Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=520005...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
History Channel: Another Gaping Hole in Al Gore's ...
Today's Right Wing News features an informative interview with Dennis Avery, co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years.
A few highlights:
The very mild warming that the earth experienced over the last century: does that have more to do with mankind's activities or the sun?
It seems like it must be the sun.
The reason we say that is because 70% of the warming we've had since 1850, when the Little Ice Age ended ?
70% of that warming came before 1940.
85% of the human emitted greenhouse gasses came after 1940.
In fact, the net warming of the earth since 1940 is a miniscule 2/10 of 1 degree celsius.?
[W]ould it be fair to say that for the next decade, global temperatures are not going to get hotter than they were in 1998?
They are likely to trend slowly downward not just for the next decade, but for the next 3 decades.
Many global warming alarmists say there is a scientific consensus on global warming, that almost everyone agrees with them, almost unanimously among scientists.
Is that true?
?With the temperatures scheduled for a 25 year cooling, I think the consensus just went out the window.
I think the consensus people have just run off a cliff like Wile E.
Coyote in the Roadrunner cartoons and they're in mid-air with their feet spinning madly while they wait for the earth to smash them to the ground far below.
Now, we regularly hear doomsday predictions about the terrible effects global warming is going to cause 50-100 years from now.
How do they come up with those predictions and how much validity do you think they have?
I think they pull their predictions out of their hats and I don't think they have any validity whatsoever.?
http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/07/rwns_dennis_avery_interview_2.php
No wonder the liberal elite has such a sense of urgency regarding imposing exorbitant taxes and suffocating regulations in the name of the global warming hoax.
The wheels are coming off of it fast.
There are a lot of gullible fools out there, but how long can our overlords get away with lying about the weather?
--
"The Democrat Party is ours.
We bought it and paid for it" - Moveonpac.
All we have to fear is ...
Democrat lies and spin.
'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.
I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.'
Barack Obama
I'm not against Obama because of his race, I'm against Obama because I'm a Capitalist and not a Socialist.
|
|
Dennis Avery? Yeah nuisance, there is a "gaping hole" alright, but it is not in global warming.
Have you bothered to read about Avery?
Let's see;
Didn't he write "Saving the Planet With Pesticides and Plastics"?
Hmmm, what else has he said?
Ah yes, He is a strong supporter of pesticides, industrialized farming, free trade, he believes DDT doesn't weaken egg shells of eagles, and he believes organic food should be abolished.
Where did you find your article?
Today's "Right Wing News"?
Killer source!
|
|
|
I notice you didn't refute any of the points, johnny.
why not?
--
Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.
pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom.
|
|
Swordsman, you want to refute some points?
First of all you look at the source.
Look at this one: Virtually every argument is pro large agribuziness (petroleum), pro fertilizer (petroleum), pro plasitcs (petroleum) and anti GW (petroleum).
Right there you start getting a clue to where this guy is coming from.
But you want me to refute these things.
Okay, on a few, such as organic food is worse for you, and the question of ddt I'll waste some time and find links.
On the point about GW you already have so many links to the overwhelming number of scientific bodies of International stature that refute his theory that I won't waste either of our time with this one.
All all the other points, "agribusiness, pesticides, saving the world through plastics" all of these things are refuted immediately through our awareness now of the price of oil.
"Organic food worse for you"?
Swordsman, there have been several studies conducted by various countries which say in the least that it is "no worse" for you.
So as not to appear biased, here's an article which cites Avery in particular.
Http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E6DA143CF935A25754C0A9659C8B63
Swordsman, regarding agribusiness, there is so much evidence out already which is easy to find which discusses large agribusiness practices, coupled with the trend toward genetically altered and limitted variety crops which are all contributing to a weakening, not a strengthening in their ability to sustain deseases, etc..
Here's just one link on the subject:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2116&page=47
|
|
Knee jerk reaction.
Attack the messenger before all else.
--
"The Democrat Party is ours.
We bought it and paid for it" - Moveonpac.
All we have to fear is ...
Democrat lies and spin.
'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.
I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.'
Barack Obama
I'm not against Obama because of his race, I'm against Obama because I'm a Capitalist and not a Socialist.
--
Edited by General_Nuisance at 07/14/2008 12:55 PM
|
|
Should Bertha be crashing down upon you right now as a #5 hurricane if the GW hysteria was true?
I told you when you were predicting the gloom that may be to come due to Bertha that your panic button had a hair trigger.
--
How to determine if a dog is man's best friend.
Lock your wife and your dog in the trunk of your car.
After an hour open the trunk and see who is happy to see you.
|
|
I notice you didn't refute any of the points, johnny.
why not?
Because the original article didn't make any points.
