Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
20 Mar 15
18:02
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Sep 10
volcanoes spew out mega tons of co2 and methane. Never hear anything about that on the box. Mount st.helens dust traveled across the globe. Some theories say it was the super volcanoes that wiped out the dinosaurs not the meteor strike. Like the one in Yosemite park in the USA. Yet i have to sift through my garbage and sort it into three coloured bins. Seems futile. I'm not saving a thing. KABOOM. all gone. reset.
Show More
There was 1600 active volcanoes 10,000 years ago and there was no global warming.
At least you could put all your trash in one bin in them days though, Oval.
Over, don't confuse the child Zorro. She thinks she has had a Eureka moment & that nobody had realised there are volcanoes on Earth producing CO2 & other greenhouse gases.
And fair play to Zorro, she has discovered a "Super volcano" in Yosemite which nobody else knew was there.
And fair play to Zorro, she has discovered a "Super volcano" in Yosemite which nobody else knew was there.
Al Gore lost the run of himself. Science does not punish but religions do. http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/16/al-gore-sxsw-punish-climate-deniers/
Dente, I think if you bother to do some research you will discover that Al Gore is neither a religion nor a science. He like you are is a **** Sapian.
You may also discover that there have been many other members of that species of mammal who have "punished" others over the past few thousand years.
Apart from that full credit to you for finding a throw away comment in an article about his views and jumped on it. Isn't that the sort of thing a religious fanatic would do? After all if Al Gore used the word "punish" then everything he believes in must be wrong, or is that just how religious zealots think?
You may also discover that there have been many other members of that species of mammal who have "punished" others over the past few thousand years.
Apart from that full credit to you for finding a throw away comment in an article about his views and jumped on it. Isn't that the sort of thing a religious fanatic would do? After all if Al Gore used the word "punish" then everything he believes in must be wrong, or is that just how religious zealots think?
Good old betfair auto censors , they won't allow anybody to mention the name of species all their customers belong to.
I think you are in a muddle here; Gore wants non believers of the hypothesis to be punished. Various religions punish non believers. Science does not punish non believers, ergo Gore now sees his hypothesis as a religion.
I never sort my rubbish into separate containers, it all goes in the one bin.
I haven't got time for that nonsense.
I haven't got time for that nonsense.
Dente - you seem in a muddle.
It really does not matter what Gore believes - he is a human being not a religion nor a science.
He believes in a theory & according to this small article written by a 3rd person thinks that people who don't believe in the theory should be "punished".
The Global warming Theory Gore believes is not Gore's theory, his views on what should happen to those who don't believe in Global does not turn the theory into a religion
Dente if there is something about the Global Warming theory which you nelieve is incorrect just let us know what it is, publish a paper etc.
You do seem in a real muddle over this Al Gore guy. I guess it soes not take much to confuse you.
It really does not matter what Gore believes - he is a human being not a religion nor a science.
He believes in a theory & according to this small article written by a 3rd person thinks that people who don't believe in the theory should be "punished".
The Global warming Theory Gore believes is not Gore's theory, his views on what should happen to those who don't believe in Global does not turn the theory into a religion
Dente if there is something about the Global Warming theory which you nelieve is incorrect just let us know what it is, publish a paper etc.
You do seem in a real muddle over this Al Gore guy. I guess it soes not take much to confuse you.
Mexico, remember "An inconvenient truth" and reckless Al saying that the sea level may rise up to 20 feet? The same Al that bought a seaside mansion on the California coast. Who needs to write a paper when this guy is leading the charge against 'Climate Change' hypothesis? It's just Al on the make.
Now, the Chicago Tribune is a substantial and responsible newspaper which supported the Democrat Presidential candidate twice. The believers in the hypothesis are now making alarming claims about the decrease in the Arctic ice cover. It is not so. http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
It does matter what Al Gore promulgates and supports; he is a high profile politician supporting an unproven hypothesis to the extent that we are now paying a carbon tax supported by him and it must be something of a worry that a man in his position wishes to impose punishment on his fellow citizens if they do not share his belief over 'Climate change'. To me, it smacks of the business of punishing those who said that the earth revolved round the sun.
