Comments on: Global Warming Denialism ‘Just Foolishness,’ Scientist Peter Raven Says

By: stylin19

stylin19 — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:41:41 +0000

bill

An “almost hypothetical” yes or no question:
Taking humans totally out of the picture: “Does Climate Change?”

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:25:16 +0000

This spring has been good for those of us who do not drink the kool-aid of man made global warming. As more and more scientists come forward to comment on the distorted science and hoax known as AGW it is important to note the tactics of the kool-aid drinkers.
They say you can only trust peer reviewed articles from anyone on the subject. Convienent that the referees, (like Micheal Mann…remember the fake hockey stick), who decide what gets published for peer review do not permit any articles that are critical of the dubious science being used to be published. Those of us who still believe in questioning the validity of all research should be encouraged as the momentum for humans to change their habits to combat what is obiously a natural effect of the worlds weather continues to withers away.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:54:50 +0000

None of this matters, and it makes me laugh (in a shaking-my-head sort of way) that this is such a hotly intense subject to debate. Whether or not global warming (or is it climate change?) is happening depends on what scientist you talk to. Obviously, the big oil companies have their “scientists” that say one thing, and the Al Gore’s of the world (who are making millions off of this) have their “scientists” that say another thing.

It doesn’t matter because nothing that we do will help anything. Do you people realize that if every person on the planet somehow stopped using cars, burning fossil fuels, ETC… that it would take ONE decent sized volcano to reverse the gains of it? What was released into the atmosphere when Mt. St. Helen’s went off was greater than the sum of all the CO2 released by humans over the span of a decade. I can’t imagine people making major sacrifices in the name of helping climate change, only to have that reversed the next time a volcano goes off.

And speaking of sacrifices, none of the “Go Greeners” are willing to truly sacrifice anything. I laugh at all these “go green” people. I saw a person with a “go green – save the world” sticker. Yeah, that same sticker that took fossil fuels to produce, took fossil fuels to get to that person (how did that sticker get from the factory to the store that it was brought in?), on the car that takes fossil fuels to run. The fact that you’re on a computer proves to me that none of you are truly willing to sacrifice everything that it would take to make a difference in the amount of CO2 being released. And I’m not being hypocritical now. I’ll admit that I’m not willing to sacrifice for this cause, because I realize that I only have one life to live and I want to live as comfortably as possible. There isn’t a thing humans can do to prevent global climate change, and thus I won’t do much about it.

By: Bill Fitzgerald

Bill Fitzgerald — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:47:34 +0000

The earth is in a temporary condition and it is on the way to the next phase.

By: WilliamDawesJr.

WilliamDawesJr. — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:53:29 +0000

“Well well well. So I WAS right! I am also right when I said you DID say it represented a drop in temperature from 59 deg. F.”

Nope, now you’re just back to lying again. Here are my actual words:

“The global mean temperature for the 125 years ending in 2005 is 57.0. That is the baseline temperature referred to in the chart I previously referenced. More recently, the Mean global temperature has been hovering around 14.3 to 14.4C. That is 57.7 to 57.9ºF and it is continuing to trend upwards. As I told you earlier essentially a full degree above the baseline.”

and

“For the most recent year, 2010, the British Meteorological Office reports a mean global temperature of 14.5ºC or 58.1ºF.”

Again, NOWHERE do I say it represents a drop in temperature. That was YOU. And this clearly shows, again, that I have been trying to give you accurate information for at least 8 months rather than, as you now claim, that I have directed you to nothing. So I ask you again, having proven by your own evidence that at least two of your three claims are ‘factually incorrect’, are YOU willing to admit that you were in error?

By: spike

spike — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:42:06 +0000

Well, well, well. Spike was right. I did cite him a temperature from the British Meteorological Office of 58.1º F for 2010. BUT, it was Spike who interpreted that as a drop in temperature by comparing it with a completely extraneous and unscientific citation. 2010 was the warmest year ever recorded and certainly did not represent a cooling. I have NEVER said the Earth was cooling as Spike has claimed then and now. It also shows that I have repeatedly tried to direct Spike to reputable data, despite his claims that I have directed him to nothing. So, Spike, can YOU admit when you are in error?

POSTED BY: WILLIAMDAWESJR.
______________
Well well well. So I WAS right!

I am also right when I said you DID say it represented a drop in temperature from 59 deg. F. Maybe it is a “temporary” drop and the temperature will climb again. Maybe it is not. The graph you showed me did NOT specify either way.

We DO know, however, it was a drop in temperature.

Now, one question. You’ve only repeatedly denied you said all this countless numbers of times and even now, AFTER I proved to you you said it, you are still trying to skirt the issue and are trying to deny, let’s say, the “context” of what you said. You still can’t admit it.

This is what “denial” really looks like.

I have to go now. Until next time, Dawes, Jock, Faurtz, Knightrider and all the other kids on the block.

By: WilliamDawesJr.

WilliamDawesJr. — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:22:30 +0000

By: WilliamDawesJr.

WilliamDawesJr. — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 21:25:31 +0000

In my OPINION, because we’re getting away from demonstrable fact here, ethanol does not make sense at all. Although you are wrong about having to put more energy into its production than can be gotten back out of it. For ethanol produced from corn such as what is available in the US, the current return is a VERY modest 1.3 times the production energy. Hardly worth the effort, and certainly not worth the government subsidies poured into it. Note that as a public issue, ethanol subsidies are driven by politicians from corn producing states, not by those interested in ecology. The car issue is something different altogether, My first car burned white gas. That is now clearly illegal. Should I still be allowed to drive such a polluting vehicle (if it still ran)? Clearly people have a right to protect themselves from poisons. In a democracy such as ours, the people are represented by their duly elected government and ours has enacted several Clean Air laws that have helped to reduce smog, acid rain, and other harmful effects of unlimited gas pipes emissions. Basically, this is something you need to take up with your Senator and Representative, not me.

By: deanbob

deanbob — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 20:47:48 +0000

WILLIAMDAWESJR. | APRIL 3, 2012, 2:31 PM……….What about the damage 15% ethanol will do do many older cars and small engines? Does it make sense to take a food commodity with a price that has skyrocketed and convert to a fuel when it is a questionable whether the energy out is equal to or less than that going in?

By: WilliamDawesJr.

WilliamDawesJr. — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:31:15 +0000

Spike, I am simply tired of your repeated lies. I NEVER said the Earth was cooling, no matter what you claim. I NEVER said I remembered telling you a temperature. I said I remembered that you also lied and claimed I did when you posted as TellItLikeItIs. I have REPEATEDLY pointed you to the real data, and did so again just now, despite your claims to the contrary.