Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 144

Thread: Global warming fraud heads to court!

  1. #106

    Re: Global warming fraud heads to court!


  2. #107

    Re: Global warming fraud heads to court!

    Quote Originally Posted by PinHead View Post
    water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas..and without greenhouse gases we would all be dead..from freezing.

    I believe the planet goes through temp cycles..and as no one can answer my question my assumption is that the planet is just heading a maximum median temp in between ice ages..simple and logical. So until I am proved wrong it must be true as others reckon assumptions are the ducks guts.
    So no need to panic..nature is just going on its cycles through the centuries as it always has done and will continu to do and not a damn thing we can do will alter it.

    I should now be call Dr Pinhead Phd. (that is short for Pinhead in case you were wondering)
    A reasonable assumption - quite possibly true (basis for assumption is deeply flawed but, against popular advice, I'll give a sucker an even break). Still aint a fact champ.

    Call yourself what you like but I think Pinhead suits you.


  3. #108

    Re: Global warming fraud heads to court!

    Quote Originally Posted by Camhawk88 View Post
    A reasonable assumption - quite possibly true (basis for assumption is deeply flawed but, against popular advice, I'll give a sucker an even break). Still aint a fact champ.

    Call yourself what you like but I think Pinhead suits you.
    it certainly does for 2 reasons..:
    1. I love the Jumpinpin
    2. I love the Ramones song of the same name.

    but,,once again when the going gets tough those that have nothing to offer try and belittle those of opposite opinions..that is the modus operandi of the climate change and green groups..but ..my shoulders are bigger than that..I play the ball not the man.

    woohoo..I am sucker and a champ all in the one sentence..yeehaa.

    Oh..I forgot to mention..popular advice means zip to me..I am not a lemming..I am an individual.

  4. #109

    Re: Global warming fraud heads to court!

    Quote Originally Posted by nigelr View Post
    "Getting the measurement right is crucial because SF6 traps 23,900 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide and lingers for up to 3,200 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says.
    “These gases lead to climate change for centuries or millennia, so there’s a finite amount you can ever put in the atmosphere,” says Stephen Pacala, director of Princeton University’s environmental institute. “For every release, you’re taking something from some subsequent person.”"


    I love that one, thanks Nigel. SF6 (sorry Finga, Sulfur Hexafluoride) does trap more heat than most if not all other gases per molecule. Not too much up there though - it's estimated that it is responsible for 0.2 percent, (that's 2 one thousand's) of the alleged CO2 contribution, so (if the scary pants are right, that's 0.012 degrees (.2%*6 degrees) by 2100. And I'll bet that's an inflated number.

    It's almost completely inert (reacts with Lithium only), and heavy like a brick, so the idea that it will remain for long periods in the Troposphere and build up there is a bit of a pile of twaddle, though if we keep pumping it out it might cause a completely immeasureable effect to the Climate. Hell, they crack on about how funny your voice sounds when you inhale it, does the same as Helium.

    Just another scare tactic, but you'd expect that from the EPA - hey, they are the guys who say CO2 is a dangerous gas - stop breathing, folks.

    Do I think we should pump it out for fun? No. But should we go hide under the beds? Um, not really. Unless you want to see what the Folks bought you for Christmas.

    Tim
    Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.

  5. #110

    Re: Global warming fraud heads to court!

    Quote Originally Posted by TimiBoy View Post
    "Getting the measurement right is crucial because SF6 traps 23,900 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide and lingers for up to 3,200 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says.
    “These gases lead to climate change for centuries or millennia, so there’s a finite amount you can ever put in the atmosphere,” says Stephen Pacala, director of Princeton University’s environmental institute. “For every release, you’re taking something from some subsequent person.”"


    I love that one, thanks Nigel. SF6 (sorry Finga, Sulfur Hexafluoride) does trap more heat than most if not all other gases per molecule. Not too much up there though - it's estimated that it is responsible for 0.2 percent, (that's 2 one thousand's) of the alleged CO2 contribution, so (if the scary pants are right, that's 0.012 degrees (.2%*6 degrees) by 2100. And I'll bet that's an inflated number.

    It's almost completely inert (reacts with Lithium only), and heavy like a brick, so the idea that it will remain for long periods in the Troposphere and build up there is a bit of a pile of twaddle, though if we keep pumping it out it might cause a completely immeasureable effect to the Climate. Hell, they crack on about how funny your voice sounds when you inhale it, does the same as Helium.

    Just another scare tactic, but you'd expect that from the EPA - hey, they are the guys who say CO2 is a dangerous gas - stop breathing, folks.

    Do I think we should pump it out for fun? No. But should we go hide under the beds? Um, not really. Unless you want to see what the Folks bought you for Christmas.

    Tim
    my folks passed away a few years back Timi..so what are you getting me for Christmas???

  6. #111

    Re: Global warming fraud heads to court!

    Quote Originally Posted by PinHead View Post
    Oh..I forgot to mention..popular advice means zip to me..I am not a lemming..I am an individual.
    I intend on living for-ever....so far so good


  7. #112

    Re: Global warming fraud heads to court!

    Quote Originally Posted by PinHead View Post
    it certainly does for 2 reasons..:
    1. I love the Jumpinpin
    2. I love the Ramones song of the same name.

    but,,once again when the going gets tough those that have nothing to offer try and belittle those of opposite opinions..that is the modus operandi of the climate change and green groups..but ..my shoulders are bigger than that..I play the ball not the man.

    woohoo..I am sucker and a champ all in the one sentence..yeehaa.

    Oh..I forgot to mention..popular advice means zip to me..I am not a lemming..I am an individual.
    Well yes those are 2 possible theories...

    It continues to amuse me that you think I have a different opinon on this subject - I believe I metioned your theory has merit. As has been your modus operandi, you only read what you want to - not what is in black and white (is this the case with all sceptics??). The fact you can't tell the difference between 1 and 2 sentences is a point in case.

    You may also note I paid no heed to popular advice (again- re-read my post) but rather went against it.

    You are nothing if not an individual Pinhead- but tell me do you identify yourself as a sceptic?

    Finga- too quick- that was the first thing that jumped to my mind when I read that too. Loving your work.

    "Im an individual ya cant fool me! An indi-bloody-vidual ya cant fool me"


  8. #113

    Re: Global warming fraud heads to court!

    Quote Originally Posted by TimiBoy View Post
    Climate Change is the Hypothesis. It has to be proven true. It has not. Every single conclusion drawn in it's favour relies on one thing, that CO2 somehow reacts with water vapour, to increase the effect of CO2 several times (strong positive feedback).
    Fascinating to note that it is now 26 hours after this question was first asked, and an answer has not been forthcoming.

    Tim
    Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.

  9. #114

    Re: Global warming fraud heads to court!

    Fascinating that a man as intellegent as yourself doesn't know the difference between a question and a statement.


  10. #115

    Re: Global warming fraud heads to court!

    He's got a point Timi.
    A question normally has a ? and not a . at the end.
    I intend on living for-ever....so far so good


  11. #116

    Re: Global warming fraud heads to court!

    Ah I see. Fascinating that my "statement", then, still goes by without refutation.

    Not at all fascinating that the statement is ignored, and the deliverer gets maligned. Eminently predictable, of course. Play the ball.

    Is there proof (repeatable, specific, experimental proof, not a closed system Lab Experiment) that delivers the absolute evidence that CO2 interacts with water vapour to increase it's capacity to trap heat by several orders of magnitude, and removes CO2's well proven logarithmic behaviour as to it's capacity to trap heat (every doubling of CO2 normally adds 1 degree Celsius without alleged feedbacks, and notwithstanding the negative feedback action of clouds)?

    Tim
    Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.

  12. #117

    Re: Global warming fraud heads to court!

    Quote Originally Posted by TimiBoy View Post
    Ah I see. Fascinating that my "statement", then, still goes by without refutation.

    Not at all fascinating that the statement is ignored, and the deliverer gets maligned. Eminently predictable, of course. Play the ball.

    Is there proof (repeatable, specific, experimental proof, not a closed system Lab Experiment) that delivers the absolute evidence that CO2 interacts with water vapour to increase it's capacity to trap heat by several orders of magnitude, and removes CO2's well proven logarithmic behaviour as to it's capacity to trap heat (every doubling of CO2 normally adds 1 degree Celsius without alleged feedbacks, and notwithstanding the negative feedback action of clouds)?

    Tim
    If you think being called intelligent (there was no sarcasm in that remark btw, it was an observation) is maligned you may need to toughen up a bit there Timi.

    So by being the 'deliverer' you are saying you are completely neutral on the subject and in no way agree or disagree with it's sentiments?

