Comments on: So How Could It All Get Worse?

By: Lazar

Lazar — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:31:48 +0000

"So How Could It All Get Worse?" By people like the Instaclutz linking to disinformation and outright lies...

is making millions off all this energy stuff he is selling

... resulting in action that is too little too late.

By: Lazar

Lazar — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:23:57 +0000

Ltw

and I find it unconvincing

who cares?

How to hand wave and hope no one notices…

a lot of the [...] I find [...] a lot of disagreement [...] too many [...] really quite low [...] is garbage [...] potential [...] is huge [...] as badly [...] are very suspect [...] doesn’t seem to be

By: Ltw

Ltw — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:59:34 +0000

Paul at #24 – it’s even worse than you think. Even if the models could replicate 20th century data, the surface temperature record is garbage. Changes in land use, poorly maintained stations, A/C units installed directly over monitoring equipment, technology changes, different standards for data collection round the world – even if the models matched the record who knows if they match reality? All this supposedly gets corrected for, but the potential for error is huge – I wouldn’t trust anything less than a few degrees Celsius change out of data as badly corrupted as this, let alone the 0.5 plus or minus that has everyone up in arms now.

And there are a few key assumptions in the models that are very suspect. CO2 by itself is not enough to cause the warming they are talking about (this is not disputed), rather it’s assumed that the rise will drive more water vapour/clouds which retain most of the heat – and this doesn’t seem to be happening. So despite the consensus/majority, the whole theory is a house of cards based on crappy data and some possibly flawed assumptions, pull those out and the whole thing comes crashing down.

By: Ltw

Ltw — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:43:09 +0000

Lazar at #5 – I’ve read quite a lot of the science thanks, and I find it unconvincing – and I have degrees in physics and engineering so I’m willing to back my own judgement. Far too many of the “thousands of scientists” that are quoted as being part of this consensus are working on what the effects would be presuming the modellng is correct anyway – that is, “assume there’s a 5 degree rise, how would that affect this species/glacier/country” – that’s not proof it will happen, it’s if-then stuff. The number working on whether something is happening and why is really quite low, and there’s a lot of disagreement there.

DavidC at #10 – no one’s clutching at legislative straws except the AGW proponents – we’re opposing the legislation (I’m Australian, but the same thing is going on here). See the difference? Signing up for this treaty in its current form commits both our countries to hand over huge amounts of money to be managed by the UN, which doesn’t exactly have a great track record, and in service of a non-existent cause.

By: hanoi paris hilton

hanoi paris hilton — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:22:10 +0000

C’mon Ms. Rosette! Tell us what you really think about the UN. Don’t be shy. We can handle it.

By: Paul -Indiana

Paul -Indiana — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:42:50 +0000

#10. David said “I love the way the Deniers clutch at legislative straws to argue against global warming – obviously because they have no response to the overwhelming science.”
===============
Does that ‘overwhelming science’ include those climate models that are unable to predict recent global temps from data taken in the mid 20th century?

By: Jim Baker

Jim Baker — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:46:17 +0000

DavidC,
Do you have any idea how much like a religious nut you are? As I have said to you repeatedly, there is no scientific basis for environmentalism. It is a belief system, just like any other, and it takes a healthy amount of faith to beleve in it. Worse, to trample on religious freedom, it is the established religion of our government. It is promoted with billions of the taxpayers dollars and its refrains are sung from the rafters of the halls of government. And you believe. It is fine with me if you believe in global warming and any other such theories, but leave me out of it.

By: Code Blue

Code Blue — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:44:50 +0000

#16: Sick of it
Not true. After you die, your body decomposes, thereby releasing all the carbon in your carbon based (former)lifeform.

I must agree, but please don’t tell algore, Obama, the MSM or the UN and EU, or else Cap ‘n Tax will add carbon taxes to our burial fees and make our heirs pay for the carbon released from our bodies as we decompose. I think the elites will then have found a way to tax us AFTER we die!

By: C3H Editor

C3H Editor — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:13:35 +0000

It has become really difficult for the UN and global warming alarmists to push their desired Copenhagen agenda because nature just won’t accommodate them, thank goodness:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/11/as-of-october-31-2009-us-global-cooling-continues-us-cooling-trend-minus-90fcentury.html

C3H Editor, http://www.c3headlines.com

By: Thomas Rees

Thomas Rees — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:55:01 +0000

Now here is something REALLY INTERESTING!(Originally from Free Republic) Not too long!
It is from a Finnish TV station, YLE, a program pertaining to IPCC Global Warming fraud! I’m sure it will take awhile to nail AlGore for simple money fraud, but this should speed it up!

http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/taman_viikon_mot/transcript_english