Re: global warming ! (NDC)

On Mar 23, 2:38 am, "Ray" <rayb...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 22, 2:42 pm, "Carlisle" <carrie-...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, "Ray" <rayb...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'll make you a deal, Carrie:

If you provide me with ONE example - *any* example - where you think
that hour-long "documentary" "The Global Warming Swindle" "shot holes"
through the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is
very likely real and very likely driven by fossil fuel burning, and
I'll watch that so-called "documentary" -- even though it was blasted
as an "out-and-out propaganda piece" by a highly-respected client
scientist who was featured in the film -- before responding.

C'mon, Carrie - if you think you know what are talking about here then
prove it by backing up your mud-slinging with a discussion of actual
global warming science.

Okay so you are admitting that you refuse to take a pEEk at it.

You really don't understand what you read, do you.

Per what I said I'd do above I not only took a "pEEk" at "The Global
Warming Swindle" but I watched the whole thing. And surprise,
surprise - Dr. Carl Wunsch, who as you know is a climate scientist who
was featured and quoted multiple times in the film, is correct -
"Swindle" grossly misleading bull***.

# I was shocked, shocked I tell you. #

Here are the first few claims...
The Earth's climate is always changing..

Correct. And your point here is what, exactly?

My point is that 1000 years ago farming was taking place high into
Greenland, temperatures and climates fluxuate and continue to do
so...I don't buy into the fact that it's as simple and closed cased as
Gore presents it. I know you do and you would argue to the end of time
that we should elect this man president based on this movement alone..

CO2 increases the
atmosphere=temperatures will increase but the ice core record shows
exactly the opposite.

Nope - you were mislead by the so-called "documentary" (and perhaps
elsewhere - that's a standard global warming denier declaration) into
believing that falsehood, Carrie.

I don't deny global warming, Ray. I just don't believe in the
catastrophe scenario..at the going rate the improvements are being
made even under this current evil administration. <heresy>

The correlation (historical and otherwise) between global temperature
and CO2 levels is complex. The "documentary" makes a big deal out of
the fact that increased global temperature leads to increased CO2 in
the atmosphere (because the oceans and land-based biomass release CO2
as temperatures get warmer) - this is well-established scientific
fact. But what "Swindle" fails to adequately explain is that it's
equally well-established scientific fact that increased CO2 in the
atmosphere increases global temperature. Which is to say, CO2 and
global temperature increase each other.

This leads to a positive feedback loop between the two - start with
significantly increasing one and you'll significantly the other.
Which, in turn, significantly increases the one you started with, and
so forth. And this is what the ice core records actually show, Carrie
- that positive feedback loop between increased global temperature and
increased CO2.

So what's with this purported "ice core record shows exactly the
opposite" bull*** that you were mislead into believing, then?
Historically, changes in incoming solar radiation (due to a variety of
factors, notably including changes in solar output and changes in the
orientation of the earth to the sun) *initiated* global warming cycles
by heating up the atmosphere - hence CO2 increases *initially*
followed increased global temperatures. But then the feedback loop
kicked in, and increases in CO2 amplified the global warming. And ice
core record bears this out - they lead each other.

This is basic global warming science, Carrie - any global warming
scientist worthy of the name is well aware of it. And yet, for some
#unknown# reason, "Swindle" failed to inform you of that, and instead
left you with a false impression. A mere accidental oversight? We
report - you decide.

Well as you know, I only get my information from Fox News and Rush
Limbaugh. Why disabuse you of that stereotype? The science is complex
and the New York Times piece was not saying Gore and Co have no valid
points just to cool the hype a bit, please.


CO2 never drove the climate in the past

Incorrect - see what I just wrote. I can easily see how "Swindle"
mislead you into believing otherwise, however,

Okay, CO2 is everywhere..cap and trade, promote ethonol, take steps to
clean the air over time. I guess all these scientists were paid off by
the dirty fuels industries and are republican operatives. I mean, they
question the ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY!!!


You still won't watch the clip
because it's heresy.

LoL - you are a funny one.

It's not heresy..oh right merely misleading bull***. Nothing there of
value. It should be removed from YouTube/Google. Write a letter.
Information this false on such a crucial matter is dangerous. It's
like Holocaust denial. Take it down.


.Course why waste your time even talking to
such an "idiot" such an "uneducated kool-aid drinker and hick" as
myself.

I'm one of those silly people who believes that facts matter, and that
exposing bull*** for what it is makes a difference.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah facts don't matter to me. I'm just into emotion and rightwing
politics. Why ruin a good stereotype?

Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don't stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape


And finally this from Capitol Hill although..who gives a damn. The
debate is over. The time to take drastic steps is NOW. Resistance is
futile.

March 22, 2007
Half-baked global warming?
From Mark Landsbaum:

"You could never tell from the news coverage, but there was a second
witness on global warming (Wednesday) on Capitol Hill," writes the
Wall Street Journal's John Fund.

Movie-making former Vice President Al Gore took his traveling global
warming show to Congress this week, and hearing rooms over-flowed with
legislators, spectators and press. In the morning Wednesday he
appeared before a House committee and in the afternoon before a Senate
committee.

Though some Republican lawmakers had tough questions and good points
to puncture Mr. Gore's arguments, the best counter argument came from
Danish environmental author Bjorn Lomborg. If you didn't catch Mr.
Lomborg's lengthy and excellent rebuttal to Mr. Gore's global warming
scare story, you weren't alone. When Gore left the House, so did the
audience and the press.


Virtually no press or media accounts of Wednesday's day of hearings
included the lengthy presentation of Mr. Lomborg before the House
Energy and Commerce Committee. While Mr. Lomborg was making his case
before a panel that included several Republican, but only two Democrat
congressmen, the cameras were zooming in on Mr. Gore's second
presentation of the day in the Senate.

As Mr. Fund observes: "Mr. Lomborg was sandbagged by the filibustering
Mr. Gore, who insisted on giving a 30-minute opening statement before
the House committee . . . By the time he had finished, the hearing was
ready to adjourn for lunch without calling on Mr. Lomborg."

After lunch Mr. Lomborg got his turn to a nearly empty House hearing
room. Don't you wonder why you aren't getting the full story on global
warming?


Posted at March 22, 2007 04:15 PM

Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.ocregister.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/6137




.