The Sun affects our weather??? Oh Noooooo!

[Sgt.Stedenko]

Fuck the Chilean grapes.
Rombauer chardonnay FTW!

 

[Weird]

So Mr. Semantic, please address the OP and tell us why the "consensus" scientists can't or won't account for cosmic rays?

Or is that over your head?

why don't me and you make it a formal debate and put money on it

ive made the same offer before and no one bites

for every one of your scientific proofs against warming ill match it with 10 proofs for warming form equal or greater educational and scientific authorities

ill even give you 2-1 on your money

 

[Sgt.Stedenko]

why don't me and you make it a formal debate and put money on it

ive made the same offer before and no one bites

for every one of your scientific proofs against warming ill match it with 10 proofs for warming form equal or greater educational and scientific authorities

ill even give you 2-1 on your money

Weird,

Here's a link with 31,847 American scientists, of which 9,029 are PhDs, who have signed a petition rejecting global warming caused my man made gases.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...ng petition to reject man made global warming

Here's a link with another 78 links inside refuting man made global warming.

http://needsofthemany.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/1399/

I look forward to your rebuttal with 314,870 American scientists, of which at least 90,290 are PhDs, defending global warming, or your 780 link rebuttal.

BTW, That took me all of 5 minutes to find. Hopefully you are as efficient in your searches.

 

[guest194]

I have it on good authourity that the sun in no way affects our weather. Its common sense if there were no sun it would make no difference. No sun tans though which wouldn't be a good thing plus weed would grow a lot better without those harmful rays.

 

[Bionic]

All of this dances around the issue that in the last hundred years we have used millions of years of non renewable solar energy in the form of fossil fuels; if we continue on this path we will be forced back into a solar economy which will result in awfulness, whether or not releasing this spent energy in the form of gas emissions into the atmosphere is significantly effecting our planet, we do not have endless sources of fossil fuels and we need to plan for a drawing down in the amount of available energy resources.

That's just one theory. There are others.

 

[Arkady2300]

Abiogenic Origin of Hydrocarbons: An Historical Overview

Abstract: The two theories of abiogenic formation of hydrocarbons, the Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins and Thomas Gold's deep gas theory, have been considered in some detail. Whilst the Russian-Ukrainian theory was portrayed as being scientifically rigorous in contrast to the biogenic theory which was thought to be littered with invalid assumptions, this applies only to the formation of the higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper mantle. In most other aspects, in particular the influence of the oxidation state of the mantle on the abundance of methane, this rigour is lacking especially when judged against modern criteria as opposed to the level of understanding in the 1950s to 1980s when this theory was at its peak. Thomas Gold's theory involves degassing of methane from the mantle and the formation of higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper layers of the Earth's crust. However, formation of higher hydrocarbons in the upper layers of the Earth's crust occurs only as a result of Fischer-Tropsch-type reactions in the presence of hydrogen gas but is otherwise not possible on thermodynamic grounds. This theory is therefore invalid. Both theories have been overtaken by the increasingly sophisticated understanding of the modes of formation of hydrocarbon deposits in nature.

From section 3:

However, there is a fundamental flaw in Thomas Gold's theory of abiogenic petroleum formation. As previously pointed out, methane can only be converted to higher hydrocarbons at pressures >30 kbar corresponding to a depth of ~100 km below the Earth's surface. The proposed reaction of methane to produce higher hydrocarbons above this depth and, in particular, in the upper layers of the Earth's crust is therefore not consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, bacteria can not catalyze thermodynamically unfavourable reactions. Gold's deep gas theory in which hydrocarbons are supposedly formed from methane in the upper layers of the Earth's crust is therefore invalid.

 

[Bionic]

Gold's theory was dismissed but the mystery still remains.

 

[Weird]

Weird,

Here's a link with 31,847 American scientists, of which 9,029 are PhDs, who have signed a petition rejecting global warming caused my man made gases.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...ng petition to reject man made global warming

Here's a link with another 78 links inside refuting man made global warming.

http://needsofthemany.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/1399/

I look forward to your rebuttal with 314,870 American scientists, of which at least 90,290 are PhDs, defending global warming, or your 780 link rebuttal.

BTW, That took me all of 5 minutes to find. Hopefully you are as efficient in your searches.

ill take your money too but first put your money up

and before you get so high on your google skills I hope you undersand that the 32 national scientific organizations alone who have stated that they concur that man made global warming is real (consensus on true cause and effect is still be3ing debated but this simply illustrates the huge rift in understanding of our own global ecosystem)

one of the smaller bodies, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies has 68,000 members and these are simply national academies

learn to search niche scientific and academic institutes and we add a whole new layer of membership to draw upon

majority of top scientists including many Nobel laureates govern these academies and boards

but please before I qualify the membership and consensus on each organization tell me how much your putting up

 

[Sgt.Stedenko]

You know as well as I do, betting would involve someone's personal info being sent which violates the TOU. Tisk, tisk, tisk...

My link shows all 31,847 signatories and their credentials.
Yours.....Not so much.

318,470 proven signatures and credentials. Good luck with that my friend.

 

[Weird]

So Mr. Semantic, please address the OP and tell us why the "consensus" scientists can't or won't account for cosmic rays?

