Global Warming - Questions and other BS.

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Status
Not open for further replies.
DonCT said:
Still not showing me any corelation between rising CO2 followed by rising temps causing out-of-norm glacial melting.

And I never disputed that CO2 levels are higher than they were. I stipulate that they're still not the highest seen on the planet and there is no reason to try and regulate levels that even if doubled would only lead to a temp increase that still falls withing natural climate changes. Also, CO2 has very limited capabilities to contribute to AGW. Feel free to peruse this page:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
Click to expand...

Ah yes, Steven Milloy... wasn't he the one that got funding start by the tobacco industry?

The rate of increase is the highest seen in 650,00 years and dramatically so. It is incredibly naive to think that this has little or no atmospheric influence. Scientists are by nature skeptical and should be. But as more data accumulates, more scientists are connecting the dots. It's good to question the data, to poke at it from all sides. That examination makes people think and gets us closer to the truth. However, Steven Milloy has not contributed much worthwhile to this dialog. The rapidity of increase of greenhouse gases overlaid and correltated with the corresponding rapid ice melt is a bit more than a geological coincidence. Denial isn't going to get us anywhere, but it will waste time in preparing for the economic and social consequences.

A lot of what is being preported to be the final word just isn't. Junkscience.com is no authority and has plenty of errors. How about being skeptical there too? At http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Model_Request.htm they ask "if anyone has managed to recreate say, Earth's global mean temperature track for the period 1880-2000 (we'd accept 1880-1979 or some reasonable facsimile) as GCM output". Oh really? Well if interested, you can try reading the TAR. Figure 12.7c: (broken link removed to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/450.htm#fig127) has a nice picture (it even goes back to 1860), for example, and refers you to the appropriate papers.

If one is going to be skeptical, one might start by asking - Who is funding junkscience.com? Read: http://info-pollution.com/milloy.htm (among many other) discrediting the idiot at junkscience.com. Milloy's junkscience is aptly named. That's just what it is. There may be a few good facts mingled in there, but that doesn't make the bulk of his spew true.
 
Webmaster said:
Again, I am not personally in the know - but 600 Scientists and 113 countries agree on this?
Click to expand...

Wow, a whole 600!!!! AND 113 goverment officials!!!!! IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

Seriously Craig, for all your distrust of gov't, it's pretty funny that you would fall for this...... :roll:
 
Tee hee. Starts out by quoting a French Socialist. Boy have we changed our tune when it's convenient.

Considering that many scientists working for this dept. the epa, etc. have been gagged by this administration it's hard to give them credibility. Also considering the source of this ex-majority "newsbyte" I'd say there is a very good chance it was written directly by a lobbyist. Exxon, I don't know. But if the shoe fits....

fwiw - Marc Morano, ex reporter/producer for Rush Limpbag, is also known as Rush's man in Washington. Launched the swift boat attacks on Kerry. Not a very reputable source. He's a typical smear and run henchman.
 
CO2Science eh? Just cuz it has science in the url don't make it science. Oh, by the way .... site funded by Exxon/Mobil and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. Also it's suspected the Western Fuels Association a previous employer of the author is donating to the spew.

Time to turn off the AM hate radio....

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=3
 
Pure Limbaughism Don. Sorry, this is just tripe. You seem to be unable to connect the dots or follow the money. All you're proving is how far Exxon et al have spread their influence with the mass profits they have made from us. Stephen McIntyre and Tom DeWeese are pretty transparent. I'm signing off on this thread. It is not really going anywhere intelligent and only proving the point.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1158
http://info-pollution.com/mandm.htm
 
The only thing I have to say is for those who still have their head in the sand, is to watch the movie (Global Warming) and be part of the solution to maintain life. :roll:
 
DonCT said:
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

Just let me know when you find the sugar daddies....... Since no one in their right might would questions anthropogenic contributions.
Click to expand...

"The amount spent on climate studies worldwide has now reached the astonishingly high level of about $5 billion per year.1 In the United States alone, more than $2 billion is spent annually for climate studies"

Hmmm......5 billion a year for the entire planet - or, put another way, about 2 weeks of holing up in Iraq for the USA....and that is what the entire worldwide community of scientists spend on climate research? Sounds like a reasonable amount to me.

When an article starts out with an OPINION like this, especially one based just on the fact that most people can't count, it is tough to read much further. Sure, now it's the "global warming conspiracy" - just like all those nuts who said radiation might cause cancer!

So, if the USA is spending 2 billion a year, that means I am spending.....$7 - SEVEN DOLLARS. Two lattes at Starbucks (small).

Well, Don, you can now rest. GW gave a speech today where he said HE is on the leading edge of fixing all of our environmental problems. He is proposing cutting back on our gasoline use by 20% by a certain date.....

Wonder why he picked out gasoline, when oil in other forms is used for trains, planes, trucks, ships, power plants and much more? Well, the answer is that he does not want to hurt business for his dad and friends. Also, he does not mean that we will cut use of liquid car fuel by 20% - he intends to replace that with ethanol and other inefficient fuels...which also have their problems!

In short, he thinks we are stupid and that the American people think a cut in gasoline use means something. As far as the stupid part, I must say he is probably right....people hear a sound bite like that and think "See, GW is an environmentalist". .....yeah, like Krupp was a pacifist.
 
Well folks, it finally came out today....Al Gore IS a HUGE hypocrite......it was revealed that "Mr Inconvienent truth" himslef, Al Gore, who chastises the rest of us for walking around leaving large carbon foot prints, that his Tennessee home uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average household uses...... So...while Al Gore flies private jets spouting large amounts of greenhouse gases, and he and his entourage all drive HUGE greenhouse gas spouting SUV's and now his Tennessee home uses 20 times the electricity that an average home uses, he simultaneously demands of you and I that we do without and lessen OUR carbon footprint..........real lying filthy liberal hypocrite this one is........
 
Firewoodguy.com said:
The only thing I have to say is for those who still have their head in the sand, is to watch the movie (Global Warming) and be part of the solution to maintain life. :roll:
Click to expand...

Hey Firewoodguy,

maybe you didn't read what I wrote down below....let me address it directly to you......

Well folks, it finally came out today....Al Gore IS a HUGE hypocrite......it was revealed that “Mr Inconvienent truth” himslef (Al Gore who chastises the rest of us for walking around leaving large carbon foot prints), is a gross abuser of global warming and a leaves a MASSIVE carbon footprint himself ........seems that his Tennessee mansion uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average household uses...... So...while Al Gore flies around in private jets spouting large amounts of greenhouse gases, and he and his entourage all drive HUGE greenhouse gas spouting SUV’s and now his Tennessee home uses 20 times the electricity that an average home uses, he simultaneously demands of you and I that we: 1) fly coach or don't fly at all, 2) that we dump OUR SUV's and 3) that we reduce our electrical consumption all to lessen OUR carbon footprint while HE increases his, dragging it around the globe like a huge oil slick while preaching to others what to do..........real lying filthy liberal hypocrite this one is........

Any comment Firewood guy....thought not....
 
Castiron, please, join us in the Ashcan for the Al Gore goodness
 
castiron said:
Firewoodguy.com said:
The only thing I have to say is for those who still have their head in the sand, is to watch the movie (Global Warming) and be part of the solution to maintain life. :roll:
Click to expand...

Hey Firewoodguy,

maybe you didn't read what I wrote down below....let me address it directly to you......

Well folks, it finally came out today....Al Gore IS a HUGE hypocrite......it was revealed that “Mr Inconvienent truth” himslef (Al Gore who chastises the rest of us for walking around leaving large carbon foot prints), is a gross abuser of global warming and a leaves a MASSIVE carbon footprint himself ........seems that his Tennessee mansion uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average household uses...... So...while Al Gore flies around in private jets spouting large amounts of greenhouse gases, and he and his entourage all drive HUGE greenhouse gas spouting SUV’s and now his Tennessee home uses 20 times the electricity that an average home uses, he simultaneously demands of you and I that we: 1) fly coach or don't fly at all, 2) that we dump OUR SUV's and 3) that we reduce our electrical consumption all to lessen OUR carbon footprint while HE increases his, dragging it around the globe like a huge oil slick while preaching to others what to do..........real lying filthy liberal hypocrite this one is........

Any comment Firewood guy....thought not....
Click to expand...

Hi, Yes I read your post. When I posted my message, it was a general thought for the idiots and not attacking any one individual. If I recall, days before they attacked Pearl Harbor, the fleet commander only wanted "confirmation" "confirmation" confirmation" and didn't want to hear anything else or as in todays world as defined as "selective hearing" . Well, the Commander finally got his confirmation all right, but got his confirmation a little to late, don't you agree ?? It looks like some people will still only except Confirmation on Global Warming, then just wait for 10 or 20 years, then you will have all of your confirmation, it will be to late, but you will have your confirmation.
 
Firewoodguy.com said:
Hi, Yes I read your post. When I posted my message, it was a general thought for the idiots and not attacking any one individual. If I recall, days before they attacked Pearl Harbor, the fleet commander only wanted "confirmation" "confirmation" confirmation" and didn't want to hear anything else or as in todays world as defined as "selective hearing" . Well, the Commander finally got his confirmation all right, but got his confirmation a little to late, don't you agree ?? It looks like some people will still only except Confirmation on Global Warming, then just wait for 10 or 20 years, then you will have all of your confirmation, it will be to late, but you will have your confirmation.
Click to expand...


Firewood guy.......All I'm saying is please address the following for me: heating/cooling cycles of FAR GREATER MAGNITUDE have been occuring for tens of thousands of years and none of them were due to mankind....so....now that we see a 1 deg F or so rise, alarmists now say "the sky is falling" and that it's all due to mans activity when in fact, historically speaking, every previous temp fluctuation was due to mother nature. So.........why do people like you refuse to acknowledge historical data? Please answer the question.
 
castiron said:
Firewoodguy.com said:
Hi, Yes I read your post. When I posted my message, it was a general thought for the idiots and not attacking any one individual. If I recall, days before they attacked Pearl Harbor, the fleet commander only wanted "confirmation" "confirmation" confirmation" and didn't want to hear anything else or as in todays world as defined as "selective hearing" . Well, the Commander finally got his confirmation all right, but got his confirmation a little to late, don't you agree ?? It looks like some people will still only except Confirmation on Global Warming, then just wait for 10 or 20 years, then you will have all of your confirmation, it will be to late, but you will have your confirmation.
Click to expand...


Firewood guy.......All I'm saying is please address the following for me: heating/cooling cycles of FAR GREATER MAGNITUDE have been occuring for tens of thousands of years and none of them were due to mankind....so....now that we see a 1 deg F or so rise, alarmists now say "the sky is falling" and that it's all due to mans activity when in fact, historically speaking, every previous temp fluctuation was due to mother nature. So.........why do people like you refuse to acknowledge historical data? Please answer the question.
Click to expand...

True about "Natural" occurrences, But we are not referring todays GW as "Natural occurrences" . Furthermore, I don't think mankind was around 10 thousand years ago nor either was I. I think its more like ( TODAY'S GW refers to occurrences from MANKIND) and what future Global Warming effects from "TODAYS occurrences from MANKIND" (e.g todays man made pollution"
 
[quote author="Firewoodguy.com" date="1172663305
True about "Natural" occurrences, But we are not referring todays GW as "Natural occurrences" . Furthermore, I don't think mankind was around 10 thousand years ago nor either was I. I think its more like ( TODAY'S GW refers to occurrences from MANKIND) and what future Global Warming effects from "TODAYS occurrences from MANKIND" (e.g todays man made pollution"[/quote]

Firewoodguy.......you're not making any sense here.......read what you wrote above...it doesn't make sense.....

I know you're not referring to todays GW as a natural occurance and my question is "why aren't you attributing it to natural cycles when historical data says you should be"? Based on historical evidence where HUGE temp fluctuations have been occuring for tens of thousands of years (which we KNOW were NOT manmade because we either weren't around then or weren't polluting then), why can't the current 1-2 deg F rise we now see ALSO be due to natural cycles?????
 
castiron said:
[quote author="Firewoodguy.com" date="1172663305
True about "Natural" occurrences, But we are not referring todays GW as "Natural occurrences" . Furthermore, I don't think mankind was around 10 thousand years ago nor either was I. I think its more like ( TODAY'S GW refers to occurrences from MANKIND) and what future Global Warming effects from "TODAYS occurrences from MANKIND" (e.g todays man made pollution"
Click to expand...

Firewoodguy.......you're not making any sense here.......read what you wrote above...it doesn't make sense.....

I know you're not referring to todays GW as a natural occurance and my question is "why aren't you attributing it to natural cycles when historical data says you should be"? Based on historical evidence where HUGE temp fluctuations have been occuring for tens of thousands of years (which we KNOW were NOT manmade because we either weren't around then or weren't polluting then), why can't the current 1-2 deg F rise we now see ALSO be due to natural cycles?????[/quote]

Yes, you are right too. Good Bye
 
Firewoodguy.com said:
castiron said:
[quote author="Firewoodguy.com" date="1172663305
True about "Natural" occurrences, But we are not referring todays GW as "Natural occurrences" . Furthermore, I don't think mankind was around 10 thousand years ago nor either was I. I think its more like ( TODAY'S GW refers to occurrences from MANKIND) and what future Global Warming effects from "TODAYS occurrences from MANKIND" (e.g todays man made pollution"
Click to expand...

Firewoodguy.......you're not making any sense here.......read what you wrote above...it doesn't make sense.....

I know you're not referring to todays GW as a natural occurance and my question is "why aren't you attributing it to natural cycles when historical data says you should be"? Based on historical evidence where HUGE temp fluctuations have been occuring for tens of thousands of years (which we KNOW were NOT manmade because we either weren't around then or weren't polluting then), why can't the current 1-2 deg F rise we now see ALSO be due to natural cycles?????
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right too. Good Bye[/quote]

Firewoodguy,

I was simply posing a question that begs to be asked. Your answer of "yes you are right too" means you still think you're correct about GW being caused by man. I disagree and think the historical data proves it. 100% of all previous temp rises were natural occurrances because they occurred before man industrialized...this is undisputable. Also 100% of these temp rises occurred when CO2 levels were lower than they are now. This is also indisputable. Also, many of these previous temp rises were FAR GREATER than the 1 deg F we're now seeing. All I'm saying is that with these massive CO2 levels they keep telling us that we now have, we've only seen a 1 deg F temp rise but it should be HUGE if CO2 is really the culprit..........so......all this points to the fact that CO2 is not as bad as they tell us and that the temp rise may well be natural....just like 100% of all previous temp rises......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

woodgeek
Time to update our climate change framing.....
Replies
40
Views
4K
The Green Room
Ashful
Ashful
C
Efficient Wood Burning Fireplace Insert - Maybe Double Sided? Or Peninsula?
Replies
2
Views
147
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
cynthrea
C
woodgeek
Tony Seba is coming for your cheese, and says 100% solar is easy.
Replies
42
Views
5K
The Green Room
woodgeek
woodgeek
R
Princess PE-32, my second year. Stove pipe, blower, stack height, shields, and damper type questions.
Replies
23
Views
1K
Blaze King
BKVP
BKVP
R
Cast Iron Non-Cat Stoves Available in 2024?
Replies
14
Views
2K
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
begreen
begreen
Top Bottom