Good bye Global Warming Theory

Ahhhhh. . . your upset becuase I use smilies? LOL!! No biggie don't get yer panties in a bundle I'm just keeping it simple for you and the rest of the simple minded lib's.

Wildkow

p.s. speaking of panties I think yours are two sizes to small.

 

Tim Flannery eh? Australian mammalogist and palaeontologist, that Tim Flannery? I'm sorry according to your peers on this forum he holds no credibility in the Global Warming debate. Try again. :rockon:

Wildkow

 

You can easily find this by doing a simple Google search. Probably the best way for him to answer you also, since then you have to attack the actual claims you read and not the poster who pointed it out to you. :nod:

Wildkow

 

"Today it will be partly cloudy with a high of 78 degrees. The pollen count is high, and will remain so for the next 2 days. Global warming is fake. Now for your weekend forecast ..."

Nuf said, really.

... Brad

 

Typical left wing nonsense in the lead post!

Quite randomly, I did an extensive Google type search on one of the listed institutes alleged to support AGW, and found:

The Indian Academy does NOT support the AGW nonsense.

Would you like me to discuss the politics of the APU? (American Physical Union)

 

Wildkow #23,
That's Tim Flannelly you mean?
He was Australian of the year recently, but that's nothing!
Al Gore got a Nobel Prize......... Sheez! (pardon me whilst I hyper-ventilate for a moment)

Sorry for pause, I'm back.....

Could Al lose it, if he was tested for drug use?

 

When was the last time a weather man was better than 60% right, I would say this is on the 40% wrong side of the ledger.

Yep, Tim Flannery

he is just your average Joe. Who would expect a person who studies ancient species of animals to know anything about the changing climate of this planet? Stupid people!!

Bob, do you think having awards like Australian of the year and a Nobel Prize make you a credible person?
Yeah I guess they do but some will deny it.

 

How can something so simple be made so complicated?

Do I know if global warming is a fact? No.
Does anyone? No.

You might as well ask around whether Jesus was the son of God or not.

Nobody can know the unknowable.

So, let's think about what we do know:

1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
2. There is more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now than at any other time in the earth's history (that we can check, of course).

Am I going to have a big freakout session over global warming? No.

Does it make sense to reduce the world's carbon emissions? Yes.

 

You can fantasize all you want. Fact is, the glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica are melting at an alarming rate.
The trouble with the American media is they refuse to distinguish between fact and fantasy--in the interest of political "balance." The result is a badly informed and misled public, which is dangerous in the case of Global Warming--not a political issue.

 

Ohh, but it IS a political issue, because the facts don't jive with some people's version of 'reality'. Good heavens, man, we can't have informed and educated people challenging the notion of America The Best, now can we? That's not good for business - far wiser to just buy the media and tell them what to say.

 

Jimmie .... i've looked at both sides and didn't buy the Global Warming Kool Aid.

In MHO all you have to do is follow the money. Great example, Al Gore, he may not be living what he speaks but his bank account has benefited. Just look back at the Y2K hipe, the DOT COM bubble and now Global Warming.

However, this is the best of these ponzee games since it projects doom and gloom years in the future giving them years to rake in the bucks.

 

Climate change researchers have more money than the oil industry? ound:

 

The fact you even mentioned Al Gore in a global warming debate automatically grants you a flag on the play and a 10 yard penalty. Al Gore is not a scientist so please refrain from going political on us and make your arguments based on the science.

Are you refuting that CO2 is a potent green house gas or it's effects on passing shortwave radition yet blocking longwave radiation? Are you denying that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are abnormally high in human history/prehistory?

 

I've never understood this argument. Do you have any idea how small the alternative energy money pot is compared to conventional energy? The subsidies for Coal/Nuke/Gas/Oil dwarf the peanuts handed out to wind/solar/geothermal. It's a sick joke.

Y2K was a serious issue. Had bsuinesses done nowt it would have been a major issue, but people were proactive and corrected before the notorious date. It's not like people sat on their hands and then nothing happened. What the hell does the Dot Com bubble have to do with this?

 

+1

... Brad

 

Just breaking out the old graphs. There is new data on borehole temperature measurements.

 

Of course, follow the money! First the astronomers got rich on the Copernican hoax, then the biologists got rich on the evilution hoax, the physicists got doubly rich with the relativity and quantum mechanics hoaxes, the astronomers double-dippered with the Big Bang hoax, and the geologists got rich on the plate tectonics hoax. Now quite naturally the climatologists want their turn with the global warming hoax.

For discussion of the facts of global warming by atmospheric physicists and climatologists see RealClimate

 

You're wrong. The Indian National Science Academy does, and in fact even signed a statment to that effect. Got a link for your "Google" above? Because when I Google the phrase "The Indian Academy does NOT support the AGW nonsense" I get NO RESULTS.