Global Warming, eh?

[Simulist]

A more complete list of things caused by global warming

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brignell

John Brignell, Ph.D., is a retired Professor of Industrial Instrumentation at University of Southampton. (emminently qualified to talk about the environment).

(I thought you had a problem with.formal, first world education. Or does bendie represent you flopping from one position to another)

he has disputed the theory of anthropogenic global warming,[2] questioned the relationship between second-hand smoke and lung cancer,[3] and suggested that the hole in the ozone layer existed before the rise in the use of chlorofluorocarbons.[2] (shilling for the tobaco companies also! Nice. Classy)

mid 2005, Brignell prepared a list of over 600 links to news reports linking various contradictory phenomena to global warming.[6] In November 2007, this list appeared on the spiked website,[7] then the Rush Limbaugh show,[8] and has since been quoted in other places, eg.[9]

(well, the saying goes that you can judge a man by the company he keeps. Rush fucking Limbaugh. And yourself. Your company, despite your white yoga dude affectation, is the company of corporations, right wing media sources and and the most egregious fraudsters of the modern age.

Om shanti om...)

Thanks, Rory.

[Nordic]

Ben D is a True Believer, a zealot, and no amount of facts or reason will sway him. If you argue with him, you've got a tiny mind and are to be pitied.

In other words arguing with him is a complete waste of time except for the comedy it produces on his part, like accusing others of "going bananas" when he clearly already went that way himself a long time ago, and then hitting us with "namaste" when all we'd like to see are some actual facts to back up his assertions. Now that's hilarious, but does get old rather fast.

Ben D's faith is unshakeable, just like those who believe the world is going to end on a certain date and sell all their possessions. Can faith move mountains, or does it just dig very deep holes?

[Ben D]

and then hitting us with "namaste" when all we'd like to see are some actual facts to back up his assertions. Now that's hilarious, but does get old rather fast.

Nordic, seriously, do you ever do any introspection?

I have been consistent in trying to get those of you who have gone bananas over the information, data, and understanding I've shared with you, to actually engage me on it. But no, it seems to me that the cerebral popcorn you produce is something like...."I don't like what I'm hearing and seeing from Ben cos it ain't like the newspaper or the TV tell me it is. Therefore I'll curse him and ridicule him and hope that will put an end to the matter."

Now the post below was a response to you many pages back, and since those of you attacking me continued to ignore the 'substance' of my posts, I decided to post it again, and again, to remind you all that here is a starting point,...engage in a real discussion about global warming.

And once again you ignore it and tell me you would like to see some 'actual facts' to back up my assertions.

So what's a man to do, what is it about them I wonder, that creates their cognitive dissonance (going bananas) which in turn causes them to attack the messenger. Well I've explained that, but since I'm ever inclined to help people to improve their understanding, here is a third attempt to start a discussion with you in which there is a possibility of learning more about Planetary climate than you presently do. Hey,..that goes for me too if any of you provide data that supercedes that on which I base my present understanding, then I will certainly appreciate the error correction.

So this is from my post of Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:27 pm

From my post of Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:46 pm....

Btw, I think it important to avoid as much unnecessary confusion as possible going on, so it's hoped that everyone has a clear idea of the GW (Global Warming) so far, regardless of what are the main drivers of it.

Can we all agree that the planet has warmed a total of about 0.8 of a degree C since records began in 1880, ie. 130 years, or as a trend over that time, 0.006 of a degree C per year.

If anyone disputes this figure, please speak up!

Namaste..

Namaste..

[Iamwhomiam]

Iamwhomiam wrote:
No news, really.

Just checkin' back to see if Ben's hell had frozen over yet.

Ben wrote:
Try to get over it, there is more to reality then you have ever imagined.

Reread my assessment of the CAGW zealots in my post of Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:05 am.

Another thing I note concerning them, is that they mostly seem to be victims of Empire's mind conditioning secular educational system ,...they can't think outside the confines of material reality and therefore are mentally blind to the larger reality that we know exists. Iow, they are materialists,...just about everything that Mysticism isn't. They seem to exhibit no awe of, or wonder about,.. the Whole picture,...the Cosmic order, both seen and unseen, immanent and transcendent.

That is why when they hear something outside the confines of their little mind, they go bananas! For if it were to be accepted as true, their whole hate filled little world would be seen to be the wrong way to live and since they've already invested so much of themselves in it,...there is no where else to go, and therefore to reestablish the semblance of peace of mind, the truth must be destroyed.

Which of course they can't do, but they would kill the messenger if they could as the next best thing.

Just reflect on the absurd childish and incoherent content of your posts, and the personal attacks on myself, is this this the way to learn more about planetary science?

At some level you actually know that the temperature records, graphs, and other information that I was posting and explaining were valid, and as I explained in my post above, there is nothing you can do or say about their authenticity. Since your AGW position was undefendable, you instinctively did the next best thing,...attack the messenger hoping that I would be intimidated and thus stop posting material that showed that AGW science is seriously flawed.

What I say to you and the others that went bananas,..do some real deep reflection about what and who you are in the context of the Cosmic Absoluteness. Seriously, there is a whole universe waiting for you that eventually you will have to make your peace with, and as they say, a thousand mile journey begins with a single step. There's life after being caught up in a materialistic mindset.

Namaste.

Ben, in all honesty, I haven't belittled you or insulted you; I simply said your were uninformed, and I truly believe you are. You see, I actually have studied hundreds of the research papers that the IPCC reports are compiled from. How many of these have you read? Have you read any at all?

Anyone can review all of the pages to see who's tossed more insults at whom. So you continue to mislead.

I've tried to have an honest discussion with you, but you've refused to answer all but one of my questions; you explained for me that the 'C' in CAGW meant Catastrophic, and I thanked you.

How is it possible for anyone to have an intelligent conversation or discussion with you when you are so very uncooperative.

I've accused you of nothing but being uninformed, and that's not a crime that your are or of mine for claiming you are. It is a conclusion I've come to after having read your postings on this topic.

What you've offered as proof to reinforce your position would be laughable in a scientific community and immediately discounted by any scientist worthy of that title. That's not sarcasm; it is the truth.

The photos of the Horse and Bananas are amusing, but they have no place in a serious discussion. You've claimed my postings were incoherent, but they are not, and I think anyone reading this thread would agree with me on this point.

Sounder, Slim and you have all but claimed we are working for the 'dark side,' And though I do not believe those sharing my viewpoint, that man's pollution is contributing to global warming, are working for nefarious powers, I most certainly am not.

I am one who strives to bring light to dark places in all things, not just the subject of our changing climate.

And I work diligently to make our world safer from man's chemical pollutants, finding safer alternatives whenever possible and I promote the adoption of the Precautionary Principle and Zero Waste Practices. Though this world has cruelly taken my son, I still have a daughter and grandchildren I care about, but my work reaches for beyond impacting only my family; I care about the wellbeing of all creatures. Even your silly Aussie ass, er, arse.

I've revealed more about myself than perhaps any other poster, excepting Project Willow and perhaps a few others. It's not to difficult to find my name, if you exert some rigor.

You claim we're 'shooting the messenger,' but we're only shooting down your woefully inadequate "Proof".

"Apparently everything I provide for you is over your head Iamwhomiam" Sadly, Ben, you have not in the least challenged my intelligence, not a whit.

Now let's examine this line of yours, shall we?:
"Since your AGW position was undefendable, you instinctively did the next best thing,...attack the messenger hoping that I would be intimidated and thus stop posting material that showed that AGW science is seriously flawed."

Please show me the science that is seriously flawed. I would love to examine it. Unlike you, I will admit I'm wrong when proven wrong, so please show me the science to prove your point.

Please tell me the name of the author of the science reporting and its date of publication that got past the peer review process that you've examined to prove it wrong. There are tens of thousands of reports spanning more than 20 years, so it is possible I've not read it, though I doubt other scientists could have missed the erroneous reporting. I thank you for your cooperation.

Subaru!

[wintler2]

Can we all agree that the planet has warmed a total of about 0.8 of a degree C since records began in 1880, ie. 130 years,.

Sorta, assuming you mean an average of 0.8C, yes? we already did back on pg3, remember your 0.08C slip?

or as a trend over that time, 0.006 of a degree C per year.

Mmm, except that ..

..Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... altemp.php

Anyway, if forced into a linear trend, sure 0.006C per annum. So what?

[Ben D]

So Wintler2 and Ben are on the same page when it comes to the amount of warming that has taken place over the last 130 years, and that is 0.8 of one degree C. It follows then that the linear trend line for that 130 years is 0.006 of 1 degree.

Don't worry Wintler2, concerning the meandering that takes place over the whole period can be discussed later, because if one starts cherry picking at this point, some of the others who have formally not yet acknowledged the above global warming figures may get lost as to the the context,... fair enough?

So the next step is to get the others on board at the starting line, otherwise the whole discussion will go nowhere if some do not have the prerequisite understanding of the actual global warming which henceforth we can call GW. Once our fellow students are accepting these figures, we can look at the drivers including the CO2 emission factor including the human contribution.

I noticed as I browsed the latest posts, our friend Iamwhomiam is continuing with his banana antics and so I hope he soon gets to settle down and formally respond to the request to acknowledge the GW figures above.

If you are reading this Iamwhomiam, and you accept the figures as Wintler2 has done and led the way for the rest of you, please formally post your concurrence.

And the same goes for the rest of you, Rory, Nordic, DrEvil, Professor Pan, Simulist, etc., etc..

Btw Wintler2, this is what learning is all about, the first time I posted something on this forum that featured the figure of 0.006 degree C per year of GW, you had this to say....

Link....Re: Coral reef bleaching goes global

..and all on 0.006 deg C per year!

..the only original text on your link it is unsubstantiated, and contradicted by decades of satellite and surface measurements.

Now please don't think that I've outed you on your change on this issue to show you up (shucks. .maybe just a little), but seriously I will say honestly that it does more for your credibility as a person to adjust one's present understanding when more 'light' is shown on the issue.

[slimmouse]

So the next step is to get the others on board at the starting line, otherwise the whole discussion will go nowhere if some do not have the prerequisite understanding of the actual global warming which henceforth we can call GW. Once our fellow students are accepting these figures, we can look at the drivers including the CO2 emission factor including the human contribution.

[Saurian Tail]

:yay
So Wintler2 and Ben are on the same page when it comes to the amount of warming that has taken place over the last 130 years, and that is 0.8 of one degree C. It follows then that the linear trend line for that 130 years is 0.006 of 1 degree.

This is statistics for dummies.

[norton ash]

Ben D:

I noticed as I browsed the latest posts, our friend Iamwhomiam is continuing with his banana antics and so I hope he soon gets to settle down and formally respond to the request to acknowledge the GW figures above.

This is your response to Iam's thoughtful and personal post? 'Banana antics?'

Enough of you. You have the familiar style, grace, sensitivity, wilful deafness, and childish sense of humour of the right-wing corporate whore. Not saying you are one, but you've sure adopted their technique of single-minded disrespectful braying.

Your desperately-held statistics are specious shit and prove nothing. Hammer, hammer, hammer... not the best scientific instrument.

[DrEvil]

Yes, I agree with you Ben D! On the 0.8C figure anyway.
But since you have repeatedly held up the lack of warming over the 10 last years as proof of your position, I'll reply in kind :
If you say that 10 years is enough to determine a trend, then I say that 35 years is even better. Now, if we look at the link provided by wintler2
( http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... altemp.php )
we can see that, as wintler2 points out, 2/3 of the heating has happened since about 1975 (hence my 35 year trendline), at an average between 0.15 and 0.20 C each decade. Some simple math then tells us that if this trend continues the average temperature should go up by about 1.5C over the next hundred years, and even more for the next 130 years (lets say roughly 2C).
That's twice as much as you say, and more than enough to screw up any natural cycles going on at the same time.
(Think of it as two pots of water, one 99C, the other 101C. Small difference in temperature, BIG difference in behaviour.)

[slimmouse]

Brief interluede;

A quick overview of AGW. You get these scary figures ( it doesnt particularly matter if theyre true or not cos the current argument is framed within the usual hegelian dialectic.)

Watcha gonna do about it ? What would you be expected to do about it ? Why youre going to lobby your govnt to stop this pollution.

What do they do about it ? They tax the polluters. Who pays for it ? Not the polluters for sure. Theyve got the bottom liine to take care of........ The proles of course foot the bill. People die the world over of hunger, and cold and all the rest of it.

Meanwhile in a thousand facilities desperately lacking finance the world over some truly dedicated people are trying to find ways around this via exotic technology. Many have gotten very close. Some have probably actually gotten there. But most of them kind are dead, or get involved in long lawsuits, or have patents waiting for approval forever and a day, or have their patents surpressed in the interests of ....wait for it "National security"... I wouldnt wait for this stuff in the mainstream media if I were you. I think any riggie worth his salt could understand that .

The people who brought you 9/11 and the TSA and all the rest of it wouldnt be involved in that by any chance woulld they?

Dont worry folks, weve got the likes of Wintler assuring us that ALL these instances and researchers are either con artists or indulging in a pile of duff pipedreaming because the big energy giants cant and wouldnt apparently surpress such stuff.

seriously LMFAO

Carry on...........

[wintler2]

the first time I posted something on this forum that featured the figure of 0.006 degree C per year of GW, you had this to say....

Link....Re: Coral reef bleaching goes global

..and all on 0.006 deg C per year!

..the only original text on your link is unsubstantiated, and contradicted by decades of satellite and surface measurements.

Well your 0.006 number was unsubstantiated - you don't substantiate your claims with links or context and you didn't explain your linear trend artifice in that post. You expect me to take you on trust?!! Not likely. And as DrEvil points out, the 0.006 number is simply wrong for recent decades.

But anyway, what is your point?

This is statistics for dummies.

I know, but i'm inclined to let BenD play it out, at least he's making a case .. i think.

[DrEvil]

@Slimmouse:
Soo.. You're saying we should all just stick our heads in the sand and pretend GW isn't happening? And then put our faith in the "Exotics" to come save the day (Assuming they all don't die under mysterious circumstances first)?
(Disclaimer : I'm not discounting exotic energy devices, there's plenty of intriguing research going on, like the Polywell or LENR, even though I'm very sceptical about Rossi's E-cat.)

Carry on....

[Elihu]

i think the blatantly telegraphed effort by the oil and coal majors (how many are there, 6-12?) to fund "denier" groups is all part of the ruse. "protect our profits through greed the planet be damned" generates a visceral reaction in the target audience and indirectly reenforces belief in ACC. these entities are so far beyond "business supplying customer with product". profits ceased to thrill a long time ago. all the regulations in the world are no threat to their business. they're into social engineering in concert now. the global regulatory pall of "individual, low and monitored energy consumption" is not going to affect them at all. if anything, it's going to dry like cement around their entrenched positions as global energy suppliers.

[slimmouse]

@Slimmouse:
Soo.. You're saying we should all just stick our heads in the sand and pretend GW isn't happening? And then put our faith in the "Exotics" to come save the day (Assuming they all don't die under mysterious circumstances first)?
(Disclaimer : I'm not discounting exotic energy devices, there's plenty of intriguing research going on, like the Polywell or LENR, even though I'm very sceptical about Rossi's E-cat.)

Carry on....

No , believe it or not Im actually saying we should assume it is. What really pisses me off about this entire debate is that one of the major framers of it, our good friend Wintler has incessantly poo pooed any suggestion that there are alternatives available.

I was reading a thread today, posted initially in 2008 about some guy claiming overunity from a battery device. 19 pages later and in 2012, he kept encountering problems about consistently proving the success of his efforts. In other words, some days it worked famously and other days it didnt. Something he simply couldnt fathom out. Not that this stopped him trying and trying to make this thing work consistently. 4 years later, here this guy is. I guess some funding might help ? Id gladly spend the God knows how many dollars ive spent in airfare excess taxes ( supposedly targetting the polluters LMFAO) on his genuine endeavours to bring some sanity to this world.

His of course is just one of a thousand examples.

I read another thread about the late Stan Meyer. Dissed as a con artist etcetera. Meanwhile the story of his court proceedings and the very nature of his involvement in the said proceedings sounded like a playbook for many of the "terrorist" trials we have heard of all to often recently. In short the whole thing smacked of a sting operation followed by a big fucking coverup. The only Cons involved were the cons who were employed to get him.

Ever look at big Oils shareholdings of motor companies ? Can you even begin to imagine a board meeting where they introduce some bright spark who has found a 500 mpg combustion chamber or worse ? ( as far as they are concerned )

As you well know, I recently posted a thread about gravity. I notice that you were the only one who even attempted a serious answer, which I think says plenty about the knowledge of this board vis a vi physics, chemistry and all the rest of it.

And yet here we are bickering about an argument , which sounds suspiciously as if it follows the MO of the usual suspects, and is framed yet again within their context.