Brad II
Recent Posts
O'Neill:Old orphans at Christmas time
Topix is not controlled by the Paradise Post. Anyone can report abuse if a post is abusive, myself, Oneill or who ever could have reported it as abusive and the Topix administrators would then pull your post. (Sunday Dec 20 | post #6)
More on the global warming thing
The best you can do for a reference is Wikipedia? We are not talking generally about the green house effect. You are well aware of the fact that there is more than one gas in the atmosphere that causes the greenhouse effect. We are discussing mans' addition of CO2 to the atmosphere and whether or not that amount of CO2 has in fact warmed the earth. That has not been provenYou can say what you want but that does not constitute proof. I would rather trust climatologists such as Lindzen and Christy who say that the climate is much too complex for us to know that we are in fact contributing anything at all to the atmosphere that is changing the climate in any way. No matter how accurate your computer modeling programs are, if you feed garbage data into them you will get garbage out. “Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-sta tion data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations. The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations. On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations. IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations. The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.” http://en.rian.ru/ papers/20091216/15 7260660.html (Thursday Dec 17 | post #342)
More on the global warming thing
Basic physics like gravity? You mean that we can make observations and make accurate predictions? Which predictions by the AGW crowd have come to pass? Increased hurricane activity? Rising sea levels? Is that like the prediction in the 70s that we were heading into an ice age and that all living in northern climes would freeze and or starve to death? You saying that mans’ additions to the existing CO2 levels in the atmosphere have caused global warming does not make it a fact. You have no proof. You still have 100 to go. (Wednesday Dec 16 | post #279)
More on the global warming thing
Looking at reason no. 4 above has me wondering as to how much CO2 was put into the atmosphere during WW II. With all the manufacturing output, and all that is entailed in a massive war the size of WW II, the bombs, the planes, the ships, the tanks, all that equipment and all the explosives for 5 years the CO2 output must have been massive. (Tuesday Dec 15 | post #268)
More on the global warming thing
Alright, for all the AGW believers it is time to do some real work. There is a list of 100 reasons not to believe in AGW, if AGW is a fact it should be easy for you to disprove all 100. You have until the end of the Copenhagen AGW believer’s party. Here are the first 10 reasons not to believe in AGW, for the rest follow the link. 1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity. 2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high. 6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. 7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited. 9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming 10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. http://www.dailyex press.co.uk/posts/ view/146138 I have included some music that you can play while working on your rebuttal. http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=nrhf_ zgtmAg (Tuesday Dec 15 | post #265)
More on the global warming thing
Actually Gore is the medias’ obsession and since you AGW believers have taken him as your spokesman we find it humorous when his inane predictions and dire warnings fall flat. Gore is the one having the last laugh, he worked you AGW believers as well as he worked the media, he has become a billionaire working this scam while increasing his carbon footprint. Can anyone say hypocrite? (Tuesday Dec 15 | post #241)
More on the global warming thing
It appears that you jumped the gun with your celebrations. I don’t know that the UN predicted that the Arctic would be ice fee in 5-7 years. I did read where Al Gore, your climate god, made that prediction. Do you remember last fall when the AGW scientists also predicted that there would be no Arctic sea ice last winter? Again they were wrong. Getting back to Al Gore, he did predict that there would the Arctic would be ice free in 5 -7 years and then was slammed by the scientist whose data he was using. What a moron Al Gore has become. http://www.timeson line.co.uk/tol/new s/environment/cope nhagen/article6956 783.ece “Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years. In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.” “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.” Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore. Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. “You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.” Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice. “Maslowski’s work is very well respected, but he’s a bit out on a limb,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge. Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: “He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.” There we have it. Once again there is no consensus and the science is indeed not settled. (Tuesday Dec 15 | post #224)
More on the global warming thing
Just as with the AGW theory your analogy falls apart with closer examination. Humans gain weight when they consume more calories than their body burns. Saying that you drink beer does not give us all the facts. How many calories are you consuming from sources other than beer? If you are consuming 1600 calories a day from food and then drinking 4 beers a day you will most likely gain weight but it will not be solely from beer consumption, there are other calories that your are consuming that contribute to your overall daily caloric intake. If you receive no calories from food but consume 4 beers a day you are not likely to gain weight. You repeatedly refer to green house gases as the cause of global warming. CO2 is a small portion of all the green house gases in the atmosphere. You cannot prove that the amount of CO2 that man his putting into the atmosphere is causing the earth to warm. (Monday Dec 14 | post #217)
Walmart, remember where your friends are
My last post was rather simple, I thought you could follow along but I guess not. Sorry. (Saturday Dec 12 | post #72)
More on the global warming thing
More proof that the Dems do not know what they are talking about when it comes to their own health care bill. “Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin admitted Friday that he is "in the dark" about the national health care bill currently under construction by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In an exchange on the Senate floor, Republican Sen. John McCain asked Durbin, "Should we not at least be informed as to what the proposal is that the Senate Majority Leader is going to propose to the entire Senate?" Durbin's answer: "I would say to the senator from Arizona that I am in the dark almost as much as he is, and I am in the leadership." Durbin explained that during a Democratic caucus, Reid and the small group of senators involved in crafting the bill turned to their fellow Democrats and "basically stood and said, 'We are sorry, we can't tell you in detail what was involved.'" http://www.washing tonexaminer.com/op inion/blogs/beltwa y-confidential/Num ber-two-Senate-Dem ocrat-in-the-dark- about-health-care- bill-79122507.html And these people wonder why the majority of Americans want nothing to do with their version of health care. The blind leading the blind. One has to ask why are the Dems afraid of having their health care bill analyzed and scrutinized by everyone who will vote on it, including the public. If the Dems health care solutions are needed so badly and so good then why do they insist on voting on them on weekends and why are they not out telling us all the details of these great bills. (Saturday Dec 12 | post #179)
Walmart, remember where your friends are
Since you don’t appear to like Corporate America or businesses that make a profit how do you propose the government will pay for the government run health care that you would like to see implemented? If you want other people to pay for your health insurance then you should at least agree that these people who will be paying your way should be allowed to work. Large companies like Walmart make it possible for you to enjoy the benefits of the labour of others. (Saturday Dec 12 | post #65)
Conservatives want confusion on health care
The problem with the health care bill in the senate is that the Dems are not reading the bill therefore they have no idea what the Republicans are talking when the Republicans bring out aspects of the bill that are going to bankrupt us and destroy health care as we know it. For instance Health and Human Services has noted that the current health bill in the senate will raise costs rather than lower costs. There was also a spending cap on cancer treatments in the bill, the dems were hoping no one would notice, but the American Cancer Society has brought attention to that particular clause and it could be on its way out. Do you really want to trust Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to do the right thing when it comes to your families health care? “Chico weatherman Anthony Watts is in the middle of it. According to Americanprogress.o rg Watts picked some up information from a Saudi Arabian blog and posted it in his own blog "Watts Up With That," and it wasn't long before the National Review and the rest of the right-wing blogosphere leaped on the story. And then it was off to the races.” It seems to me that this was some pretty lazy writing. Jack it appears has no idea where Watts gets his information. If he had ever read Watts blog he would see that Watts posts all the info plus the links for the stories that he refers to or reposts on his blog. Because stories are on a blog does not necessarily make them unproven or of no value. Many conservative blogs are very well done and the bloggers do a lot of fact checking to make sure that they are not posting garbage. Unlike the AGW community most of the science blogs that I have read fact check and show their data without fudging the numbers. (Saturday Dec 12 | post #4)
True enough. Even though I didn’t vote for or think that Huckabee was the man for the presidency he would have been infinitely better at the job then the current guy. I still can’t believe that someone with so little experience, besides being an academic, is actually our president. (Friday Dec 11 | post #22)
More on the global warming thing
You actually take Al Gore as your standard bearer? There goes your credibility. (Friday Dec 11 | post #156)
Q & A with Brad II
Hometown:
Paradise
I'm Listening To:
Holmes Brothers
Looking for more people on Topix? Browse the Family Album and see who's saying what!|
Reach local customers. Engage a specific demographic. Maximize business-to-business opportunities. Topix can deliver your message.
|
Copyright ©2009 Topix LLC
