ICECAP

[White_Male_Canada]

Blowing the lid off of agw:

http://www.icecap.us/


CO2 is a pollutant.



CO2 is an essential nutrient for plants. Plants absorb CO2 and release oxygen, while animals inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Researchers have proven that higher CO2 concentrations enable plants to grow faster and give them better drought tolerance.



CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas.


Not even close. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is about 100 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2 and thus has a much larger effect.

Modeling the earth’s climate is nearly an exact science.


General Circulation Models (GCMs) vary by a factor of 3 in their forecasts; they require arbitrary adjustments; and they cannot properly simulate clouds. Their forecasts of substantial warming depend on a positive feedback from atmospheric water vapor (WV). Many of the natural variations (sunlight, El Niño, volcanoes, and so on) cannot be predicted with any skill in the future. (George Taylor, “Science Wake Up Call: There is More Hype Than Truth,” National Association of Manufacturers, May 2004)

[Caleigh]

Ok, do you even think before you post?

You are taking the word of the National Association of Manufacturers to start with. People with a vested interest in having no restrictions at all on their processes. Secondly you are quoting information that is at least 3 years out of date. Would you just drop this whole global warming denial stance and go check out the missing glaciers.

[White_Male_Canada]

Ok, do you even think before you post?

You are taking the word of the National Association of Manufacturers to start with. People with a vested interest in having no restrictions at all on their processes. Secondly you are quoting information that is at least 3 years out of date. Would you just drop this whole global warming denial stance and go check out the missing glaciers.

You`re uneducated. It`s established fact that temperatures rise first, co2 follows.The Un government IPCC models use + feedback to achieve their desired results.Independent tests of the models, checking how robust they are by back-reconstructing over twice the timescale, are not yet possible.


If your mind is that closed, then go worship at the feet of the algoracle 8)



Glaciers all over the world are letting because of global warming.

Actually, this is somewhat true, but it is unlikely that changes in glaciers are affected by recent climate changes. According to the Glacier Program at Rice University (http://www.glacier.rice.edu), the response time to climate changes for different sizes of glaciers are as follows:




ice sheet: 100,000 to 10,000 years

large valley glacier: 10,000 to 1,000 years

small valley glacier: 1,000 to 100 years


For very large glaciers such as the Antarctic Ice Sheet, considerable time is needed for the ice sheet to respond to any environmental changes. Changes in climate may take tens of thousands of years before the entire ice sheet has adjusted to changing, and by that time, the climate may have changed again.

[svenson]

Ok, do you even think before you post?

You are taking the word of the National Association of Manufacturers to start with. People with a vested interest in having no restrictions at all on their processes. Secondly you are quoting information that is at least 3 years out of date. Would you just drop this whole global warming denial stance and go check out the missing glaciers.

dont waist you time. you cant talk about whats reel with him hes in his own world and has no integrity. its why people ignore him

[White_Male_Canada]

Ok, do you even think before you post?

You are taking the word of the National Association of Manufacturers to start with. People with a vested interest in having no restrictions at all on their processes. Secondly you are quoting information that is at least 3 years out of date. Would you just drop this whole global warming denial stance and go check out the missing glaciers.

dont waist you time. you cant talk about whats reel with him hes in his own world and has no integrity. its why people ignore him

First and foremost. The left are cowards, that is obvious. You cannot debate because you lose.So leftists from top to bottom, run:

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=18273

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=18275



Prove that CO2 rises first.

Are we in a warming cycle? Yes. Is man the main cause of the warming cycle? No.

What alogre does in his powerpoint presentation is take two graphs, one temps, one CO2, and strongly implies CO2 causes temperatures to increase. That is false. What algore won`t do is combine the two graphs. If he did it would prove that he is a liar.

Here are the facts:

1. Global warming exists.
2. CO2 levels are rising.

Here are the incorrect inferences by algore:

1. Global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels.
2. Rising CO2 levels are caused by humans.

Here are the correct inferences:

1. Global warming is caused by increasing Solar radiation.
2. Rising CO2 levels are caused solar effects on oceans.

[LG]

You cannot debate because you lose.

:roll:

Wrong. We refuse to "debate" because we are fed up and we've wasted enough time already. Your lame arguments have been smashed to the ground but you and a handful of your cronies still don't recognise this.

Have you noticed that people have stopped responding to your inane posting? Have you? Have you noticed that everyone keeps calling you a troll? Maybe it's because you are. Maybe we just don't like you- perhaps with good reason. Could it be because instead of debating you have chosen to throw insults at us? Could it be because you dismiss us all us "communist kooks" without first thinking if we might have a point? Could it be that the joke is on you?

We've wasted too much time, energy and bandwith arguing with you. Now we've decided to ignore you. How do you like that?

Anyway, I just thought I'd enlighten you before I get back to ignoring you again. Have a nice day, troll. And don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

[White_Male_Canada]

You cannot debate because you lose.



Wrong. We refuse to "debate" because we are fed up and we've wasted enough time already. Your lame arguments have been smashed to the ground but you and a handful of your cronies still don't recognise this.

Oh really now? You can`t even prove CO2 rises first, then temperatures follow and increase. So how in the world can you prove anything else. Sure, you`ll trot out UN computer models that over-use +feedback, can`t even back check because they`re so faulty and useless. Post ice core data and read it backwards like algore, but hey, that`s why we laugh, AT YOU ! 8)




We've wasted too much time, energy and bandwith arguing with you. Now we've decided to ignore you. How do you like that?

Do what you wish loser. Since this "troll" has more posts than you do, that must make you the maggot the "trolls" step on and squash. 8)



Once more, with feeling



Thomas Sowell:

The liberals' favorite argument is that there is no argument --nothing uttered in opposition to liberal beliefs exists, at least nothing worthy of their intellectual engagement. Thus a la Al Gore they proceed to reiterate their point of view boldly, heroically, and with the insistence that no other point of view is worthy of notice.

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. then expounded a little more:

The liberals' favorite debate is no debate unless the forum is totally dominated by them. Even then there will preferably be no argument, just the liberal point of view sedulously propounded in a forum shaped completely by them. This, students of rhetoric and knowledgeable of 20th century European history will tell you, is called propaganda. The Nazis mastered such forums, as did the Communists. 8)

[LG]

Do what you wish loser. Since this "troll" has more posts than you do, that must make you the maggot the "trolls" step on and squash.

Are you deluded? It's not about who posts the most shit (in which case you would win hands down). Of course you've posted more times than me- you have nothing better to do. It's so simple to cut and paste any old crap (without even referencing it in most cases) and to open up new threads randomly. I have been here much longer than you but post fewer times per day simply because I post only when I actually have something to say.

Try this one on for size, from Wiki:

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.

And from an old site:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060428091222/http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

What is a Troll?

An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words.


Why Do They Do It?

Affirmation.

Regular net users know how delightful it is when somebody responds to something they have written. It is a meeting of the minds, which is an intellectual thrill, but it is also an acknowledgement of one's value — and that can be a very satisfying emotional reward.

Trolls crave attention, and they care not whether it is positive or negative. They see the Internet as a mirror into which they can gaze in narcissistic rapture.

If you want a deeper analysis than that, perhaps a psychologist can shed some additional light on the matter.

In any case, all you need to look at is the respect that other forum members have for me and the lack of respect that everyone (excluding perhaps three or four buddies of yours) has for you. That should tell you who the "loser" is, troll.

There I've said it. You're a troll. You don't deserve my time. I'm not going to bother any more.

http://pinkdome.com/archives/weakest-link.jpg
You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

[White_Male_Canada]

Try this one on for size, from Wiki:
In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.

Derogatory...inflammatory...about sensitive topics !?

GW is a sensitive topic!? The law is sensitive !? Ethics and government are sensitive topics!?

Wow, have you gone nuts. 8)



An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Hilarious. Is that how you deal with facts that destroy your religious beliefs in AGW!?

Upset people, hurt feelings? Damn junior, if you can`t debate facts and your feelings get hurt because I`ve dismantled you intellectually, exposing your so called facts not as facts but as a faith, then perhaps you should go cower in the corner with the other leftists.



In any case, all you need to look at is the respect that other forum members have for me and the lack of respect that everyone (excluding perhaps three or four buddies of yours) has for you. That should tell you who the "loser" is, troll.


So the 3 other leftists love your earth worship as much as they do themselves. No surprise. Also no surprise that when confronted head to head in debate and cannot sustain any factual argument, you all run off.


You don't deserve my time. I'm not going to bother any more.

Here, last time, with "feeling" :cry :

Thomas Sowell:

The liberals' favorite argument is that there is no argument --nothing uttered in opposition to liberal beliefs exists, at least nothing worthy of their intellectual engagement. Thus a la Al Gore they proceed to reiterate their point of view boldly, heroically, and with the insistence that no other point of view is worthy of notice.

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. then expounded a little more:

The liberals' favorite debate is no debate unless the forum is totally dominated by them. Even then there will preferably be no argument, just the liberal point of view sedulously propounded in a forum shaped completely by them. This, students of rhetoric and knowledgeable of 20th century European history will tell you, is called propaganda. The Nazis mastered such forums, as did the Communists. 8)

[muhmuh]

The Un government IPCC models use + feedback to achieve their desired results.

explain the words feedback and positive-feedback in your own words and elaborate on how they relate to models and climate models in particular

[White_Male_Canada]

The Un government IPCC models use + feedback to achieve their desired results.

explain the words feedback and positive-feedback in your own words and elaborate on how they relate to models and climate models in particular

In a nutshell, + feedback could be called instability, - feedback, stability.

The UN`s CGMs require more than a million lines of code and all are deterministic. But, the output of CGM`s are called "scenarios" and not predictions .

Do you know why ?

[specialk]

The Un government IPCC models use + feedback to achieve their desired results.

explain the words feedback and positive-feedback in your own words and elaborate on how they relate to models and climate models in particular

In a nutshell, + feedback could be called instability, - feedback, stability.

