Discussion:
ENVIRONMENTAL ELITISM: Democrats Can't Be Bothered With Free Speech
(too old to reply)
Starkiller©
2009-04-26 14:52:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:43:34 -0700 (PDT), Tim Crowley
YES IT'S FREE SPEECH your ilk are stopping, tard!
You have no idea what the term means. You do NOT have the right to
testify to Congress. Why do you hate our system so much, yet you
have never taken the time to study it? Maybe if you learn a bit, you
can get rid of some of the hate and the lies? Good luck. As you are
not, you're uneducated and totally worthless. Oh yeah, don't forget to
hide.
ROFL
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
If the shoe had been on the other foot say last year and it was Gore
that was not allowed to testify your little heads would have been
ready to burst over the outrage of your Global Warming Guru not being
allowed to say anything.
You'd have been pissing about "free speech" and raising holy hell over
the government soliciting selective viewpoints alone.
Same old same old. You demand everyone swallow Gores horseshit while
constantly trying to silence any and all disputes or criticisms.

Never a day goes by around here that we don't see leftists blatantly
showing us all what hypocrites they are.
Tim Crowley
2009-04-26 15:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Starkiller©
ROFL
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
If the shoe had been on the other foot say last year and it was Gore
that was not allowed to testify your little heads would have been
ready to burst over the outrage of your Global Warming Guru not being
allowed to say anything.
Really? Then you will have no trouble at all showing an example of
such behavior.

waiting.

waiting

waiting.

starkilled% busted in another lie.

yawn.

The facts remain. 1. This is not a Free Speech Issue. 2. No name
trolls have NO say in the matter.

hint: you're stupid.
Starkiller©
2009-04-26 16:06:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Tim Crowley
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by Starkiller©
ROFL
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
If the shoe had been on the other foot say last year and it was Gore
that was not allowed to testify your little heads would have been
ready to burst over the outrage of your Global Warming Guru not being
allowed to say anything.
Really? Then you will have no trouble at all showing an example of
such behavior.
waiting.
waiting
waiting.
starkilled% busted in another lie.
yawn.
The facts remain. 1. This is not a Free Speech Issue. 2. No name
trolls have NO say in the matter.
hint: you're stupid.
You don't make the rules here timmy and speaking of no name trolls,
there is nothing to prove that your name is really tim crowley. For
allk anyone knows you couls easily be doing what a lot of folks do on
usenet which is simply pull a random name out of thin air and use it.

Your hypocritical behavior can be found in thousands of posts by you
and your compatriots on any given day.
Bitching about the right while making excuses for the left doing
similar is nothing new for you all as that has always been your
behavior.
All one need do is look at the way you all defended Ted Kennedys
drinking, Patrick Kennedys drug induced car crash into a brick wall,
Al Gores sons drug use and Obamas admitted cocaine use and compare it
to what you all have said about any Republican, namely Bush and his
children, on the same issues.
You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.
Deal with it.
Tim Crowley
2009-04-26 19:06:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Starkiller©
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Tim Crowley
Post by Starkiller©
ROFL
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
If the shoe had been on the other foot say last year and it was Gore
that was not allowed to testify your little heads would have been
ready to burst over the outrage of your Global Warming Guru not being
allowed to say anything.
Really?   Then you will have no trouble at all showing an example of
such behavior.
waiting.
waiting
waiting.
starkilled% busted in another lie.
yawn.
The facts remain.  1.  This is not a Free Speech Issue.   2. No name
trolls have NO say in the matter.
hint: you're stupid.
You don't make the rules here timmy
Just speaking the truth. You on the other hand are telling lies.
Post by Starkiller©
All one need do is look at the way you all defended Ted Kennedys
drinking, P
Ok. All you would need to do is find a single example of me defending
Ted Kennedy's drinking

waiting


waiting

waiting

oh hell, you lied again. Cute tactic. Try to defend a lie by telling
another lie. No wonder you choose the cutesy handle. Buahahahaha.
Post by Starkiller©
You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.
Deal with it.
I'd be happy to. You have not been able to support your claim.

You're a liar and a no name troll. Plain and simple
Deal with it.
Starkiller©
2009-04-28 02:39:40 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:15:45 -0700, "MioMyo"
: >snip<
: > Since when is it "science" to simply ignore anything that
: > doesn't agree with your views?
: Well, Bush certainly didn't call it science when he ignored pleas from
: everyone on the planet to address global warming.
The fantasy that the climate change we're seeing is man made is a
delusion
from the kooks that make up the global warming cult. There is no evidence
at
all that the climate changes we're seeing is man made or that there's
anything
we can do about it.
Thousands of people a lot smarter than you do not share your opinion.
Of those thousands, you mentioned, which one(s) proved man-made global
warming?
Only thing that is proven is that the climate is changing. Imagine
that. After millions of years of climate change, it's still changing.
The goofs often use proof of global warming as proof of "man made"
global warming where none exists.


There is not a scientifically valid mechanism for carbon dioxide
causing global warming.

The atmosphere cannot heat the oceans, because it does not have enough
heat capacity. The claimed 0.6°C increase in atmospheric temperature
is not significant for heating the oceans.

A behind the scenes clincher for the contrivers is that CO2 levels are
supposedly higher than any time over the past 650,000 years, which
means humans are doing something nature does not do. They do not deny
that humans add 1% as much CO2 per year as already in the air, or that
humans add 3% of all sources, the other 97% resulting mostly from
decay. The net effect is that natural CO2 supposedly does the
equivalent of filling a bucket, and everything humans add is overflow.
There is nothing similar to a fill level for CO2 in the atmosphere.
Natural variations are greater than the human input.
details below

Very seldom does anyone look into the science of global warming, not
the least reason being that for all but the most technical
specialists, there's no place to look. The promoters of the global
warming hype had a responsibility to explain the science of their
claims. But they did the opposite—they skipped over the science with
the flimsy claim that the science is settled, and action must be taken
before the "tipping point" occurs. Even if the science were settled,
people needed to know what it is. Science is more than a yes/no
question. All of the complexities are relevant to how the subject is
handled, and to claim anything in science is settled is absurd.

Obviously, the global warming agitators don't have a clue what the
science of the subject is; they have an agenda, and carbon dioxide
brought their agenda out of obscurity in spades. Why kick a live horse
when it's running so good. Their agenda is green environmentalism, but
that to is phony. Nothing they do is green by either the criterion of
restoring nature or reducing energy and resource consumption. They
want to spend any amount of money to produce green, while the more
they spend, the more wasteful they get. They don't take all of the
factors into account, and with global warming, they took none of the
science into account.

Water Vapor Explained

The official source which supposedly ends all discussion of the
subject is the IPCC. They claim that the global temperature has
increased by 0.6°C over the past century due to humans putting carbon
dioxide into the air. But only 0.2°C was directly due to the CO2,
while the other 0.4°C was due to increased water vapor resulting from
the first 0.2°C caused by the CO2.

So here's an explanation of this subject showing what a fraud it is.
The amount of water vapor in the air varies from 0 to 3% depending
upon humidity. An average cannot be measured, so a good guess is used,
and the usual claim is that the average is about 1.2%. Since carbon
dioxide is highly uniform, its average is easily measured at 385 ppm
(parts per million). Dividing the 1.2% for water vapor by the 385 ppm
for CO2 indicates that there is 31 times as much water vapor in the
air as CO2.

Another important fact is that water vapor will absorb three times as
much radiation as CO2. This statement is based on bandwidth of
absorption. It means that the number of frequencies of radiation
absorbed is three times as great for water vapor. This is determined
by graphing the absorption. The absorption peaks are three times as
wide for water vapor as for CO2.

Therefore, one should multiply the 31 times the 3 and get about 100
times as much of a greenhouse gas for water vapor as for CO2.
Climatologists and the IPCC admit that water vapor is a stronger
greenhouse gas than CO2.

So the promoters of the global warming hype (including the IPCC)
decided to attribute most of the global warming to a secondary effect
by water vapor. They have a bad habit of starting at the end point by
picking convenient numbers and then rationalizing them. When there is
no significant accountability, as in this case, the rationalizations
get so absurd or nonexistent as to be blatant fraud.

If a 0.2°C increase in temperature due to CO2 increase can cause an
increase in water vapor to cause an increase in temperature of three
times that amount, then the same should occur everywhere. Temperatures
increase about 20°C between night and day. Temperatures increase
20-30°C between the tropics and temperate zones. When does it cause
three times that much increase due to water vapor? Heat will cause
water to vaporize within a few minutes or not at all.

The argument for this absurdity is that the secondary increase in
temperature is a one time thing. There are several frauds in such a
claim. Nature cannot distinguish secondary effects from primary
effects. A temperature increase is always nothing other than a
temperature increase. This means the 0.4°C supposedly caused by water
vapor must also be increased by a factor of three due to its secondary
effects. The result would be thermal runaway.

One of the arguments is that the average water vapor is stable and
unchanging, unlike the effects of CO2. That claim is absurd, because
most of the water vapor is put into the air by oceans, and they vary
immensely on a long term basis, as demonstrated by El Ninos and El
Ninas in the Pacific Ocean. The Gulf Stream in the Atlantic also
varies a lot. Oceans control the climate; and if they are not changing
the temperature through water vapor, then humans are not changing it
through carbon dioxide.

Motives

Propagandists synthesized a false explanation for the beginning of an
ice age by claiming carbon dioxide in the air is the cause of the
changes. One motive is that incompetent persons, in science and out,
are constantly looking for false realities to promote as a method of
concealing their incompetence. Another motive is that population
controllers are constantly looking for human causes of problems as a
pretext for lowering the population of the planet.

Carbon Dioxide was Exploitable

Propagandists focussed on carbon dioxide as the supposed cause of
global climate changes, because there is a half truth to it. Carbon
dioxide in the air picks up heat slightly better than nitrogen and
oxygen. Nitrogen is 78% of the air; oxygen is 21% and carbon dioxide
is 0.04%.

So a propaganda leap was made from that half truth to the claim that
more carbon dioxide means more heat in the air. This leap of logic is
not science. Science is measurement of evidence which is evaluated
through correct logic based upon established principles. A leap in
logic does not have to have any relationship to objective reality. One
could say that since humans walk on two legs, and dogs on four, humans
should only weigh half as much as dogs, or humans should eat half as
much food as dogs. The logic can't go in any wild direction in
contradiction to known facts.

The carbon dioxide propaganda contradicts the science including
evidence, logic and major studies. At the starting point, there is no
valid logic to the claim that more carbon dioxide in the air will
produce more heat. What actually happens is this:

Radiation Absorption

As sunshine heats up the earth's surface, some of the heat is radiated
outward as infrared radiation (IR). Infrared means longer wavelength
than visible light. Visible light covers the range of 0.4 to 0.8 micro
meters (microns or ?M) of wave length. Infrared goes from 0.8 to a few
hundred microns. All objects emit some types of radiation in the same
way. The amount depends upon their temperature; and there is a shift
to shorter wavelengths at higher temperature.

The radiation given off by all objects based on their temperature is
called black body radiation. There is also some narrow bands of
radiation emitted and absorbed depending upon chemical bonds; and it
is called fingerprint radiation. The nitrogen and oxygen which make up
most of the air only emit and absorb Black Body radiation; they do not
emit or absorb fingerprint radiation, because they do not have
suitable chemical bonds. Carbon dioxide does have suitable bonds for
Fingerprint radiation; and it absorbs at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns, all
within the curve for the black body radiation given off by the surface
of the earth.

What it Means

Black Body radiation given off by the earth is absorbed more
"strongly" by carbon dioxide than by nitrogen and oxygen, because
fingerprint radiation is absorbed more strongly than black body
radiation. The meaning of the word "strongly" needs to be evaluated
scientifically.

Carbon dioxide will absorb the IR available to it at its strongest
peak of 15 microns in about 10 meters of distance (external source),
whereas nitrogen and oxygen absorb the black body radiation available
to them in perhaps two kilometers. I haven't seen a number for the
exact distance for nitrogen and oxygen, but it is considerably longer
than the distance for fingerprint radiation. More distance is required
on the shouders of the absorption peaks than in the center.

If humans double the amount of carbon dioxide they put into the air,
and they add 3% of the carbon dioxide to the air, the distance over
which it absorbs its fingerprint radiation reduces from 10 meters to
9.7 meters. Could this really be relevant? Some persons say it is
relevant, because it increases the number of cycles required to get
into outer space by 3%. Their simplistic logic is that more carbon
dioxide means more time required for IR to escape into outer space.

Convection Error

They err in that logic, because it does not take into account
convection, which means wind circulating the air. The difference
between 10 meters and 9.7 meters rapidly disappears in the circulating
air. I estimate that heat stays in the atmosphere about a month before
escaping into space. I make this estimate based upon the fact that
maximum sunshine (June 21) precedes maximum local temperature by
almost a month.

I've seen it said that there is no significant conduction of heat into
the atmosphere, because air is a good insulating material. The truth
is that when conduction is combined with convection, large amounts of
heat are transferred, which is why fans are used for cooling.
Conduction must be included with convection to get a transfer of heat.

Rationalizers of global warming hype use a small number for the amount
of heat which leaves the surface of the earth through conduction and
convection, since a measurement is impossible. A process of
elimination shows that most heat leaves the atmosphere through
conduction and convection. Radiation leaving the earth's surface can
be shown to be miniscule through night vision equipment. Some heat
also leaves the surface of the oceans through evaporation. I estimate
that amount to be less than 10%, but no one knows for sure, and larger
amounts are sometimes used. The only remaining method is condution and
convection.

Transformation Error

Some persons also err in the assumption that the IR goes through
cycles of re-emission and re-absorption as a method of getting to
outer space. What really happens is that the first time the carbon
dioxide absorbs its fingerprint radiation, the energy is instantly
transformed into heat. This transformation would take less than a
trillionth of a second, which means before it can be re-emitted as
radiation. The heat is then conducted to all molecules in the
vicinity, which means 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. After some time, an
equivalent amount of energy is radiated as Black Body radiation by the
nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and everything in the atmosphere.
(See explanation on Absorption Spectra page.)

In other words, during each cycle of absorption and emission, most of
the energy is transferred to the nitrogen and oxygen. After the first
cycle, it is nearly irrelevant whether carbon dioxide is involved in
the process of absorption and emission. Any greenhouse effect caused
by carbon dioxide is limited to the first cycle of absorption and
emission, which occurs within about 10 meters of the starting point at
the earth's surface. Any changes over that short of a distance are
reduced to irrelevance by convectional currents.

Another concept to be aware of is that when IR is re-emitted in the
atmosphere, it is emitted in all directions including downward,
upward, left, right, etc. This means there is no significant change in
location of the heat resulting from re-emission. The heat moves toward
the edges of the atmosphere through convection, not radiation.

Higher in the Atmosphere

A rudimentary type of logic that goes around these arguments is to
look at carbon dioxide in isolation from everything else. When
measuring IR absorption in a tube (maybe one meter in length), all IR
is absorb at its critical peaks with a very small amount of CO2. But
doubling of CO2 is said to increase absorption by 10%, because
shoulders on the edges of the absorption peaks absorb more. So the
logic is shifted to higher levels in the atmosphere, where shoulder
absorption is more significant; and viola—the result is supposedly
global warming.

Not so. First of significance is that infinitesimally small quantities
are involved, as explained on the page titled Crunching the Numbers.
Then, nothing about shoulder absorption is different except the
distance of absorption. Outside the one meter tube (in the
atmosphere), shoulder absorption might require 100 meters or 1000
meters (depending upon how far on the shoulder) before striking
another CO2 molecule. A 3% increase in atmospheric CO2 (resulting from
humans doubling their output of CO2) reduces those distance by 3%,
which is irrelevant. And some other molecule besides CO2 would absorb
the radiation in more or less distance than CO2, so it makes little
difference whether it is CO2 or some other molecule. (For the sake of
argument, I speak of humans doubling their 3% input as if it could
occur, when in fact, oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the air
preventing any source from significantly increasing it.)

There is a different effect at the outer edges of the atmosphere. Some
IR which might otherwise go into outer space might be caught by CO2
which might not otherwise be, when the concentration is increased. But
this occurs at a height where the rest of the atmosphere is not
influenced by the result. It cannot cause global warming. And the
quantities are infinitesimally small to a point of irrelevance.

No Valid Mechanism

In other words, there is not a scientifically valid mechanism for
claiming carbon dioxide is creating global warming. All of the claims
about seeing it and measuring it cannot be anything but propaganda,
because there is no such mechanism. In fact, some major scientific
studies indicate that humans and carbon dioxide are not the causes of
the climate changes which are observed.

Two Studies Show Ice Accumulating

For example, two separate studies show ice increasing over land while
decreasing over the ocean. This was shown at Antarctica and Greenland.
The reason is because increased precipitation is occurring due to
oceans heating up. The precipitation is accumulating as snow and ice
on land faster than it is melting. But ice over the oceans is rapidly
melting due to increased ocean temperature. If the heat originates
with carbon dioxide in the air, how can it heat the oceans but not
melt the increased snowfall over land? Something else is heating the
oceans.