Now, the Chicago Tribune is a substantial and responsible newspaper which supported the Democrat Presidential candidate twice. The believers in the hypothesis are now making alarming claims about the decrease in the Arctic ice cover. It is not so. http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
It does matter what Al Gore promulgates and supports; he is a high profile politician supporting an unproven hypothesis to the extent that we are now paying a carbon tax supported by him and it must be something of a worry that a man in his position wishes to impose punishment on his fellow citizens if they do not share his belief over 'Climate change'. To me, it smacks of the business of punishing those who said that the earth revolved round the sun.
Al Dente , you seem to have an unhealthy obsession on Al Gore? You are aware he is not a science or a religion?
Are you aware that the theory of global warming does not depend on what Al Gore says or thinks?
Have you talked to a professional about your Al Gore fixation?
A theory does not become a religion because Al Gore may (or may not ) have used the word "punish".
If there is something incorrect about the theory then please explain what is wrong, give a brief outline & a link to your published paper.
Are you aware that the theory of global warming does not depend on what Al Gore says or thinks?
Have you talked to a professional about your Al Gore fixation?
A theory does not become a religion because Al Gore may (or may not ) have used the word "punish".
If there is something incorrect about the theory then please explain what is wrong, give a brief outline & a link to your published paper.
Okay Mexico, I am not giving you any further chances to show that your are a dyed in the wool member of the 'sheeple' (sic) persuasion. Inconsistencies mean nothing to you, your mind is closed.
It is a good idea that you walk away Al, you seem to be obsessed with Al Gore.
please seek help, he is not a religion, a science or a theory of global warming, he is a fairly average politician.
"Sheeple" oh dear Al. Grow up, you clearly are over 18 as you have a betfair account , so why the school playground nonsense?
If you have a problem with the theory of Global warming then just explain what is wrong & why it is wrong.
please seek help, he is not a religion, a science or a theory of global warming, he is a fairly average politician.
"Sheeple" oh dear Al. Grow up, you clearly are over 18 as you have a betfair account , so why the school playground nonsense?
If you have a problem with the theory of Global warming then just explain what is wrong & why it is wrong.
Global warming has been one almighty con driven by an environmentalist lobby desperate to blame mankind for polluting the world. Guilt driven eejits,most of them.
Well one sceptical scientist has had a good look at the evidence:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w
A new scientific paper has driven yet another nail into the coffin of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. (H/T Bishop Hill)
The paper – Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published in the American Meteorological Society journal – finds that the effects of aerosols on climate are much smaller than those in almost all the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Aerosols are the minute particles added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (as well as by non-anthropogenic sources, like volcanoes). The reason they are important is that they are so often cited by alarmists to excuse the awkward fact that the world has stubbornly failed to warm at the disastrous rate they predicted it would.
Apparently – or so the excuse goes – these aerosols are masking the true extent of runaway climate change by cancelling out the effects of man-made CO2.
Here, for example, is a NASA expert in 2009:
Using climate models, we estimate that aerosols have masked about 50 percent of the warming that would otherwise have been caused by greenhouse gases trapping heat near the surface of the Earth
Here is a report on a study from another institution – NOAA – with a long track record of ramping up the alarmist cause.
A new study led by the U.S, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that tiny particles that make their way all the way up into the stratosphere may be offsetting a global rise in temperatures due to carbon emissions.
Aerosols are often used to explain the lack of “global warming” in the cooling period between 1940 and 1970 (when the growth in industrialisation and all that extra man-made CO2 ought to have begun taking effect).
They have also been used in this 2011 paper - whose co-authors include one Michael Mann, which gives you an idea of its quality and reliability – for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS). It claims that the reason there has been a “hiatus” in global warming since 1998 is because of the effect of aerosol emissions. This got one of the BBC’s resident alarmists Richard Black very excited. He wrote it up in an article entitled Global warming lull down to China’s coal growth. (Oddly he forgot to surround it with scare quotes, or finish it with a question mark.)
The new Stevens paper has been described as a “game-changer” by one expert in the field, Nic Lewis.
According to the IPCC’s models, the effect of aerosols on climate could be as much as 4.5 degrees C. But Stevens paper suggests that this is a considerable overestimate and that the reduction they effect on temperature cannot be more than 1.8 degrees C.
This pretty much kills the alarmists’ “the aerosols ate my homework” excuse stone dead. If the cooling effects of aerosols turn out to be much smaller than the IPCC thinks, then what this means is that the rise in global temperatures attributable to man-made CO2 is also much smaller than the alarmists’ computer models acknowledge.
As Andrew Montford comments here:
Jim Hansen, Bob Ward, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, your climate alarmism just took one helluva beating.
The paper – Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published in the American Meteorological Society journal – finds that the effects of aerosols on climate are much smaller than those in almost all the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Aerosols are the minute particles added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (as well as by non-anthropogenic sources, like volcanoes). The reason they are important is that they are so often cited by alarmists to excuse the awkward fact that the world has stubbornly failed to warm at the disastrous rate they predicted it would.
Apparently – or so the excuse goes – these aerosols are masking the true extent of runaway climate change by cancelling out the effects of man-made CO2.
Here, for example, is a NASA expert in 2009:
Using climate models, we estimate that aerosols have masked about 50 percent of the warming that would otherwise have been caused by greenhouse gases trapping heat near the surface of the Earth
Here is a report on a study from another institution – NOAA – with a long track record of ramping up the alarmist cause.
A new study led by the U.S, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that tiny particles that make their way all the way up into the stratosphere may be offsetting a global rise in temperatures due to carbon emissions.
Aerosols are often used to explain the lack of “global warming” in the cooling period between 1940 and 1970 (when the growth in industrialisation and all that extra man-made CO2 ought to have begun taking effect).
They have also been used in this 2011 paper - whose co-authors include one Michael Mann, which gives you an idea of its quality and reliability – for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS). It claims that the reason there has been a “hiatus” in global warming since 1998 is because of the effect of aerosol emissions. This got one of the BBC’s resident alarmists Richard Black very excited. He wrote it up in an article entitled Global warming lull down to China’s coal growth. (Oddly he forgot to surround it with scare quotes, or finish it with a question mark.)
The new Stevens paper has been described as a “game-changer” by one expert in the field, Nic Lewis.
According to the IPCC’s models, the effect of aerosols on climate could be as much as 4.5 degrees C. But Stevens paper suggests that this is a considerable overestimate and that the reduction they effect on temperature cannot be more than 1.8 degrees C.
This pretty much kills the alarmists’ “the aerosols ate my homework” excuse stone dead. If the cooling effects of aerosols turn out to be much smaller than the IPCC thinks, then what this means is that the rise in global temperatures attributable to man-made CO2 is also much smaller than the alarmists’ computer models acknowledge.
As Andrew Montford comments here:
Jim Hansen, Bob Ward, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, your climate alarmism just took one helluva beating.
The real crime of these al gore* lead democratic party inquisitions is that while they are pushing this CO2 is a poisonous gas agenda to fund their carbon exchanges and turn the EPA into a political cudgel and so on, the genuine environmental message are being drowned out or thrown away with the bath water.
*the same private jet owner who sold his propaganda channel for millions to big oil middle eastern human rights violators while avoiding the capital gains tax
*the same private jet owner who sold his propaganda channel for millions to big oil middle eastern human rights violators while avoiding the capital gains tax
The production of green energy has dived public opinion in this country, is been down to the then Labour party buying the wrong form of green energy, if instead of buying unreliable windmills, they spent the money on highly efficient and profitable bio digester, installed on farms and down at your local water treatment and recycling centres, then green energy production would have been welcomed by all.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539