Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Azred doesn't matter release heat at the same rate it aborbs it?
Couldn't help but notice how there is very little mentioning of any science in the first bunch of replies just a lot of pissin' and moanin about who said it by the don't shoot the messenger crowd when it comes to their POV. Mind you I don't mind pissin' and moanin' about who said what.... unless you're going to be hypocritical about it. |
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Quote:
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Quote:
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Quote:
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
[QUOTE=John D Harris;1246713]You're right Robert everybody has an agenda, the problem is most people don't have the testosterone producing grand to admit they had a agenda.... QUOTE]
So out of curiosity JD what is your agenda here? |
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
An agenda, eh?
Earth's enviroment is good and sustainable. Pollution can be bad for it and for us. We must watch for and prevent bad pollution with the utmost of seriousness and sincerity. That's what is on it. Hmmmm now to go think of a good Agent nickname. Once you have an agenda you automatically become an Agent dontchaknow? Might even be special. |
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
How about agent 86, I hear you get a shoe phone?
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
[QUOTE=machinehead;1246718]
Quote:
IIRC the amount of energy mostly in heat that falls on the Earth every year is many times more than the energy man has made/used/created in our entire history... it doesn't matter weither you believe we were created or crawled from the oose. Thats doesn't come from an eviromentalist/non eviromentalist but from the guys who do nothing but study stars and how they work. They got no dog in the fight. The way this Universe works is that Astronomy, physics, geology, eviromentalism and every ology or ism works together and has effects on each other. One can't take just one of them into account and ignor what the other disiciplines know and say. Hale history shows that it was much warmer during Roman time then now. We have writen records of wine being produce in Britain and it was said to be better then anything the Gaul's (France) made. We have records of the Vikings living in Greenland, and living in North America. But we look at those two places and say Ahhh well they just called greenland greenland to get colonist to come they lied.... Why? because we are looking at Greenland NOW and it sure as Hale ain't green.... Even though we have records that they raised sheep. Now unless the vikings had some way of raising sheep without them eating anything.... there had to be grass or at least something they could eat. They couldn't carry enough hay back and forworth to keep a colony around. And Vineland... geese loueess we have the settlements in Nova Scotia, but we say OH that can't be vineland or they lied (again) because it's to cold for grapes to grow that far north.... Now it would be much more logical to say There were grapes in Nova Soctia at the time because it was warmer then. Especialy since we have writen records, icecores, and all kinds of other evidence that show there was a Little Ice age starting sometime after the Vikings 1150 to 1350 (there is some dispute on the exact start) and ending in the 1850's. When the body of all the evidence gathered from all disicplines shows that we are in a natural warming cycle that comes after the natural cooling cycle.... you tell me which is more logical man is causing the warming or it is natural? Evidence from Ice core show that there has always been a continuation of the rising of CO2 levels AFTER a cooling period has started. It also shows that warming proceeds any elevation in CO2 Levels. Right now the evidence shows that the cause is Natural cycles, the effect is raising or lowering of CO2 Levels. Not the otherway around. (if Co2 levels are the cause then the temp can't be lowered until AFTER CO2 level lower SEE runaway greenhouse theory) History shows runaway greenhouse to be a myth. Physics and Math show Elevated CO2 level causing warming to be junk science at best a flat out Lie at worst. Water Vapor is much much of a green house gas then CO2, we talking in orders of magitude not simple precentage. There is also in orders of magnitude more Water vapor present in the atmosphere then there is CO2. As it should be on a planet that's surface is 78% water. Ever wonder way in a desert the temp drops a Hale of a lot at night when the Sun isn't warming it? CAUSE THERE"S LITTLE TO NO WATER VAPOR IN A DESERT!!!! That's why it's called a desert. There is still the same amount of CO2, but it ain't causing it to warm up the Sun is, and it Ain't causing it to Stay warm after the Sun goes down. My agenda is the Truth, show me the FACTS that refute any of what I have writen. facts not feelings, not "if we are wrongs", not "what if's" but the facts. Hale's bells if I'm wrong I'll switch so fast, and become the greatest Man caused Globalwarming advocate on this board, attack the falsehood man doesn't cause it with the same ferver that I now attack man cause's it. I ain't married to Man doesn't cause it, I AM married to the Truth though. |
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Ok, so I had no idea what runaway greenhouse was, so I had to go look. After looking, I'm still not sure I know exactly what it is, but it seems pretty consistent that science doesn't think that's going on here, or, according to the article, is even able to go on here. They do speculate that that's what happened on Venus, but again, specualte is about the best they can do, as far I can tell. We surely can't have monitored what weather conditions transpired there, and frankly, I don't know if it's even relevant to this dialog.
Following links, however, I did learn that the IPCC, an organization that does none of it's own research, is considered the authority on climate change. I find that information more than a little disturbing, since they can disregard any paper, from any source, if it doesn't measure up to what they are expecting to find. I too want the truth, but I'm not convinced that a panel with an obligation to the UN's policies is really interested in the truth. They are interested in whatever will keep them getting paid, however. Just like a vinyl siding salesman in Kansas isn't going to tell you that you're better off with siding that is actually nailed to the house, instead of left loose to allow for expansion of the material, they aren't likely to tell the UN that "Hey, you know, climate is changing pretty much like it always has." if that's what they see. Either of these examples would be out of work on that day, in favor of a salesman that will sell you the stuff with no regard for truth. |
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Precisely. There is no definitive proof that asserts that human beings are negatively destabilizing the climate patterns of the planet and yet the alarmists want us to believe that what they say is true.
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved