|
|
|
|
 |
CR-V9
 |
|
Hi, MalcolmR.
As for “jimbo jumbo”, I didn’t mean you. I meant it in general. I really don’t have vocabularies in those big scientific words in English. I could guess it in Japanese, though.
As for the greenhouse effect, I should have said that Sun’s radiation hits ground and heat radiation is reflecting back out to space. Gasses of the atomsephere act like glass on a greenhouse to trap this radiation, different frequency, different gass. CO2 is not effective one but still one of the greenhouse gasses.
When I first looked up and read about it I remembered I learned something like that in school. It was a long, long, long time ago. It sounds reasonable to me. I admit I’ve taken it at its face value.
This “theory” of the greenhouse effect is not new, though. It first came out in early 19th century. This is not a new “theory” NASA just came up with as the document you refered to made it sounded like.
NASA says so. Japanese scientific institutions say so. It does sound right to this high school brain of mine.
Again, I think that issue of the global warming is that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are raising the effect of the greenhouse effect thus raising temperatures globally. And as the temperatures rise,the air holds more moisture, more rain and snow, more heat/energy to disperse, more ice to melt, sea levels rise, and weather patterns will change and climate will change eventually, even before the temperature reaches too hot. This was all in my own words.
So if you don’t believe in CO2’s greenhouse effect there won’t be any GW issues. Discussion moves to the “theory” of greenhouse effect, specially of CO2’s. That’s I can’t do.
It is too science and technical for me. As I said before I’ve taken it on its face value. Because it does sound reasonable to my high school brain and I need a lot more to argue against NASA and other scientific institutions from the USA, Japan and other countries. Then you don’t believe NASA, though.
This is not about if CO2 is a pollutant or not. This is about if rising concentration of CO2 affect the greenhouse effect. That's why I moved my question to the ice core studies. I asked if you believe rising concentration of CO2, at least. If so, is there any kind of effects to the environment? But it seems you don't believe that, either.
I just wanted to know your personal point of view on the global warming. That’s why I asked you to tell me in your own words. That's all.
I really thank you. You have been very nice and kind. I really appriciate it.
PS.CR-V9, jsell is your friend because he told you what he believes.
You have been given much information in recent posts.
If you respect us, you will now do some research for yourself. As an adult.
10 year-old boys are not interested in this topic. You're right. I will look it up.
I should have said a 16 year old boy.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
CR-V9:
Temperatures are not rising.
Sea levels are not rising.
CO2 levels in the air are rising, slightly. That reflects conditions on Earth 800 years ago. That's what the ice cores tell us.
Human production of CO2 does not and cannot affect atmospheric CO2 levels. They are controlled largely by temperature.
Please see the documents listed earlier. They are written in a simple style.
Especially pages 1 & 2 of this: http://galileomovement.com.au/docs/freedom1-CO2.pdf
Your understanding of greenhouse effect contradicts science. It is nonsense taught in some Australian and American high schools too. Especially government run schools.
Parts within NASA agree that global warming was modest and not caused by human activity. The section led by James Hansen, who has severely corrupted science advocates that humans caused warming. His approach is not scientific.
You only need the answer to one request: please provide specific scientifically measured real-world evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest period of modest cyclic global warming. THere is no evidence. I've asked world authorities for proof. None can provide proof. NASA has none. The UN IPCC has none.
Remember that temperatures have been flat/falling since 1998. Yet CO2 levels continued increasing. (due to Earth's conditions 800 years ago.)
Malcolm
:)
|
CR-V9
|
|
|
CR-V9
|
|
MalcolmR, you and jsell both tell me that NASA says it's not warming. I just wanted to see it myself. I don't want to be a sheeple. If I can help it to see it myself I like to. You told me to think for myself, right? That's all.
http://climate.nasa.gov/warmingworld/globalTemp.cfm
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
CR-V9:
Thank you.
Again, you've been given plenty to see the answer yourself.
There is an important word for which you are responsible: 'surface'.
Your graph discusses 'surface' temperature. Please see many references posted on TOV proving 'surface' temperatures are corrupted.
Secondly, by going into the details and links provided in this thread and in the thread on fabricators of global warming you'll notice NASA contains different sections. You'll notice it includes the Goddard Institute of Space Studies that includes James Hansen.
You'll see that James Hansen has been exposed for doctoring data. He is Al Gore's 'science advisor'.
Despite having reliable, consistent measurements of global air temperature measured by satellites and confirmed by weather balloons, James Hansen uses corrupted surface temperatures.
Sections within NASA, including his former boss have publicly outed him. His forecasts and statements are wildly inconsistent and contradictory. His advice to Al Gore, as reflected by many false statements in 'An Inconvenient Truth' reveal James Hansen is not scientific.
CR-V9, priorities mean that I cannot dwell on explaining things previously explained. There are a few things you'll have to do yourself if you really want understanding. I provided the links and the explanations. As you say, it's up to you to do the thinking.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1096489463001/climate-change-myths-separating-fact-from-fiction
And pages 1 & 2 of:
http://galileomovement.com.au/docs/freedom1-CO2.pdf
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Our planet warming uncontrollably and catastrophically?
http://www.china.org.cn/environment/2011-08/16/content_23220572.htm
Taxing Nature's trace gas essential to all life on Earth would stop the galactic, solar and terrestrial forces that drive climate, wouldn't it?
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/08/26/3303272.htm?site=science&topic=enviro
Why do the climate alarmists make up their case contrary to the facts?
Malcolm
:)
|
jsell
|
|
|
Carbon Taxes......but you know that MalcolmR...The Sun would have nothing to do with climate change if you believe these elitlist, money hungry alarmist.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
And commissions to major international banksters for carbon 'trading' (rationing).
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/#.TlkJqb-RgHM.facebook
As jsell says, if we believed the climate fraudsters, we would conclude that the sun had nothing to do with Earth's climate.
You know, that huge fiery ball in the sky. The orange ball that dominates the mass of our solar system. The only source of energy in our solar system. Nothing.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
The UN IPCC's so-called, supposed greenhouse gas theory is nonsense. It contradicts fundamental laws of physics.
Astrophysicist Joe Postma's latest paper.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
From a marine biologist, well respected for his scientific competence and understanding.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/09/neglected-truths-of-climate-change
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZPNt30zKA-A
Clouds impact climate and temperature. Surprise, surprise.
Malcolm
:)
|
Pjlk-
|
|
On the subject of science, I guess the genius from Texas, must be your man!
pjlk
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Thank you, Pjlk-
You do yourself no honour by spouting opinions on this page. Will we ever see supported facts from you?
Opinions are welcome.
Facts and people's needs though are the only basis for decisions affecting other people's lives and our future.
Opinions are like arseholes: everyone has one. And everyone is entitled to exercise their right to an opinion via cartoon or in writing or ...
I prefer to base opinion on fact:
Try this new video presenting facts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCPWKI_H6SM
Link supporting the video with facts: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/political_scam_exposed.php
You'll find the video script near top of that page. Check for yourself.
Check the downloads on that web page.
Then, for context and an understanding of human reality this video may help you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPIyIMwfcwQ
You'll find this video script near top of the same web page above.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Real world science revealed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdgpBfEGCbg&feature=related
For the annotated video script and related material:
http://galileomovement.com.au/political_scam_exposed.php
Quite straightforward—for those open to measured data and observing Nature.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qifmNexSiUM
Explanation in the annotated script here:
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/political_scam_exposed.php
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWE_aLCMQrM
Annotated script and supporting material available here:
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/political_scam_exposed.php
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/what-the-best-data-actually-says/#comment-776890
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
A simple quiz on climate and carbon dioxide fundamentals. Discover for yourself.
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/BeliefsQuiz.pdf
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
"New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory". The author John O'Sullivan is a science writer, legal adviser and contributor to the team that produced the acclaimed book "Slaying the Sky Dragon".
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/LatestJapaneseSatelliteDataContradictsCarbonEmissionsAlarm.pdf
Accessed through this page: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/science_futility.php by searching for author John O'Sullivan.
Malcolm
:)
|
cksi1372
|
|
Looks like Canada may be pulling out of the Kyoto treaty...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-02/canada-may-escape-6-7-billion-bill-by-exiting-kyoto-protocol.html
|
Pjlk-
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.
"New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory". The author John O'Sullivan is a science writer, legal adviser and contributor to the team that produced the acclaimed book "Slaying the Sky Dragon".
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/LatestJapaneseSatelliteDataContradictsCarbonEmissionsAlarm.pdf
Accessed through this page: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/science_futility.php by searching for author John O'Sullivan.
Malcolm
:) |
Yada, Yada, Yada,
I go away for a bit, come back and find you still stonewalling any objective discussion on the topic! You seem to continue to quote a biased industry lobby group discredited by many legitimate references.
Let's try Scientific American...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galileo-movement-fuels-australia-climate-change-divide
There are many others disputing the (your) agenda of the "galileo movement".
http://climaterealityproject.org/2011/08/26/what-climate-change-deniers-and-carbon-dioxide-have-in-common
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/earth-sciences/galileo-movement-and-the-use-of-bad-science-t24976-20.html
To me, your approach is akin to that of the American NRA, having the same motto...
"We won't give an inch, no matter how absurd our position is."
My most fervent hope is that neophites on the web and this forum have the smarts to apply the guiding principals of "Web Credibility 101" to observe your hopeless, hardcore bias. The first Principal of googling is, "always look past the first & second item listed, so that you can detect alternate references and opinions.... Always apply rational skepticism"
IMO, You go too far beyond rational skepticism and you really should present youself openly to nubies, How about changing your handle to any of the following:
misguided_obstructionist
industry_lobbiest
climate_do_nothing
hardcore_denier
misinformation_specialist
Guess what part of the cartoon (IMO) represents you!
pjlk
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
G'day Pjlk-
You never cease to amaze me. You keep contradicting yourself. Have you googled and checked the comments of the Czech physicist who hammered Scientific American for its article on The Galileo Movement?
I'll give you a week to post them and if you've failed I'll rustle it up.
Have you seen the rebuttal of Scientific American from an internationally regarded geologist?
Are you aware that despite Scientific American's relentless propaganda on climate, polling shows that a large majority of its own readers don't agree with its position.
I sit here smiling and at the same time incredulous at your contradictions.
Second, all it needs is for you to post just one piece of specific, scientifically measured real-world evidence as proof that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest, modest, cyclic warming that ended around 1998.
You provide that and I'll fold up my tent and not post on climate.
I've been waiting for months for you to post evidence as proof.
I've been waiting years for anyone to post any evidence.
When will you start to think for yourself?
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
http://drtimball.com/2011/whether-it-is-warming-or-climate-change-it-cannot-be-the-co2/
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/science_futility.php
Thank you for the opportunity to post some facts Pjlk.
Malcolm
:)
|
Pjlk-
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.
..."all it needs is for you to post just one piece of specific, scientifically measured real-world evidence as proof that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest, modest, cyclic warming that ended around 1998.
...
Malcolm
:)
|
Neither I, nor you can "prove" anything on this forum.
Wouldn't it be prudent to just make a real atempt to slow down the CO2 production? You know that you can be wrong...
Your failure to support just this one precaution, proves your denial obsession to everyone!
When the major Universities switch to your view, then you might have a leg to stand on!
pjlk
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Thank you, Pjlk for yet another opportunity to post.
Firstly, I've provided the facts showing CO2 cannot and does not cause warming. It's fundamental that temperature drives atmospheric CO2 levels.
That's the end of your position. Proven.
Scientifically proven using the same CO2 measurements used by the UN IPCC. Real-world empirical measurements.
And I've gone way beyond that.
See many posts in this thread. Especially: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/science_futility.php
And,
http://drtimball.com/2011/whether-it-is-warming-or-climate-change-it-cannot-be-the-co2/
Secondly, unlike you, I've devoted four years voluntarily to understand the science. Then after discovering the global warming was a scam I devoted myself to discovering the underlying drivers of the UN's hoax.
That's been documented on this thread and on the thread on Fabricators of Climate Alarm.
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=832780
Thirdly, before embarking on discovering the drivers of climate fraud, I checked the consequences of cutting CO2 production.
There are enormous benefits to humanity and the environment from improving efficiency. That will cut CO2.
Government and UN measures to cut CO2 do not produce the benefits touted. I realised that government and UN measures to cut CO2 will cause serious environmental and humanitarian crises.
Discover for yourself:
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/economics_hypocrisy.php
http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/The%20Eco%20Fraud_Part%202.pdf
http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/The%20Eco%20Fraud_part%201.pdf
http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/The%20Eco%20Fraud_Part%203.pdf
The UN and government claims for renewable energy are nonsense and are already proving to be hugely damaging to humanity and the environment.
Fundamentally, Pjlk, you demonstrate the signs that you recklessly attribute to me. Whereas I get facts and then decide a position it seems you fundamentally fail to understand causality. That is fundamental to science. And to taking a humanitarian position.
I respectfully suggest you make an effort to understand the basic concept of causality and then do some reading. That will assist you to stop advocating harm to humans and our precious natural environment.
I've already challenged the major universities in our nation downunder. None can provide any proof. One university boss that I challenged is now stood down for breaching the university's own policies.
Major universities in USA and UK that have been spreading the BS AGW position are crumbling as they're being exposed:
http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/additional%20material/climategate%20references.pdf
www.conscious.com.au exposes more about the academics in whom you have blindly and dangerously placed your faith
For more on the universities, please see above.
In case you now embark on another tangent, I'm not against universities. I've attended and obtained an honours engineering degree from one of the universities in Australia that I've challenged for fraudulent science.
And a Masters degree in business from one of the world's most acclaimed universities. It's academics have won more Nobel prizes in economics and in finance than have any other universities world-wide.
I've also conducted an investigation into an internationally prominent university's administration and leadership in its R&D and found it lacking. Based on my report, the university head took strong action to dismiss the poor leadership.
Why do you condone academic dishonesty? Why do you support universities and academics fraudulently feeding at the taxpayer funded trough of government handouts?
How can you support these blatant breaches of ethics? And breaches of academic and scientific principles?
Your position could've been averted had you simply bothered to do some thinking for yourself.
That you disregard the plight of your fellow humans and the environment and mindlessly pursue a position contrary to facts seems to show enormous laziness or disregard for life and Nature.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I hope you will make an effort to check for yourself and consider your fellow humans.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
By the way, Pjlk, I almost overlooked the fact that in your response you failed to provide any evidence for your claims as I'd challenged.
Further, you neglected to take your own advice and failed to present anything to demonstrate you googled adequately even the topic you raised.
Your lack of responsibility for your own statements demonstrates to everyone your lack of responsibility to humanity and the environment.
How old are you?
In you I seem to be corresponding with a high school juvenile.
Responsibility is fundamental to human progress and safety.
Malcolm
:)
|
Nick GravesX
|
|
Thank you for those, Malcolm.
I particularly enjoyed "Thriving with nature & humanity"; condensing all the noise into something quite concise & actually positive is quite refreshing!
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
