Cancun sun speeds decay of global warming charade

[Guest TrueMetis]

Truemetis, those videos are weak. You should be embarrassed.

Someone's made that the guy they sourced is a lying moron.

[lukin]

Hey waldo, you still haven't commented on this article. What's the problem? Can't find anyone on the internet to prove it wrong? What's the hold-up?

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7477/Leftwing-Env-Scientist-Bails-Out-Of-Global-Warming-Movement-Declares-it-a-corrupt-social-phenomenonstrictly-an-imaginary-problem-of-the-1st-World-middleclass

[Saipan]

bite the bullet and stop using fossil fuels for energy...that's the primary...

Why should we? Tell Chinese.

Btw, all energy is solar energy.

Burning wood I heat my house with solar energy.

[wyly]

It's but one of many GHGs that could use a reduction.

there are but H20 is stable and CO2 is a trigger for methane release, potentially a far bigger danger...but CO2 is the immediate threat...

[Guest TrueMetis]

Hey waldo, you still haven't commented on this article. What's the problem? Can't find anyone on the internet to prove it wrong? What's the hold-up?

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7477/Leftwing-Env-Scientist-Bails-Out-Of-Global-Warming-Movement-Declares-it-a-corrupt-social-phenomenonstrictly-an-imaginary-problem-of-the-1st-World-middleclass

The guy in the article is a physicist enough said.

As an aside why is it the scientists the scientifically ignorant always use are physicists? Whether it's creationism or this it always seem like it's the physicists that get trotted out.

[waldo]

Hey, don't get me wrong I am all for cleaning up the environment and using environmentally friendly products and services. I think we all are. However, going after just CO2 is only but one element of the whole equation. There are many other things we need to do in conjunction with reducing toxic emissions (which you can throw the CO2 in there as well, it really does not matter in the end).

your contradictions are blatant... do you make a strong delineation between the scientists and/or organizations that work to support the scientific understanding and information dissemination behind your so-called toxic emissions concern and the scientific understanding and information dissemination behind AGW? You seem more than willing to accept one over the other... how contradicting and hypocritical.

do you actually understand the emissions makeup associated with fossil-fuel burning... those other than CO2... are you simply going to ignore that reducing fossil-fuels also addresses the other emissions released - nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and methane. Do you simply discount CO2... or methane... because they're naturally occurring? Do you simply choose to ignore the known impacts of high concentrations of CO2/methane? Do you actually understand the temperature/CO2 feedback mechanisms at play... those dramatically affecting the melting of permafrost and the huge potentials for very significant methane discharges - methane, a GHG 25% more potent than CO2. Yes, your selective concerns are blatantly contradicting - indeed.

[waldo]

How is legislation an Inventor of the internet? When did that happen? No matter how much I search I can't find Al Gore's name anywhere that indicates he invented the Internet. And when did he invent it?

oh please! Are you really that obtuse?

snopes on the Gore Internet meme:

make sure you read the linked referenced article by Vint Cerf... make sure you actually take the effort to determine who Vint Cerf is and acknowledge the important role(s) Gore did play - hey?

Well even your link agrees with me.. again he did not invent the internet, he did allow legislation through that helped it out, which I stated before. Methinks you have some reading comprehension issue.

Are you being obtuse in your argument for AGW?

reading comprehension difficulties? Yes, you do... apparently you skipped right over the snopes link that disputes your fluff over Gore supposedly, "claiming to have invented the internet". You trotted that out several times in the recent past (before this latest drop)... I truly thought you were being sarcastic until this, your latest reference. I absolutely can't believe you're serious... it's such a recognized meme, one so easily refuted many times over... only dullards and simpletons keep referencing it.

[waldo]

I don't even think the likes of you and waldo are actually prepared to change your life style so drastically as to help prevent AGW. All you know it costs more to do so. And then you don't do it. Put the money where your mouth is.

getting a bit frazzled there, hey GH? Clearly, you must be speaking from some authority... care to define those necessary life style changes - particularly those that are really going to impact in the relative immediate time frame... don't hesitate to also extend that over a more protracted period. I mean, really, you should have this at your fingertips, particularly when you so forcefully ruling on the practices and intentions of others.

[waldo]

In the book he also debunks those ties. So who is right here waldo? The money trading IPCC hustlers or the scientists who have the data that does not show anything that supports the overall theory of AGW.

clearly, as you're being pressed, your true colours are shining through. Care to elaborate on the meaning of your phrasing, "money trading IPCC hustlers"? Do you have any sense of the makeup of the IPCC... just who constitutes your stated "money trading IPCC hustlers"? Waiting.....

as for your supposed claim that there are scientists holding "data" that doesn't support the overall theory of AGW... what's causing them to hold back that data from scientific review? C'mon, this is a foundation shattering, smoking-gun claim you're trotting out... why would any scientist (of whatever leaning), who had the data you speak of, hesitate in any manner, to any degree, on any level, in bringing that data forward to, presumably challenge the overwhelming scientific consensus behind AGW? Does that make any sense... any sense, whatsoever? Give your denier head a shake - hey?

[waldo]

Someone's made that the guy they sourced is a lying moron.

leave lukin to Monckton... they deserve each other. You know it's over for the fake Lord, when the denier blogs start to even criticize his baseless arguments, outright fabrications and blatant lies

[waldo]

The guy in the article is a physicist enough said.

As an aside why is it the scientists the scientifically ignorant always use are physicists? Whether it's creationism or this it always seem like it's the physicists that get trotted out.

more pointedly, a physicist proper or someone with a physicist's credentials not working directly in climatology or peripherally related areas. lukin is a bit late to the party... as it appears he's just recently discovered the Morano denier site (having dropped a few links to it in recent days - oh joy!). Rancourt's been more of an academic than a research guy - 22 years as a tenured professor at UofO before his, "activism" resulted in his firing... this was touched upon in an earlier MLW (non-climate change related) thread.

in any case, Rancourt's cv is somewhat impressive, although he has little published as relates directly or indirectly to climate... several references attempt to substantiate his rant against what he refers to as, "the global warming movement", based upon 2001 work he did related to, "lake sediment analysis and the chemistry of nutrient/metal cycling in water". But, hey... it was major news in denialTown, milked for all it was worth... now recycled again by lukin... meanwhile 98% of active working climatologists... and brazillions of world-wide scientists are still, "in the fold"! (lukin can celebrate and presume to make hay over one disgruntled "activist" scientist, one not actively working and/or publishing in climate science... one known principally for his other fields of "activism" that propelled him into National purview. And, of course, he did surface again this past summer in relation to interviews questioning his teachings of the so-called "Activism" course at UofO... the one taken by former students who graduated to become this past summer's Ottawa RBC firebombers. Oh my!

[Moonbox]

I'm fanatical about gravity, evolution and a round earth too.... Where do you stand on the science with those matters?

I haven't taken a look at this thread for a few days but this is a terrible attempt at mockery and sarcasm. I can prove gravity. When I drop something it falls. It always works. The math behind it is completely predictable and the results are always the same. When something is dropped it falls. Period.

Same thing with the round Earth. As soon as we sailed around it we knew it was round.

Climate 'science' is another thing altogether. The models used are theoretical and have thus far been useless to predict anything.

Actually, it's science....

Some of it is. Most of it isn't.

[GostHacked]

your contradictions are blatant... do you make a strong delineation between the scientists and/or organizations that work to support the scientific understanding and information dissemination behind your so-called toxic emissions concern and the scientific understanding and information dissemination behind AGW? You seem more than willing to accept one over the other... how contradicting and hypocritical.

I'll show you contradicting and hypothetical right here.

do you actually understand the emissions makeup associated with fossil-fuel burning... those other than CO2... are you simply going to ignore that reducing fossil-fuels also addresses the other emissions released - nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and methane.

Do you recall what I said in your other threads where I proposed just that as above and yet you berated, insulted me and told me I was foolish and wrong? You are simply paraphrasing what I had said in your other threads, and actually agree with it.

I stated that if we reduce toxic emissions that it will take care of C02 as well. You are using the same premise I had, but just switched a couple things around but essentially you are agreeing with me.

Here is my quote from your thread 'Climate Science 101' Page 23 Post #352

Since I do not think there is an issue about CO2 being the most important problem to solve, I will leave that to you and your kind who buy into the whole AGW bit. I am offering solutions to combat overall toxic pollution which again I think is the more important problem but at the same time can reduce your C02 emissions.

Reducing fossil fuels use is one way we can reduce pollution. Wind and solar solutions for each home. I am starting to think you are so blinded or hypnotized by the AGW bit, that you can't read properly what I have posted.

So what do YOU propose we do about it?

Give it your best Waldo.

Do you simply discount CO2... or methane... because they're naturally occurring? Do you simply choose to ignore the known impacts of high concentrations of CO2/methane? Do you actually understand the temperature/CO2 feedback mechanisms at play... those dramatically affecting the melting of permafrost and the huge potentials for very significant methane discharges - methane, a GHG 25% more potent than CO2. Yes, your selective concerns are blatantly contradicting - indeed.

Wait so methane is more of a problem than CO2?? Are you starting to agree with my stance? Who is being selective?

[Guest TrueMetis]

I haven't taken a look at this thread for a few days but this is a terrible attempt at mockery and sarcasm. I can prove gravity. When I drop something it falls. It always works. The math behind it is completely predictable and the results are always the same. When something is dropped it falls. Period.

Same thing with the round Earth. As soon as we sailed around it we knew it was round.

Climate 'science' is another thing altogether. The models used are theoretical and have thus far been useless to predict anything.

Some of it is. Most of it isn't.

The Earth is a oblagate spheriod, the math for climate science is generally right and the model predictions correct, and we haven't actually found the mechanism through which gravity functions while we've understood the mechanism for global warming for more than a century. Am I missing anything?

[bush_cheney2004]

The Earth is a oblagate spheriod,

Well, for starters, the earth is an oblate spheroid.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Well, for starters, the earth is an oblate spheroid.

Damn I knew I was going to screw up somewhere.

[Oleg Bach]

Global warming has just been renamed, dirt created by greed. You know that thing where people go nuts wanting more and more of what they do not need...forget the gases and all that- just think of the black soot..those dark particles that love to suck up and hold the suns heat..You could get all the carbon gases under control and there still would be dirt..and super rich greedy people never clean up after themselves..BP oil is proof of that..just sweep it under the carpet until they form a new mountain range..

The reason why all this talking will not work is because in order to be a super power or become one- you have to cause a lot of pollution..so that is the choice..be super and eventually die or be moderate and kind and live.

[wyly]

we haven't actually found the mechanism through which gravity functions

that's something I had assumed was understood so I never really cared until I read that there was no consensus on how it actually worked ...

[waldo]

Hey, don't get me wrong I am all for cleaning up the environment and using environmentally friendly products and services. I think we all are. However, going after just CO2 is only but one element of the whole equation. There are many other things we need to do in conjunction with reducing toxic emissions (which you can throw the CO2 in there as well, it really does not matter in the end).

your contradictions are blatant... do you make a strong delineation between the scientists and/or organizations that work to support the scientific understanding and information dissemination behind your so-called toxic emissions concern and the scientific understanding and information dissemination behind AGW? You seem more than willing to accept one over the other... how contradicting and hypocritical.

do you actually understand the emissions makeup associated with fossil-fuel burning... those other than CO2... are you simply going to ignore that reducing fossil-fuels also addresses the other emissions released - nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and methane. Do you simply discount CO2... or methane... because they're naturally occurring? Do you simply choose to ignore the known impacts of high concentrations of CO2/methane? Do you actually understand the temperature/CO2 feedback mechanisms at play... those dramatically affecting the melting of permafrost and the huge potentials for very significant methane discharges - methane, a GHG 25% more potent than CO2. Yes, your selective concerns are blatantly contradicting - indeed.

Do you recall what I said in your other threads where I proposed just that as above and yet you berated, insulted me and told me I was foolish and wrong? You are simply paraphrasing what I had said in your other threads, and actually agree with it.

I stated that if we reduce toxic emissions that it will take care of C02 as well. You are using the same premise I had, but just switched a couple things around but essentially you are agreeing with me.

you truly are dense! Opening up the fossil-fuel makeup was intended to emphasize that there's more there than "just CO2"... but it's hardly the makeup of the principal overall toxic air emissions. And you think this is somehow aligning with your premise that taking care of "toxic emissions" will address CO2... as well? It was also intended to showcase your selective alignment with certain scientists and/or organizations...

do you simply play buzzword bingo or do you actually know what constitutes "toxic emissions" and where their principal sources are? There are close to 200 toxic air emissions that get released into the atmosphere... the bulk... and the real nasty ones... originating from industrial, manufacturing and commercial sources. Perhaps you could actually detail that supposed linkage that you claim will have, "one take care of the other"... perhaps you could actually detail the processes, organizations, methods, regulatory agencies, government bodies involved in supporting your claim that will have, "one take care of the other". Lay it out, just how, as you say, "you're offering solutions to combat overall toxic pollution which again I think is the more important problem but at the same time can reduce your C02 emissions".

yes, you are, "foolish and wrong"... and I most certainly don't agree with you - buzzwordBingoMan!

Wait so methane is more of a problem than CO2?? Are you starting to agree with my stance? Who is being selective?

is it an actual reading problem with you... or just comprehension? The methane component of fossil-fuel burning is roughly (only) 8% of the resultant GHG's... and yes, in terms of 'potency', methane is stronger than CO2. That's why there is great concern over the potential impact, which is what I said... potential impact due to permafrost melting and the natural discharge of methane into the atmosphere - methane that is now trapped and sealed within the permafrost. I also spoke of the feedback mechanisms at play between CO2 & temperature... and methane... more CO2 - higher temperatures; higher temperatures - more permafrost melting; more permafrost melting - more discharge of methane; more discharge of methane - higher temperatures. Do you see a pattern here? Duh!

[GostHacked]

that's something I had assumed was understood so I never really cared until I read that there was no consensus on how it actually worked ...

Scientists have been struggling to explain gravity I think since before Einstein's days. Once they do, it will help with the unifying theory that will connect the quantum world with the physical. String theory so far fits in the math.. and the most recent finding is that since this math seems to all work, folding space is attainable.

I'll see if I can find those articles (but it does not relate to this thread i'll make a new one)

----

The climate change scientists barely have a grasp on how our weather works. We can't seem to predict weather with much accuracy (always room for error) so how would they be able to predict the trend in global warming when the models themselves are not fully understood and are not fully complete. The jet streams over North American have shifted greatly over the past decade or so, and they did not see that coming, how the hell are they to predict 100 years down the road?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416153558.htm

The article states that the jet streams in North America are shifting north. But is that due to AGW? We've been studying jet streams since the 1930's since it was first discovered. And no data before that is really available. This has a huge impact on weather and climate.

[wyly]

Wait so methane is more of a problem than CO2?? Are you starting to agree with my stance? Who is being selective?

methane becomes a serious problem when the CO2 warm the global temps to a point that methane is released in mass...reduce the CO2 and the methane does not become a insurmountable problem ...methane is a stronger GHG than CO2 but relatively short lived in the atmosphere average for CO2 is 100+ years before it cycles out, methane has I believe a 10yr cycle...H2O has about a 2 week cycle...so CO2 remains the immediate danger, it's like the detonator on a much more explosive bomb(methane), the bomb needs to be defused...if the methane is released in mass it could lead to a mass extinction event equal to the PT extinction(the largest extinction event) which is suspected to have been caused by a CO2 warming followed by a Methane release...

but conditions are different today, humans have effectively changed the planet to the point that mass extinction is already underway and we'll have likely done the job with CO2 alone before CH4 kicks in...

Edited December 13, 2010 by wyly

[GostHacked]

you truly are dense! Opening up the fossil-fuel makeup was intended to emphasize that there's more there than "just CO2"

Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. I've said something similar to that before.

... but it's hardly the makeup of the principal overall toxic air emissions. And you think this is somehow aligning with your premise that taking care of "toxic emissions" will address CO2... as well? It was also intended to showcase your selective alignment with certain scientists and/or organizations...

You are using the exact same argument I am using, just switching around the items. It shows that we are on the same page with reducing emissions, for completely different reasons, but should end up with the same results.

do you simply play buzzword bingo or do you actually know what constitutes "toxic emissions"

Yes, and I have talked about them in your other threads, carbon monoxide for example was one of them.

and where their principal sources are? There are close to 200 toxic air emissions that get released into the atmosphere... the bulk... and the real nasty ones... originating from industrial, manufacturing and commercial sources.

You don't say? Also something that I had stated in your other threads. Thanks for coming around.

Perhaps you could actually detail that supposed linkage that you claim will have, "one take care of the other"... perhaps you could actually detail the processes, organizations, methods, regulatory agencies, government bodies involved in supporting your claim that will have, "one take care of the other". Lay it out, just how, as you say, "you're offering solutions to combat overall toxic pollution which again I think is the more important problem but at the same time can reduce your C02 emissions

The fact that you have said the same thing as I have (albeit a little different) we have come to the same conclusion that reducing fossile fuel emissions will help with C02 and other toxic emissions. But please feel free to keep ignoring that fact.

yes, you are, "foolish and wrong"... and I most certainly don't agree with you - buzzwordBingoMan!

It's about time you honor me with a degrading title like the rest of your opponents. I am a little insulted you could not work my username in the honorable title.

is it an actual reading problem with you... or just comprehension? The methane component of fossil-fuel burning is roughly (only) 8% of the resultant GHG's... and yes, in terms of 'potency', methane is stronger than CO2. That's why there is great concern over the potential impact, which is what I said... potential impact due to permafrost melting and the natural discharge of methane into the atmosphere - methane that is now trapped and sealed within the permafrost. I also spoke of the feedback mechanisms at play between CO2 & temperature... and methane... more CO2 - higher temperatures; higher temperatures - more permafrost melting; more permafrost melting - more discharge of methane; more discharge of methane - higher temperatures. Do you see a pattern here? Duh!

Yes the pattern is you can use buzzwords too.

Edited December 13, 2010 by GostHacked

[Bonam]

Well, for starters, the earth is an oblate spheroid.

Only to first order. There are a great many complex surface perturbations.

[waldo]

The fact that you have said the same thing as I have (albeit a little different) we have come to the same conclusion that reducing fossile fuel emissions will help with C02 and other toxic emissions. But please feel free to keep ignoring that fact.

"albeit a little different"... buddy, we are not on the same page - no matter how hard you're trying to be on mine!!! Like I said, don't hesitate to step and speak to that "linkage"... that you claim will simply have, "one take care of the other"! While you're at it, from your most recent prior post... you may want to recognize the distinction between meteorology/climatology, meteorologists/climatologists and weather/climate - hey?

Perhaps you could actually detail that supposed linkage that you claim will have, "one take care of the other"... perhaps you could actually detail the processes, organizations, methods, regulatory agencies, government bodies involved in supporting your claim that will have, "one take care of the other". Lay it out, just how, as you say, "

you're offering solutions to combat overall toxic pollution which again I think is the more important problem but at the same time can reduce your C02 emissions

".

[Shady]

Waldo's back!

Hey buddy, are you still a supporter of China's clean coal?