    The point of my post was not to critisise you as a person (play the man) but if you were expecting someone to give you an answer- you may do well to pose the question first.

    For the record I haven't the information or the time to find the information to answer your question (hence i wont refute the implication). If you think that is proof enough you are right, then good luck to you.
    Perhaps you could point us in the direction of the absolute evidence that CO2 does not interact with water vapour to increase it's capacity to trap heat by several orders of magnitude.

    I know you will say it isn't up to the sceptic side to prove this however if you are to stop governments from introducing Carbon taxes- these are the types of questions that need answering.


  13. #118

    Re: Global warming fraud heads to court!

    I didn't answer your question because you've got it around the wrong way anyway. CO2 increases the temperature (being the catalyst as i stated earlier) which the creates a positive feedback loop because as temperature increases so does water vapour. It doesn't increase the effect of CO2 it increases the water vapour.

    The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

    How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/wate...nhouse-gas.htm
    Water vapour amplifies whatever source of warming caused the atmosphere to warm,since atmospheric warming results in raised atmospheric water concentrations. And water vapour is a greenhouse gas as we all know very well.

    If the earth's atmosphere cools so the water vapour drops AMPLIFYING the primary cooling effect.

    Amplification is exactly what water vapour does with respect to thermal effects on atmospheric temperature.

  14. #119

    Re: Global warming fraud heads to court!

    Quote Originally Posted by MorganK View Post
    Water vapour amplifies whatever source of warming caused the atmosphere to warm,since atmospheric warming results in raised atmospheric water concentrations. And water vapour is a greenhouse gas as we all know very well.
    C'mon. James Frank says so, so it must be true? Yet in his short essay he has not quoted any paper proving this theory. Why not? There isn't one. Epic Fail. And there are peer reviewed papers out there specifically researching and clearly debunking the idea that CO2 drove temperature in the past. It can be clearly demonstrated that most times (but not always - interesting, isn't it - suggestive of something else being a cause? What might that be? No one knows!) CO2 lags temperature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camhawk88 View Post
    For the record I haven't the information or the time to find the information to answer your question (hence i wont refute the implication). If you think that is proof enough you are right, then good luck to you.
    Ah, I see. So you admit you are accepting CAGW on the basis of Faith. Goodo. I used to be terrified about CAGW, like you. But I MADE the time, and went exploring. I leave nothing on this Earth up to Faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camhawk88 View Post
    Perhaps you could point us in the direction of the absolute evidence that CO2 does not interact with water vapour to increase it's capacity to trap heat by several orders of magnitude.
    But you were so keen on the Scientific Method before. Why not now? It's your Hypothesis, you prove it. Though I'd hazard a guess you'll have no luck, given the BILLIONS of dollars and multitude of years already spent trying to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camhawk88 View Post
    I know you will say it isn't up to the sceptic side to prove this however if you are to stop governments from introducing Carbon taxes- these are the types of questions that need answering.
    Very true. I say that because it is the crux of the Scientific Method.

    The more people that see through this (as a result of the complete lack of real evidence supporting the CAGW view) the harder it will be to put a price on Carbon.

    Epic, Epic Fail, Guys.

    Tim
    Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.

  15. #120

    Re: Global warming fraud heads to court!

    Quote Originally Posted by Camhawk88 View Post
    Well yes those are 2 possible theories...

    It continues to amuse me that you think I have a different opinon on this subject - I believe I metioned your theory has merit. As has been your modus operandi, you only read what you want to - not what is in black and white (is this the case with all sceptics??). The fact you can't tell the difference between 1 and 2 sentences is a point in case. You have absolutely no idea what I read...I probably read more thqan most people.

    You may also note I paid no heed to popular advice (again- re-read my post) but rather went against it.

    You are nothing if not an individual Pinhead- but tell me do you identify yourself as a sceptic? nope..open minded..I make my own decisions

    Finga- too quick- that was the first thing that jumped to my mind when I read that too. Loving your work.

    "Im an individual ya cant fool me! An indi-bloody-vidual ya cant fool me"
    yep..but you can fool the lemmings..and the world is full of them..so far the lemmings have followed along on Y2K..CFC's and now man made global warming..I wonder how many more dollars will be sucked out of the lemmings pocket on this doom and gloom episode..something else will crop up soon and away we go again.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us