11/24/2009 10:03:35 AM EST

Hypocrisy...?

posted by Thothlike

Here in these forums I have encountered A LOT of hypocrisy on both sides of the political spectrum… both sides sprouting factless talking points and fear mongering about opposing view on their respectfully ‘holy cows’…

And if there is one thing I CAN'T STAND it is hypocrisy…

So I want to devise a little ‘experiment’ here where I’m gonna attack a ‘holy cow’ on both sides and provide the facts to back up my claims and then see what happens (both claims made by me are ones I personally truly believe in)…

My guess is that we will see the hypocrites on both sides standing side by side offering NO relevant facts to support their opposition and instead just resort to namecalling and baseless accusation… and then ALL the hypocrites will be exposed on both sides (all in one post)… :-D

Now I dare you to prove me wrong and actually provide a relevant discussion on the 2 subjects (incl. providing your own facts… or at least point out intelligibly where my interpretations of the facts went wrong and refrain from simple namecalling and baseless accusations)…

[editor's note, by MedfordTim]All bold is rude and unnecessary.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Let me start by attacking the right wing ‘holy cow’ of how public/universal healthcare is bad…
My contention is that the 'free' version (i.e. public option which would just be another insurance-provider paid for by premiums or universal healthcare which would be payed for by taxes) is way cheaper than the private insurance model...

To back up my claim you only have to see how much people in other countries with universal healthcare pay for their healthcare...

So how much do they pay…
I am Danish and therefore live in a country with universal healthcare... so let’s use me as an example...

Let’s presuppose that ALL my taxes payed so far went to providing healthcare for me (nothing went to the schools or police or benefits if I get unemployed etc.)...

I started paying taxes at the age of 16 and am now 37... for this argument I visited my government’s homepage to find out how much I have payed totally so far in my life...and I have so far payed 302.400$ (today’s rate of exchange) from the age of 16 to 37...

For that I have gotten so far...
All my vaccinations (even some extra as an adult for traveling to exotic places like Africa etc.)...

Countless home visits from a doctor throughout my life for everything from a sore throat to serious influenza (and once for dehydration after falling asleep in a tanning bed) :-D

14 days in the hospital and treatment (read: pumped full of antibiotics) for meningitis at age 12...

A checkup every 6 month (preventive care... something I wouldn't have gotten if I had to pay thousands of dollars every time)...

The removal of 2 vorts on my feet at age 32...

And I could go on... ALL at no extra cost and no denial for ANYTHING (incl. preexisting condition or being in the 5 or 95 percentile or... etc.)...

Now I don't know exactly how much each of these things would cost me in the US but you fill in the costs and tell me if I have payed to much... :-D

On top of that I have gotten...
Benefits for a total of 13 month in my life for being unemployed at approx. 1.500$/month...

Elementary school and high school and college at no extra cost and during my 7 years in college I on top of that got approx. 700$/month in student aid...

And again I could go on....

And later when I turn 65 I can retire and look forward to approx. 1300$/month for the rest of my life in benefits...

On top of that my taxes (and everybody else’s) also pay for the police... the fire department... the post office... etc. as it does in the US)...

So if you subtract all the percentile cost for school and benefits and police and all the other things... from my total payment in taxes you get a much lower number that I have payed for my healthcare... me personally I think I got a good deal and so does also EVERY poll in Denmark that shows in the high 90'ies percentile in favor of keeping universal healthcare as opposed to switch to private health insurance (the same as in ALL other European countries)... so we the public LOVES it...

But you do the math and see which is cheapest (and consider that we on top of everything are covered from birth even before we start paying for it until the day we die long after we stop paying for it with no denials for ANYTHING)...

The issue is... if you compare the cost of the healthcare that I have received during my lifetime (with no insurance) in the US (getting house calls from a doctor xx.xx$*x amount of times + hospitalized for 2 weeks with treatment and drugs for meningitis xx.xx$ + getting all my vaccinations xx.xx$ + ... etc. = xx.xx$ - you fill in the blank numbers) and what I have paid so far for healthcare in taxes would I have paid more or less with no insurance in the US than with the money I have paid for healthcare so far in taxes?

And more to the point... what would I have had to have paid to have been covered from age 0 till age 37 if I had to buy health insurance in the US?

And not only that but even if (which I don't think you'll find when you run the numbers but still...) I payed a little more than health insurance from age 0 to age 37 would have cost me in the US I would still have gotten better insurance that covers preventive care and is without the possibility of exclusion for ANYTHING... plus benefits and police and a no extra cost college-degree etc... so I still think I got the better deal :-D

Now if you really want to run the numbers... I presupposed that ALL my taxes went to healthcare (which it off course doesn't) so let me give you the exact amount I have paid directly to healthcare in my life so far...
Denmark uses 18% of its GNP on the healthcare system so it goes without saying that 18% of my taxes (and the taxes of everyone else) went to healthcare... so I have paid 18% of 302.400$ = 54.432$ in total in healthcare for the coverage I have received so far... still think I got a bad deal? :-D

But the point was that even if I had paid 100% (302.400$) in healthcare I still would have gotten a better deal... so only 18% (54.432$) is a hell of a deal... :-D

There really is no argument for not getting universal healthcare... you get better coverage without denials and it's cheaper... :-D

Now let the right wing ‘trolls’ go nuts :-D

Now it’s time to attack the left wing ‘holy cow’ of manmade global warming…
Here are some facts…

Most of the global warming people are mostly concerned with the rising in temperatures which causes the polar ice caps to melt which causes the water levels to rise which would be detrimental to humans... so...

1. Is the icecaps melting?
Yes… and using the latest reliable data it is 11% in the Arctic region and 3% in the Antarctic region pr. decade… there are no ands ifs or buts about it… but here’s the thing…

If our only concern was water levels we could care less if the Arctic ice cap melted at 11% or 35% or 100% a decade or a year or a minute… you see the Arctic ice cap is floating on water and ice has a larger volume than water so it displaces more water than it holds (for the ice below water) and it will add water (for the ice above the water)… too bad it’s not possible to write mathematical formulas in this forum (or I would have) so you’ll just have to take my word for it (or research it yourself)… but the overall effect of the melting of ice floating in water is actually is miniscule drop in water level and for an ‘ice cube’ the size of the Arctic ice cap the global water levels would drop about 17cm (do the math yourself if you want too)…

The BIG problem for global sea levels is the Antarctic ice cap… and that’s because it lays on land… so ALL the melting of it will result in rising of global sea levels (in an amount that makes the 17cm drop from the Arctic ice cap insignificant)… that coupled with the fact that 61% of all water on Earth (85% of all ice on Earth) is trapped in the Antarctica ice cap (30mill cubic km) if it all melted we would have a net rise of the global sea levels of about 7m and that’s problematic (to say the least)…

But the only concern about the melting icecaps is NOT only the rise or fall of global sea levels but also the salinity and temperature of the seawater… and in that respect the Arctic ice cap becomes EXTREMELY important because it is almost 100% fresh water (whereas the Antarctic ice cap is mostly seawater)…

So what happens if a freshwater ‘ice cube’ the size of the Arctic ice cap is melted into the sea… first of all it will drop sea salinity to catastrophic levels for sea life and we will see mass extinctions of species for which the entire Earths ecosystem relies… and second of all the new cold water from the north will disrupt (and maybe even extinguish) the large sea currents (like the Gulf stream) which are responsible for distributing heat from the Equator to the poles and the weather patterns that we see today would run amok devastating land life in a degree that would make it (if not impossible) extremely hard for humans to survive…

So the melting of the ice caps is DEFINITELY something to worry about…

2. What is causing it?
Well let’s start with a little math :-D
Humans release about 26.4Gt (Giga tons) of CO2 pr. year into the atmosphere… now that sounds damaging… but that’s not the whole story…

The oceans release about 330Gt of CO2 pr. year… and the animals and plant life (excluding humans) release about 400Gt of CO2 pr. year… (equals 730Gt of CO2 pr. year) so human emissions seams miniscule in comparison… but again that’s not the whole story…

You see the oceans also absorb 330Gt of CO2 pr. year (pretty much the same amount it releases)… and plant life absorbs 420Gt of CO2 pr. year (an overall reduction of CO2 by 20Gt pr. year)… so the actual ‘human CO2 footprint’ is about 26.4Gt-20Gt = 6.4Gt of CO2 pr. year…

It’s an increase but not a big one…

So what are the effects of a yearly increase of CO2 levels of 6.4Gt in the atmosphere… well the effects are debatable since CO2 is a VERY ineffective greenhouse gas… and it only comprises 3% of all the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere (the most effective being water vapor which comprises 93% of all the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere)… so a 0.00127% (6.4Gt) increase a year of one of the most ineffective greenhouse gasses which is in small amounts overall to begin with really doesn’t have much of an effect at all (it would take thousands of years to have a noticeable effect)… but that’s just my opinion… you do your own math…

But there is NO DOUBT that temperatures is rising and the subsequent effects of the ice caps melting will be catastrophic so we need to find the REAL reasons for the warming so we can see if this is a one way trend (only rising) making the effects catastrophic… or it is cyclical and therefore will start to cool again sometime in the future making the effects temporary and not so catastrophic…

So what are the real reasons for the global warming if not manmade CO2?
Well here I’m just speculating (since most if not all research has been on manmade CO2)… but I’ll give it a shot…

There are some interesting facts that have been left out of the discussion… first off it’s not only the Earth that is warming… at least Venus Mars and Jupiter (those are the planets we have measured but that doesn’t mean they are the only ones) are seeing global warming too (and even Mars is experiencing melting of its polar ice caps (one more thing to make manmade CO2 the culprit unlikely)… the problem seems to be solar system wide…

Well what is the one thing the entire solar system has in common? (I’ll give you a hint… it’s big and yellow and brings light every morning) :-D
You guessed right… the Sun…

And another fun fact in that regard is that the maximums of solar activity have risen slowly for about 30 years (about the same time temperatures started rising and not when we started increasing our CO2 footprint with the industrialization in the late 1800’dreds) where it will reach its absolute maximum in 2012 after which its maximums will fall again… so to me all the facts seem to point to the Sun being the culprit… but you are welcome to disagree :-D

So what can we do about it?
Well the short answer is nothing… sorry folks but if the Sun is the culprit there really isn’t anything we humans can do to change it but sit back and watch… sad but true… but here’s the good news… if the Sun is the culprit then temperatures will only rise until 2012 and then fall again (stopping the melting of the polar ice caps and increasing the refreezing of set ice caps)… and we will be alright since it was only in the hypothetical case of ALL (or most) of the polar ice caps melting that we would have problems…

So to summarize…
Yes the Earth is warming but it isn’t our fault and it will freeze again soon so we’ll be alright…

That being said… pollution in the form of burning of fossil fuels (creating CO2) has other and almost as far reaching consequences as global warming so switching to clean renewable energy sources is still a VERY good idea if we want to survive (but that’s a subject for an entirely different discussion)…

And just remember… this is NOT politics people... it is science... and science is about finding the truth... it's NOT a vote... so it really doesn't matter if there is a consensus or not... what matters are the facts... (i.e. there was once a consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth... then came this annoying little scientist Copernicus and said 'eeeeh no... the facts say the Earth revolves around the Sun'... and HE was right and the consensus was wrong... then the consensus was that the Universe was static... then came this annoying little scientist named Hubble and said 'eeeeh no... the facts say that the Universe is expanding' and HE was right and the consensus was wrong... then there was a consensus that the Universe was flat and then came this annoying little scientist named Einstein and said ‘eeeeh no… the Universe curves around masses creating Gravity’ and HE was right and the consensus was wrong… then the consensus was… etc. (and I could go on for hours… the point being that what the majority sais doesn’t matter in science ONLY the facts does)…

Now let the left wing ‘trolls’ go nuts… and we’ll compare the right wing nuts to the left wing nuts and see if they are any different from each other :-D

Love Thothlike

So far...
Right wing trolls: ??? (come on where are you... I know you want to attack my left wing views on healthcare) :-D

Left wing trolls: 1
EveningStarNM

That's it... I'm calling it...
Well this have been a positive surprise for me... I set out to expose the trolls on both sides and found only one...

I have found plenty people that disagree with me...
on manmade global warming and...
on my views on healthcare...

But they have all been willing to have an honest an open discussion on the two subjects and though we still disagree we all kept it civil and on point without resorting to either calling me a damned Liberal that should be shot for siding with the terrorists or speculation on my emotional health...

Only one person resorted to troll-like behavior (and I'm sad to say it was on the left side of the spectrum)... and that's...

His aproach was to first ignore my arguments about manmade CO2 (apparently agreeing with them)... and jumping straight to throwing things like 'exotic gasses' (Methane, CO, SO2, CFC... only one of which (Methane) is a greenhousegas and therefore relevant... and manmade Methane is in so small quantities it to is irrelevant in a discussion on manmade global warming) and other irrelevant facts around and then calling me mentally disturbed for disagreeing with him... true troll-like behavior...

I hope you all see the difference between disagreements and trolls... disagreements I like... trolls pisses me off :-D

So thank you to those mentioned that surprised me (in the positive sense) by not being trolls and proving me wrong... you've reaffirmed my initial high belief in this forum on TYT :-D
< Is Creed a Christian Band? | Cenk is wrong on the bailout but right on Geitner >
 Display:
Hypocrisy...? | 65 comments (65 topical, 0 hidden)
PS... (none / 0)
I know I have argued these facts in other posts before (which is where I encountered the 'trolls' on both sides)...

This post is to gather the 'trolls' from both sides side by side so they can be exposed for their similarities and hypocricy...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/24/2009 10:26:09 AM EST

I am a liberal so I'll take a stab at this. (none / 0)
I am a liberal, but I am not a climate scientist. I am probably better informed on this topic than 95% of my countrymen. The evidence presented to me and through personal observation of more than 50 years on this planet leads me to believe that there is there is no doubt that the climate has changed and the the earth's surface is warming. I can roughly interpret the data that is put forward, but as it is said there are damn lies and then there are statistics. Having said all of that I side with the climate scientists and the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) whose over 2000 scientists came to an agreement looking at the best data they could find that there is high probability (90% chance) that the cause of this warming is from greenhouse gases. If I could get a 90% probabilty of winning the lottery everyday, then I would become the richest man on the planet. That being said,  I hold open the possibilty that there may be another cause of climate change. It may be that greenhouse gases in concert with increased sun spot activity is causing climate change. At this point I don't care, because we are experiencing massive and possibly catastrophic changes to the enviorment and only fools would ignore the problem.
What harm would there be if the world began to switch to renewable energy sources? The oil companies and oil producing countries would be harmed, though somehow I know that that oil companies would land on their collective feet, but maybe their profits would be reduced. So I have to keep an open mind to the possibility that many skeptical scientists may be shills for these entities whose profits may be reduced in all of this.
What do we have to gain? I see countries gaining stability and greater independence through the ability to produce energy supplies on their own. I see the the US less involved in the middle east, with less cause to commit men and women to war there. I see this as a way to reduce the power of despotic oil producing countries. I see it as a way to create new jobs in this country and create new technologies, because sooner or later fossil fuels will be come exhausted. I imgaine a world where limitless supplies of energy from the sun can continuosly clean and filter water to supply unlimited clean water to the people of this planet.
I have not heard any convincing argument from global warming skeptics about why we should wait to transition to renewable energy sources and you haven't convinced me either.
Good post though. 

by mmosespt on 11/24/2009 11:10:42 AM EST

Thank you... (none / 0)
... for so far proving me wrong and not being a 'troll' :-D

It's ok to disagree as long as you back up your claims with facts and honest discussion and not just say... 'you're wrong and an idiot and stupid and...' etc. :-D

Now to your post...
First off the IPCC is NOT comprised of 2000+ scientist... the IPCC is the political office under the UN that 'checks' the climate and came out with it's report on climate change... that report had about 2500 signatures on it but only about 700 of those were scientists and none of those have been asked to sign off on the conclusion... only that their research was used...

Second... there would be NO harm in switching to clean renewable energy sources... like I said 'pollution in the form of burning of fossil fuels (creating CO2) has other and almost as far reaching consequences as global warming so switching to clean renewable energy sources is still a VERY good idea if we want to survive'...

And I wholehardily agree with all the benifits you describe if we do so... my point was that it is a good thing because of polution NOT global warming :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/24/2009 11:30:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
There's Liberals and there's Liberals... (none / 0)
See, unlike the 'march in step' Conservatives, us Liberals come in many varieties. To me, the question isn't "DOES man contribute?", it's "HOW MUCH does man contribute?"

Without the math, all I can say from personal observation of human habits is, "too much."

I think the most important part of your piece is:

"That being said… pollution in the form of burning of fossil fuels (creating CO2) has other and almost as far reaching consequences as global warming so switching to clean renewable energy sources is still a VERY good idea if we want to survive (but that’s a subject for an entirely different discussion)…"

I think THIS is the discussion we NEED, not whether or not man has caused 1% or 90%. If we CAN do something to help out, even a little bit, we SHOULD. And the answer is quite simple - convince all the Greedy Bastards making fortunes in Oil that they will make even MORE by going 'green.' Until then, all these other issues are mental masturbation...and although masturbation is fine for relieving pressure, it's a poor substitute for the real thing; deciding and implementing solutions. Gotta get the Greedy Bastards to WANT to do it.

How? Hell, I don't know. I'm just a fat old guy sitting in front of a keyboard. My forte lends itself more to questioning answers than it does answering questions...I'm funny that way...

by MedfordTim on 11/24/2009 05:05:54 PM EST

I agree... (none / 0)
We should definitely reduce our burning of fossil fuels (and other pollutants) and start using clean renewable energy... not because of CO2 and global warming but because it's POLLUTANTS :-D

And if we get rich doing it that's fine... but not a motivational factor for me :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/25/2009 06:22:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You said you were going to supply some facts... (none / 0)
...to back up your arguments, but you have given NO facts to your claim that the Sun is the reason for global warming.  In addition, you continue the fallacious practice of citing only CO2, and ignoring CO, methane, and all of the other greenhouse gases that we emit directly from human activity, not to mention the tremendous secondary release of methane from the melting tundra as a result of general global warming, which exacerbates our problems.  Further, your focus on the relatively minor-sounding rise in sea levels (7" minimum is project this century) fails to put it into perspective, although you do, at least, note part of the problem with changes in salinity.

Let's try some simple logic before wasting even more time on this:

You have no evidence that increased solar radiation is the cause.  In fact, no one has any evidence for it despite efforts by millions of scientists to find every possible cause for our problems.  Some deniers of human causes are even trying to blame volcanoes even though they can point to no data showing any increase in volcanic activity.

The Sun.  Volcanoes.  That all you deniers have, but you cannot make the case.

Besides, it is clear that whatever you think the cause is, we know that humans can influence these changes either by increasing or decreasing our production of greenhouse gases.  The case that the deniers of human causes are trying to make would be irrelevant if it wasn't for the fact that understanding that such people may have emotional problems or character defects which are a danger to the rest of us.

You said that you were going to present facts and then you didn't.  It seems that the climate change debate is as much an issue of character as it is one of science.

YOU were the one who wanted to make this about character.  Do us a favor: quit wasting our time.

by EveningStarNM on 11/24/2009 08:23:55 PM EST

Rats. (none / 0)
That's what I get for not using a grammar checker:

"The case that the deniers of human causes are trying to make would be irrelevant if it wasn't important to understand that such people may have emotional problems or character defects which are a danger to the rest of us."

by EveningStarNM on 11/24/2009 08:37:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Former occupations (none / 0)
Spill da beans, you were a speech writer for Dan Quayle, huh?

(One of the funniest things I've ever seen was a real book, "The Wit and Wisdom of Vice President James Danforth "Dan" Quayle." I was stunned, I had to look...it was a book of completely blank pages.)

The pre-checked version could easily be from a mind which thought up these gems...

 * "I have made good judgments in the Past. I have made good judgments in the Future."

 * "Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."

 * "We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a *part* of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a *part* of Europe. "

 * "We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."

and * "I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."


From Quayle to Bush to Palin...they should change their initials from GOP to FOYB (Friends of Yogi Berra)...

by MedfordTim on 11/24/2009 11:31:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You'll have to forgive me. (none / 0)
Even Napoleon had his Watergate.  Besides, I didn't really say what I said.  And comparing me with Quayle was unnecessary.  I swear, half the lies you tell about me aren't true.  But if you do spot something that I could have said better, I wouldn't mind if you told me.  I don't want to make the wrong mistake.

Look, I really don't think it's necessary for you to insult the memory of such an outstanding guy as Yogi Berra by lumping him in with those jerks Quayle, Bush, and Palin.  He was one of the best catchers there ever was, and a great hitter, too.  None of those losers were ever good at anything.

(Forgive him, Yogi.  I don't think he knows baseball very well.)

by EveningStarNM on 11/25/2009 12:17:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
LOLkitty (none / 0)

by MedfordTim on 11/25/2009 02:37:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Watched too many Arnie films? (none / 0)
" I swear, half the lies you tell about me aren't true."

I don't agree with that because all the lies he tells about you are not true. This amounts maybe to about half the things he says about you.;)

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/27/2009 06:54:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're still assuming... (none / 0)
...that I said what I said.  I've already explained that I didn't.

(We miss you, Yogi.)

by EveningStarNM on 11/27/2009 09:48:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No facts? (none / 0)
Fact 1:
The problem is solar system wide...

Fact 2:
There is almost perfect correlation between solar activity and historic temperatures... both shortterm and longterm...

This is a graph of solar activity and temperature for the last 500 years...
And this is a graph of solar activity and temperature for the last 150 years... now tell me again you don't se a correlation...


About CO2:
The only reason why I concentrated on CO2 as opposed to all the other greenhouse gasses was because that's what the manmade global warming people seem to focus on... it's all about reducing CO2... NEVER about reducing any other greenhouse gas... and ALL the facts absolve CO2 as the culprit...

Fact 1:
A small (0.00127%) increase pr. year of one of the most ineffective greenhouse gasses (CO2) that is in short supply (3%) to begin with is NOT possible to have such a great effect on Earths temperature...

Fact 2:
The temperature records from Antarctic ice core samples shows a 800 year lack of CO2 as compared to temperature... that means that FIRST temperature rises and then 800 years LATER CO2 levels rise... so CO2 has NEVER caused temperatures to rise in history...

That being said... you mention CO and Methane...

Let's start with Methane:
Methane is a VERY potent greenhouse gas (about 25 times as potent as CO2) so it seems like a good candidate...

The only problem is that Methane from human activities is almost nonexisting...

Methane (also called natural gas) in human production is only used to burn and thereby creating heat and energy... and a funny thing happens when you burn Methane... it turns into CO2 (which is counted in the 26.4Gt that humans release pr. year) and a lot of other non-greenhouse gasses that aren't important in this discussion... so no human Methane released...

This is incedently why no one mentions Methane in the discussion and stick to CO2 (well I've heard that some envirementalist has started to blame farting cows but that's still not human made and kinda ridiculous in my book)... :-D

Then comes CO:
CO (Carbon Oxide) is NOT and has NEVER been a greenhouse gas... so therefore totally irrelevant in this discussion... why you would think that I don't know... on top of that it's NOT a byproduct anywere in human production and therefore is NOT manmade so even more irrelevant in this discussion...

You have no evidence that increased solar radiation is the cause.  In fact, no one has any evidence for it despite efforts by millions of scientists to find every possible cause for our problems.
Well that's just not true...
Several scientist have found the above mentioned correlation and found it VERY significant... especialy the work of danish scientist Henrik Svensmark have proven very important in that respect...

it is clear that whatever you think the cause is, we know that humans can influence these changes either by increasing or decreasing our production of greenhouse gases.
Again since all the evidence say CO2 (or any of the other greenhouse gasses that is a result of human activities... even the non-greenhouse gasses you mentions) is NOT the cause and human contribution is so small then reducing human CO2 (and others) to 0% would have VERY little (if any) impact on global warming...

The case that the deniers of human causes are trying to make would be irrelevant if it wasn't for the fact that understanding that such people may have emotional problems or character defects which are a danger to the rest of us.
Wow that's really scientific and full of facts... this is not the namecalling I was refering to while I spoke of 'trolls'... or was it?

You have proven my point perfectly... you have presented no facts to support your claim (only false facts such as Methane and CO) and then resorted to saying 'since I don't agree with you I must have emotional problems'... yes you are definitely not like the right wing trolls (being ironic)...

You said that you were going to present facts and then you didn't.
I've presented plenty of facts... you've presented non...

It seems that the climate change debate is as much an issue of character as it is one of science.
I've made it one of science by using logic and facts... you've made it one of character by providing no facts and turning it personal by namecalling...

I rest my case... we have our first left-wing troll :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/25/2009 06:14:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
About your graphs... (none / 0)
No legend.  No scale.  No source.  No data.  No context.  No general acceptance.

No character.

Get a few thousand scientists to change their minds and sign off on it and then come back.  Then it'll be worth debating.

Oh, and CO is "carbon MONoxide", a very well-known greenhouse gas.  You must have missed that class.

It seems that your charts are worthless and you were wrong in your initial statement about CO.  Therefore, everything you said after that was a waste of our time to read.

Please! I'm begging you!  Quit wasting our time!

by EveningStarNM on 11/25/2009 08:15:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
About your graphs... (none / 0)
No legend.  No scale.  No source.  No data.  No context.  No general acceptance.

No character.

Get a few thousand scientists to change their minds and sign off on it and then come back.  Then it'll be worth debating.

Oh, and CO is "carbon MONoxide", a very well-known greenhouse gas.  You must have missed that class.

It seems that your charts are worthless and you were wrong in your initial statement about CO.  Therefore, everything you said after that was a waste of our time to read.

Please! I'm begging you!  Quit wasting our time!

by EveningStarNM on 11/25/2009 08:17:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
No legend.  No scale.  No source.  No data.  No context.  No general acceptance. No character.
I'm not sure what you mean... the graphs I provided have both legend, scale, scourse, data and context...
No general acceptance is true but as I stated... science is NOT a vote...

Oh, and CO is "carbon MONoxide"
Yes... and Carbon Oxide... both are valid names...

a very well-known greenhouse gas.  You must have missed that class.
Eeeeh no... CO is NOT a greenhouse gas... it does have indirect effects on greenhouse gasses such as amplifying the effect of Methane and when presented in the atmosphere it turns into CO2... but it's in so little concentrations (0.1 ppm compared to 380ppm for CO2) and it has to short a lifespan (8.4 hours) to really have an effect in the atmosphere... so the indirect effects it has on atmospheric greenhouse gasses are so miniscule that it isn't relevant...

It seems that your charts are worthless and you were wrong in your initial statement about CO.  Therefore, everything you said after that was a waste of our time to read.
Well my charts are not worthless and my initial statement about CO was not wrong...

Please! I'm begging you!  Quit wasting our time!
No stop wasting my time... you have allraedy been identifyed as a troll so no more need to post here...

My goal was not to debate with trolls but to identify them and that is done so no more discussion is needed (unless you want to bring something substancial to the table and stop your namecalling just because I don't agree with you)... :-D

Love Thothlike

PS. you don't seem to have a problem with my facts and logic concerning healthcare (at least you havn't mentioned them)... but plenty on my facts and logic concerning global warming... why is that I wonder... :-D

by Thothlike on 11/25/2009 08:50:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thoth... (none / 0)
Don't bother fighting with Star, he is a troll and he will cry and scream like a little bitch when he doesn't get his way, or when his lies are so easily exposed... He is on furlough again from the "special" room with padded walls... :)

by bobo1 on 11/25/2009 01:25:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you trying to convert someone (none / 0)
to a birther bobotaitz?  If I where you  I would give up the whole Obama born in Kenya thing. Orly keeps losing those court cases and getting fined for wasting the courts time.

Why arent you exposing his lies if they are so easily exposed there hoss?

Im having fun watching him put yet another flat earther in their place

Looks like you arent having so much fun ..

:)

oh btw do you just type random non sequiturs  or are you actually TRYING to make sense?

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/25/2009 01:37:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
Why arent you exposing his lies if they are so easily exposed there hoss?
Well Bobo might not be but I most certainly am...

Im having fun watching him put yet another flat earther in their place
Is that me you're refering to?
Why am I the flat-earther when I'm the one bringing all the facts to the table and Star is bringing none?

If you have something factual or scientific to say and not just personal attacks please say it...

And while you're at it... you think my logic and facts about healthcare are as flawed as you (without evidence so far) seem to think they are about global warming?
Just a thought...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/25/2009 02:06:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks, Bob! (none / 0)
Everytime you write in this forum, you confirm the low opinion held of you by this community as being well-deserved.  If it wasn't that you seem to be begging for it, you would be a sad spectacle to watch.

by EveningStarNM on 11/25/2009 01:58:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It doesnt bother me... (none / 0)
I enjoy watching nutballs like you get rocked out of their senses by someone who actually comes across as making sense...

You ARE a troll in every sense of the word here at TYT. You and Tiny are just as evil and nasty as I am when it boils right down to it. At least Im honest about my approach here...

You OTOH are simply "bat shit crazy" and dont even realize it...

Go take your meds and eat your hambugers...



:)

by bobo1 on 11/25/2009 02:07:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And this means what to who? (none / 0)
I'm amazed that you think anyone cares what you think or what you say.

by EveningStarNM on 11/25/2009 05:45:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Funny story... (none / 0)
I typed in TYT MSNBC into google, and this was one of the pictures that came up. I was initially looking that picture of you (the one of you holding a piece of paper that said TYT + New Mexico), but alas this was the next best thing... I just thought it was a cool pic... :)

by bobo1 on 11/25/2009 06:01:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And that's funny how? (none / 0)
But maybe this is the picture of the New Mexican you were searching for?

NM4TYT

I wonder who that is.

But thanks for posting your picture, too, Bob.  It's nice to know what someone looks like when you're talking about them:


by EveningStarNM on 11/25/2009 06:51:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thats the One! (none / 0)
Thanks - I'm glad you still have it! How much lithium do you take to get your eyes like that? Quite a bit, I imagine... :)

by bobo1 on 11/25/2009 06:59:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What happened to your picture? (none / 0)
I guess it got moved.  Anyway, I found another copy of it:

I really don't understand why you're not a professional model, bobo.  You're much better suited for that than for being in the classroom.

by EveningStarNM on 11/27/2009 01:32:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thats gotta be Tiny... (none / 0)
Sharing personal photos isn't really advised on chat/forums Star - I'm sure tiny doesn't appreciate you "outing" him...

by bobo1 on 11/27/2009 07:35:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
''Tiny''? Who is ''Tiny''? (none / 0)
I know you right-wing sixth-grader playground bullies like to make up names for one of our members, but he's a young oriental man.  The only ''teacher'' we have in Arizona is an older fat guy.  I don't think you can hide from this one, Bob.

by EveningStarNM on 11/27/2009 09:43:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Tiny's a Gook? (none / 0)
Well Hells Bells! I thought he was just trying to be clever with the whole "Chinese Democracy" name... That just makes my imagery of him that much funnier! Thanks! :)

by bobo1 on 11/27/2009 10:16:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're a phenomenon, Bob (none / 0)
A truly amazing specimen:  a human being with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, a total inability to see yourself the way others do, and complete oblviousness to the humanity of others around you.

I'm sure that the Phoenix school system is proud to have such a bigot as you teaching their children.

by EveningStarNM on 11/27/2009 11:53:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That doesnt mean a whole lot... (none / 0)
Coming from you, Star. Why are Liberals so angry all the time? You seriously need to lighten up...

by bobo1 on 11/27/2009 01:56:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Just out of curiousity... (none / 0)
Are any of your students "gooks"?

by Spencer on 11/30/2009 06:30:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
One or two... (none / 0)
Not too many gooks in my area - mostly spics, spooks and Mormons (the worst)

:)

by bobo1 on 11/30/2009 08:35:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh, you.... (none / 0)

by Spencer on 11/30/2009 08:58:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
and one lonely ignorant closet case right bobo? (none / 0)

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 12/01/2009 01:21:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
LOL that picture (none / 0)
that poor man just doesnt have it...

BoboTaitz  in the classroom  it makes my skin crawl

he is such a coward  

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 12/01/2009 01:21:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
And your opinion matters how? (none / 0)

by EveningStarNM on 11/27/2009 11:55:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
actually thats a funny picture (none / 0)
So you have a PHD  in psychology to huh?

why not

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 12/01/2009 01:23:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Whats the matter boboTaitz? You seem (none / 0)
agitated

You are a birther  

and you call other people nuts?

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 12/01/2009 01:16:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ignorance or dishonesty? (none / 0)
No legend: Which line is which?  They're different colors.  It would be easy to tell IF THERE WAS A LEGEND!

No scale: What are those numbers on the left and right? Degrees kelvin and lumens?  The're labeled "Temp" and "Solar", but "Temp" and "Solar" what?  "Temperate winds" and "Solar Winds"?  Whatever it is, they say there's a one-to-one ratio between them.  It would be interesting to know if it's true.  "Temp" measured where?  Solar what measured how?

No source:  Okay, they came from the "uploads" folder of some web site.  And that means what?  Tom, Dick, or Harry uploaded it to them and put it in his reply to someone's message because he's trying to prove that the sun is responsible for global warming?

No data:  Oh!  I must have missed the data tables for them... let me look.  Surely, they must be around here somewhere...

No context:  Similarly, I must have missed the description from the author of the graph explaining what we're looking at.

No general acceptance: So this refutes what millions of scientists around the world are still saying?  Wow!  They must all be pretty dumb!

"...not a greenhouse gas...": http://www.ghgonline.org/ot herco.htm

And having you identify me as a "troll" in this forum is simply wonderful!  It's kind of like having my cake and eating it, too.  You're simply looking foolish.

But how old are you, anyway?  If you're just a kid, and I strongly suspect that you are, all is forgiven, and I apologize for the "no character" remark.  But you should strive to be much more accurate, or you leave yourself open to charges of dishonesty.

But I'm on the verge of making that charge explicit.  You're certainly providing enough evidence for it.

by EveningStarNM on 11/25/2009 01:50:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Niether... (none / 0)
No legend:
My bad... true it didn't say which line was which... the red line is sunspots and the blue line is temperature...

No scale:
They are Celsius and number of sunspots...

No scource:
They came from a study made by danish scientists Svensmark and Christensen...

No data:
True... no data tables... you'll have to get your data from the graphs...

And having you identify me as a "troll" in this forum is simply wonderful!  It's kind of like having my cake and eating it, too.  You're simply looking foolish.
Maybe... or maybe you are shoving your true colors... I have seen you complain over the right-wing trolls time and time again accusing them of namecalling not caring about the facts and not interested in a serious discussion based on logic... and then when the shoe is on the other foot you show yourself to be no different...

When the discussion have been about healthcare and Obama and... etc. I have even experienced you complementing me on my logic and common sense... where is that now?

But how old are you, anyway?
Hmmm read my profile... I'm 37 (might be a kid to you... I don't know)...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/25/2009 02:24:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I still can't decide... (none / 0)
...if you're intentionally lying or if you're simply tremendously ignorant, but this will be the last time I waste any time on you:

Your "bad"?  I would think that is obvious.

"Celsius and number of sunspots":  And juxtaposing various stretches of those scales is valid?  How?  Why?  You're asking me to take your word for it that there's an actual statistical corelation.  I don't.

"...a study..." made by who, where?  Let me explain: the world wide web, a network on the internet, has the capability to allow people to fetch information from all over the world using what are popularly known as "links".  However, even if such "online" documents aren't available, written materials usually include "citations", such as descriptions of original sources, whether they be magazines, newspapers, books, and printed publications of all sorts.  You might try using one here.

And I notice that you don't bother with "no general acceptance" this time.  Of course, all you would have to do is to cite one or two places where that "study" has been used and accepted in peer-reviewed literature or in respected publications.  But you don't even give us a link to the original material.

That makes me want to ask, "why?"

And you're 37????  Sheesh!  You're old enough to know better.  I take it back my apology.

You are a disappointing waste of time.  In order to avoid repeating my criticisms for a fourth time because, yet again, you utterly fail to refute them,  I'm outta here.

by EveningStarNM on 11/25/2009 03:10:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
P.S. (none / 0)
Regarding "name-calling":

It was YOU who wanted to make this a character issue.  You are the one calling people "hypocrites" at the very top of this page.  You should expect that when you present arguments such as yours that you might be subject to the very kind of character attack that you are making against others.

And it's hypocritical of you to launch an attack on people's characters and then cry foul when people attack yours.

by EveningStarNM on 11/25/2009 03:18:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Star, settle down... (none / 0)
Your blood pressure is rising, and it shows... You've been beaten, Global Climate change is not the end of the world, and Thothlike is cooler (no pun intended) than you...

by bobo1 on 11/25/2009 05:37:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh! (none / 0)
You still think your comments matter to me.   Well, I guess there's just nothing we can do about your delusions except pity you.

by EveningStarNM on 11/25/2009 05:41:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
LOL the little troll (none / 0)
is delusional in many ways..

maybe he will start using what he thinks is your "real" name and become your buddy.

Im pretty sure hes been drinking pretty heavily.

If you get bored just send the other school teacher to ( I think he said he was a poor school teacher  from some other little country)

http://www.realclimate.org/

He will be very very very busy trying to refute the scientists and evidence.

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/26/2009 10:34:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
At least... (none / 0)
... that's honest :-D

And that's fine... so would you still deny other people who feel diferently to at least have the choice of the public option... that way you (and those who feel like you) can keep your private insurrance without taxes and those who want the government to provide their healthcare can have that... and everybody gets what they want?

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/26/2009 03:44:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Socialism or not... (none / 0)
What's wrong with the federal government providing or guarantying their
citizens all of their basic needs (i.e. protection (army) - security (police/firedepartment) - justice (courtsystem) - decent living standards (minimumwages/welfare) - healthcare (public option) - etc.)?

It was once said... any society should be judged on how they treat their weakest members (which includes sick people)...

How does a society which have no healthcare for 40mill of it's people and deny coverage for a large percentage of the rest fair on that standard?

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/26/2009 05:13:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
Indigents already receive free health care in America. All they need to do is go to an emergency room.
Yes but that only covers emergencies (i.e. broken bones and blody noses and... etc.) it doesn't cover treatment and decease(cancer and meningitis and... etc.)...

My guess is that you might have witnessed this lack of initiative from some citizens in your own country.
Off course we have people who can but doesn't want to work (just like every other country in the world)... we are no different in that respect...

The question isn't whether we have those people... the question is whether we have more of those people than the US (and everybody else)... and whether the people who wants to work in the US are better or worse of than the same people in Denmark (and every other industialized country who ALL have universal healthcare)...

The answer to those two questions are...
No we don't have more 'lazy' people than the US...
And the working people in the rest of the industrialized world (incl. Denmark) are better insured for less money than the working people in the US...

So the question becomes... if you could recieve better coverage for less money (even if the 'lazy' people would get it to)... do you want it?
Or do you dislike the 'lazy' people SO MUCH that you are willing to pay more for less coverage just so they don't get any coverage? :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/26/2009 06:19:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
Poor people with serious illness like cancer or heart disease receive free health care in America.
If that's true then I stand corrected... that just wasn't my impression... why do people then complain about being denied for anything by the insurrance compagnies for preexisting conditions etc. if they can get it for free if they want to?

Socialism offers nothing for me.
So you would vote for disbanning mediecare and mediecaid and the police and the firedepartment and the courts and the army and... (every other 'free' socialist benifits you recieve from your government payed for by your taxes) and just let people pay for it themselves when their car gets stolen and they need the police or their house burns and the need the firedepartment or when your country is attacked then let the people who want to defend it pay for the army or... etc... all out of their own pocket?

We have a "Two Tier" health care system in America. Poor people receive free care that looks like this, and that's how it should be.
Nice picture :-S hehe
Well if this is what you are ok with and you believe (and your answer to my above question is yes to all) then at least you are consistent... you most certainly doesn't share my view of humanity and that pesky litlle christian/socialist value of helping your fellow man in need...

But that's ok we don't all have to agree... :-D - I'm not looking for followers here... I'm looking for who's consistent and honest and who are hypocrits and trolls... :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/26/2009 08:20:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
Yes indeed. Poor people with cancer receive world class care at facilities like MD Anderson in Houston, and there is no charge.
Then I stand corrected :-D

Not at all. Those are earned benefits. Americans contribute to these funds with every paycheck.
Yes... called taxes :-D

I’m sorry we disagree, but please don’t be angry.
LOL I'm most certainly not angry... I can handle disagreement... what pisses me off are hypocrites and trolls (of which you have proven to be neither so far)... :-D

I’m all for giving people a helping hand when they temporarily lose their job. In fact, I would like to see benefits enhanced and extended, including health care.
How Liberal of you :-D hehe

Notice when you disagree with American Conservatives, the conversation remains genteel and respectful. But when you tried to disagree with American Liberals in the same tone, you suffered vile, personal insults.

That’s because conservatives are much more secure and confident in their positions than liberals are. You are shaking the foundations of liberal belief systems, which are very shallow to begin with. It's very disturbing to these childlike, dependent personalities.
Well that luckily is not true :-D
First you are forgetting that I'm one of those damn Liberals... and I'm VERY confident in my position :-D
Second I have meet many people in this discussion who are also left wing like me when it comes to politics and that completely disagree with my views on manmade global warming... but I have only found one troll (at least so far)... so I can't say (based on those facts) that Liberals or Conservatives are more prone in here to be trolls... everybody (except one) have been surprisingly (in the positive sense) civil and interested in honest and open discussions...

So thank you all for proving me wrong :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/26/2009 10:42:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
KFC (none / 0)
Or do you dislike the 'lazy' people SO MUCH that you are willing to pay more for less coverage just so they don't get any coverage? :-D

Let me give you an objective answer for Kenny the Fascist Clown (KFC):
He hates lazy people (that includes mentally and otherwise handicapped people, people who have suffered from a terrible blow of fate and children) SOSOSOSO MUCH that he actually would pay MORE money to see them suffer more. And that is exactly what he is doing in the current system and you point out in your post. I have made the exact point multiple times before but he is too stupid to understand that point and too hateful of what he calls "indigents" (scapegoats to blame for everything that goes wrong, like the Jews in Nazi Germany).

I only skimmed the rest of the conversation but let me assure you: Kenny is a troll in the true sense of the internet lingo word (inflammatory posts, then runs away, lies and cajoles unsuspecting new members like yourself to sway them to his side). Eveningstar is not. ES is a little moody and not very patient with noobs ;).

by eborujion on 11/27/2009 08:49:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I dont like it (none / 0)
when the conservatives run the entire country into the worst recession since 1932.

We where losing jobs at a rate of 700,000 a month

Banks where collapsing left and right

The housing market collapsed

etc etc etc

And you are knocking Democrats?  

I actually laughed out loud

If you dont want your healthcare costs to go up... then get behind the public option.

I know change is a scary thing for a conservative

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/26/2009 10:43:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
oh and Hughtaitz (none / 0)
you forgot to mention the conservatives ran the whole country to the edge of total economic collapse. You must be so proud

Come to think of it..  the conservatives really fucked things up in 92 as well.. I think it was 92  the savings and loans..

:)

Im starting to think you just cant trust them running the government arent you?

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 12/01/2009 01:26:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Some problems (none / 0)

How do you account for the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 275-295 to 380 ppm?  

And please provide links for the claim that it is a solar system wide phenomenon that can be attributed to the same root causes as Earths warming.

While you may find it hilarious that cow farts contribute to global warming cattle farming is a major source of man made methane (yes, cows are man made, think about it, they would never survive in this quantity with this high performance of meat growth and milk production). Methane has increased. It is not the major factor of a green house effect. But it is definetely contributing.

"This is a graph of solar activity and temperature for the last 500 years... And this is a graph of solar activity and temperature for the last 150 years... now tell me again you don't se a correlation.."

 Look closely at those two graphs.. Ever wondered why the temperature records since 1980 were missing? Because that is when the correlation ends and temperature and solar activity diverge. I don't have to even understand any of it to know what it means when someone feels the need to exclude a certain subset of data from his graphs....  

Here are more complete graphs. You can search for the debunking of "skeptics'" factoids on realclimate.com or skepticalscience.com   According to every credible source I have read or seen, solar activity cannot explain the warming of the last 30 years.  

 

 

CO:
on top of that [carbon monoxide] is NOT a byproduct anywere in human production and therefore is NOT manmade so even more irrelevant in this discussion...

Meh, that is blatantly wrong. CO is generated as a byproduct by most combustion processes. But of course it is not a greenhouse gas. Just thought I'd point it out.


"especialy the work of danish scientist Henrik Svensmark have proven very important in that respect..."

Having a world-renowned climate scientist in your country, does not mean you have to immediately jump the "skeptic" bandwagon. Especially when he only seems to be world-renowned for the controversy he created and the subsequent interest by the denier lobby (do I want to insinuate that he is corrupted by oil money? Yes! With an estimated salary of 4000 kroner (800 US$), he was an easy target for lobby money). I see how his work might help to explain the sun's influence on Earth's climate better, I don't see, though, how that denies the greenhouse effect...

The following video coincidentally was published today and tries to elucidate the role of water vapor in global climate.

re alledged left-wing-trollery: I can understand the anger when someone tries to ruminate often-debunked right-wing Climate-Change deniers talking points as the absolute truth. Do you think nobody here ever heard your claims? And yes, this subject is emotional for American liberals because it is one of the main items that separates those who care for the planet and humanity and those who just look for their bottom line or are to stupid to care at all.  

Btw: I am not an alarmist. I think that climate change is going to happen, though, and it will have severe effects on many aspects of human life in the future. But I don't really care either way. I believe that there will be no adjustment to human behavior on a grand scale no matter how loud scientists and activists clamor about climate change until the shit hits the fan big time.

by eborujion on 11/25/2009 08:48:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
Let me start out by saying... thanks for not being a troll and at least you have put som thought behind your position and used your own logic... :-D

And it's ok to disagree...

That being said... Now to your post...
How do you account for the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 275-295 to 380 ppm?
Well CO2-levels have been on the rise since the 1750'ies (WAY before the industrialization)...

My bid on the cause of that rise is... if you look at the Antarctic ice core data you find that CO2 lacks behind temperature changes by 200-1200 years (with an average of 800 years)... that means that when temperatures rise on average 800 years after CO2-levels start to rise... and if you go back 800 years from 1750 you get to then start of what is called 'the medieval warm period' where temperatures were as high (if not higher than they are now)... and it lastet about 300 years so if the ice core data is correct (and I have no reason to think they are not)... then we should expect to see a rise in CO2-levels begining somewhere in the mid 17-hundreds and the rise to continue for about 300 years (2050)... which is what we see...

So that's my explenation... :-D

While you may find it hilarious that cow farts contribute to global warming
No I don't find it hillarious but I find the amounts of methane produce by man (and cows) hilariously low and therefore not important :-D

And yes... it is definitly contributing... all greenhouse gasses are... I never said greenhouse gasses weren't important they are VERY important... my claim is that manmade contributions to greenhouse gasses are unimportant :-D

Ever wondered why the temperature records since 1980 were missing?
Yes... :-D
And it's true that after 1980 they diverge... but a divergence for 29 years doesn't prove nothing when the correlation exists for 400 years... 29 years is to short a time to say anything definitive about correlation... to prove that the last 400 years were just a fluke and no correlation exist we need have more than the last 29 years to back that up... and with the historic rise of solar activity in 2012 we seem to be back on track...

Meh, that is blatantly wrong. CO is generated as a byproduct by most combustion processes. But of course it is not a greenhouse gas. Just thought I'd point it out.
And a good point it was... yes on that I stand corrected... it is a byproduct of human activities... so good point... it's still in so small amount (0.1ppm in the atmosphere) that it isn't very relevant to the climate debate but you are right... :-D

Yes! With an estimated salary of 4000 kroner (800 US$), he was an easy target for lobby money.
He may have been an easy target... but where is your proof that he was/is recieving lobby money?

I can understand the anger when someone tries to ruminate often-debunked right-wing Climate-Change deniers talking points as the absolute truth.
Yes I understand where the anger comes from... but then again the same can be said for the right-wing trolls and it's not ok from either side...

And I'm not trying to revive allready debunked talking-points... I'm just saying that the facts and the science on manmade global warming doesn't add up and surgest a more logical explanaition... and then providing the facts to back up my claim...

Again thanks for keeping the debate sober and intelligent... and who knows maybe I'm wrong and global warming is manmade (I just can't find the facts to support it... and I'm all about the facts)... :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/25/2009 09:48:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
PS... (none / 0)
Sorry I forgot to answer this one...

And please provide links for the claim that it is a solar system wide phenomenon that can be attributed to the same root causes as Earths warming.
Well the solar activity claim I base on this and this (the graphs of solar activity and Earths temperature made by danish scientists Svensmark and Christensen) that show a clear correlation between the two which make solar activity the most likely culprit for Earth temperature changes...

Now it's true no such graphs exist for the temperature rises on Venus Mars and Jupiter (since we don't have temperature record of those planets going back)... but if solar activity is responsible for temperatures on Earth then it should be solar system wide and lo and behold we do see temperature rises all over the solar system right now (just as on Earth)...

I know that doesn't prove that solar activity is responsible on those planets but coupled with the fact that it seems to be the culprit on Earth it seem logical to assume as much... but you are welcome to disagree...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/25/2009 10:15:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Still, no links (none / 0)
but if solar activity is responsible for temperatures on Earth then it should be solar system wide

Yes, that is why I asked for links that explain or at least affirm that claim. I have done a not-so-extensive search and I have found several articles about the subject but they were mostly about Mars and Juppiter and the phenomena were explained by different mechanisms. Only for the melting of Mars' ice caps some theorize it may have been due to solar radiation.

The funniest thing I read, though, was the claim that because Juppiters active storms have climbed 10° K in temperature there is something like global warming due to solar influence on Juppiter... 1st, Juppiter is a little further away from the sun and does not get much heat from the sun in the first place but generates most of it itself! 2ndly: I do not have the exact numbers but life on Earth most likely would be been evaporated if the Sun made Juppiter 10° warmer. Feel free to disprove that. I just guess.

Sorry to say that, but if I read an article that says something akin to "Global warming throughout the solar system", I call bull shit. Because global warming as claimed on Earth requires an atmosphere with a significant greenhouse effect. Afaik, only venus is capable of that. Maybe some of the larger moons but there the solar influence is very limited.

and lo and behold we do see temperature rises all over the solar system right now (just as on Earth)...

Again, please feel free to provide me with links for that, especially for Mars, Venus and Pluto (and if you can measure an effect on Pluto, the effects on Neptune and Saturn must be huge). But I don't want to talk about Uranus... ;) schwang wang wang...


I know that doesn't prove that solar activity is responsible on those planets but coupled with the fact that it seems to be the culprit on Earth it seem logical to assume as much... but you are welcome to disagree...

No, I agree totally. If solar activity increases, the effects should be felt throughout the solar system. And the sun is the culprit that heats up Earth in any case. But the other planets might not have such an effective heat trap like we have on Earth. And also, they probably don't have to support (complex) life forms that are adapted to a certain temperature range.

by eborujion on 11/27/2009 08:58:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Jupiter vs Earth (none / 0)
 Juppiter is a little further away from the sun and does not get much heat from the sun

Jupiter is about 5 times as far away from the sun as Earth is. The flux of photons from the sun varies inversely with the distance from the sun cubed. So Earth receives about (5x5x5)=125 times as many photons per square meter as Jupiter does.

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

by aidbo on 11/29/2009 08:36:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks a lot! (none / 0)
I hope-guess that somehow helps my point ;).

by eborujion on 12/01/2009 01:33:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Better late than never... (none / 0)
First, let me point something out to you that hopefully will be a little illuminating (no pun intended):

There is no doubt among climate scientists that the sun warms the Earth. If sun activity and radiation goes up, more of that reaches Earth and it will be warmer (as long as the sun shines/is active). That is what the graphs show and noone denies that most of Earth's warmness stems from the sun. Of course that effect only applies where and when the sun shines. Where it does not, there is no effective heat generating source.

Here is where the greenhouse effect comes into play. It keeps the warmth trapped to an extent and evens it out over the day and the whole of the atmosphere. So, the question is not whether the sun is responsible for warmer temperatures (which it is) but if the greenhouse effect has increased so that the thermal energy is trapped to a higher degree than before thereby creating all kinds of weather phenomena. Also, AFAIK, nobody tries to deny that the sun traditionally led the variances in temperature. It is lastly the limiting factor in the whole system. If the sun's radiation does not reach Earth than there could be 100% CO2 in the atmosphere without her getting warmer. But until recenty there has never been such an abrupt change in the atmospheric composition (except maybe in the case of global events like supervolcanoes and killer asteroids).

[...]
>>How do you account for the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 275-295 to 380 ppm?
>Well CO2-levels have been on the rise since the 1750'ies (WAY before the industrialization)...

First, let me assure you to the boldness of the assertion that the rise in CO2 is not in any way related to humans! Even most of the ardent deniers acknowledge that human activities are responsible for some of the rise in CO2, they just think it does not do anything. Both positions obviously can't be right... So, which is it?

When does industrialization start in your books? Around 1750 is actually exactly the period I would place a significant boost in human activities around the globe (colonization and the beginning of mass production), accompanied by both increased CO2 production and massive deforestation. But in the graphs you and I have provided, it is the 1850s when you see a more siginificant steepening, and again, even more pronounced in the 1960s, both of which corresponding to periods of sharp rising global industrialization and motorization (1960s).

My bid on the cause of that rise is... if you look at the Antarctic ice core data you find that CO2 lacks behind temperature changes by 200-1200 years (with an average of 800 years)... that means that when temperatures rise on average 800 years after CO2-levels start to rise... and if you go back 800 years from 1750 you get to then start of what is called 'the medieval warm period' where temperatures were as high (if not higher than they are now)... and it lastet about 300 years so if the ice core data is correct (and I have no reason to think they are not)... then we should expect to see a rise in CO2-levels begining somewhere in the mid 17-hundreds and the rise to continue for about 300 years (2050)... which is what we see...

That would be a valid theory if the medieval warm period lasted until today (or at least until the 1800s). That could then explain why the rise in CO2 trails the increase in temperature. But as you said, it only lasted 300 years (my information was about 150 years). It was just a short spike in the record. How would you explain the increase 800 years later, if the triggering factor (temp increase) is no longer present? Please try to come up with a physically sound theory.

>>Ever wondered why the temperature records since 1980 were missing?
>Yes... :-D
And it's true that after 1980 they diverge... but a divergence for 29 years doesn't prove nothing when the correlation exists for 400 years... 29 years is to short a time to say anything definitive about correlation... to prove that the last 400 years were just a fluke and no correlation exist we need have more than the last 29 years to back that up... and with the historic rise of solar activity in 2012 we seem to be back on track...

As I said before, noone denies the correlation (respectively outright causation) between the sun's activity and Earth's climate, most scientists argue, though, that there has been a decoupling of those two parameters that is significant enough to be concerned about.


And yes... it is definitly contributing... all greenhouse gasses are... I never said greenhouse gasses weren't important they are VERY important... my claim is that manmade contributions to greenhouse gasses are unimportant :-D
it's still in so small amount (0.1ppm in the atmosphere) that it isn't very relevant to the climate debate but you are right... :-D

Every component (of 10 major and a few thousand minor greenhouse gases) "just rising a teeny tiny bit" so it does not make a difference...? Well, no, that is not how it works. Together the small increases of many components can have a major impact. Also there are interdependent components, feedback loops, buffering and other regulatory systems (like water vapor as the video I posted tried to explain). Cybernetic systems are not linear. The gross oversimplification that we are dealing with in today's climate debate that "carbon" is all and everything that has to be regulated is just concession to the ignorance and disinterest of the average person and especially the average politician. And maybe it is just hopeful thinking that that is the only thing that has be regulated. I, personally, don't think so.

On a sidenote I'd like to point out that almost every sea fish you can eat on the entire planet is contaminated with mercury and other heavy metals. Will you also argue that man could not have had anything to do with it?

>>Yes! With an estimated salary of 4000 kroner (800 US$), he was an easy target for lobby money.
>He may have been an easy target... but where is your proof that he was/is recieving lobby money?

I am not saying that he is a dirty, paid-for-by-the-energy-lobb y, corrupt scumbag that panders to the will of the mighty international corporations (many of which are more powerful and richer than the country of Denmark)... Also, I am not claiming that he may be enticed by his sudden fame into jumping the climate deniers bandwagon... I'm jus' sayin'! I am just a regular guy asking questions.

and who knows maybe I'm wrong and global warming is manmade (I just can't find the facts to support it... and I'm all about the facts)... :-D

You obviously acknoledge that there is a greenhouse effect that keeps Earth cozy. So why doesn't the elevation of the greenhouse gases that cause it influence that effect? And why is it impossible that the release of CO2 (and other compounds) that had taken millions of years to deposit in just a few decades does change the atmospheric equilibrium?

Maybe you are right and aaaalllll the experts are wrong. And maybe I am wrong and a major yet unknown buffer system will kick in and everything will be fine (meaning humans continue destroying Earth more slowly). But until then, I am not opposed to raising awareness that man can influence global climate for the better or the worse.

by eborujion on 11/27/2009 08:49:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
Nice post :)

no pun intended
No pun recieved :-D

<very good descibtion of the interactions between the Sun and the greenhouse gasses> (I boiled it down because it would have been to long to copy) :-D
And it's true that greenhouse gasses are VERY important (without them the heating effect from the sun would just go straight back into space and we would be living on an iceglobe) :-D

And the Sun is VERY important (without it there would be NO heat to trap) :-D

So it's a feedback loop... more heat from the Sun + greenhouse gasses = rise in temperature... and heat from the Sun + more greenhouse gasses = rise in the temperature - an increase in either rises the temperature...

My point (again) is that the small rise (0.00127%) by humans of one of the most ineffective greenhouse gasses (CO2) doesn't have a big global effect...

First, let me assure you to the boldness of the assertion that the rise in CO2 is not in any way related to humans! Even most of the ardent deniers acknowledge that human activities are responsible for some of the rise in CO2
The rise in CO2 is MOST DEFINITELY related to humans to... we produce 26.4Gt pr. year of the stuff... but seen in the total picture that only makes the human contribution to the rise an 0.00127% increase... so yes we contribute to global warming but not by very much and not by any mesurable standards in temperature rises :-D

How would you explain the increase 800 years later, if the triggering factor (temp increase) is no longer present? Please try to come up with a physically sound theory.
Without an explaination it is what we see in the ice core data so that's what we must accept...

But there is only one thing in the greenhouse gas system as we know it today (the animals... the plants... humans... the oceans... etc.) that can explain an 800 year lack in CO2 production from the causing temperature rise... and that's the oceans... so that's my explanation :-D

By FAR the largest reservoir of CO2 on the planet is in the oceans (and crudely explained when the oceans heat up they release more and trap less CO2 so we get a rise in atmospheric CO2 and when they cool they trap more and release less so we get a fall in atmospheric CO2)...

The problem with the oceans is that they are so large that they literally takes hundres of years to warm up and cool down (200-1200 years... with an average of 800 years apparantly acording to the ice core data)... so when temperatures start rising it takes that time (800 years) for the oceans to start releasing its trapped CO2... (i.e. the temperature rises and then 800 years later CO2 levels start to rise)...

On a sidenote I'd like to point out that almost every sea fish you can eat on the entire planet is contaminated with mercury and other heavy metals. Will you also argue that man could not have had anything to do with it?
Eh no :-D
The build up of heavy metals (like mercury) in the fish populations of the oceans are MOST DEFINITELY human caused due to our polution of the oceans...

I never said humans have NO effect (good or bad) on it's surroundings... and CO2 and CO and mercury and free radicals and... should all be reduced... but not because of global warming but because it's POLUTANTS :-D

I am just a regular guy asking questions.
True... and you should ALWAYS question the motives of your scources... ALWAYS... and maybe he's dirty and maybe he's not but I have never heard him accused of that (until this discussion)... but one thing to remember that the distrust of your scources should go both ways (and not just be for the deniers)...

And when you look at it... the big money in climate debate is NOT with the deniers it's with the followers... if you deny manmade global warming publically it's a careerender if you are a scientist (except for the ones directly employed by the fossil fuel lobby and compagnies)... so if you want to keep your job at the university or in the political arena as a scientist you shut up if you disagree or you're fired (or frozen out) and your reputation as a scientist is tarnished forever... so the real motivational factor for a scientist is NOT to be a denier... so when someone who uptil that point have been a respected scientist (and not employed by the lobby and compagnies) start to deny manmade global warming you listen and take them seriously (at least long enough to hear them out) :-D

So why doesn't the elevation of the greenhouse gases that cause it influence that effect?
It does... but the level of elevation in those gases by humans (as we see them now) doesn't...

And why is it impossible that the release of CO2 (and other compounds) that had taken millions of years to deposit in just a few decades does change the atmospheric equilibrium?
Well that's quite a statement (millions of years in just a few decades) and it sounds bad... but you have to look at the actual numbers... and the actual numbers (as stated before) are a human contributed increase of 0.00127% of one of the weakest greenhouse gasses CO2 (and even less for the rest of the greenhouse gasses)... and that's not enough to create the temperature rises we see...

Maybe you are right and aaaalllll the experts are wrong.
Not all (there are decending voices) but you are right most... :-D

And maybe I am wrong and a major yet unknown buffer system will kick in and everything will be fine
No we'll be fine within our current knowledge of the system...

But until then, I am not opposed to raising awareness that man can influence global climate for the better or the worse.
Well we can... but that would take some serious increases in manmade CO2 from what we see today :-D

We could drop out CO2 output to 0% today and it would have just as little an effect as we have in the rise of temperature... we would still polute and that's almost as bad so we still should do it but the effect on temperature would still be SO miniscule that it's not even worth mentioning...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/29/2009 08:46:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Deniers are liars! (none / 0)
My point (again) is that the small rise (0.00127%) by humans of one of the most ineffective greenhouse gasses (CO2) doesn't have a big global effect...

Where do you get that percentage again? I have seen that number on a couple of denier's sites (not even in scientific papers) but nowhere else. And I don't trust them. It seems to me that it uses some false variables to calculate the amount of the human contribution. If we take wiki serious for once and calculate the atmosphere as carrying 3000 GT Carbon, then take the 6 GT you put forward as human contribution, the annual human contribution is about 0.2% of the total atmospheric content but probably more of the total natural production. But even if your numbers are correct, even that really, really, really small amount that can be contributed to humans might be enough to tip the scale.

But be that as it may, there is reason for concern that the carbon humanity has emitted in the atmosphere the last 200 years is already melting the poles away and considerably enhancing the greenhouse effect. Re: human contribution so far: here is an interesting article why the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 has to be entirely made by humans burning fossil fuels and wood. This other article deals also with the amount that the oceans could absorb so far.

that can explain an 800 year lack in CO2 production from the causing temperature rise... and that's the oceans... so that's my explanation

A very good explanation ;). Probably the right one, as far as I can tell (with maybe a little hidden in permafrost and other ice). But still the triggering influence, the rise in temperature, has to persist, if there is going to be an effect. There should be a global rise in temperature throughout that 800 year period or at least a plateauing phase wherein the heat disperses throughout the ocean. If the ocean does not heat up the CO2 solubility is not influenced. My guess is, though, that that would be very hard to prove in the natural record.

Also, what that 800 year lag seems to indicate: in 700 years there is a major shit storm ahead ;) if global warming continues, regardless of the pace. Here is an article on the subject that explains why the lag does not deny the effect of CO2 on future warming.

True... and you should ALWAYS question the motives of your scources... ALWAYS... and maybe he's dirty and maybe he's not but I have never heard him accused of that (until this discussion)... but one thing to remember that the distrust of your scources should go both ways (and not just be for the deniers)...

Apparently I was suspecting in the wrong direction. Svensmark is at least superficially not dirty, just incompetent. According to this Nov 2009 article, he built his theory on sloppy data (caution: pdf-file).
Here is an article on the influence of the sun on our climate in the last decades that explains the errors made.

And when you look at it... the big money in climate debate is NOT with the deniers it's with the followers... if you deny manmade global warming publically it's a careerender if you are a scientist (except for the ones directly employed by the fossil fuel lobby and compagnies)...

I don't know where there is big money in climate science if you are arguing for global warming. Who pays that? Also, it's not as if at some point scientists stopped their research and asked which side is going to pay more. They did research to the best of their abilities and knowledge and came up with the theory of global warming before there even was a political debate! Only after it became political, the denier side popped up, apparently sponsored by a lobby that would lose money if emissions were regulated. If you have the data to support your conclusions and they hold out against peer-review scrutiny, then that is no career-ender by a long shot. Quite the opposite.

I don't know what there is to lose (other than money) if we regulated global emissions and started to build our economy on a more sustainable basis. And, as stated before: what do they have to gain? So, I naturally don't question the motives of the global warming activists as much as the deniers'. If the hype is exaggerated and global warming will not occur in a catastrophic manner, all we lose is a little of GDP growth (that is inflated and bubbled anyway and also does not contain the environmental costs).

we would still polute and that's almost as bad so we still should do it but the effect on temperature would still be SO miniscule that it's not even worth mentioning...

Please look into your numbers again. They are most likely wrong. ALso, some people argue that it is not too late to do anything about climate change. I would agree, if I did not think that humanity won't start doing anything.

by eborujion on 12/01/2009 01:32:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
Where do you get that percentage again?
I get it this way...

According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research the atmosphere is 5 quadrillion tonnes (5 x 10(15))...

CO2 is 0.04% of that giving us that the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 2000Gt (5Qt*0,04/100 = 2,000Gt) (not 3000Gt)...

We know that humans emit 6.4Gt into the atmosphere pr. year... but not all of the emitions of CO2 reaches the atmosphere...

The ratio of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to emitted CO2 is known as the 'airborne fraction'... this varies for short-term averages but is typically about 45% over longer (5 year) periods... so of the 6.4Gt humans emit 'only' 2.88Gt becomes atmospheric CO2...

So the increase in atmospheric CO2 by humans is (2.88Gt/2000Gt) x 100 = 0,144% (these are rounded numbers and the actual result is 0,127% (apperantly I forgot to times 100 in the original calculation) :-)... the actual number that humans increase atmospheric CO2 is NOT 0,00127% but 0,127%... still not enough to effect warming by any mesurable standard (you still have to remember that the 2000Gt CO2 is still only 3% of the total amount of greenhouse gasses and a VERY weak one at that... which make the 0.127% increase in CO2 a VERY weak increase of 0.00381% of the total amount of all greenhouse gasses... (0.127%/100) x 3... but still a HUGE calculating error on my part... hope you can forgive me...

But still the triggering influence, the rise in temperature, has to persist, if there is going to be an effect
Eh not really... off course it has to persist for a period (a warm summerday is not gonna do the trick) :-D - but not for the 800 years...

This is how it works...
When the oceans are 'cold' CO2 is trapped by the oceans and it falls towards the bottom (by far the largest reservoirs of CO2 is at the bottom of the oceans)...

Now comes a prolonged warm period on earth (high temperatures in the atmosphere) and it starts to heat the oceans...

Let's look at how the oceans work... let's take the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic ocean... let's say for instance that it is 15 degrees Celsius when it's warm... then it travels north and gets cooled down to let's say 2 degrees Celsius so it goes towards the bottom of the ocean... then it travels back south and heats up back to 15 degrees Celcius and it does it all over again...

Then the atmosphere gets warmer and heats up the Gulf Stream so it's now 17 and 4 degrees Celsius respectively...

That increase by 2 degrees starts to release the 'small' reservoirs at the surface first (but that isn't much)... but more importantly also start to make the CO2 on the bottom rise towards the surface (it's still cold but now 2 degrees warmer than before) and that will be released later when it reaches the surface...

And this process doesn't just take a couple of months (or even years)... the oceans are SO large and deep that this is a VERY sloooooooooow proces that takes centuries... said differently... when something happens in the atmosphere it takes the oceans (or more specifically the bottom of the oceans) centuries to react... and it doesn't matter that the atmosphere has cooled again in the meantime... the effect of that cooling woun't be seen in the oceans for centuries so they keep heating up and release CO2 loooong after the atmosphere has cooled again...

Also, what that 800 year lag seems to indicate: in 700 years there is a major shit storm ahead ;)
No not really :-)
The heat we see today are a result of the solar activity and not the result of the increase in CO2 caused 800 years earlier... remember we had the little iceage inbetween the medieval warm period and now so the CO2 should start to drop again sometime in the middle of this century... and 800 years from now it wil go back up to present day levels... so they woun't have more CO2 than we have today and the heat they will have will be determined by the solar activity then (which is cyclical so maybe they'll be allright) :-D

I don't know where there is big money in climate science if you are arguing for global warming. Who pays that?
Well the governments for one...

Let's take the US as an example... before the global warming theory came about the field of climatology was a VERY small and underfunded area of science (avegering about $170mill pr. year)...

After the global warming theory that number jumped to about $2bill pr year almost instantly...

And ALL that money (2 billion dollars) goes to research that promote the theory of manmade global warming... if you as a scientist find in your research that humans are not to blame do you know how much research grants you'll get from the gorvernment again? - I can tell you it drops to 0 dollars... you can still research all you like but the money from the government stops which means if you want to keep making money and feeding your family you are MUCH less inclined to publish your findings if they go against the theory... but if you instead finds that not only is global warming manmade but the result is a catastrophic rise of 10 meter of the oceans in 50 years... you wanna know how much research money starts flowing your way? - A LOT :-D - it's all about incentive... and scientists are humans too and they are not above incentives...

Only after it became political, the denier side popped up, apparently sponsored by a lobby that would lose money if emissions were regulated
Well no... when the theory first came out it was rediculed by the scientific community at large... so the deniers were plenty... but it's true that it was first when the issue became political that the deniers became political and public...

What happend was...
When the theory first was proposed it didn't have very much support in the scientific community (and by scientific community I mean the VERY small number of climatologists that existed back then - it was pretty much unknown to the rest of the world)...

Then came Margaret Thatcher (English prime minister back in the 80'ies) and she wanted to promote nuclear power to decrease Englands dependency of foreign oil...

And when the coal workers in England went on stike in the 80'ies she had had enough and found this little known (and by that time) mostly discarded theory of manmade global warming and saw the potential... so she started promoting the hell out of it (running several adds on television and in the newspapers and talking about it publicly time and time again) and slowly she convinced the public that the world was ending if we didn't stop using that pesky oil from abroad and the coal from home and started using nuclear power instead...

On top of that she started funding the hell out of that little area of science giving thousands of jobs to anyone who wanted to work in the field (politicians and public officials and scientists alike... off couse only the ones that agreed with her... she was not stupid) :-D

Then she went to the EU and got them to excert pressure on the UN to take this seriously and they did and the UN opened the IPCC (consisting of mostly politicians and public officials) and told them to write a report... so they did (and off course the politicians and public officials at least knew on which side the bread was buttered... so it's no surprise what conlusion that rapport came out with)...

And the sparked interest in the public and all that extra money in the field got a lot of new people to study climatology that were already convinced that the world was ending so slowly the field got bloated by young scientists set out with fiery swords in their hands to save the world from humans thereby creating a 'consensus'...

And here we are today...
Money from the governments pouring from an almost endless hole in only one direction (towards those scientists who have the most dire predictions)...

And a field of mostly young scientist (or they were in the 90'ies when they started) indoctrinated before they started into studying the field of climatology to save the world from ending... and if any one say they are wrong they take up their fiery swords and smite the nay-sayers :-D

And in the process we lost the science :-(

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 12/01/2009 07:27:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
cheap tiffany jewelry (none / 0)
Tiffany is most beautiful jewelry all the world，Its pure craft, unique style,Attracted many people's eyes.Tiffany & Co. Necklaces, Pendants, Bracelets, Earrings, Rings and Accessories，being lot of women favorite goods.Wearing tiffany for being the most beautiful women.fine jewelries will keep your style fresh and you will also learn more on how to get Cheap Tiffany Jewellery before you making any purchases in Tiffany's boutiques.Tiffany Jewellery has long been the perfect crystallization of fashion and chic, classics and styles tiffany jewelry. we supply Variety of discount tiffany jewelry for sale and for wholesale.welcome to our shop,pick your love jewelry.The newest and most popular styles of Tiffany & Co. Jewelry that you can't miss. Our high quality discounted Tiffany Co. .If you ever have questions about our website, the silver jewelry and the payment or delivery options, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely wish you could enjoy your stay.air jordan shoes Cheap Jordans Air jordan shoes air jordan tiffany jewelry on sale air jordan shoes cheap tiffany jewelry gucci handbags air jordan nike air max Nike Shox tiffany jewelry nike air jordan basketball shoes nike jordans shoes nike shoes Tiffany Necklaces For Sale anchor pendant tiffany jewelry tiffany sale online Tiffany Bracelets tiffany jewellery online Tiffany jewelry for sale Tiffany Bangles cheap tiffany jewelry tiffany jewelry Tiffany Earrings Tiffany Necklaces Tiffany Rings tiffany jewelry Tiffany jewelry sale Tiffany Bracelets Tiffany Bracelets for sale wholesale tiffany jewelry Tiffany Earrings for sale tiffany jewelry tiffany diamond tiffany jewelry on sale cheap tiffany tiffany on sale jewelry sale Tiffany Rings for cheap cheap tiffany engagement rings

by xldswlxh on 07/23/2010 08:35:59 AM EST

Hypocrisy...? | 65 comments (65 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: