Guest woxof Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 If those commiepinkotreehuggingteacherlovingleftwingobamasupportingenvironuts.... What about 'granolacrunching' and until it went out of style a few years ago...'Airbusflying'. . P.S....did you get my email Don? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 granolacrunching?...Used to make my own, does that qualify me? That handle's from a friend of mine who always thought my time at Simon Fraser warped me... Email, yessir it came through, thank you. Will respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadji Ramjet Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Mitch, By the way, Hadji... "ad-hominem attacks" ? I don't see 'em... Ad Hominem: consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. scientists who are being paid by those who stand to lose most if such notions are taken seriously. some of you don't seem to recognize the obvious monetary interests at stake, and hence the obvious interest in steering public opinion What I can learn on all sorts of science based web sites and from those around me who know stuff, or a character on the internet? Perhaps your google pages haven't been updated? Hadji et al can follow their doubts all the way to a barren earth, if they like... I haven't the slightest doubt that people are being paid to do all they can to debunk the notions of global climate change I really don't think the heads of OPEC and the George Bush's of this planet give a flying fiddle about what we leave behind. But you "don't see 'em..." More to follow regarding the alleged evidence you posted, it might be awhile; I have to first delve into a paper in the Journal of Non-Equilibirium Thermodynamics which argues that there is no such thing as a "global temperature." The text is simple enough, but the mathematics is a bit complex for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Ok Hadji, Five of those seven quotes you've used above weren't even on the page when you accused me of making ad hominem attacks. So including them there seems somewhat dishonest to me. ...and in any case, all of those quotes are arguments within the debate, or expressions of opinion related to the debate. ...and actually one was a question in answer to your admonishment for my willingness to listen to friends and family whose opinions and knowledge I consider valuable... That question being: then who/what should I listen to? Printed matter I find on science based web pages, or someone I know absolutely nothing about? NONE are in fact ad hominem attacks. So yes, I still don't see 'em. What exactly do you call your brand of attack? Whatever it is, I don't like it. I think you need to lighten up a little. You've tired me out. I'm done. Besides, George Carlin has a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadji Ramjet Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 There's a juvenile defense: you claim you don't do something, so when you do after making said claim, it doesn't count? So I needn't bother deconstructing your "evidence" then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 My evidence? No, you needn't bother. I don't have any evidence. I've been trying to tell you, I have no expertise in the related fields. All I can do is read what others write on the subject. As I said in my first post in this thread: One of the down-sides to the internet is that there's almost as much false information, as there is true, valuable information. ...and I still believe that to be the case. So unfortunately - and as I think we've both demonstrated, one can find supporting text somewhere out in the WWW, to both sides of almost any claim at all. You choose to believe one side of this debate, evidently I choose to believe the opposite side. In my completely non-expert opinion, it's worth listening to those that say global climate change is a reality. As for your notions of a juvenile defense. Yesterday I spent about an hour describing the point in each of those quotes you claimed was an ad-hominem attack. When I hit the Preview Post button it made me log in again for some reason, and afterward, that hour's work was gone. So you got the very brief defense version. Still, "juvenile"? I think not. You point out to me a single ad hominem attack I've made in this thread, and I'll give it some serious thought. Among what you quoted above, none were. Not one. So get it right and I'll look. But please don't waste my time with nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 More to follow regarding the alleged evidence you posted, it might be awhile; I have to first delve into a paper in the Journal of Non-Equilibirium Thermodynamics which argues that there is no such thing as a "global temperature." The text is simple enough, but the mathematics is a bit complex for me. Awaiting your evidence Hadji. In the meantime what can we expect from the environuts? Would you believe a slow loss of your freedom? Ridiculous you say? Look at this.... http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=15528 UK environment czar looking at limiting holiday trips to save CO2 Monday February 9, 2009 "The UK's so-called "environment czar" last week raised the possibility of rationing air travel, limiting UK citizens to just a few vacation trips abroad by air per year in order to reduce the impact of carbon dioxide emissions. Adair Turner, chairman of the independent Committee on Climate Change that advises UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, made the proposal before Parliament's Environmental Audit Select Committee on Feb. 5. In remarks widely reported by UK media, Turner said, "We will have to constrain demand in an absolute sense with people not allowed to make as many journeys as they could in an unconstrained manner." The proposal was strongly condemned by FlyingMatters, a UK-based coalition of airlines, airports, aerospace manufacturers and other aviation- and tourism-related groups. "One always suspects with these half-baked proposals that the people who put them forward really intend them to apply to ordinary people, many of whom have only recently gained access to air travel, rather than to themselves," the organization said in a statement. Turner's remarks came as a report from the TaxPayers' Alliance revealed that the UK government spent £18.5 million ($26.9 million) on flights last year, a figure that does not include travel by the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence, according the Daily Mirror." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And this is from an advisor to the PM in Britain, so he has serious influence. Remember that when you vote next time here in Canada.....at least if your job depends on aviation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 Finally, some sense being forced down some throats. The audacity of so many scientists to even conceive that atmospheric temperatures can change water temperatures as so many have postulated is beyond ludicrous to the point of idiocy. Oceanic temperatures are and have always been influenced primarily by geothermal activity. The atmosphere, in contact with the surface layer of the oceans, adapts the temperatures and humidities and then creates "weather". How much longer will politicians be influenced by the frauds known as David S and Al Gore??? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ry/Science/home El Nino study challenges global warming belief DAVID FOGARTY Reuters March 24, 2009 at 2:42 AM EDT SINGAPORE — Research showing an El Nino event in 1918 was far stronger than previously thought is challenging the notion climate change is making El Nino episodes more intense, a U.S. scientist said on Tuesday. El Nino causes global climate chaos such as droughts and floods. The events of 1982/83 and 1997/98 were the strongest of the 20th Century, causing loss of life and economic havoc through lost crops and damage to infrastructure. But Ben Giese of Texas A&M University said complex computer modelling showed the 1918 El Nino event was almost as strong and occurred before there was much global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels or widespread deforestation. The outcome of the research was valuable for several reasons, Mr. Giese told Reuters from Perth in Western Australia. “It questions the notion that El Ninos have been getting stronger because of global warming,” he said ahead of a presentation of his team's research at a major climate change conference in Perth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Would you guys hurry up and decide which it is? I need to decide if I need a new bathing suit or ski pants Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Would you guys hurry up and decide which it is? I need to decide if I need a new bathing suit or ski pants Iceman Insufficient Data Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 -16C here in YYC when we got up. Just imagine how cold it could have been except for that it is spring and we are in the midst of "Global Warming" Normals Max: 7°C Min: -6°C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 -16C here in YYC when we got up. Just imagine how cold it could have been except for that it is spring and we are in the midst of "Global Warming" Normals Max: 7°C Min: -6°C Historical data for YYC in March Extreme Maximum (°C) 22.8 in 1906 Extreme Minimum (°C) - 37.2 in 1951 Seems like today falls within those boundaries. Global warming? Insufficient data. The computer projections are only as good as the software written and the data input both of which could be flawed. I'm not saying it couldn't be happening, I am just saying they do not have enough information to prove it conclusively. Science hasn't progressed that far yet. GIGO edited to include the minus in -37.2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Extreme Minimum (°C) 37.2 in 1951 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Historical data for YYC in March Extreme Maximum (°C) 22.8 in 1906 Extreme Minimum (°C) 37.2 in 1951 Seems like today falls within those boundaries. Global warming? Insufficient data. The computer projections are only as good as the software written and the data input both of which could be flawed. I'm not saying it couldn't be happening, I am just saying they do not have enough information to prove it conclusively. Science hasn't progressed that far yet. GIGO Love your data (especially that 37.2 min , now that would be global warming ) but not sure where you got it. Here is the official (Weather Canada) data for today. Calgary Int'l Airport Averages and Extremes for: March 26, 2009 Averages and Extremes Year Average Maximum Temperature 6.0°C Average Minimum Temperature -6.2°C Frequency of Precipitation 30% Highest Temperature (1882-2008) 15.7°C 1992 Lowest Temperature (1882-2008) -27.8°C 1914 Greatest Precipitation (1882-2008) 7.5mm 2001 Greatest Rainfall (1882-2008) 6.3mm 1981 Greatest Snowfall (1882-2008) 10.2cm 1993 Most Snow on the Ground (1955-2008) 15.0cm 1998 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Love your data (especially that 37.2 min , now that would be global warming ) but not sure where you got it. Looks like it is info from Environment Canada (yes, it's a -37.2 C): National Climate Data and Information Archive - Calgary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Love your data (especially that 37.2 min , now that would be global warming ) but not sure where you got it. Here is the official (Weather Canada) data for today. Calgary Int'l Airport Averages and Extremes for: March 26, 2009 Averages and Extremes Year Average Maximum Temperature 6.0°C Average Minimum Temperature -6.2°C Frequency of Precipitation 30% Highest Temperature (1882-2008) 15.7°C 1992 Lowest Temperature (1882-2008) -27.8°C 1914 Greatest Precipitation (1882-2008) 7.5mm 2001 Greatest Rainfall (1882-2008) 6.3mm 1981 Greatest Snowfall (1882-2008) 10.2cm 1993 Most Snow on the Ground (1955-2008) 15.0cm 1998 Yes, my info was from the Environment Canada site, historical data for YYC for all of March. I noticed that their data only goes back to 1882. I wonder what the numbers are for 1582 AD, 1082 AD, 82 AD, 82 BC, 1082 BC 1582 BC etc etc etc. Aren't they still arguing about what killed off the dinosaurs? Maybe it was Global Warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 The audacity of so many scientists to even conceive that atmospheric temperatures can change water temperatures as so many have postulated is beyond ludicrous to the point of idiocy. Oceanic temperatures are and have always been influenced primarily by geothermal activity. Moon man???? Help me out here will ya?... I'm just a dummy... Are you saying that we have warm oceans in the equatorial regions and cold oceans in the arctic regions primarily because of geothermal activity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 The gulf stream carries warmer waters to the north and is primarily what regulates the temperatures of the ocean (atlantic anyhow) with the (supposed) cooling of the northatlantic waters it is (in theory) possible that the overall temperature of the ocean will drop dramatically which could alter the flow of the gulf stream. this would have an effect on the overall weather patterns. Bla Bla Bla... As Far as I am concerned this has all happenned before without our input into the equation. how many times are we gonna hear that the sky is falling... Back in the 70s we were running out of oil???? Still got it. In the 80s the erth was cooling? Now getting warmer. There was the ever present hole in the ozone layer? Ok we may have had something to do with that one but we fixed it (sort of). The never ending list of natural disasters just continues and right along side we continue to thrive (survive ) Is the earth getting warmer? hell I dunno but I do know that I have shoveled significantly more snow in the past 3 years then I have since I was a kid. It will get warmer. It will get colder and there is not a @#$ @$%$ thing we can do about it. Let spend out ime on some productive and positive. /Rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Maybe there is nothing wrong with the earth.........maybe there is a problem with the sun.....my head hurts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 The gulf stream carries warmer waters to the north and is primarily what regulates the temperatures of the ocean (atlantic anyhow) with the (supposed) cooling of the northatlantic waters it is (in theory) possible that the overall temperature of the ocean will drop dramatically which could alter the flow of the gulf stream. this would have an effect on the overall weather patterns. Bla Bla Bla... As Far as I am concerned this has all happenned before without our input into the equation. how many times are we gonna hear that the sky is falling... Back in the 70s we were running out of oil???? Still got it. In the 80s the erth was cooling? Now getting warmer. There was the ever present hole in the ozone layer? Ok we may have had something to do with that one but we fixed it (sort of). The never ending list of natural disasters just continues and right along side we continue to thrive (survive ) Is the earth getting warmer? hell I dunno but I do know that I have shoveled significantly more snow in the past 3 years then I have since I was a kid. It will get warmer. It will get colder and there is not a @#$ @$%$ thing we can do about it. Let spend out ime on some productive and positive. /Rant These warmer waters you speak of.... was this water warmed primarily through geothermal means? .... I didn't think so, but like I said, I'm just a dummy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 These warmer waters you speak of.... was this water warmed primarily through geothermal means? .... I didn't think so, but like I said, I'm just a dummy. If you don't believe it was geothermal activity what do you think warmed the water? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 Moon man???? Help me out here will ya?... I'm just a dummy... Are you saying that we have warm oceans in the equatorial regions and cold oceans in the arctic regions primarily because of geothermal activity? Surface temperatures, m'man. Surface temperatures. Most deep waters in polar regions receive currents from all over the globe. The largest body of water in the world is the Pacific ocean average depth 14,000'. The thickest mult-year ice is rarely greater than 25' yet the average depth of the Arctic Ocean is 12,000' not including the continental shelves, with canyons as deep as 15,300'. The antarctic is of course a landmass but has an ocean around it, a conglomerate of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Common sense. Cold is not a temperature. It is a lack of temperature. Only water within a very thin layer (literally, only dozens of feet) in the world's oceans can be affected by atmospheric warming or cooling. Remember some earth science: the atmosphere is not heated by the sun, it is heated by its contact with the "earth" be it land or water mass. Check out the Nansen and Amundsen Basins Observational System (NABOS) research of Arctic Ocean water temperatures. In recent times, there is a lot of warm water flowing into the Arctic Ocean which this organization credits with the melting of the Polar Ice Pack, not atmospheric warming. Anyway, good buddy, I could go on an on and on, sort of like this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrlupin Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Trying to see where the anti-global warming crowd is coming from.... Ifs... If the earth is not warming up, if CO2 emissions are not causing global warming, if carbon capture is a hoax, and assuming that the latest weather incidents are random then what is the motive behind these initiatives? Why are they at the forefront of the news? Is it possible that the government is trying to set up a system to tax the various industries who are heavy polluters? Is it just a tax grab by government? Is it the green party's fault? Why all this conspiracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cargo Agent Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Trying to see where the anti-global warming crowd is coming from.... Ifs... Not pro or anti. For every scientist that is pro there is another that is anti. This causes me to think that perhaps they ALL do not have enough data to prove it either way. What were the CO2 levels 1000 years ago? 100,000? 1,000,000? I am fully in favour of doing what we can to cut how much we pollute the earth, I just don't buy into all the hype Al Gore and Co. are spouting. At the end of it all, the earth will survive, we may kill off ourselves, but the earth will bounce back. The earth is approx 4.5 BILLION years old, our studies of it have only scraped the surface. Therefore IMO insufficient data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Thanks Moon! Cool. I didn't know most of that. ...yet another glaring hole in my education. So what do these guys say is causing that warm water to head North? ? Cargo Agent... I thought it was mostly from the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.