Or is that over your head?

no whats over your head is reality

first of all no scientist or body of science can prove the real cause and effect of the all internal and external environmental cues on the planet earth because science does not posses that level of understanding

in regards to the climate change we simply surmise hypothesis and use observation to qualify

that is why the word AFFECT IS SO KEY

cause AFFECT means influence not complete cause

you took AFFECT to mean EFFECT as if it was complete proof

but saying that it may contribute to the over all effect is not saying it is the complete cause

so the statement the sun AFFECTS the earths climate doesn't exonerate man made global warming it simply adds an additional potential AFFECT to the over all cause


and this is why you ran with it hook line and sinker

half a fucking brain and you may conclude that if man made global warming has ANY PREMISE that the CUMULATIVE AFFECT may contribute to a greater EFFECT that is to our chagrin

and this is how someone with a above average education and intelligence easily spins the fuck out of simple minds and causes denial propaganda

show me ONE SCIENTIST that can WITHOUT A DOUBT disprove the cause and effect of mans impact on the environment

you cant of course but boy are you sure that the small percentage of people who refute cause certainly dismiss effect

however any reasonable rational mind and the complaint of majority of the scientific community is that the cost of being reactive in the collapse of an ecosystems far outweighs the cost of being proactive when we are the apex thereof

im sure of something too

that you are simply someone who generates on paranoia, contempt and discord and because of it you can only project those qualities unto others

the whole apathy vibe is weak as fuck and when you cant afford concern for the world around you its because you have a very empty being

and that is why your here trying to start another thread trying to polarize members for or against each other

because inside that is all you got

strife

your so bereft anything good in your being you can't even afford to be right in your mind without proving it to the world

maybe if you weren't so tight inside it would be so hard for you to interact with more compassion and harmony

the truth is an easy sale when presented right, so if your rocking the truth your certainly polluting it with your delivery

sounds like the ultimate case of sour grapes to me

 

[Weird]

You know as well as I do, betting would involve someone's personal info being sent which violates the TOU. Tisk, tisk, tisk...

My link shows all 31,847 signatories and their credentials.
Yours.....Not so much.

318,470 proven signatures and credentials. Good luck with that my friend.

I knew you'd weasel out of the bet

come on man the fuck up

listing a site that claims its membership tally and their credentials is not the same as listing each member and their credentials

list each member and their credential and ill match em individually by 10 times

list a site link stating a membership base and ill match it ten times

being of a relative mind is very important in any comparative debate

but lets be honest you knew the TOU before you retorted

this is simply proof that you are the type of person to jump into another persons place to take in a challenge but your not man enough to do it when you have to put your money where your mouth is

do you even understand the mechanism upon which a search yields a result?

are you really so shallow to believe that the wealth of climate studies is surmised and presented in a simple Google search

here is a link of almost a MILLION scholarly articles with observed cause and effect results on the subject

parse through them and compile the results and you'll have a true picture of what we know regarding the subject

notice NONE of that shit is returned in a standard Google search

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,33&q=global+warming

lets make a bet on what percentage of those papers with real correlating data conclude there is NO SUCH THING AS MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING

lol

 

[BlueBlazer]

I understand that cow and pig methane emissions contribute to global warming.

Therefore, I suggest bacon cheeseburgers for everybody!

 

[rives]

majority of top scientists including many Nobel laureates govern these academies and boards

Somehow this doesn't carry the same level of credibility that it did a few years ago.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

We'll be sailing the NW passage this August. That's pretty credible. Wouldn't be surprised if big oil wants to warm us up to year-round production. j/k

 

[Weird]

Somehow this doesn't carry the same level of credibility that it did a few years ago.

yeah cause a small percentage of spin put a somehow in everyone's mind

this corporate tactic started with big tobacco

As one tobacco company memo noted: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the "body of fact" that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."[30] As the 1990s progressed ... TASSC began receiving donations from Exxon (among other oil companies) and its "junk science" website began to carry material attacking climate change science.
—Clive Hamilton, Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change
​

 

[rives]

yeah cause a small percentage of spin put a somehow in everyone's mind

this corporate tactic started with big tobacco

Actually, I was making reference to the 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate. Sorry for the hijack, I couldn't resist the temptation.

 

[greenmatter]

does anyone who has posted on this thread think they are going to change anyones mind?

for myself i can say i was pretty sure we were fucking things up on this planet in general a good 20 years before al gore started spouting about manbearpig. that dickhead is just another dickhead in a long line of dickheads that is there to keep the shitstorm blowing. we can all sit here and post numbers and links (with science in them we "KINDA" understand) but not one of us has the ability to spot bullshit in most of what they are telling us. ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT

i would name all the names left and right,red and blue, washington and network news that i think are fucking things up but why? IMHO it is all of them.

there are one or two guys involved in this thread that are older so you will understand this one ......... i have been back to the places my grandfather took me when i was a kid, beaches, woods and rivers and NOT ONE of those places is the same. the water is dirty,the game and most of the trees and all of the fish are gone. thats in my (and your) lifetime. not much spin there right? go to a library and grab a diary from a pilgrim, a settler or lewis and clark. they were writing down what they saw, long before spin became an issue.

i don't need anyone to tell me shit is going south, i can see it and i think the endless arguments about who,when,why,how and if we have anything to do with it (no matter how funny or ugly they are) are pretty much useless. we get pissed off at each other, label each other and put words in each others mouths........ and where are we trying to get with this?

 

[grapeman]

ill take your money too but first put your money up

and before you get so high on your google skills I hope you undersand that the 32 national scientific organizations alone who have stated that they concur that man made global warming is real (consensus on true cause and effect is still be3ing debated but this simply illustrates the huge rift in understanding of our own global ecosystem)

one of the smaller bodies, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies has 68,000 members and these are simply national academies

learn to search niche scientific and academic institutes and we add a whole new layer of membership to draw upon

majority of top scientists including many Nobel laureates govern these academies and boards

but please before I qualify the membership and consensus on each organization tell me how much your putting up

Consensus science.......? LOL

Maybe you could explain to us poorly informed here what is consensus science.

LOL

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... Maybe you could explain to us poorly informed here what is consensus science.

LOL

I laughed too.

 

[Sgt.Stedenko]

I think it represents the 68,000 Austrailian zombie scientists walking in lockstep with their leaders.