Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Global Warming -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sageyrain who wrote (155)	6/24/2008 6:29:41 PM
From: sageyrain	Respond to of 185

And contrast that with this guy's propaganda, and you have a major lesson, for those with eyes to see: --- thestar.com TheStar.com \| World \| Earth near tipping point, climatologist warns Jun 24, 2008 04:30 AM Tim Harper WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON–James Hansen returned to Capitol Hill a hero yesterday, but certainly not a conquering hero. The soft-spoken scientist, hailed as the "whistle-blower for the planet,'' tried to quiet a standing ovation from environmentalists here with a typically blunt admonition. "It is not a time to celebrate,'' said Hansen, 20 years to the day since he became the first leading scientist to warn of the dangers of global warming before a congressional committee. more......

To: sageyrain who wrote (155)	6/24/2008 6:52:43 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 185

Gosh, 10 years, now that's a good sample, lol. So let's see, take the hottest year on record, measure from that to the present, and what do you get? C-O-O-L-I-N-G. That said, there are so many things happening that are consistent with long term warming that it is hard to believe that you people are still claiming otherwise. Most deniers or sceptics today are saying that yes, there has been warming but it isn't anthropogenically caused. Or it will be "good" for us and the planet. You know what, I have already had this discussion with other people, it is like arguing with Nixon supporters about his guilt or innocence before the tapes were listened to. I really don't want to have the same discussion over and over and over again.

To: sageyrain who wrote (155)	6/30/2008 10:40:40 PM
From: Archie Meeties	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 185

Still posting that same cherry picked time frame? The one that begins with the warmest year on record for the past few centuries?

To: sageyrain who wrote (155)	8/13/2008 9:05:55 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 185

You will never convince the mentally defective, the delusional and the con men selling carbon credits for profit. They are stuck seeing their cherry picked time frame showing CO2 driving climate. And the science of the black body radiation of the Earth is heating the sun. The cherry picked time are the few decades before the current. The CO2 models that predict a fingerprint that cannot be found are based upon a Frame Of Physics about how the Earth is heating the sun. One of the best overall true explanation in science. tsch.de Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics Version 2.01 (July 24, 2007) Abstract The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 oC is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.