Skip to comments.
Is Global Warming a Sin?
The Nation ^
| 5/14/07
Posted on 05/03/2007 9:01:57 AM PDT by Omega Man II
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
To: Omega Man II
"Could the tide be turning against this Global Warming fraud?"
Right after they abandon PC.
21
posted on
05/03/2007 12:01:17 PM PDT
by
deadrock
To: I see my hands
22
posted on
05/03/2007 12:03:38 PM PDT
by
Paperdoll
( Duncan Hunter '08)
To: Omega Man II
23
posted on
05/03/2007 12:13:31 PM PDT
by
missnry
(The truth will set you free ... and drive liberals Crazy!)
To: Omega Man II
I like the constrast that the author draws between 'Carbon Credits' and the sinful indulgence licences that the Roman Catholic Church sold during the Dark Ages.
What depresses me most about this comparison is that the Roman Catholic Church held the Western world in the grip of their insanity for many centuries; "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs".
Are we going to have to wait 500 years for our own Martin Luther and his 95 Theses to unburden us from the superstitious yoke of Eco-fanaticism?
If I had lived in the Dark Ages, I wouldn't have been a fearful servile superstitious nitwit nor would I have let the Papists burn me at the stake for being a heretic. Neither do I intend to let the New Age religionist wackos of the militant environmental movement do the same to me in modern times.
To: Omega Man II
Cockburn was staunch in his belief the Clinton’s were guilty of criminal acts in Whitewater but he caved along with the rest when faced with the ultimate power the office of president holds.
25
posted on
05/03/2007 12:19:02 PM PDT
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: Omega Man II
This just does more to cement the denial position solidly in the fringe territory; they don’t get any more fringe than the Nation when it comes to old-line magazines.
26
posted on
05/03/2007 12:20:56 PM PDT
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: Paperdoll
In the full article, which Rush read from yesterday, Cockburn was enlightened about GW by an ex-US Navy Meteorologist who work had totally soured him on Climate Models. The GW models totally ignore water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, simply because it is so huge and so impossible to model. We have no idea even how much precip. is falling to Earth at any given period. Also ignoring the effect of water's other forms--liquid and ice--makes CO2 modeling totally bogus.
As the guy told Cockburn: "The effect of CO2 compared to water vapor is like a couple of farts in a hurricane."
Though Cockburn is proud to term himself a radical, GW is not really a liberal issue, not even a radical's issue, it's an anarchist issue, one that is dedicated to the wholesale destruction of industrialized society. Maybe that is why this intellectually honest liberal realizes that it's not really going to help the poor (who will actually suffer the most) and is exposing the GW hoax for what it really is.
27
posted on
05/03/2007 12:54:49 PM PDT
by
DJtex
To: DJtex
Thank you for your explanation of the Global Warming movement, and for the revelation of whom it would and would not benefit.
28
posted on
05/03/2007 1:15:23 PM PDT
by
Paperdoll
( Duncan Hunter '08)
To: Omega Man II
Kind of sucks they canceled the show, dontcha think?
29
posted on
05/04/2007 1:26:57 PM PDT
by
MarkeyD
(Make your Red State a Fred State!)
To: Omega Man II
Thanks for the post. Good article.
From the article:
As Hertzberg says, water in the form of oceans, snow, ice cover, clouds and vapor "is overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the Earth and the sun.... Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane." And water is exactly that component of the Earth's heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for.
Missing variables. A classic mistake. Every variable you omit, gives a greater role to CO2. They left out the clouds.
The human carbon footprint is of zero consequence amid these huge forces and volumes, not to mention the role of the giant reactor beneath our feet: the Earth's increasingly hot molten core.
This should be interesting when published. A fellow freeper has mentioned the earths core. It stands to reason that its behavior is not constant or understood.
Many articles and comments on FreeRepublic have emphasized the sun. And rightly so. The famed computer models that prove global warming omit the sun too.
So to catalog major omissions / weaknesses of the theory of global warming (ToGW): it omits the sun, the molten core of the earth, and clouds. And there are more omissions. Well, if you leave out all the important stuff, then it must be man-made CO2.
30
posted on
05/04/2007 7:10:28 PM PDT
by
ChessExpert
(Mohamed was not a moderate Muslim)
To: Omega Man II
“Is Global Warming a Sin?”
I don’t know that the Sun can be guilty of a sin.
31
posted on
05/04/2007 7:14:13 PM PDT
by
unspun
(What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson