[thecavemaster]

Because of my frequent use of the very unambiguous phrase "global warming hoax," I assumed that your question was rhetorical...and to think I was worried about overusing that phrase! :HitWall:

Let me be clear, (using a favorite meaningless Obama phrase to focus your attention on my answer), any impact that mankind's production of CO2 on our climate is so small as to be inconsequential. Our species does not have the technology to produce enough CO2 to make any serious impact on the global climate without bankrupting every man, woman, and child on this planet - even if that was our objective.

The global warming hoax is nothing but a vehicle to help deliver socialism to the inhabitants of our world who still enjoy a measure of freedom.

Does that answer the question for you? Just say no to the global warming hoax.

You wouldn't think that a small percentage of organisms within an overall much larger system could kill a host, would you? However, the behavior of a small percentage of cancer cells can do just that. I hope your "negligible human impact" theory is correct.

[Hoot Gibson]

You wouldn't think that a small percentage of organisms within an overall much larger system could kill a host, would you? However, the behavior of a small percentage of cancer cells can do just that. I hope your "negligible human impact" theory is correct.

More bobbing and weaving. If the theory of man-made global warming were supported by real science, then it would not be necessary for you to resort to such desperate tactics. The fact that global warming advocate-scientists have destroyed raw data and attempted to prevent the publication of studies contradicting their conclusions demonstrates just how shaky the case for global warming is.

BTW, we have snow in southern Mississippi this morning and Houston was blanketed with its earliest snow in recorded history yesterday. It is getting tougher by the day for global warming alarmists to "hide the decline." :popcorn:

[Stardust]

^ LOL, great post

[Hoot Gibson]

I mistakenly believed that the "hide the decline" reference in one of the leaked emails referred to the current global cooling trend - it does not. In fact, this is a reference to the cherry picking of data used to construct the "hockey stick" graph made famous by snake oil salesman Al Gore.

The decline that was hidden was the failure of tree ring measurements to match actual temperature measurements after 1960. So, Michael Mann substituted actual temperature measurements to mask the decline that would have resulted from using the tree ring data. In other words, the tree ring data was used to hide global warming in the medieval period and then actual temperatures were used to achieve the hockey stick effect.

Why should you care? Do the math. If your electric bill doubled or tripled, how much additional cost would you and your family bear through the rest of your life? Global warming is the justification for sticking you with larger utility bills and for the government gaining more control over what and how much you drive, what kind of light bulbs you will be allowed to use. The next generation will have a lower standard of living if the cap and trade bill becomes law and we will have only ourselves to blame if we allow this hoax to continue unchecked.

The following two articles explain how data was manipulated to create the illusion that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium.

Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world'

Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline

[thecavemaster]

More bobbing and weaving. If the theory of man-made global warming were supported by real science, then it would not be necessary for you to resort to such desperate tactics. The fact that global warming advocate-scientists have destroyed raw data and attempted to prevent the publication of studies contradicting their conclusions demonstrates just how shaky the case for global warming is.

BTW, we have snow in southern Mississippi this morning and Houston was blanketed with its earliest snow in recorded history yesterday. It is getting tougher by the day for global warming alarmists to "hide the decline." :popcorn:

When talking about geologic eras, etc., your use of "Hey, it snowed in Houston in early December 2009" is odd, isn't it? What about the polar ice caps, glacier melting? Is that, also, a socialist propoganda scheme?

[Stardust]

When talking about geologic eras, etc., your use of "Hey, it snowed in Houston in early December 2009" is odd, isn't it? What about the polar ice caps, glacier melting? Is that, also, a socialist propoganda scheme?

Yes, when we don't talk about the thickening of the Antarctic border ice. It's the turn of the axis that changes the weather patterns. Areas will warm, while others will cool. But there is no fun talking about that.....

[thecavemaster]

Yes, when we don't talk about the thickening of the Antarctic border ice. It's the turn of the axis that changes the weather patterns. Areas will warm, while others will cool. But there is no fun talking about that.....

So, you believe that current weather patterns, climatic changes, are, for the most part, the result of naturally occuring deviations within the systems and processes of the earth, having little or nothing to do with human activity?

[Stardust]

So, you believe that current weather patterns, climatic changes, are, for the most part, the result of naturally occuring deviations within the systems and processes of the earth, having little or nothing to do with human activity?

Yep

[thecavemaster]

Yep

Were you for toughter standards on scrubbers and the like? Do you think all the smoke toxins led to acid rain? Or not?

[Stardust]

Were you for toughter standards on scrubbers and the like? Do you think all the smoke toxins led to acid rain? Or not?

No, I think Acid rain is what killed the Dinosaurs. But I guess that the Acid Rain cause by toxins that killed the Dinosaurs was from smoke....

[thecavemaster]

No, I think Acid rain is what killed the Dinosaurs. But I guess that the Acid Rain cause by toxins that killed the Dinosaurs was from smoke....

Lakes in upstate New York from the 1970's... alive, then dead... nothing will live in them. Unless T Rex was in hiding until '73, I don't think that's what I'm talking about.

[Stardust]

Lakes in upstate New York from the 1970's... alive, then dead... nothing will live in them. Unless T Rex was in hiding until '73, I don't think that's what I'm talking about.

No silly, a T Rex would not have been in the lake eathing all the fish, it was a Plesiosaur. And he didn't cause Climate changes either.

[thecavemaster]

No silly, a T Rex would not have been in the lake eathing all the fish, it was a Plesiosaur. And he didn't cause Climate changes either.

Ah, Stardust, you toy with me. How sweet. The lakes were alive, then they were dead. The cause was not dinosaurs. What was it?

[Stardust]

Ah, Stardust, you toy with me. How sweet. The lakes were alive, then they were dead. The cause was not dinosaurs. What was it?

Probably polution. But that did not cause acid rain or polar thickening or thinning, both of which are happening.

[Hoot Gibson]

Acid rain is completely unrelated to the global warming issue. Another tangent brought to you by thecavemaster. :lmao:

BTW, I have always supported limits on the emission of the sulfur compounds from power plants. Unlike CO2, sulfur combines with other elements when coal or other fossil fuels are burned to produce gases that are unhealthy for humans to breathe. The cause of acid rain was found through sound scientific research methods not the politicized junk science that has characterized the recent research into climate change.

[Old School]

This is ironic, these people are meeting to discuss ways to lessen the amount of carbon dioxide, now the climate summit in Copenhagen is about to start, and is expected to produce 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide equal to a town the size of Middlebrough. They are expecting 1,200 limos, 140 extra private jets on top of the normal car and air traffic. To bad Gore had to cancel his big meeting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenha...edges.html

[Hoot Gibson]

This is ironic, these people are meeting to discuss ways to lessen the amount of carbon dioxide, now the climate summit in Copenhagen is about to start, and is expected to produce 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide equal to a town the size of Middlebrough. They are expecting 1,200 limos, 140 extra private jets on top of the normal car and air traffic. To bad Gore had to cancel his big meeting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenha...edges.html

Gore is probably out planting trees to cover all of those carbon credits that those limousine liberals must be buying to pay for their indulgent trip to Copenhagen.

[lawrencefan]

It doesn't have anything to with climate. It is about a bunch of elitist liberals wanting control.

[thecavemaster]

Acid rain is completely unrelated to the global warming issue. Another tangent brought to you by thecavemaster. :lmao:

BTW, I have always supported limits on the emission of the sulfur compounds from power plants. Unlike CO2, sulfur combines with other elements when coal or other fossil fuels are burned to produce gases that are unhealthy for humans to breathe. The cause of acid rain was found through sound scientific research methods not the politicized junk science that has characterized the recent research into climate change.

To argue that CO2, because naturally occurring, cannot exist in toxic levels seems a stretch, Hoot...if that is what you are arguing. "Tangent" is in the eye of the beholder, or the blindness of the non-beholder.

[Mr.Kimball]

Let me just ask you a question batman. What are your thoughts about the self admitted trickery and deception tactics used by these "reputable scientists" ?

Hey Batman. Did you overlook this question, or are you intentionally avoiding it?

[thecavemaster]

Hey Batman. Did you overlook this question, or are you intentionally avoiding it?

That the unprofessional and unethical actions of a small percentage of scientists working in the field of global climate change proves anything beyond their own immoral behavior is not an opinion I hold. No question, desire for grant monies operates in professional science and at times can sway the bent; however, that does not dismantle a body of evidence that does exist. Does it? I hadn't seen the question previously.

[thecavemaster]

This is ironic, these people are meeting to discuss ways to lessen the amount of carbon dioxide, now the climate summit in Copenhagen is about to start, and is expected to produce 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide equal to a town the size of Middlebrough. They are expecting 1,200 limos, 140 extra private jets on top of the normal car and air traffic. To bad Gore had to cancel his big meeting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenha...edges.html

Perhaps a teleconference?

[Mr.Kimball]

That the unprofessional and unethical actions of a small percentage of scientists working in the field of global climate change proves anything beyond their own immoral behavior is not an opinion I hold. No question, desire for grant monies operates in professional science and at times can sway the bent; however, that does not dismantle a body of evidence that does exist. Does it? I hadn't seen the question previously.

How do we know if that is a small % of them or not? This just seems to me to be initial awareness of maybe what in fact could be a mass conspiracy to alter data. Does that not concern you any at all? How do you know that it is just a small percentage of these scientists, seeing that it has just now being brought to light? Seems like I read somewhere where there was something like 600+ emails discovered just by one hacker. Based on those numbers, does that sound to you like there is mimimal participation? Are you honestly that gullable, or are you having a hard time admitting that this is perhaps a large scale coverup?

Also explain to me what body of evidence that we are talking about that currently exists, seeing that there cannot be at this point, any credibilty at all to anything that we have been told.

Would you also please explain how we are to trust anything that has been represented to us as being factual scientific data up to this point?

[Old School]

Perhaps a teleconference?

That would be one option, if they were truly sincere about the environment. However by teleconferencing they would have to forgo visiting the prostitutes. :biggrin:

[Hoot Gibson]

To argue that CO2, because naturally occurring, cannot exist in toxic levels seems a stretch, Hoot...if that is what you are arguing. "Tangent" is in the eye of the beholder, or the blindness of the non-beholder.

The toxicity of CO2 is not even remotely linked to the global warming debate. The atmosphere contains about 400 parts per million (0.04%) CO2 and it is not directly toxic until the concentration reaches 125 times that level.

Like water, carbon dioxide is more likely to kill by depriving a person of oxygen than it is to poison them.

"Tangent" is a very accurate description of your repeated references to "toxins" in this thread. None of the common greenhouse gases are toxic at levels many times higher than the global warming alarmists have projected.

Call it whatever you want but from here it looks like you are hunting deer with a rabbit dog and a pop gun.

[Hoot Gibson]

That would be one option, if they were truly sincere about the environment. However by teleconferencing they would have to forgo visiting the prostitutes. :biggrin:

:worthy: :Clap:

[thecavemaster]

How do we know if that is a small % of them or not? This just seems to me to be initial awareness of maybe what in fact could be a mass conspiracy to alter data. Does that not concern you any at all? How do you know that it is just a small percentage of these scientists, seeing that it has just now being brought to light? Seems like I read somewhere where there was something like 600+ emails discovered just by one hacker. Based on those numbers, does that sound to you like there is mimimal participation? Are you honestly that gullable, or are you having a hard time admitting that this is perhaps a large scale coverup?

Also explain to me what body of evidence that we are talking about that currently exists, seeing that there cannot be at this point, any credibilty at all to anything that we have been told.

Would you also please explain how we are to trust anything that has been represented to us as being factual scientific data up to this point?

My guess is that I am less biased in needing to believe man-made global warming a reality than you are in needing to believe it is a conspiracy. If the science proves unreliable or fraudulent, I'll let it go. Why would I want to hold to a theory that suggests destruction and devestation? I would simply suggest that the Hadley Climate Center issue is not a be all/end all.

[crazytaxidriver]

Well whoever came up with the idea was brilliant. Cause now many people in this area are out of work, and many more soon will be (in the mines that is). And thanks to those wonderful energy saving light bulbs I can't see a thing around the house and my power bill constantly goes up even though I use less energy. On top of all that my vehicles are destroying the earth, therefore I should go spend more money on an electric car.

It might not be a conspiracy but thanx to a wonderful little **** up someone is getting rich while the middle class has to put up with all this bull****. No wonder this ****ing country is going to the **** hole.

On top of all that, if all this were true then even if everyone in America decided to "go green" it would only take away like 5% of emissions. Cause u still have china, India and the rest of the eastern world who could give a rats *** anyway but still make up about 75-80% of the worlds population. So I say to **** with spendin billions of dollars to look at trees let's spend some money to help people out where thy really need help and create some jobs

[Old School]

It appears that they are freezing in Copenhagen this week, with temps. running about 8-10 degrees below normal.

[Old School]

Public skepticism about man made global warming has reached an all-time high among Americans.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of likely voters now believe that global warming is caused primarily by long-term planetary trends.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...rgy_update