A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I finally get it: If GW is not man-made, then God is punishingus with it



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 2nd 10, 03:02 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,uk.rec.cycling,misc.consumers.frugal-living
jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default I finally get it: If GW is not man-made, then God is punishingus with it

delboy wrote:
On 1 Feb, 16:24, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-
the-jungle wrote:

snip

I normally ignore anything written by the Tibetan Monkey, but this
tine I won't.

The history of the Earth is that the climate is somewhat variable due
to changes in its orbit, changes in the activity of the sun, volcanic
activity and large meteorite strikes (probably what wiped out the
large dinosaurs). There have been major Ice Ages when much of Europe
and North America were under many feet of ice, and Inter-Glacial
periods when tropical animals such as Hippos frolicked in the River
Thames in England. These episodes had nothing to do with human
activity!


Sure. So?

Between the 14th and 19th century there was a cold period known as the
Little Ice Age from which we are probably still emerging.


We are way warmer than anytime in the last million years.

We have only been able to accurately measure surface temperatures for
a few hundred years and Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the
atmosphere for a few tens of years. In the 20th century there was an
0.7 degree increase in average global temperature, accompanied by an
increase in CO2 levels of about 30% due to burning fossil fuels.


A good bit higher, and ice core data is fairly close. The relationship
between CO2 and the greenhouse effect is well established. Other gasses,
like methane, have larger GH potential, but they exist in much smaller
quantities and do not persist anywhere near as long.

In fact it is impossible to add 40% CO2 to the atmosphere and not have
warming.

Global temperatures now appear to have stopped rising. Indeed Northern
Europe had a particularly cold winter this year.



It's all about global averages. Do you really think that global
warming says that the earth warms uniformly, each year. In fact 2009 was
near (some say tied for) the warmest year on record, and for the
southern hemisphere, the warmest.

So, your argument is that because mother nature has natural cycles
that we should ignore the man made changes.

Certain scientists and universities have jumped on to the above
correlation between global temperatures and CO2 emissions to extract
funding (and personal wealth) from Governments for research into into
so-called 'Anthropenic Global Warming' (AGW). Governments in turn are
using AGW as an excuse to terrify, control and tax their citizens. In
the UK we have suffered massive increases in 'Carbon taxes' on motor
fuel and larger engined cars. A lot of our taxes are being given the
dodgy third world dictators to 'preserve the rain forests'. They will
probably just spend the money on weapons to subdue their own
populations and do nothing to preserve the rain forests! Atmospheric
CO2 is a food stuff for trees and plants, used in photosynthesis, by
the way,


Plants fed increased CO2 grow larger but have less nutritional value. A
net loss.

Warming the poles changes the steering currents of the jet stream,
leading to more erratic and extreme weather.

The arguments against global warming are of the same type, to cloud
and confuse, as those used against the smoking/cancer link. Or against
seat belt use (too costly), or so may others.

What we do is another matter, but the link is clear. Only those who
believe in fairy tales, like Intelligent Design or Trickle Down
Economics, disbelieve.

Jeff
Ads
  #2  
Old February 2nd 10, 04:20 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,uk.rec.cycling,misc.consumers.frugal-living
TheTibetanMonkey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 411
Default I finally get it: If GW is not man-made, then God is punishing uswith it

On Feb 2, 9:02*am, jeff wrote:
delboy wrote:
On 1 Feb, 16:24, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-
the-jungle wrote:

snip

I normally ignore anything written by the Tibetan Monkey, but this
tine I won't.


The history of the Earth is that the climate is somewhat variable due
to changes in its orbit, changes in the activity of the sun, volcanic
activity and large meteorite strikes (probably what wiped out the
large dinosaurs). There have been major Ice Ages when much of Europe
and North America were under many feet of ice, and Inter-Glacial
periods when tropical animals such as Hippos frolicked in the River
Thames in England. These episodes had nothing to do with human
activity!


* *Sure. So?



Between the 14th and 19th century there was a cold period known as the
Little Ice Age from which we are probably still emerging.


* We are way warmer than anytime in the last million years.



We have only been able to accurately measure surface temperatures for
a few hundred years and Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the
atmosphere for a few tens of years. In the 20th century there was an
0.7 degree increase in average global temperature, accompanied by an
increase in CO2 levels of about 30% due to burning fossil fuels.


A good bit higher, and ice core data is fairly close. The relationship
between CO2 and the greenhouse effect is well established. Other gasses,
like methane, have larger GH potential, but they exist in much smaller
quantities and do not persist anywhere near as long.

* In fact it is impossible to add 40% CO2 to the atmosphere and not have
warming.

Global temperatures now appear to have stopped rising. Indeed Northern
Europe had a particularly cold winter this year.


* It's all about global averages. Do you really think that global
warming says that the earth warms uniformly, each year. In fact 2009 was
near (some say tied for) the warmest year on record, and for the
southern hemisphere, the warmest.

* So, your argument is that because mother nature has natural cycles
that we should ignore the man made changes.



Certain scientists and universities have jumped on to the above
correlation between global temperatures and CO2 emissions to extract
funding (and personal wealth) from Governments for research into into
so-called 'