.:SonicBomb:.
    Login or Register
::  Home  ::  Videos  ::  Your Account  ::  Forums  ::  RSS Feed  ::
 
 
::Content::
  • Atomic
  • - Aviation
    - Aircraft
    - Military
    - Explosions
    - WW2
    - Various
    - Hi-Def
    - Photos

    - Wallpaper

    - Nuclear

    - WWI

    - WWII

    Advertisment
    Search
    Custom Search
    User Info
    Welcome, Anonymous
    Nickname
    Password
    (Register)
    Membership:
    Latest: dunni220
    New Today: 0
    New Yesterday: 0
    Overall: 703

    People Online:
    Visitors: 0
    Members: 0
    Total: 0

    sonicbomb.com :: View topic - Weather Channel Founder "Greatest SCAM In History"

    Forum FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    Post new topic Reply to topic  sonicbomb.com Forum Index » Political Arena
    Author Message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1557
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:28 pm Reply with quote

    Quote:
    There is no drive of CO2 on global weather. It's simply a far too small amount.


    There is no influence on CO2 on global climate in nearly trace amounts. None. It's far too small amount. This isn't Venus. Again, climate pseudoscientific politics fail to address the fact that we had multiple times current CO2, while in cooler global temperatures. By definition of the climate hoaxsters, that should have been runaway temperature, but it never happened.

    Quote:
    Oh, c'mon! That's usually the last straw for climate deniers! "Too small amount"? Ever heard of poisons like arsenic and so on? How about you ingest some of it - 0.04% (= Co2-concentration in the atmosphere) of your bodyweight should suffice - and then try to tell us again, how small amounts of something supposedly don't have any effect. Mr. Green


    What? Irrelevant. Arsenic is complicated poisoning process, and has been used regularly by peoples in history, with full knowledge:

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30A14FB395C1B7B93CAA9178AD95F408584F9

    Quote:
    Btw, Co2 is having an effect on climate not weather anyway, at least not directly.


    Nope. We have had multiple times current value, yet overall cooler global temperatures. ... No runaway, despite all the alarm bell ringing of a hardcore group of technocratic progressives/neo-Marxists within scientific community, who burn for globalization of government that would grant them nearly limitless funding and steeply selfish political gains:

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/08/us/record-warmth/

    Quote:
    "Graphs don't impress when they mislead"


    Quote:
    Which graph exactly?


    All of them.

    Ask yourself WHY all of the leaders of this alarm bell are in bed with politicians who use this for selfish political games of progressive movement. Even Al Gore came out and said that this is all about politics.

    Read this apologist: http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

    Even some of the hardcores realize they are making mockeries of themselves, and need to retreat.

    Quote:
    Btw, your neat little pp-presentation has barely anything to do with the topics we discussed during the past weeks and makes little sense without the oral presentation.


    Oh, yes it does. It gets right to the heart of this matter, in how they deceive.

    I cannot oppose a hardcore socialist ideologue like you, and expect you to see reason on your side, since you have shown no willingness to learn from history, the colossal dangers of too centralized government and core central economic planning, which all governments have failed to do until the open market is allowed to return and succeed -- now don't try to equate plutocracy of wildcat economy of later 19th century with this principle, since they are not the same. You are stuck on the idea like a broken record. The focus is to give information to those who are not decided.

    Quote:
    Is that all you got?


    This is funny. I think that about you.

    Much wiser people -- who believe in personal liberties (including "equal justice" for all), in difference to the "social justice" progressive/neo-Marxist goons who are really for control by a small group of elitists -- see the politics ingrained into this deception.

    A little digging exposes the alarm bell ringers saturated with their alliances to this political movement. There is constant harping for rash, political action from leaders of this scare, such as Mann, who has also been exposed -- in the email exchanges that were leaked -- for manipulating, lying, and cheating on data for the benefit of this political movement. [Again see the CNN link above.]


