Global warming debunked

[guyone]

Global warming debunked
By ANDREW SWALLOW - The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 19 May 2007

Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.
Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.
"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.
A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.
"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.
Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.
"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.
However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.
"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."
Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned.
"The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is?
"It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said.

[trish]

i like a scientist who commits himself to a prediction. so when he proven wrong on May 19, 2012 are you going to ask for another five years?

[chefmike]

It continues to amaze me how the flat-earth bunch continues to deny the facts about Global Warming, but then again many of them are the same dupes who think that we have/or ever will accomplish anything positive from our invasion of Iraq.

[Quinn]

It continues to amaze me how the flat-earth bunch continues to deny the facts about Global Warming, but then again many of them are the same dupes who think that we have/or ever will accomplish anything positive from our invasion of Iraq.

LMFAO...... I literally just clicked this thread with the intention of posting the following:

"I can't wait for one of these factually challenged dullards to post a flat earth-centric theory because it would be just as valid, scientifically speaking, as the current drivel they spout."

Unfortunately, you beat me to the "flat earth" reference. What in the hell are the chances of that taking place? Great minds and all that.

-Quinn

[chefmike]

LMAO...it just occurred to me as an obvious parallel between the two...and the GW deniers should be treated with the same disdain as the flat-earth cretins...

[White_Male_Canada]

"...It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.
A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.
"It is time to attack the myth of global warming,"

Gonna be hilarious to wake up in 2012 to find the Earth still here and we`re still on it. Going to be even more amusing making fun of the arrogant Gaia earth worshippers and their AGW religion. How arrogant can one be to believe that man can control the Earth`s thermometer.

For simple reasons. CO2 is only about 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases. CO2 as a result of man's activities is only about 3.2% of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

What does that mean? Algore`s full of shit. 8)

[trish]

Gonna be hilarious to wake up in 2012 to find the Earth still here and we`re still on it.

notice how these dupes are already hedging. there's nothing in Swallow's article that says we won't be here in five years; instead the claim is...


Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time

these assholes can't even read and understand their own drivel.

[White_Male_Canada]

Gonna be hilarious to wake up in 2012 to find the Earth still here and we`re still on it.

notice how these dupes are already hedging. there's nothing in Swallow's article that says we won't be here in five years; instead the claim is...


Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time

these assholes can't even read and understand their own drivel.

Trish you`re getting your panties in a wad. Leftists usually get that way when frustrated by the facts. The Professor in that story was most likely referring to reports and statements made by Nobel prize winners who stated the end of the world would begin in about 10 years.Algore burped the same bile over a year ago. Canadian left wing Gaia worshiping millionare David Susuki said the same thing, "Over half of all Nobel Prize winners are telling us we could have as little as 10 years to avoid a catastrophe."

Back in 1988 Ted Danson said we only had 10 years to save the ocean, " "If we don't clean up the oceans, we got ten years. We will not recover."


'Five years to save Earth'
Tuesday, May 15, 2007

World leaders have just five years to save the planet from a climate change disaster - but it can be done, according to a new report.

The document, Climate Solutions: WWF's Vision For 2050..


We laughed at that crazy fucker Danson then and we`re laughing at crazy algore and the rest of the Gaia worshipers now.

Oh, and I`m laughing at you for not being able to follow logic. That or you`re just not keeping up to date with the drivel being fabricated by the left.

[LG]

What needs to be clarified is that nobody said that the earth is going to self-destruct in five or ten years time, but that by then it will be nearly impossible to reverse a trend that can catastrophic consequences.

Anyone familiar with the Gaia theory knows that the earth's systems are capable to shifting to a new equilibrium, in a similar way that a human's homeostatic control mechanisms allow one's body to respond to different states around us. This means that the earth can take a lot of damage, but its systems will adapt and change- it couldprovide a fast track to evolution and extinction of various species (but not of man, the most adaptable of all) and a cause of socio-economic strif.

Nobody said the world will not be here. But, if no cation is taken within the next decade or even less, the future could be very bleak for the world.

As WWF's Director General put it: "We have a small window of time in which we can plant the seeds of change, and that is the next five years. We cannot afford to waste them".

"This is not something that governments can put off until the future. Governments in power now have a unique opportunity, a duty, to do something big for the future of the planet. If they fail, generations to come will have to live with the compromises and hardships caused by their inability to act."

Suggesting that Suzuki, Gore or any of the others who are in favour of taking action, are saying that the earth will not be here or that we will all be dead in a decade or in five years is just plain stupid.

[trish]

well said, LG.

[White_Male_Canada]

well said, LG.

I wholeheartedly agree, great bullshit.

Once more, the nulti-millionare fear-monger David Suzuki said, " ... we could have as little as 10 years to avoid a catastrophe."

Catastrophe: a violent and sudden change in a feature of the earth b : a violent usually destructive natural event.


:lol:
Humans face extinction claims star

Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio sent out a message about global warming at the Cannes Film Festival.

The heartthrob has made a film, the 11th Hour, warning that human beings face extinction as a result of the environmental crisis. :lol:
http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Satellite/london/breakingnews/article/1157203950006?packedargs=suffix=BreakingNews



Once more, all this bullshit would require co2 to increase exponentially and much much more. Co2 only rises linearly,about 1.5 ppm per year. To be blunt , algore and suzuki are full of shit, and making a fortune at it and I`m not going to bother with what some guild ridden punk ass actor has to vomit.

Get past the fear mongering, the evidence is overwhelming. There will be no catastrophe in less that 10 years.

[trish]

we've already established, professor, that you can't keep straight what rises linearly, logarithmically or exponentially with what.

and speaking of logic: the phrase "we have as little as ten years to avoid a catastrophe" is not equivalent to "a catastrophe will occur in ten years"

the object in the first proposition concerns the window of avoidance. LG explained it well. From you we just hear more obfuscation and hedging. are you sticking by the assertion in Swallow's article or not? it seems you're already backing away.

[chefmike]

well said, LG.

Well said, indeed.

[Quinn]

From you we just hear more obfuscation and hedging.

When putting forth arguments with little to no substance, you're left nothing more than "obfuscation and hedging." Sadly, it's a pattern easily discerned by any poster who has been here for very long to become familiar with him – hence the Jamie-Michelle like lack of credibility.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

we've already established, professor, that you can't keep straight what rises linearly, logarithmically or exponentially with what.

and speaking of logic: the phrase "we have as little as ten years to avoid a catastrophe" is not equivalent to "a catastrophe will occur in ten years"

the object in the first proposition concerns the window of avoidance. LG explained it well. From you we just hear more obfuscation and hedging. are you sticking by the assertion in Swallow's article or not? it seems you're already backing away.

You`re playing the part of a dunce. It`s all you got left otherwise you`d have to be honest and admitted you`re a gullable buffoon taken in by old time carpetbaggers selling snake oil.

Here, just how simple can we make it for the religionists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A

Ok? Do you get it yet? Now do you understand how stupid you AGW religionists look and how hard we laugh at you? 8)

[LG]

Something tells me someone didn't understand their own post.

Like Trish underlined, I had noted that those who support the consensus view on climate change have said that we have only a few years to prevent catastrophic consquences in the future. The world will not end in a decade's time. It's not rocket science to grasp this simple concept. Failing to do so means that one lacks logic.

And I will no longer discuss scientific research with a person who lacks logic.

[trish]

Well professor, you were given three chances to affirm Augie Auer’s assertions and declined three times. I don’t blame you, it is a load of crap after-all. Sorry guyone, WMC left you hanging out to dry on this one. By the way WMC, you’re the religious one…so tell me, why do you think calling someone a religionist is an insult? …just wondering.

[tonkatoy]

I think it is naive to think mankind can have no effect on climate, I also think that humans have almost no sense of geologic time. My mom is a paleobotonist, adn she works on plants that were around long before dinosaurs even. I have talked to her about this and she feels some of the science may not account for cyclic changes. I really don;t know, if you drive through a big city and look at all the cars going by, and realize that you are only looking at one road in one city, and that the same thing is occurring the world over, it is not hard to imagine that we can have an effect on the planet. I think the world is going to regret that China could not have vested itself in some new transportation technology before jumping headlong into the internal combustion engine. It would be nice for this issue to be treated as a scientific one and not a political one, although there are very real political consequences. but im buying my Nevada beach front property now.

[White_Male_Canada]

Something tells me someone didn't understand their own post.

Like Trish underlined, I had noted that those who support the consensus view on climate change have said that we have only a few years to prevent catastrophic consquences in the future. The world will not end in a decade's time. It's not rocket science to grasp this simple concept. Failing to do so means that one lacks logic.

And I will no longer discuss scientific research with a person who lacks logic.

Please honor your words and do stop replying since you`ve nothing but a faith based theory on which to rely upon.

And there`s that faith based word again, "consensus". Even scientists are laughing their heads off at you agw cultists. Col. St. University professor of atmospheric science William M. Gray, "Consensus science isn't science."

Temperatures have both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric CO2 has been rising. CO2 only plays a very minor part in climate change and man-made CO2, even less. Spending billions if not trillions to redistribute wealth(Kyoto) and creating a precursor to a command and control economy only to reduce the earth`s temperature by about 0.003055225 °C by the year 2050 or so, is just not worth it.

Ten years, fifty, doesn`t matter,you`re fear-mongering just doesn`t cut it. And spending Trillions to possibly reduce the Earth`s thermometer a meager three one thousandths of one degree simply to assuage your guilt would make you a complete raving lunatic in addition to a rip-off artist. 8)

[LG]

I have only one response that can summarise what I want to say to you, Bozo.

http://www.hungangels.com/board/files/bozo_913.jpg
Above: WMC states his case

[tsmandy]

I guess it all depends WMC on what your definition of catastrophe is. It is not even arguable that Marine life has been reduced due to overfishing and habitat destruction to "catastrophic" levels.

The end of the world, no. Economically devestating for all who rely upon the sea as a means of sustenance and survival (hundreds of millions possibly billions of people), absolutely.

Maybe Global warming is not really happening, for the sake of the planet and all who live upon it, I sure hope you are right. Sadly, what with the Redwoods dying and the crazy weather and all, I think you are probably wrong.

[White_Male_Canada]

I guess it all depends WMC on what your definition of catastrophe is. It is not even arguable that Marine life has been reduced due to overfishing and habitat destruction to "catastrophic" levels.

The end of the world, no. Economically devestating for all who rely upon the sea as a means of sustenance and survival (hundreds of millions possibly billions of people), absolutely.

Maybe Global warming is not really happening, for the sake of the planet and all who live upon it, I sure hope you are right. Sadly, what with the Redwoods dying and the crazy weather and all, I think you are probably wrong.

I`ve never denied climate change, whether cooling or warming. The AGW religionsits attempt to argue man is the main cause of it. That is a belief based on faith in CGMs and the UN.

Now, trolling the Grand banks is another arguement.

[tsmandy]

What is an AGW religionist?

[White_Male_Canada]

What is an AGW religionist?

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=20269