000 Gt of CO2

In contrast to the atmosphere containing about 750 GT of CO2

Vegetation,Soils and Detritus contains about 2,200 GT of CO2

Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 GT C;
vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 GT C; marine biota and the surface ocean,
50 GT C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 GT
C."

Mankind emits about 8.5 GT of CO2 per year.

The atmosphere CO2 is cycled out in less than 8 years.

CO2 is NOT pollution.

Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:08 pm post

[BillW]

Originally Posted by SuddenImpact

But how do you know that your stats are right? Everyone has different numbers.

You can bet that if the source and methodology of the figures aren’t published and verified, they’re bogus. If you see a wide fluctuation in basic data, you can assume any numbers that are on the edges are bogus. If you see stats that don’t also publish the underlying assumptions and data, they’re bogus.

Remember, it took Congress several years to get Dr. Mann to make public the numbers and methodology he used to create the hockey stick – and they only succeeded because we American taxpayers paid for the work. Once the source material was made public it took less than 2 weeks for respectable scientists to show the first of many errors (lies) in his work.

I’m lucky in that I get to see much of the raw data right off the satellites before anyone distorts them.

[Sunsettommy]

I see that no one wants to see what trap I had set.

[HarpoSpoke]

Originally Posted by Sunsettommy

Maybe you are similar to Bjorn Lomborg?

Who believes that GW is real.But the effects of it are not that significant.He wants the money spent on the needy people and infrastructure.Than to spend it "mitigating" CO2 emissions.

He is part of the "Copenhagen Consensus" where they believe that there are many environmental and social things to do that more important than reducing CO2 emissions.

Such as potable water,medical care,feed the poor and so on.Where money spent will produce tangible results.

Try this link:

Copenhagen Consensus

I think everyone should read Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and "Cool It". The guy, as you say, accepts the IPCC side of things, but makes a very logical and well thought out case for why concentrating our efforts in other areas would yield far better results. (As in, spending money on "stopping global warming" would be a complete waste of money and resources.)

The one point I never see raised is whether or not warming is bad or good.

Hasn't history clearly shown that we flourish during warming cycles and struggle during cooling cycles? (Roman Warming-good times/Dark Ages-bad times/Medieval Warming-good times/Little Ice Age-bad times/Modern Warming-good times.)

I would think that would be a big point considering that we are fully 150 years into the current warming and have seen the most pronounced improvements ever in human living conditions during that time. So tell me Al Gore, when exactly is the bad stuff supposed to start happening in connection to warming? ("Any time now....you just watch...any time now....yep...any second...mark my words!")

So it seems that even if we were "responsible" for global warming, we should give ourselves a big high five and see to it that we "prevent" any future cooling. (Which could be starting now actually. )

This idea that ice is somehow "good" baffles me.

[HarpoSpoke]

Originally Posted by Sunsettommy

The atmosphere CO2 is cycled out in less than 8 years.

CO2 is NOT pollution.

These last two are big. The first, as you probably know, has undergone attacks recently when it became obvious it was a problem for the AGW religion. (Their theory simply doesn't work with that time frame.) After agreement for decades on how long CO2 remains in the atmosphere....now some are trying to claim it's 50 years or longer. They are allowed to get away with it too. (big surprise)

And CO2 being referred to as "pollution" is beyond hilarious. It's only the lifeblood of the planet is all. It's very possible the green revolution is a result of greater CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. (We know that plants respond very well to even small increases in CO2...even being able to grow with less water.)

[HarpoSpoke]

I just joined your board Sun. It looks like just what I'm looking for.

[BillW]

Originally Posted by HarpoSpoke

And CO2 being referred to as "pollution" is beyond hilarious. It's only the lifeblood of the planet is all. It's very possible the green revolution is a result of greater CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. (We know that plants respond very well to even small increases in CO2...even being able to grow with less water.)

Wait until they discover oxygen is toxic and will kill you (at partial pressures greater than 1.6 atm). It’s also an oxidant that causes wrinkles and aging - ban it NOW!

[Rightwing Nutjob]

Don't forget dihydrogen monoxide, which can be fatal if inhaled among the myriad additional hazards it presents.

Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and benzene), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.

More dangers include the following:
* 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.