    Last edited by Graviton on Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1557
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:09 pm Reply with quote

    http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzz.ch%2Faktuell%2Fstartseite%2Fklimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227&act=url

    Read this from a senior United Nations official from Switzerland, that global climate change is hand in hand with global redistribution of wealth, a neo-Marxist/progressive aim.

    This rash policy demand is the pivotal influence behind this scam that blames human action on global climate change for impending doom with Western industrialization.

    Global climate change continually occurs with or without human presence.

    Original article in German language:

    http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

    =============

    Climate change politics are NOT new!

    All of these scares demanded immediate and harsh action through colossal economic policy changes.

    Look below at the decades of doom and gloom of "inevitable" peril, suddenly returning because of human industry, shifting from a new and explosive return of an Ice Age, or now warming, by leading scientists of their times:

    Newsweek, April 28, 1975
    http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

    Time, June 24, 1974
    http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf

    Damon and Kunen, Science August 6, 1976
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/193/4252/447

    Rasool and Schneider, Science July 9, 1971
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138

    Reid Bryson interview, The Why Files, Oct. 17, 2006
    http://whyfiles.org/247sci_politics/index.php?g=4.txt

    Fred Singer, Science, October 9 1970
    "Will the World Come to a Horrible End?"
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/issue_pdf/edboard_pdf/170/3954.pdf

    S. Fred Singer, Washington Times, May 5, 1998
    http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/sciaddheat.html

    The Missing Climate Forcing (1997)
    J. Hansen, M. Sato, A. Lacis, and R. Ruedy
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1997/1997_Hansen_etal_3.pdf

    Global Warming in the Twenty-First Century: An Alternative Scenario (2000)
    James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Andrew Lacis, and Valdar Oinas
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2000/2000_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

    NOAA: Ice Age warnings lead to funding via
    a letter from Kukla to Nixon
    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw29_proceedings/Reeves.pdf

    Geff Magazine April 24, 2007
    George Kukla interview
    http://www.gelfmagazine.com/archives/an_unrepentant_prognosticator.php

    Additional Cooling papers:

    Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations
    John Imbrie and John Z. Imbrie
    Science, February 29, 1980
    "...this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years"
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/207/4434/943

    Oceanic Mechanisms for Amplification of the 23,000-Year Ice-Volume Cycle
    William F. Ruddiman and Andrew McIntyre
    Science, May 8, 1981
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/212/4495/617

    Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
    J. D. Hays, John Imbrie, and N. J. Shackleton
    Science, December 10, 1976
    ". . . the long-term trend over the next sevem thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation"
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/194/4270/1121

    Global warming: Will the Sun come to our rescue?
    New Scientist, September 18, 2006
    http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125691.100-global-warming-will-the-sun-come-to-our-rescue.html
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:49 pm Reply with quote

    Quote:
    "Again, climate pseudoscientific politics fail to address the fact that we had multiple times current CO2, while in cooler global temperatures."


    Ever heard of a phenomenon called the faint young sun paradox? In earlier times, the suns output was so low that a high Co2-level was probably necessary in order to prevent earth from freezing over forever.
    Let's also not forget that the landmasses looked totally different Hundreds of Millions of years ago. This changed the albedo (reflectiveness) of the earths surface and thus the amount of sunlight which was absorbed by it.

    More info on the topic: Royer DL. 2006. CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 70: 5665-5675.

    Quote:
    What? Irrelevant.


    Relevant in the sense that it provides a neat example how small amounts of something can have big effects.
    So, everybody who reads this: If people tell you, Co2 couldn't warm the climate because it only exists in small concentrations in the atmosphere, tell them about arsenic.^^

    Quote:
    "Which graph exactly?" - Grav:"All of them."


    Including the one you provided? Yup. Still makes totally sense to me! Laughing

    Quote:
    "Centralised government, Communism, Grav spewing idelogical phrases, bla bla"


    Now that actually is irrelevant in a scientific discussion. But I know I cannot oppose a hardocre rightwing ideologue like you and expect you to see reason in science.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:25 pm Reply with quote

    Quote:
    Look below at the decades of doom and gloom of "inevitable" peril, suddenly returning because of human industry, shifting from a new and explosive return of an Ice Age, or now warming, by leading scientists of their times:


    Ah, the old "All climatologists predicted an Ice Age during the 70ies!"-myth. Now let's deconstruct that one:

    Quote:
    Newsweek, April 28, 1975
    http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf


    Sorry, Newsweek is no scientific journal. Let's stick with those instead of the press, shall we?

    Quote:
    Time, June 24, 1974
    http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf


    Dead link.

    Quote:
    Damon and Kunen, Science August 6, 1976
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/193/4252/447


    How about reading the abstract, dear Grav?

    "...Because of the rapid diffusion of CO2 molecules within the atmosphere, both hemispheres will be subject to warming due to the atmospheric (greenhouse) effect as the CO2 content of the atmosphere builds up from the combustion of fossil fuels...."

    Hmm, I sure lead a lot about global warming to come here. Where's the ice age? Wink

    Quote:
    Rasool and Schneider, Science July 9, 1971
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138


    Again, let's just read the abstract:
    "It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. [...] Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

    Notice how the author speaks in highly hypothetical terms? Some ice-age-alarmism that! Fortunately, aerosol concentration in the air has dropped during the last decades - last but not least because of government regulation ("Clean Air Act" and so on). Damned be the state for saving our lungs from desease-inducing particles!^^
    Not so funny: Although classical air-pollution was successfully reduced, Co2 continues to build up in the atmosphere - so the one big factor which could halt global warming has been eliminated while its counterpart grew only stronger. See the problem?

    Also, this compilation is a classical example of cherry picking: Just ignore that the majority of the studies during the 70s actually predicted global warming instead of cooling and concentrate on the one which hypothetizes that an ice age might actually occur.



    Source:scepticalscience.com
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:42 pm Reply with quote

    This one's interesting too:

    Quote:
    The Missing Climate Forcing (1997)
    J. Hansen, M. Sato, A. Lacis, and R. Ruedy
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1997/1997_Hansen_etal_3.pdf


    "But in the full period since the industrial revolution began, global warming is only about half of that expected due to the principal forcing, increasing greenhouse gases.... We argue on the basis of several lines of indirect evidence that aerosol effects on clouds have caused a large negative forcing, at least -1 Wm-2, which has substantially offset greenhouse warming...."

    Oh, crap! Another hint that reducing our aerosol-output without reducing Co2-emissions at the same time might have been a bad idea!
    Again, the actual scientific papers you provide actually support the view that global warming is a pretty big problem.

    That's it for today. Good night, Gravy! Cool
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1557
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:53 am Reply with quote

    You are Mr. Spin, Bueschu. Please stop this deception of yours, because you aren't deconstructing anything.

    I did read it, and it shows the alarmist politics with steep political demands tied to them. This politic is hiding behind fake science, that doggedly persisted for well over 40 years, flip-flopping from Ice Age to raging heat and other disaster that will kill the world, all blamed on meaningless connection with CO2, that has never once shown itself to reach shrill predictions for generations, when leading climatological politics KNEW it was going to happen.

    These articles are showing what was written about the strong politics of doom from climatologists becoming politicians. You don't have to turn to a journal to find them.

    Anyway, journals are frequently the source of lies, when politics are strongly tied to pseudoscience, since these reports are connected to reporting on the alarmist community that does put this alarmist trash into journals.

    Nice try. Wink
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:37 pm Reply with quote

    Quote:
    "...flip-flopping from Ice Age to raging heat and other disaster that will kill the world, all blamed on meaningless connection with CO2..."


    No, obviously you didn't read the studies in your list. If you had, you'd know that only two of them (the one by Schneider and the one by Kukla) even remotely considered the possibility of new ice age in the nearer future.

    And if you had bothered to take a look at the sks-graph, you'd have seen that already by 1972 - a time btw, where scientific knowledge on climate was still comparably rudimentary - a clear majority of the studies were either neutral or predicted a warming trend.

    Quote:
    "Anyway, journals are frequently the source of lies, when politics are strongly tied to pseudoscience,"


    Yep. Typical denier-tactics: When science isn't on your side, it has to be politicized/manipulated and so on. Nice try indeed! Wink

    -----------------------------------

    Btw, you still didn't tell me, why you used that graph (page 27 of the thread) to prove that the middle ages were allegedly warmer than the present if you think it's a fraud. Moving the goal posts again, weren't we?
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1557
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 2:42 am Reply with quote

    Quote:
    "Anyway, journals are frequently the source of lies, when politics are strongly tied to pseudoscience,"


    Yep. Typical denier-tactics: When science isn't on your side, it has to be politicized/manipulated and so on. Nice try indeed! Wink

    -----------------------------------

    Quote:
    Btw, you still didn't tell me, why you used that graph (page 27 of the thread) to prove that the middle ages were allegedly warmer than the present if you think it's a fraud. Moving the goal posts again, weren't we?


    Nope. It clearly shows industrialization is NOT behind climate change. It happens by itself, and has countless times, independently of human existence.

    You are the one spinning here.

    Too many of us know what is behind this sinister movement, the deep connections of fake science to sweeping political changes (and the associated collapse of human rights with statism), and far more.

    Why even a former global doomsday sage, James Lovelock, who aided in concocting false, supernatural imagery of human causes behind human climate change, has seen the light:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/15/james-lovelock-interview-gaia-theory?intcmp=122

    Notice also how so many communists, progressives, hardline socialists, and other extremists accept the false god idea of Gaia, yet strangely and ferociously deny standard religions? Gaia's a politically motivated religion to polemically drive radical political and global redistribution of wealth.

    He also identified the bulk of the ideological villainy by name:

    Quote:
    "Im neither strongly left nor right, but I detest the Liberal Democrats."


    More graphs now, and other spin to try to deflect what is clearly shown and known of why this alarmism is always accompanied by demands for sweeping global changes that only endanger human rights and rule of law?

    Goldman Sachs also is hugely behind the scam, to strangle colossal profit from it for themselves, along with Al Gore and other parasites, while they ignore the human, financial, and political suffering directly related to this titanic crime.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:05 pm Reply with quote

    Quote:
    Me: "Btw, you still didn't tell me, why you used that graph (page 27 of the thread) to prove that the middle ages were allegedly warmer than the present if you think it's a fraud. Moving the goal posts again, weren't we?"


    Grav: "Nope. It clearly shows industrialization is NOT behind climate change. It happens by itself, and has countless times, independently of human existence."


    Now, this doesn't make sense on two levels:

    1. You claimed that the hockey stick graph is a fraud (Grav on page 27: "... This using too short of a timespan graph is the same situation of Mann's now debunked hockey stick model fraud...") - and yet you still use it to prove your point? Wtf, mate? Rolling Eyes

    2. Nobody denies that earlier changes in climate were started by natural processes. How exactly does that prove that man-made Co2 can't alter our climate today?
    You could as well say that forest fires cannot be manmade because they had also natural causes in the past.
    With one word: Your argument is totally dumb! Cool
    View user's profile Send private message
    N-1
    Fizzle
    Fizzle


    Joined: Jun 13, 2012
    Posts: 4

    PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:20 pm Reply with quote

    Graviton wrote:
    Nope. It clearly shows industrialization is NOT behind climate change.
    Not at all. No no no. Nope.
    Quote:
    It happens by itself, and has countless times, independently of human existence.
    What is "it"?

    I still have no idea who are these bogeymen behind the scenes trying to change the world or directing scientific thought. Your false attributions still does not discredit the science behind human impact on the climate.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:28 pm Reply with quote

    Quote:
    "Why even a former global doomsday sage, James Lovelock, who aided in concocting false, supernatural imagery of human causes behind human climate change, has seen the light: ..."


    Why can't you just read your damn links, Grav?! From your article:

    "He [Lovelock] displays equal disdain for those who do not accept science on climate change: "They've got their own religion. They believe that the world was right before these damn people [the greens] came along and want to go back to where we were 20 years ago. That's also silly in its own way."

    Btw, Lovelocks former views on climate change were extreme to be blunt. I can't think of any other scientist who thinks that global warming will wipe out most of humanity until the end of the century as he did. So, actually his current views are far more in line with the rest of the scientific community.

    The rest of your post is the usual right wing bla bla and not worthy to be commented on again and again.
    View user's profile Send private message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:59 pm Reply with quote

    Congrats Grav and bueschu on winning the prize for the longest running thread on Sonicbomb. Having started back in 2007 you two are still at it hammer and tongs five years later! That's actually quite a result for any forum... Very Happy
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:47 pm Reply with quote

    Thx! Actually, I tuned in a bit later, but yeah, this is kinda cool. Not to forget the 42'000+ views! Cool
    View user's profile Send private message
    sonicbomb
    Forum Admin
    Forum Admin


    Joined: Aug 06, 2006
    Posts: 1716
    Location: UK

    PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 11:40 pm Reply with quote

    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1557
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:51 pm Reply with quote

    Why can't you just read your damn links, Grav?! From your article:

    Quote:
    "He [Lovelock] displays equal disdain for those who do not accept science on climate change: "They've got their own religion. They believe that the world was right before these damn people [the greens] came along and want to go back to where we were 20 years ago. That's also silly in its own way."


    I DO.

    You spin my comments.

    I also said that Lovelock has made two significant comments:

    1. His change of views, that were ramped up by progressives (and other predatory neo-Marxists) as virtually prophetic. he saw the error of his ways.

    2. He identifies the villains: liberal democrats (aka progressives). This movement is entirely ideological, not scientific.

    I also know too well of pundits in USA that are directing this fraud -- exploiting their partners in the pseudoscience community that propel the fraud -- notably former Berkeley professor, Richard Sandor, and another professor, Joel Rogers, in Wisconsin. Sandor even predicted a 10 trillion dollars per year Chicago Climate Exchange that he, Obama (as a funding source from the US Senate), and Al Gore co-created with Goldman Sachs.

    If the public didn't become aware of this deception, these criminals would have been skimming billions from the exchange per year, while barely lifting a finger beyond continual promotional appearances.

    Quote:
    Btw, Lovelocks former views on climate change were extreme to be blunt. I can't think of any other scientist who thinks that global warming will wipe out most of humanity until the end of the century as he did.


    Again, ANY group that uses lies (criminality, or violence) to radically change political and economic policies are EXTREMIST.

    Quote:
    So, actually his current views are far more in line with the rest of the scientific community.


    This is entirely a weasel words fallacy of yours. There is growing resistance to this plot.

    [/quote] The rest of your post is the usual right wing bla bla and not worthy to be commented on again and again.[/quote]

    This is again your extremist tactic of trying to denigrate the moderacy of my statements. Bueschu, this is a relativism of yours, since you are so far to the left, my many times-declared moderacy is extremist just to you and other ideologues similar to yours.

    I am very much a moderate. i also champion both left and right views, as long as they don't fall into the trap of ideology.

    By the way, classical conservativism is NOT defined hold onto the past. It's keeping ideas that have been shown to be much more broadly successful by demonstration in history, over others.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Display posts from previous:   
    Post new topic Reply to topic

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum


    Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
    | Privacy Policy || Contact us |

    Page Generation: 0.26 Seconds
    :: In the future we will all be robots ::