Propagandists don't tell the public that ice is increasing over land.
Instead, they look to showpiece glaciers and claim ice is melting over
land. Small glaciers are melting rapidly for many reasons unrelated to
carbon dioxide. They always do melt between ice ages, and soot on the
surface increases melting. There are also micro climates which are
increasing in temperature due to warmer oceans, and these are heating
Europe and Alaska, where the showpiece glaciers are melting. Tundra is
also melting due to these micro climate changes. Ice melting on nearby
oceans is causing air temperatures to increase in northern areas. This
effect is not due to carbon dioxide but oceans heating for some other
reason. Oceans

Oceans Regulate

Humans cannot influence the amount of carbon dioxide in the air,
because oceans regulate the amount to the most minute degree.
Propagandists sometimes acknowledge this and sometimes contradict it.
They acknowledge that oceans are absorbing increasing amounts of
carbon dioxide, when they are pretending that the oceans are being
harmed by the result. They contradict it in claiming humans determine
the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.

It is a fact of chemistry that water absorbs carbon dioxide and
establishes an equilibrium with the amount in the air. Equilibrium
means absorption and release is continuous, while the concentration on
either side is defined by the chemistry. Warmer water releases more
carbon dioxide, and so does saltier water. If the oceans were not high
in salt, there would not be enough carbon dioxide in the air to
sustain plant growth.

As oceans heat up, they release more carbon dioxide into the air,
which is why carbon dioxide levels in the air track with ocean
temperatures. The reason why there has been an increase in carbon
dioxide in the air over the past 150 years is because the oceans have
been heating up, not because humans are producing more.

This equilibrium is observable when atmospheric carbon dioxide is
measured. These measurements are made on a mountain in Hawaii, where
the air is not disturbed by nearby human activity. The measurements
show that when the Pacific Ocean heats up due to an El Nino, the
carbon dioxide in the air increases; and when the El Nino disappears,
the CO2 level in the air normalizes. This shows that oceans control
the amount of carbon dioxide in the air rapidly and to the most minute
degree.

Carbon dioxide is not self-regulating based on supply and demand,
because the upper limit of toxicity is very high, and the lower limit
of availability is almost nonexistent due to the large amount in the
oceans. A stable level only exists because the oceans regulate through
solubility equilibrium.

Reversing Cause and Effect

When CO2 measurements could be made in ice core samples, it was found
that over the past 150 thousand years (more than one ice age cycle)
the CO2 levels in the air tracked with temperatures. This finding was
said to be critical in convincing many scientists of the influence of
CO2 on climate and ice ages. But that rationale turns on a hinge point
of viewing CO2 as cause rather than effect. If CO2 is effect of
temperatures, the result is no more than a curiosity in line with
expected chemistry. All basic principles indicated that CO2 should
increase with temperatures—as effect, not cause—because warmer oceans
release more CO2. To pretend that CO2 causes the temperature increases
just because of a correlation is not valid, because it is the reverse
of what is expected from established principles. External Reference

Unprecedented Increase in CO2

It was supposedly found that CO2 levels in the air never get as high
during ice age cycles as they are now. Variations during ice age
cycles were measured at 180 to 280 ppm, while now they are 384 ppm.
Supposedly, only human activity could have caused such an increase.

There is a basic flaw in logic in saying the human input of 3% can
result in a cumulative total of 30%, while the remaining input of 97%
does not increase the cumulative total.

Since humans only add 3% of the CO2 to the atmosphere, while the other
97% is mostly from decay, the implication is that nature has a fill
level for CO2 in the air, and everything humans add is overflow. There
is no such fill level for CO2 in the air. Nature does not take out
what it puts in. The take-out is mostly from photosynthesis, and the
input is mostly decay. There is no relationship between photosynthesis
and decay, which means there is no fill level for CO2 in the air, and
natural variations are much greater than human additions.

In the past, CO2 levels were much higher than at present. During the
dinosaur years, there was 5 times as much CO2 in the air; and during
the Cambrian era, there was 20 times as much. (external graph)

Rationalizers mention the fact that more CO2 in the air promotes
better growth, which they refer to as negative forcing. But the
relationships are too limited to be relevant. Most photosynthesis in
nature is limited by light, nutrients and water, not availability of
CO2.

Ice Core Measurements

The problem in saying humans caused a 30% increase in atmospheric CO2
is that the earlier measurements were made in ice core samples, while
present measurements are made in the air. The different methods of
measurement are not comparable, because the ice core measurements are
extremely dubious. The method was to crush the ice sample in a vacuum
and "rapidly" measure the contents. The measurement is a concentration
relative to the nitrogen and oxygen. See 30% Fraud and also Fake Ice
Core Measurements

Everything about such a procedure sends up red flags. How perfect can
the vacuum be without destroying the ice sample? A vacuum cannot be
created rapidly; so how could rapid crushing be relevant? A vacuum
would explode the gasses in the ice causing them to mix with the
gasses being evacuated. Then there's a problem with the sample. How
stable can the components be over time? There would be a high tendency
for CO2 to react or migrate, which would reduce the peaks.

Nothing about such a procedure points to an absolute value which can
be compared to other methods of measurement. All indications are that
measurements in ice are much lower than real values. There were direct
measurements of CO2 in the air back then, and they show much higher
values than the ice core measurements, as indicated on this link:
External Criticism of Ice Core Procedure-pdf
Jaworowski: critic of ice core measurements
Latest Science Agrees

Since oceans regulate CO2 in the air to the most minute degree, any
real increase is due to warmer oceans releasing more. There is no
justification in reading human activity into an increase. External
Reference

Computer Models

The propagandists have numbers for every purpose, but they get them
from computer models which they juggle until the numbers show what
they want them to show. There is no validity to computer models which
are not based on correct principles at the starting point.

The computer models show 0.6°C increase in recent times, and an
expected increase of 1-6°C in the future, while an analysis of basic
principles show that humans cannot increase the absorption effects of
CO2 by more than 0.0002°C, as explained on the web page titled
Crunching the Numbers.

How it Happened

Corrupters steamrolled over the science of this subject from the
beginning. For example, scientists considered the effect of oceans
regulating the amount of CO2 in the air and drew the conclusion that
oceans would neutralize any effect by humans. But a rationalizer
noticed that ocean water stays in layers and said, therefore there
isn't enough mixing to absorb carbon dioxide from the air. Then the
propagandists claimed that the sham explanation was the final proof.

The real evidence shows that there is nearly twenty times as much CO2
moving into and out of the oceans as humans produce. It shows that
there is 200 times as much carbon in the surface oceans as humans
produce in a year. It shows that oceans release and absorb a
measurable amount of CO2 due to an El Nino. It shows that the pH at
the surface of the oceans and deeper is alkaline (pH 8.1) which
absorbs CO2. If the surface were saturated, the pH would have to be
acidic. These points of evidence show exactly what is happening, while
propagandists defy and ignore such evidence in promoting sham
explanations which strain out gnats and swallow camels.

The most noticeable feature of the global warming propaganda is the
standard. It's totally devoid of explanations of evidence and logic.
In place of rational evaluation is a railroad job—like 99% of the
scientists agree; or there could be no other cause for all of this ice
melting than human activity; or this hasn't occurred in the past xxx
years.

At the quasi scientific level is infinite mathematical detail based on
a false foundation. It doesn't matter which way all of those molecules
are moving, when humans have no ability to influence them. It's like
thousands of studies and billions of dollars spent to determine how
the green Martians planted the trees. Every fact about trees could be
correct, but it doesn't mean the green Martians planted them. Al Gore
is like a novice tree expert explaining how the Green Martians planted
the trees.

The Standards of Science

Here's an example of how corrupt science is. About a century ago,
someone observed a leaf mold above morel mushroom compost and claimed
it was a conidial stage of growth for the morel. To this day, morel
scientists are claiming it to be a growth stage of the morel, because
they never question anyone else's science in a significant way.

The morel mushroom is as different from a leaf mold as plants are from
animals. Leaf molds had their characteristic stabilized about 300
million years ago, while the morel just started evolving from a yeast
(a single celled organism) about 50 thousand years ago and is still
rapidly changing. A leaf mold decays solid leaves, while the morel
requires soluble nutrients and has no extracellular enzymes for decay.
Leaf molds grow exposed to the atmosphere, while morel mycelium dies
due to dehydration when exposed to the atmosphere. A leaf mold
produces microscopic spore structures called conidia, while the morel
produces a large spore structure called an ascocarp (the mushroom). A
leaf mold produces external spores on a stalk, while the morel
produces enclosed spores like a yeast. A leaf mold has microstructures
including rosettes and crosiers (which haven't evolved since hundreds
of millions of years ago), while morel mycelium has no
micro-complexity.

None of this means anything to morel mushroom scientists, because they
aren't studying science, they are mongering power. The same is true in
every area of science. Power mongers shove real scientists aside to
promote their agenda. It is out of this well that the claim is created
that carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming.
Tim Crowley
2009-04-28 03:58:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Starkiller©
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:15:45 -0700, "MioMyo"
: >snip<
: > Since when is it "science" to simply ignore anything that
: > doesn't agree with your views?
: Well, Bush certainly didn't call it science when he ignored pleas from
: everyone on the planet to address global warming.
The fantasy that the climate change we're seeing is man made is a
delusion
from the kooks that make up the global warming cult. There is no evidence
at
all that the climate changes we're seeing is man made or that there's
anything
we can do about it.
Thousands of people a lot smarter than you do not share your opinion.
Of those thousands, you mentioned, which one(s) proved man-made global
warming?
Only thing that is proven is that the climate is changing.  Imagine
that. After millions of years of climate change, it's still changing.
The goofs often use proof of global warming as proof of "man> global warming where none exists.
Really? and what. exactly are your credentials? The vast majority of
scientist disagree with you.

hint: you call yourself starkiller, no-one is ever gonna take you
seroiously, child.
Starkiller©
2009-04-28 12:09:55 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Tim Crowley
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by Starkiller©
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:15:45 -0700, "MioMyo"
: >snip<
: > Since when is it "science" to simply ignore anything that
: > doesn't agree with your views?
: Well, Bush certainly didn't call it science when he ignored pleas from
: everyone on the planet to address global warming.
The fantasy that the climate change we're seeing is man made is a
delusion
from the kooks that make up the global warming cult. There is no evidence
at
all that the climate changes we're seeing is man made or that there's
anything
we can do about it.
Thousands of people a lot smarter than you do not share your opinion.
Of those thousands, you mentioned, which one(s) proved man-made global
warming?
Only thing that is proven is that the climate is changing.  Imagine
that. After millions of years of climate change, it's still changing.
The goofs often use proof of global warming as proof of "man> global warming where none exists.
Really? and what. exactly are your credentials? The vast majority of
scientist disagree with you.
hint: you call yourself starkiller, no-one is ever gonna take you
seroiously, child.
All talk with no proof of jack shit. Same as usual eh Crowly? If that
is your name.
You can't refute a fucking word printed so you go on the attack.
Typical elitist snot nosed punkassed liberal arrogant son of a bitch.
Nothing new here.

Starkiller©
2009-04-28 02:39:54 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:15:45 -0700, "MioMyo"
: >snip<
: > Since when is it "science" to simply ignore anything that
: > doesn't agree with your views?
: Well, Bush certainly didn't call it science when he ignored pleas from
: everyone on the planet to address global warming.
The fantasy that the climate change we're seeing is man made is a
delusion
from the kooks that make up the global warming cult. There is no evidence
at
all that the climate changes we're seeing is man made or that there's
anything
we can do about it.
Thousands of people a lot smarter than you do not share your opinion.
Of those thousands, you mentioned, which one(s) proved man-made global
warming?
Global Warming Consensus Fraud

Global warming is hardly a subject of science. It is one of the most
complex subjects science has ever studied, which allowed the
propagandists to separate themselves from the objective realities very
early on. The supposed scientific basis for the propaganda is computer
models, which show anything someone wants them to show.

A large part of the fraud in this subject is in how it is presented to
the public.

Scientific Consensus Survey

Here's an example which supposedly shows a consensus of scientists but
in fact shows the opposite. It shows how the subject has been
railroaded at the starting point—the issuing of grants. It shows that
bureaucrats only fund research which supports their agenda.

The public is told that nearly all scientists now agree that humans
cause global warming by producing carbon dioxide. An example of what
this claim is based upon is found in Wikipedia under Global Warming,
Scientific Consensus or Scientific Opinion on Climate Change. Here's
the Oreskes survey which is often referred to:

"In December 2004, Science published an essay [8] by geologist and
science historian Naomi Oreskes [9] that summarized a study of the
scientific literature on climate change. The essay concluded that
there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic
climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from
refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003..."

In the results of the supposed survey, 75% agreed with the claim that
humans are the cause; 25% took no position; and none disagreed. What
it really means is anyone who disagreed would not be getting a grant
to study the subject. (How the Firing Works)

The peer reviewed literature is limited to grants which are almost
entirely issued by bureaucrats of the federal government, and they do
not fund research which opposes their warped agenda. Therefore, this
type of survey tells nothing of scientific consensus.

It's extremely difficult to use statistics properly. The sample must
be representative, and all causative influences must be identified and
accounted for. Using published science to represent scientific
consensus is a contempt for proper standards of statistics. And it was
published in "Science," the world's most prestigious science journal.

On the same page of Wikipedia are the results of another survey which
says this:

In 1997, the conservative advocacy group Citizens for a Sound
Economy surveyed America's 48 official state climatologists on
questions related to climate change [11]. Of the 36 respondents, 44%
considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared
to 17% who considered warming to be largely manmade.