It just said, more or less, "GW is a myth and the Earth will now cool for the next 30 years" without theory, evidence, logic or basis.
There is absolutely no truth to the statement that the sun's output has been increasing since 1980, and no basis whatsoever to predict an upcoming decline in solar output.
The one numerical datum he provides, that 70% of the warming occurred prior to 1940, is bogus.
What is that based on?
(see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ for temperature curves)
What he doesn't address are the following:
1.
Are GHGs increasing or not?
2.
Does an increase in GHG imply an increase in GH warming?
|
|
There are idiots on both sides of the Global Warming issue.
But there are also lots of more reasoned voices on both sides as well.
If anything, it does prove two things right off: 1.
Al Gore is an unthinking idiot himself "The debate is over!" and 2.
That there still is a reasonable debate going on over causes and solutions.
|
|
|
TA Gardner -
What is the "reasoned voice" on the denier side that addresses my two questions?
That is, on what basis does anyone conclude that GHG concentrations are not rising?
On what basis does anyone conclude that higher level of GHG concentrations will not produce more GHG effect?
|
|
Gibron, what the heck are you talking about?
Bertha? GW?
I swear your mind works in strange ways my friend.
By the way, we got lucky with Bertha and we can be thankful of that here in N.J.
The worst is that all of our beaches where I am were closed today due to tides and rip currents, and the fishing fleets are staying in.
No Gibron, a hurricane in itself doesn't necessarily have a thing to do with global warming, but if that's the best you can do
|
|
OK:
1. Are GHGs increasing or not?
Yes.
2.
Does an increase in GHG imply an increase in GH warming?
Possibly.
The problem here is the questions are far too vauge to be of any usefulness.
First, which Greenhouse Gas(es) are of the most concern?
Then there is the issue of their effect on the planet in comparison to other issues like Carnot Heat Engine theory and related heat issues like urban heat islands, solar variations, the changing albedo of the Earth itself, etc.
The debate isn't over because it has barely begun.
|
|
1. Al Gore is an unthinking idiot himself
Hardly.
He earned a degree with high honors from Harvard, and won a Nobel Prize.
I would say that the odds are long that Gore is the smart one;
And those who think he is an idiot have been fooled.
2.
That there still is a reasonable debate going on over causes
Based on what?
This loser article?
Sorry, there are no serious reasonable debates ongoing related to the cause of GW.
There are only ongoing "fool the idiots" webpages and rightwing articles with an ever-shrinking population who still pay attention to them.
|
|
2. Does an increase in GHG imply an increase in GH warming?
Possibly.
Not possibly.
Certainly. Possibly implies a reasonable chance of "not possibly." Please explain how increasing GHG concentrations could "not possibly" trap more heat within Earth's system?
First, which Greenhouse Gas(es) are of the most concern?
-- The ones that are increasing.
Carnot Heat Engine theory and related heat issues like urban heat islands, solar variations, the changing albedo of the Earth itself, etc.
-- Carnot heat engine theory has absolutely nothing to do with it.
That is the maximum energy out of a heat engine.
Solar variations have been measured and have almost no impact.
As I've noted, the solar cycle peaked in 2000 and troughed in 2007 and will peak again in 2012/3, all without having any discernible impact.
Urban heat islands are a distraction to the question.
Change in albedo is a consequence of GW, not a cause, and it is an accelerant, as the loss of polar ice is causing more warming.
You didn't mention water vapor, but changes in water vapor are also a consequence and not a cause.
|
|
You want gaping holes?
How do you think the S.
Polar ozone hole happened?
This is just to test how naive and gullible you are.
--
www.freewebs.com/writingindependence/main.htm
|
|
First, which Greenhouse Gas(es) are of the most concern?
-- The ones that are increasing.
Like water vapor and methane?
Or, did you have Al Gore's monolithic view in mind?
Carnot Heat Engine theory and related heat issues like urban heat islands, solar variations, the changing albedo of the Earth itself, etc.
-- Carnot heat engine theory has absolutely nothing to do with it.
That is the maximum energy out of a heat engine.
Solar variations have been measured and have almost no impact.
Rrrriiiigggghhhhtttt....
Worldwide humanity is now producing about 10^11 Hp or 10^34 Kw per day in energy output.
Virtually all of that uses Carnot heat cycle engines.
This represents about 1% of the energy radiated by the sun on the planet daily.
If some 80% + of that energy is dumped into the air and water of the planet it isn't going to have any effect?!!
How does the changing albedo of the Earth play a role?
More ocean and dark landmass is being exposed by receeding glaciers, snow pack, etc.
This means these areas now asorpb more heat than before.
Claiming the debate is over and CO2 is the culprit sounds more and more like a 1950's murder trial in Mississippi and the defendent is the wrong color....
|
|
|
|