Must see Global Warming Hoax video. Global warming is finished.

sookie said:
All I have to say is that I just walked my dog. I had a short sleve shirt on and I could have worn sandles. This is not typical of NEW ENGLAND :)
Click to expand...

I dunno, I have seen warm days in December before, it usually doesn't get really cold until late Dec Early Jan.
 
Billy I know you live in New England too but this is a little too warm.
 
Global warming is not being helped by our presence on this planet, and you will be hard pressed to convince me otherwise.

Of course, I do think it is blown out of preportion (all of those disaster scenarios are not likely, and if so verrry far off into the future), but it is still occuring, slowly. There are other problem within the planet that are more dire. Working in the chemical field, that is the most apparent issue you to me. Global warming is a small environmental concern in comparision (and yes, I am an environmentalist).
 
ah hes a smart man! when the temperature of a body eg the earth gets warmer, it does emit more radiation, but there will also be more radiation absorbed by the atmosphere! he is twisting some science facts to fit his point of view and omitting important details!

I for one do not believe this man! I have studied atmospheric chemistry in college. I have used an infra red spectrometer which proves that CO2 does absorb IR radiation,

I will admit i did'nt watch the whole thing, but 1hr 24-1hr26 and I already found what he was doing and how he is twisting the data.

Good job!!! don't fall for it!
 
IndigoSensor said:
Global warming is not being helped by our presence on this planet, and you will be hard pressed to convince me otherwise.

Of course, I do think it is blown out of preportion (all of those disaster scenarios are not likely, and if so verrry far off into the future), but it is still occuring, slowly. There are other problem within the planet that are more dire. Working in the chemical field, that is the most apparent issue you to me. Global warming is a small environmental concern in comparision (and yes, I am an environmentalist).
Click to expand...


Thank-you for posting this.
 
IndigoSensor said:
Global warming is not being helped by our presence on this planet, and you will be hard pressed to convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...
Definitely not the mindset of a true skeptic.
A skeptic doesn't refuse to be convinced, he begs to be.
 
You're wrongly assuming that I am a skeptic, I am not. I am not a skeptic with anything really. I approach things with an opinion and reservations. You can call that wrong if you'd like, it's what works for me. You do not have to be a skeptic to have valid arguments and opinions.
 
Last edited:
sookie said:
Billy I know you live in New England too but this is a little too warm.
Click to expand...
Not really, I have seen days like this before years ago. I am willing to bet there were way hotter days than today long before as well. If you wanna do a lil homework on it ;)
 
I do have doubt associated with global warming, but it is false. I have seen and heard evidence, data, and opnions in the past that have proven to me otherwise.
 
smiffy said:
ah hes a smart man! when the temperature of a body eg the earth gets warmer, it does emit more radiation, but there will also be more radiation absorbed by the atmosphere! he is twisting some science facts to fit his point of view and omitting important details!

I for one do not believe this man! I have studied atmospheric chemistry in college. I have used an infra red spectrometer which proves that CO2 does absorb IR radiation,

I will admit i did'nt watch the whole thing, but 1hr 24-1hr26 and I already found what he was doing and how he is twisting the data.

Good job!!! don't fall for it!
Click to expand...
Can you provide evidence for him twisting facts?
 
Billy said:
Can you provide evidence for him twisting facts?
Click to expand...

he says there is a correlation with increasing surface temperature and outgoing radiation which is true! its in any physics text book.

He does'nt take into account that the greenhouse gases absorb these rays, so even though the output radiation may increase it doesn't mean the earths temperature wont rise.

the atmosphere is also thinner in some parts than others (another well known fact) where were the readings taken? readings from different positions above the earth will give you different results!

finally hes masking the fact that increased radiation output means the earth getting cooler! radiation output increasing is either (a) a sign that greenhouse gas concentration has decreased or (b) that the earth is warmer and is emitting more radiation!
 
smiffy said:
he says there is a correlation with increasing surface temperature and outgoing radiation which is true! its in any physics text book.

He does'nt take into account that the greenhouse gases absorb these rays, so even though the output radiation may increase it doesn't mean the earths temperature wont rise.

the atmosphere is also thinner in some parts than others (another well known fact) where were the readings taken? readings from different positions above the earth will give you different results!

finally hes masking the fact that increased radiation output means the earth getting cooler! radiation output increasing is either (a) a sign that greenhouse gas concentration has decreased or (b) that the earth is warmer and is emitting more radiation!
Click to expand...

But do you have proof of it, or do i just take you at your word?
 
Monckton tries to convince me, the viewer, to check. He then repeatedly points out that we don't know anything because we haven't been told. Ergo, he knows we can't check. And while I applaud his "think for yourself" skeptical approach and he tries to say he won't give us the answer, in the end he does. Knowing that we can't check, and that we need to be told what to think.

Why should I trust him? Particularly after he closes with this alarmist "world government imposing communism and bringing the death of democracy" bull. I happen to live in Europe, next to Germany. You know, that place where the Berlin wall fell and the commies came streaming in? And it's all BS.

He goes on and on about how the atheist, communist left is doing this? Well here's a fun factoid; since the turn of the millennium it's been the god-fearing conservatives who've gained ground and been in control of a lot of European governments. Not the liberals, the lefties, the green parties or the "commies". There goes that assumption. Then he goes and tours the US, which is really the only civilized western nation that will still believe this "the commies are after your democracy" bull, thanks to the neocons, and acts all alarmist.

I'm not sure if global warming is going to be an issue. At a guess I'd say no, but what do I know? Well, I do know one thing, that an alarmist is an alarmist, no matter which side of the debate he's on.
 
Billy said:
But do you have proof of it, or do i just take you at your word?
Click to expand...

point (1) the earth emits radiation proportional to its surface temperature

http://edmall.gsfc.nasa.gov/inv99Project.Site/Pages/science-briefs/ed-stickler/ed-irradiance.html

Using this law, the peak wavelength of radiation emitted from an object is inversely proportional to the temperature of the object. The irradiance or radiation output of an object can be calculated using the Stefan-Boltzman Law when the temperature is known.
Stefan-Boltzman Law: E =
symboll.jpg
theta.jpg
T4

E = Surface Irradiance of the object
*
symboll.jpg
= Emissivity of the object
theta.jpg
= Stefan-Boltzman Constant (5.67x10-8 W/m2K4 ) T = Temperature of the object
*Emissivity is the factor of how well a surface can absorb and emit energy. Emissivity numbers range from 0 to 1. Very black objects such as charcoal have an emissivity near 1 while shiny objects have an emissivity near 0.
The Wien Displacement & Stefan-Boltzman laws strictly apply only to black bodies. Black bodies are capable of absorbing and emitting radiation at all wavelengths. Because the Sun & Earth are not perfect black bodies, applying these laws to them only allows approximate values to be obtained. The fact that the Sun is not a perfect black body is especially important when studying solar cycles. The most significant variations in solar radiation during these cycles occur in the UV & X-Ray portions of the solar spectrum. In order to compare solar emissions to black body emissions at the same temperature go to the Solar Spectrum/Black Body Graph.
hey Billy heres a novel concept, heres a link giving anohter point of view differing to mine! it places less blame on CO2 and more on water vapour

http://nov55.com/ntyg.html

this link show CO2 as an IR absorber, read the conclusion

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm


finally

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00016.htm


this explains that even a small temp raise caused by CO2 can cause an increase in water vapour which absorbs more OR than Co2

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/


by having more water vapour in the air the earth heats up, but whats caused the water vapour to occur in the first place?

here you go

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

now read up and learn!!!
 
I'm sorry, but I don't consider a single video to be the end-all of scientific fact. I have experience with understanding issues, and it NEVER comes from a single source. I have seen quite enough about climate change to know that there is a possibility that it is natural and that it may be unnatural.

There may be scientific fact, studies, research, the whole she-bang. However, there is no way to tell what may be skewed, omitted, exaggerated, etc. Even if it was a total synopsis of everything science has found, science itself can often be distorted or controversial -- it's possibility, not truth.

More sources need to be weighed, compared/contrasted, and analyzed. There is not a clear consensus yet.
 
gloomy-optimist said:
I'm sorry, but I don't consider a single video to be the end-all of scientific fact. I have experience with understanding issues, and it NEVER comes from a single source. I have seen quite enough about climate change to know that there is a possibility that it is natural and that it may be unnatural.

There may be scientific fact, studies, research, the whole she-bang. However, there is no way to tell what may be skewed, omitted, exaggerated, etc. Even if it was a total synopsis of everything science has found, science itself can often be distorted or controversial -- it's possibility, not truth.

More sources need to be weighed, compared/contrasted, and analyzed. There is not a clear consensus yet.
Click to expand...

:m177:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top