Skip to comments.
New Zealand Weatherman on Global Warming: 'It's All Going to be a Joke in 5 Years'
NewBusters ^
Posted on 05/18/2007 12:20:32 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 141-147 next last
To: Ditto
There some in my refrigerator, if it hasn’t evolved and left.......
61
posted on
05/18/2007 1:31:54 PM PDT
by
Red Badger
(My gerund got caught in my diphthong, and now I have a dangling participle...............)
To: sand88
The idea is to destroy civilization, not just capitalism - though of course there is a link.
To: TUAN_JIM; FreedomCalls
Sorry, that was FreedomCalls.
In any case I'd have a hard time explaining why the oceans absorbed CO2 at an rate higher then proportional to the atmospheric rate.
Again I ask where does it say the 3.2% is an annual rate? I just don't buy it.
63
posted on
05/18/2007 1:31:55 PM PDT
by
Dinsdale
To: Dinsdale
Read this and you will understand what I mean:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32261.html
Someone mention the Alar Scare earlier here; his work was never intended to be used politically.
Clinton did the right thing by naming him but he was poorly treated by his fellows for breaking with the rush to condemn all manmade chemicals that we still see.
64
posted on
05/18/2007 1:33:01 PM PDT
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: massgopguy
Malden, MA currently 43 degrees. Feels like 35. I have played golf five times since the course was supposed to open on March 16 when we got a half a foot of snow. We had the coldest April in Michigan in 95 years. The temperature dropped down into the 30s last night - in the middle of May!!!!
65
posted on
05/18/2007 1:33:11 PM PDT
by
Tokra
(I think I'll retire to Bedlam.)
To: Sub-Driver
As Global Warming has come to fill the void for those without a set of moral beliefs, let's be sure to keep
their church and state separate. That is, their religion should be funded only with voluntary contributions..
66
posted on
05/18/2007 1:33:29 PM PDT
by
OESY
To: sand88
Try telling that to Gore's backers and the frauds at realClimate. You are confused about the difference between the MSM and the scientific process.
Peer review does take time to expose frauds. Not a lot of time, but some.
67
posted on
05/18/2007 1:34:07 PM PDT
by
Dinsdale
To: eleni121
Still in the sixties in Nashville, Tennessee with a stiff NNE wind.
68
posted on
05/18/2007 1:34:55 PM PDT
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: Dinsdale
But currently CO2 is about 350ppm, in 1950 it was about 300ppm. That's an increase of 14.2% just there. We need to keep our facts straight or we're no more credible then the other side.Of course the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen. The oceans are warming and releasing more CO2.
The warming is causing the increase of CO2 - not the other way around.
The Chicken Littles have it backwards.
69
posted on
05/18/2007 1:35:15 PM PDT
by
Tokra
(I think I'll retire to Bedlam.)
To: Dinsdale
The real potential problem is the small warming caused by CO2 will cause increased water vapor levels which will in turn cause more warming. This feedback mechanism is further complicated by changes in cloud and snow/ice cover which have their own feedback effects. Clouds only increase nighttime temps --- a blanket effect --- while lowering day time temps -- a reflector effect.
Clouds also result in increased participation as rain or snow. Snow cover is also reflective while rain storms actually dissipate heat from the atmosphere.
Does increased water vapor in the atmosphere act as a balance or an amplifier? Don't ask the IPCC. There models don't include water. They pretend it isn't there.
70
posted on
05/18/2007 1:35:40 PM PDT
by
Ditto
(Global Warming: The 21st Century's Snake Oil)
To: Old Professer
The man is still one of the most cited scientist alive. He wins awards and is published regularly.
You claimed his carrier was ended. It clearly was not.
Peer review works.
71
posted on
05/18/2007 1:36:59 PM PDT
by
Dinsdale
To: Tokra
It just happened to start at the start of the industrial revolution.
Let me introduce you to my old friend Occam.
72
posted on
05/18/2007 1:39:22 PM PDT
by
Dinsdale
To: Ditto
Does increased water vapor in the atmosphere act as a balance or an amplifier? Don't ask the IPCC. There models don't include water. They pretend it isn't there. Exactly. When I read that they don't include precipitation in their models, I said to myself, "How can any serious scientist jump on the Gore bandwagon." It's astounding that the fraud of AGW has gotten this far.
73
posted on
05/18/2007 1:39:33 PM PDT
by
sand88
(q)
To: Ditto
Actually the models depend on water.
They just ignore any negative feedback effects and calculate the positive feedback using the 'Finaglers Constant' Method.
Finaglers Constant is defined as FC=(Observed value/Desired value)
74
posted on
05/18/2007 1:42:00 PM PDT
by
Dinsdale
To: Dilbert56
In spite of remediation efforts, a fair assortment of things went wrong because of Y2K related problems. I have read (but I don’t know the details) that there was a fatal railroad accident in Russia with a documented connection to Y2K. Agreed, this is much less than the alarmists predicted.
To: Tokra
The warming is causing the increase of CO2 - not the other way around. This singular FACT should stop all this global warming scare in it's track. I can't believe how so many schools around the world require viewing of Gore's movie. It's astounding how they are glad to scare the children over a non issue. Its brainwashing on a massive scare. The left, so anti-human as usual.
76
posted on
05/18/2007 1:43:40 PM PDT
by
sand88
(q)
To: sand88
77
posted on
05/18/2007 1:44:39 PM PDT
by
sand88
(q)
To: Dinsdale
Actually it started when the latest 1500 year cycle started warming. Our current warming trend began in 1850. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has FOLLOWED that cycle - not caused it.
If you haven't already watched it - you need to view the BBC's "The Great Global Warming Swindle". They prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that increases in CO2 follow warming trends - not precede them.
78
posted on
05/18/2007 1:45:30 PM PDT
by
Tokra
(I think I'll retire to Bedlam.)
To: Dinsdale
You are confused about the difference between the MSM and the scientific process. I am not confused at all. I have degrees in Engineering. I have been schooled in the scientific method. The frauds like Gore and the MSM say there's consensus in the scientific community.
Do you believe the science is settled?
Do you not understand at it's core the entire AGW is solely a totalitairian movement?
79
posted on
05/18/2007 1:47:55 PM PDT
by
sand88
(q)
To: Tokra
They prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that increases in CO2 follow warming trends - not precede them. Gore-bots will NEVER accept this fact.
80
posted on
05/18/2007 1:49:33 PM PDT
by
sand88
(q)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 141-147 next 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