Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  

How long before the Global Warming Charade ends.
2 years
18%
 18%  [ 2 ]
5 years
36%
 36%  [ 4 ]
10 or over
45%
 45%  [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 11

Author Message
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:13 pm    Post subject: Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong" Reply with quote

http://jr2020.blogspot.com/200.....wrong.html

Quote:
John Reynolds at Grey Canada alerts us to new results in climate science. A NASA atmospheric physicist re-derived the equations governing the greenhouse effect and came up with a new result showing that the runaway warming previously predicted is impossible.

The theory was developed by ... Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center.

... his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money" ... funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, [...] His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.

The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs...


It's time to end this charade. I'm freezing my ass off and people on the CBC and the rest of the MSM are saying we need to do more to fight global warming. I noticed thou that there are alot of naysayers getting some run in some of the papers. How long will it be before Global Warming bites the dust. Or will it just morph into Climate change and keep going.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong" Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
Or will it just morph into Climate change and keep going.

They're already trying to morph it but they're failing because of the credibility gap. They'll never admit they're wrong but eventually, it'll be proved.

-Mac
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are a whole lot of people emotionally, intellectually, politically, and financially invested in this idea of global warming. You have anti war people using it, poverty activists, lobbyists, plus the mases have been duped and most have fully bought into the idea. They will hang onto this idea for an impossibly long time, longer than any sane person would guess.

If you don't believe me, ask around the forum here. Even in the only Canadian political party that has not fully embraced the idea, there are a few too many true believer for my personal comfort. This could go into the next century.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suppose it could go the other way too, maybe it could all end and everybody forgets about it as quick as the last housing bubble. Maybe it will go away faster than any sane person would predict, I just hope the next fad is not worse.
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
I suppose it could go the other way too, maybe it could all end and everybody forgets about it as quick as the last housing bubble. Maybe it will go away faster than any sane person would predict, I just hope the next fad is not worse.


I'm thinking at some point it will be replaced with something else, probably as soon as "global warming" and "climate change" becomes passe with the masses. Then some other "non-political" tool will be used by every political lobbying group to get their funding/agenda passed.

I mean anti-war people and anti-poverty activists using global warming should be a wakeup call to everyone how politicized this issue has become.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And terrorists use it to. I believe I have heard Osama using it as one of many justifications. Iran uses it as justification to pursue nuclear technology, poor governments use it to justify begging, rich governments use it to justify tax hikes, this is literally the most flexible policy tool the world has ever seen.
Pissedoff





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 474
Reputation: 145.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What pisses me off is that Harper has bought into this garbage, and that was one of the main reasons I voted for him. Many thousands he has thrown at this scam and still people think the sun shines out of his backside. Maybe that is where the real global warming is happening.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe I have heard Osama using it as one of many justifications.

Quote:
all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations, yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistic speaks of the death and displacement of millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa.
WBD





Joined: 02 Mar 2008
Posts: 46
Reputation: 38.7Reputation: 38.7Reputation: 38.7Reputation: 38.7

PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What pisses me off is that Harper has bought into this garbage...


Not really. He knows it's BS just like the rest of us but he has to bow down at the alter like most other world leaders. He just tries to lean it towards the real pollution problems and digs his heels in on CO2 only as much as he dares (like at the Bali Conference).

It was originally called The Clean Air Act, NOT the GHG Reduction Act and it got trashed. Remember?

Hope governments at all levels don't have to play along much longer.

Bill in Calgary
Sheila





Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 556
Reputation: -6.8
votes: 16
Location: Central Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Which reminds me, what ever happened to the ban on legacy chemicals announced in Dec. of 2006? Does anyone remember the little clip from CTV when a reporter asked PM Harper if he was concerned about the safety of the food on our shelves. He replied that his government is concerned with the safety of the food on our shelves because the long term effect may lead to heart disease and cancer. This little clip from Dec 2006, never to be seen again.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
And terrorists use it to. I believe I have heard Osama using it as one of many justifications. Iran uses it as justification to pursue nuclear technology, poor governments use it to justify begging, rich governments use it to justify tax hikes, this is literally the most flexible policy tool the world has ever seen.


Here's two interesting articles touching on just that:

The Contrarian of Prague

Quote:
...He likens global-warming alarmism to communism, which he experienced first-hand in Cold War Czechoslovakia, then a Soviet satellite. While the communists argued that we must all sacrifice some freedom in pursuit of "equality," the "warmists," as Mr. Klaus calls them, want us to sacrifice liberty -- especially economic liberty -- to prevent a change in climate. In both cases, in Mr. Klaus's view, the costs of achieving the goal, and the impossibility of truly doing so, argue strongly against paying a price of freedom.


and

Last days for US polar bear dithering?

Quote:
"The US Fish and Wildlife Service views this as a landmark decision," says Scott Schliebe, polar bear project scientist for the service, who is based in Anchorage, Alaska. It is the first decision about the potential fate of a species to be based on climate projections ... The decision hinges on whether polar bears are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The main threat is loss of sea ice, which the bears need to hunt seals. To predict the fate of the bears, the service asked the US Geological Survey (USGS) to help determine the likely extent of sea ice in the future, and how the bears might respond to changes.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The first article presented a different view which challenges the "conventional wisdom" of the climate change cult. The second one presented unscientific emotional pap about a species whose population is growing, not falling, and who've survived in tropical conditions.

-Mac
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
The first article presented a different view which challenges the "conventional wisdom" of the climate change cult. The second one presented unscientific emotional pap about a species whose population is growing, not falling, and who've survived in tropical conditions.

-Mac


That was more or less my point in posting them, though I suppose I could have been more clear. Both are excellent examples of how certain movements are both fueling and taking advantage of AGW propaganda to implement their pet agendas.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
That was more or less my point in posting them, though I suppose I could have been more clear. Both are excellent examples of how certain movements are both fueling and taking advantage of AGW propaganda to implement their pet agendas.

The most wondrous yet mysterious beast of all, oft mentioned but never witnessed in public: the pet agenda.

-Mac
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB