| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: Not sure how much longer they will be able to keep crunching in the UK |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 5561
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Cold truths about the Northeast's harsh winter:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...2/18/AR2010021803981.html Nor did it even cross my mind that our Snowmageddon, inconvenient though it might be, could meaningfully alter the political debate over climate legislation. That would be idiotic. As comedian Stephen Colbert pointed out, it would be like looking outside at night, seeing the darkness and concluding that "the sun has been destroyed." |
||
|
|
Khyron
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Mar 17, 2006 Post Count: 103 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-gre...e-change-sceptics-science Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organisations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too. Later still, the group defended the tobacco giants against charges that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. And then, starting mainly in the 1980s, this same group took on the battle against climate change. When the emails and the IPCC error were brought to light, editorial writers at The Wall Street Journal launched a vicious campaign describing climate science as a hoax and a conspiracy. They claimed that scientists were fabricating evidence in order to obtain government research grants — a ludicrous accusation, I thought at the time, given that the scientists under attack have devoted their lives to finding the truth, and have certainly not become rich relative to their peers in finance and business. But then I recalled that this line of attack — charging a scientific conspiracy to drum up "business" for science — was almost identical to that used by The Wall Street Journal and others in the past, when they fought controls on tobacco, acid rain, ozone depletion, second-hand smoke, and other dangerous pollutants. In other words, their arguments were systematic and contrived, not at all original to the circumstances. Just because Group A was wrong about topic A; it does NOT follow that group B is wrong about topic B. (LOGIC FAIL!) |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-gre...e-change-sceptics-science Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organisations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too. Later still, the group defended the tobacco giants against charges that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. And then, starting mainly in the 1980s, this same group took on the battle against climate change. When the emails and the IPCC error were brought to light, editorial writers at The Wall Street Journal launched a vicious campaign describing climate science as a hoax and a conspiracy. They claimed that scientists were fabricating evidence in order to obtain government research grants — a ludicrous accusation, I thought at the time, given that the scientists under attack have devoted their lives to finding the truth, and have certainly not become rich relative to their peers in finance and business. But then I recalled that this line of attack — charging a scientific conspiracy to drum up "business" for science — was almost identical to that used by The Wall Street Journal and others in the past, when they fought controls on tobacco, acid rain, ozone depletion, second-hand smoke, and other dangerous pollutants. In other words, their arguments were systematic and contrived, not at all original to the circumstances. Just because Group A was wrong about topic A; it does NOT follow that group B is wrong about topic B. (LOGIC FAIL!) The trail of oil money funding junk science is very well documented. You're quite a fan of logic. Explain to me how this conspiracy/hoax theory is logical: if all evidence is part of the conspiracy, then the entire conspiracy theory is impervious to ANY evidence. I'm seriously interested as to what evidence will convince someone who believes it's all a conspiracy that it's really not. [Edit 4 times, last edit by Former Member at Feb 20, 2010 3:04:14 PM] |
||
|
|
brown chris
Master Cruncher California - USA Joined: Nov 18, 2004 Post Count: 2422 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I'm seriously interested as to what evidence will convince someone who believes it's all a conspiracy that it's really not. It never made any sense, anyway. It takes so much CO2 to cause atmospheric heating that our air would be unbreathable. CO2 is very inefficient at containing heat. And how arrogant of the EPA to classify CO2 as a pollutant? As I said before, that would be like calling oxygen a pollutant. CO2 is a natural occurring and necessary gas that exists in our atmosphere. Without it, life would have never emerged here, and life would no longer exist without it. CO2 does not cause warming. CO2 increases when it warms up. Anyway, methane is much better at trapping heat, yet you don't hear very much about that. There's also not much money that can be exploited out of rich countries if it's all about methane. Water vapor is the very best at trapping heat, so now we need to invent hydrogen powered cars that produce water vapor. I can't wait until that happens! Hundreds of millions of water vapor generators scooting around the planet. That would probably be a legitimate problem! Now that we have some insight as how the data were gathered, and the (very flawed) peer review process, it's obvious that AGW was agenda driven. ** I believe that global warming exists just as much as I believe global cooling exists. I also believe that man has nothing to do with it. Mankind had nothing to do with the warming that caused the end of the last ice age. Our 158 years of actual measurements aren't even real anymore. Those data have been tainted beyond belief and can't be used to show or prove anything now. NASA just admitted that the reason the arctic shelf is disappearing faster than observed before is because of the lack of arches. Those arches hold back the ice flow, and without them the ice flows into the ocean more freely. They admitted that they have a lot more to understand about the ice. And the earth hasn't warmed in the last 15 years. With billions of dollars at stake, how can anyone not now see that this is a conspiracy? Now that people are starting to admit their flawed data sources, the tainted data, the horrible locations of weather stations, the lack of cold weather stations, the "buddy-system" peer review process, and the shear arrogance of even being questioned on the subject, I have to ask you this, esoteric17: Why do you still "believe" in this man-made global warming religion? Science isn't about "belief," it's about proof, of which there isn't any. **edited for intolerance** tkh
BIG BANG THEORY: In the beginning there was nothing... which exploded
----------------------------------------[Edit 1 times, last edit by TKH at Feb 22, 2010 2:47:21 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Oh dear http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-18/d...ay-for-carbon-market.html UN carbon credits have fallen 11 percent since the start of climate Copenhagen meeting, which was aiming to set limits for emissions of carbon dioxide after 2012. They declined 0.6 percent today to 11.32 euros ($15.37) a metric ton on the European Climate Exchange in London as of 2 p.m. What a tragedy You mean the price of CO2 might disappear into thin air I call that a result  You know who pays these charges for "carbon" don't you....we all do  I would like to see the UN building quickly sink into the Atlantic |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
As much as i HATE lawyers--i would like to see a legal move against Al Gore the IPCC and any other group pushing this illegal agenda against worldwide Freedom as in cap and trade.Its a wonder the Mafia didn't think this up and enforce it.But there isn't much difference between them and politicians. some more reading http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/full...just-for-the-deniers.aspx
----------------------------------------[Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Feb 20, 2010 1:57:39 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I'm seriously interested as to what evidence will convince someone who believes it's all a conspiracy that it's really not. It never made any sense, anyway. It takes so much CO2 to cause atmospheric heating that our air would be unbreathable. CO2 is very inefficient at containing heat. Failure to understand the complexities of climate, or how trace things can make large changes in systems. And how arrogant of the EPA to classify CO2 as a pollutant? As I said before, that would be like calling oxygen a pollutant. CO2 is a natural occurring and necessary gas that exists in our atmosphere. Without it, life would have never emerged here, and life would no longer exist without it. Red herring. Anyway, methane is much better at trapping heat, yet you don't hear very much about that. There's also not much money that can be exploited out of rich countries if it's all about methane. There are many studies about methane. Read the about clathrate gun: earth warms due to CO2, permafrost melts, releasing methane, which warms the earth more, which releases more methane... Water vapor is the very best at trapping heat, so now we need to invent hydrogen powered cars that produce water vapor. I can't wait until that happens! Hundreds of millions of water vapor generators scooting around the planet. That would probably be a legitimate problem!  Now that we have some insight as how the data were gathered, and the (very flawed) peer review process, it's obvious that AGW was agenda driven. ** With billions of dollars at stake, how can anyone not now see that this is a conspiracy? **edited for intolerance**tkh If your entire post was a response to mine, I don't see how you responded to my question at all. What evidence would convince someone who believes all evidence supporting AGW is a hoax? And no, IPCC isn't the only evidence. Thousands of studies by various universities etc. The idea that this is all some massively orchestrated conspiracy is ludicrous. Now that people are starting to admit their flawed data sources, the tainted data, the horrible locations of weather stations, the lack of cold weather stations, the "buddy-system" peer review process, and the shear arrogance of even being questioned on the subject, I have to ask you this, esoteric17: Why do you still "believe" in this man-made global warming religion? It's science. It's not about belief. It's a preponderance of evidence. [Edit 3 times, last edit by TKH at Feb 22, 2010 2:49:09 PM] |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
...Since the people that know that this whole thing is a scam are called "climate deniers" it's time that we appropriately name those that are pushing this junk "climate liars." Was it that you were looking in the mirror, saw your alter ego and concluded that you were calling names at yourself? Now for once bring a cohesive story... El Nino had something going before. Your Climate Liar in the mirror will tell you it's name is La Nina, several, not the solar cycle 23-24 extended inter-minimum that has little to nothing to do with it.
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
"It's a preponderance of evidence."
----------------------------------------What like Eso? Manipulated Global Mean Temps or A completely normal South Polar Ice Cap and a rapidly recovering North Polar Ice Cap, with an Egypt sized increase in minima since 2007. The reducing number of Hurricanes - none in the Atlantic making landfall in 2009. The greatest recorded Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent since one week in 1978 with snow covering 35% of the Globes land mass. You mean that kind of preponderance of evidence that the Globe, despite those temperatures plucked out of thin air, is actually cooling on account of the waning activity of our local star. Yes you have me convinced it's warming, we are all doomed, and it's all the fault of a perfectly harmless gas that has reached the massive concentration of 0.0388% The evidence is overwhelming(ly not in your favour)  Could someone please turn the lights back on? Nite Dave  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
"It's a preponderance of evidence." What like Eso? Manipulated Global Mean Temps Multiple sources - I suppose they're all part of the conspiracy.    Yes you have me convinced it's warming, we are all doomed, and it's all the fault of a perfectly harmless gas that has reached the massive concentration of 0.0388%   [Edit 2 times, last edit by Former Member at Feb 20, 2010 9:02:24 PM] |
||
|
|
|