The UN`s CGMs require more than a million lines of code and all are deterministic. But, the output of CGM`s are called "scenarios" and not predictions .

Do you know why ?



uuuhhhhhhh.....cuz you like it in the ass? :P

[muhmuh]

In a nutshell, + feedback could be called instability, - feedback, stability.

ok define stability then

[guyone]

WMC you forget the primary bolshie rule. Bolshies are always right so there is no reason for debate. Just nod.

[Caleigh]

And the conservative tactic is to not bother debating a point
because "the leftists won't listen anyway".

[White_Male_Canada]

In a nutshell, + feedback could be called instability, - feedback, stability.

ok define stability then

In a nutshell- think of a pendulum.

Your turn, output of CGM`s are called "scenarios" and not predictions .

Do you know why ?

[Caleigh]

“Climate change is a national security issue,” retired General. Gordon R. Sullivan, chairman of the Military Advisory Board and former Army chief of staff, said in releasing the report at a Washington news conference. “We found that climate instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact American military operations around the world.”

“People are saying they want to be perfectly convinced about climate science projections,” he said. “But speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.”

“There is a relationship between carbon emissions and our national security,” General Sullivan said recently. “I think that the evidence is there that would suggest that we have to start paying attention.”

“Carbon emissions are clearly part of the problem,” he added.

“We will pay for this one way or another,” stated retired Marine Corps General Anthony C. Zinni, former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or, we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll.”

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=1190

[White_Male_Canada]

“Climate change is a national security issue,” retired General. Gordon R. Sullivan, chairman of the Military Advisory Board

“Carbon emissions are clearly part of the problem,” he added.

“We will pay for this one way or another,” stated retired Marine Corps General Anthony C. Zinni,
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=1190

Heh-heh. At first I thought that was satire from scrappleface.com.
The level of hysteria still places it in the 'gotta laff at it' column.

Guess the military best park all those tanks, jets, Hummers, etc. 8)

[White_Male_Canada]

WMC you forget the primary bolshie rule. Bolshies are always right so there is no reason for debate. Just nod.

Is that the "consensus" rule ? 8)

[muhmuh]

In a nutshell- think of a pendulum.

ok next try... explain stability in system theoretical terms


Your turn, output of CGM`s are called "scenarios" and not predictions .

Do you know why ?[/b]

semantics have nothing to do with it... this goes well with the incredibly stupid idea that because something is called a theory in scientific terms its not the truth

[White_Male_Canada]

In a nutshell- think of a pendulum.

ok next try... explain stability in system theoretical terms


Your turn, output of CGM`s are called "scenarios" and not predictions .

Do you know why ?[/b]

semantics have nothing to do with it... this goes well with the incredibly stupid idea that because something is called a theory in scientific terms its not the truth

Semantics does indeed, have nothing to do with it, it is science.Many theories have been proven false. So far I`ve replied and you have not.

So, i`ll wait for you to explain,

Why are CGM`s commonly referred to as scenarios and not predictions?

[muhmuh]

nice way of trying to divert from the fact that you know nothing about systems

and i have answered your question by stating that its irrelevant what science decides to call these sims

[White_Male_Canada]

nice way of trying to divert from the fact that you know nothing about systems

and i have answered your question by stating that its irrelevant what science decides to call these sims

Nice way of trying to deflect from the fact that these GCM`s are not accurate.

Allow me to answer my own question since you`ve abstained. Within CGMs, the behaviour of turbulent fluids or the processes that occur within clouds, our knowledge of the physics is incomplete and therefore requires the extensive use of parameterisation.


“This is a dubious business(CGMs). The experts know it`s no better than the input. In this case we simply don`t yet know what`s going to happen to the carbon in the atmosphere because we don`t know what already has happened or is happening.The atmosphere is the tail, the ground is the dog….therefore eddyflux measurements are essential. They(CGMs) do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.Until you have detailed information it makes very little sense just to believe the output of climate models”

-Freeman Dyson

"A [GCM] prediction 50 or 100 years into the future is an idle gesture."

-Hendrik Tennekes

[muhmuh]

"because we don`t know what already has happened or is happening."

and yet you repeatedly claim to know exactly how temperatures and co2 behaved over a couple of million years and how it influenced the climate

if youre going to quote people at least make sure the quoted text fits with what youre preaching

and im still waiting for your proof that you know anything about systems

[White_Male_Canada]

"because we don`t know what already has happened or is happening."

and yet you repeatedly claim to know exactly how temperatures and co2 behaved over a couple of million years and how it influenced the climate

if youre going to quote people at least make sure the quoted text fits with what youre preaching

and im still waiting for your proof that you know anything about systems

It`s painfully obvious you`re not paying attention so why bother answer your juvenile questions.

Why?

Because Freeman Dyson was NOT referring to icecore data but of eddyflux data. sheesh.... :smh

[muhmuh]

im still waiting for you to proove that you have the slightest knowledge in the field of systems and calling that juvenile wont make it go away