This survey would not be a bold faced lie, as limited as it is; so it
shows how fraudulent the other survey was.

Fraud is not as much about bold face lying as slight of hand, because
it is too easy to get caught at lying. But when there is such total
overwhelm of the subject, as with global warming, there is plenty of
lying, such as the claim that ice is melting over Antarctica and
Greenland, when two independent studies showed otherwise. Ice is
melting around the edges of those land masses due to warmer oceans,
but not over the land masses in general.

Misrepresentation as Science

Propagandists hammer the public with the claim that the science is
unquestionable in showing humans to be the cause of global warming.
The scientists, however, hedge on everything. So global warming is now
before the Supreme Court, where states and others are claiming the
Environmental Protection Agency must regulate carbon dioxide
emissions. One of the judges said the plaintiffs were adding
"conjecture on top of conjecture". So which is it—unquestionable
science or conjecture. Here are some quotes:

From: Fight Global Warming.

Scientists are no longer debating the basic facts of climate
change. In December 2004, Science magazine published an analysis of
928 peer-reviewed science papers...

They claim there is no longer a scientific debate based upon the sham
survey which is evaluated on the previous page.

They also say:

The gases which can stay in the atmosphere for at least fifty
years are building up beyond the Earth's capacity to remove the gases
and, in effect, creating an extra-thick heat blanket around the Earth.

They didn't say where they got the fifty year figure; it's one of
those fake numbers synthesized for the purpose. If it were true, all
of the volcanic activity would produce a fifty year build-up, and the
natural fluctuations would produce a fifty year build-up. If the
oceans weren't regulating the amount of CO2 in the air, there would be
such a high level that life would be impossible. It is not correct
logic to claim that human activity can destroy life, while natural
emissions cannot.

The latest estimate is that humans are now adding 7.8 giga tons of
carbon to the atmosphere per year, while the atmosphere contains 750
giga tons. That's one percent per year due to humans. If the
atmosphere won't tolerate that much, it would have been a disaster
long ago. It can't be critically tuned within one percent per year.

They say:

Already, people have increased the amount of CO2, a key greenhouse
gas, in the atmosphere to 31 percent above pre-industrial levels.

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere track with the temperature of
the oceans, because warmer oceans release more. This means that the
increase from 270 ppm to 380 ppm over the past 150 years would be due
to ocean temperature increases; but it is always attributed to humans,
as if there could be no other cause.

The EPA says on their web site:

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's
atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide
(CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented
and understood.

The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is
largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil
fuels.

The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in
the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is
therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

None of it is true for reasons which I explain on my global warming
main page.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the usual
reference for propagandists. It's not source material. It's nothing
but hashed over opinions. What it says about the mechanism of carbon
dioxide heating the atmosphere is this:

Because these greenhouse gases absorb the infrared radiation
emitted by the Earth and emit infrared radiation up- and downward,
they tend to raise the temperature near the Earth's surface.

That mechanism does not exist. The so-called greenhouse gasses absorb
infrared radiation within ten meters or less from the earth's surface,
and the energy is instantly converted to heat, which is transferred to
the nitrogen and oxygen. This means the up and down radiations do not
occur beyond black body radiation which is independent of greenhouse
gasses.
Tim Crowley
2009-04-28 04:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Starkiller©
Post by Starkiller©
Global Warming Consensus Fraud
And exactly what are your credentials? hint: the "class" where you
learned to copy and paste, does not count.

fuck, you're dumb. I mean even for a stupid 13 year old girl that
calls herself starkiller to get friends on twitter, you're dirt dumb.
Post by Starkiller©
gasses.
Starkiller©
2009-04-28 12:07:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:00:52 -0700 (PDT), Tim Crowley
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by Starkiller©
Global Warming Consensus Fraud
And exactly what are your credentials? hint: the "class" where you
learned to copy and paste, does not count.
fuck, you're dumb. I mean even for a stupid 13 year old girl that
calls herself starkiller to get friends on twitter, you're dirt dumb.
Since you obviously have nothing to refute a word printed and have
nothing but personal attacks it appears that you're the fucking
dumbass.
Where are your credentials you pompous son of a bitch?
You fucking wannabe elitist snots never offer a damned thing other
than ad hominems. You never offer a bit of science. Just bullshit
attacks on the messengers. How fucking third grade of you.
Maybe if you were to ever post anything other than your moronic
childish personal attacks then folks might not look at you as being
such a complete imbecile.
Loading...