Climategate - Page 54

Predictions Of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that human emission of CO2 causes catastrophic global warming. When such extraordinary claim is made, every one with background in science has to look at the data and verify whether the claim is justified or not. In this article, a mathematical model was developed that agrees with observed Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA), and its prediction shows global cooling by about 0.42 deg C until 2030. Also, comparison of observed increase in human emission of CO2 with increase in GMTA during the 20th century shows no relationship between the two. As a result, the claim by the IPCC of climate catastrophe is not supported by the data.

According to the Occams Razor principle, given a choice between two explanations, choose the simplest one that requires the fewest assumptions. Instead of applying the Occams Razor principle by assuming the cause of GMTA turning points to be natural, the IPCC assumed the cause to be man-made [9]

According to the IPCC and the above suggestion, the 1940 GMTA turning point from global warming to cooling was caused by sulfates, the 1970 GMTA turning point from cooling to warming was caused by carbon dioxide, and the 2000 GMTA turning point from warming to plateau was caused by sulfates. It is interesting to note that sulfate and carbon dioxide gave the globe a 30-year alternate cooling and warming phases from 1940 to 2000. This is just absurd.

Instead of saying, Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing! in private, but global warming is accelerating at a much faster pace in public, please release the world from the fear of climate catastrophe from use of fossil fuels, as this catastrophe is not supported by your own data. It is extremely callous not to do so.

Is the theory that human emission of CO2 causes catastrophic global warming one of the greatest blunders or something worse of science? We will find the unambiguous answer within the next ten years. Hope they dont succeed in calling the plant food a pollutant and tax us before then.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Wormhole, do you sell these?

Originally Posted by trumptman

Of course they are better. As a society we get much better use out of actual energy generated or products produced with coal and oil than we we do out of solutions to imaginary alarmism.

Originally Posted by Wormhole

We also get a lot more cancer, asthma, heart disease and autism, which is great! Gotta love it.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Please prove that we can use alternate energy sources to keep the same number of people living the same standard of living while ridding the world of all these various ailments.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Please prove that we can use alternate energy sources to keep the same number of people living the same standard of living while ridding the world of all these various ailments.

Originally Posted by Wormhole

We also get a lot more cancer, asthma, heart disease and autism, which is great! Gotta love it.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Um, lets just look at your premise.

Cancer, caused by oil and coal use.

Asthma, caused by oil and coal use.

Heart Disease, caused by oil and coal use.

Autism, caused by oil and coal use.

Originally Posted by tonton

I can see you failed logic 101.

He said "more".

Cancer, can be caused by oil and coal use. Check.
Asthma, can be caused by oil and coal use. Check.
Heart disease, can be caused by oil and coal use. Check.
Autism, can be caused by oil and coal use. Admittedly under debate.

This is exactly the same thing as the GW argument...

We say that humans can have an impact on the climate.
In return, you lie and make it sound as though we implied that "only" humans have an impact on the climate.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

My response was very clear. No lying. And he did not just say more, he said "A LOT MORE". The premise he used was weak. Stopping oil and coal use would have limited if any effect on most of the conditions he mentioned. Perhaps I should have been more forthright. There are more pressing issues that cause the conditions he is claiming that nobody cares about.

Originally Posted by Wormhole

____________________________
||||||
____________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________ There you go, the proof you requested.

Originally Posted by Wormhole

What standard of living is it you are referring to.

Originally Posted by tonton

I can see you failed logic 101.

He said "more".

Cancer, can be caused by oil and coal use. Check.
Asthma, can be caused by oil and coal use. Check.
Heart disease, can be caused by oil and coal use. Check.
Autism, can be caused by oil and coal use. Admittedly under debate.

This is exactly the same thing as the GW argument...

We say that humans can have an impact on the climate.
In return, you lie and make it sound as though we implied that "only" humans have an impact on the climate.

Originally Posted by Wormhole

One single case of heart disease less will save about $ 500,000 in health care cost.

People who live near freeways, near train depots and such have the highest amount per capita in heart disease.
Breathing Diesel particulates = eating grease.
Mira Loma in CA is the most polluted city on the planet, asthma among children is skyrocketing.
During the no fly days after 9/11 the delta of temperature between night and day increased by 5 degrees. Turns out the vapor trails of airplanes keep the earth from cooling during the night.

Ever been to Chicago when there was a "Ozone Alert" and people are asked to stay indoors?

I know this is what Humpdy Trumpty means with standard of living. It would be against god to develop new technologies that would improve our standard of living.

But now due to the F#$$@^$#^$ climate deniers we have to license the patents from Germany and China.

Originally Posted by Wormhole

One single case of heart disease less will save about $ 500,000 in health care cost.

People who live near freeways, near train depots and such have the highest amount per capita in heart disease.
Breathing Diesel particulates = eating grease.
Mira Loma in CA is the 4th most polluted city on the planet (after Jakarta), asthma among children is skyrocketing.

During the no fly days after 9/11 the delta of temperature between night and day increased by 5 degrees. Turns out the vapor trails of airplanes keep the earth from cooling during the night.

Ever been to Chicago when there was a "Ozone Alert" and people are asked to stay indoors?

I know this is what Humpdy Trumpty means with standard of living. It would be against god to develop new technologies that would improve our standard of living.

But now due to the F#$$@^$#^$ climate deniers we have to license the patents from Germany and China.

I need to add that Ford and GM are licensing hybrid technology from Toyota. So even if you buy a Ford or GM hybrid Toyota is making $. This is due to the idiots who abandoned E car production to built Hummers instead.

Originally Posted by trumptman

a weird piece of ascii art?



The standard of living that while including tradeoffs, allows 6 billion people to live on this planet and 300 million to live in the united states in their current conditions.



The rates have risen but then again so has the ability to diagnose, treat, awareness and life expectancy to allow such things to occur.

It is a moving goal post. Grandpa's life expectancy a couple generations ago was barely 65. Now it is an average of 76 and gee, somewhere in those last newly acquired 11 years there might be more heart disease or cancer.

That's called a trade off. Guess what, as we have more people living into their 80's and 90's, we have increased rates of dementia and alzheimer's disease.

It's almost like... Gasp, we are in uncharted waters and can't magically just arrive at utopia by fiat.

Btw, if you ever want to see some truly nasty chemical processes, look at the chemicals and waste from semiconductors, batteries and other associated "green" items.



First the u.s. Standards for diesel fuel use are much higher than those in europe where diesel use is much higher. We have demanded cleaner systems and low sulfer systems in terms of diesel being dirty. Second, take the same number of people, and have them rely on wind and solar power in the same area and have everything delivered by bike and watch them all die. There is a reason we use fossil fuels and if they could be easily replaced, we would do it. The most easily stored form of dense non-volatile energy we have is fossil fuels.

People like yourself should just admit they are advocating genocide. You'll sacrifice a couple billion human beings and consider it the ends that justify the means for your green utopian religion. Stop being a fanatic and realize that we could save plenty of costs by your insane reasoning if we just plugged them with bullets and killed them instead of treating them as well. Only we won't do that because that would be genocide. Likewise we don't just turn off oil and turn on something else that has a magitude of order lower ability to deliver or store energy because we don't want people dead. Since you continue to advocate for it, clearly you do want them dead.

We won't give up energy solutions that keep them alive even if minute percentages of them suffer some trade-offs that may or may not be associated the actual use of said products, but may actually just be the numbers running on an entire population that can afford diagnose, treat, discover and deal with an entire population living longer and better.

We can see the number of dead going up with the cost of heating oil in the winter or the lack of air conditioning in the summer. Prove that you can hand them the alternatives and not increase the death rate. It can't be done so what you advocate is genocide.

Originally Posted by Wormhole

yes i want genocide.

Originally Posted by Wormhole

yes i want genocide.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

But I bet you will charge Republicans more for it right?

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Can save...



Any links to your evidence of the links to oil and coal? All of this is interesting and sad as well, but there are no supporting facts to the basic premise.



From which measuring stations? The ones at the airports? While the planes were not running...



Not while one happened in Chicago, So-Cal, yes...



Ask him... Directly.



If you feel that businesses are being stupid, talk to the businesses. The people do not block them from innovating. If the are incapable of innovation and forward thinking then they deserve to fall behind. They had all the same market dynamics as Toyota and others and they failed to act. Study after study found that CUP HOLDERS were more important than fuel economy. Meanwhile, I and many others REFUSE to buy the gas guzzlers and tell the companies the make a better, more efficient car. And what is the result, Ford, GM and Chrysler all nearly folded. Climate skeptics are not responsible for this, the companies themselves are. Your anger is misplaced here.

Originally Posted by Wormhole

Climate Skeptics?
You are skeptic of climate?

That's some funny shit boy.

Originally Posted by Wormhole

Yes, of course Genocide is very expensive. We may have to raise taxes on Republicans.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

You have already worked out how to profit from this? Got your business plan down?

Originally Posted by trumptman

Thanks for admitting the truth and also for the new sig.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I wasn't aware that people of your persuasion considered genocide nothing more than just original thought. Most of us would consider it a repulsive crime, but if you want to declare it "original thought" go ahead. I'm sure you'll improve the "quality of life" for those cancer patients by exterminating them instead. Likewise I have no doubt that when you are so quick to judge those who disagree with you as intellectually inferior, you'll have no trouble stripping their rights away or treating them in a subhuman manner.

The reasoning shown by you is the same reasoning that justified slavery and Jews being burned in ovens. If that is original thought, you can keep it.

Originally Posted by Wormhole

Who was it who posted about Genocide related to people advocating development of sustainable energy sources?
Wormhole...? NO
It was you my friend.

I gave an appropriately insane answer to a post from a radical.

________________

___________________________

________________

Originally Posted by trumptman

It is rare people on the left consider the consequences of their desires. To them, good intentions are better than even good outcomes.

I merely asked you to consider the outcome.

You not only considered it, you endorsed it.

Those words, quoted now, are yours alone.

Enjoy.

Originally Posted by Wormhole

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________
I will, thank you!
__________________________________________________ _________
I can feel your agony. Loosing is hard.
________________________

_______ ____________________
No you can't snort those.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Any links to your evidence of the links to oil and coal? All of this is interesting and sad as well, but there are no supporting facts to the basic premise.

Originally Posted by tonton

To be honest, the reason Mira Loma is so polluted has very little to do with oil and gas exhausts and everything to do with the dumping of toxic waste that occurred during the 1970's.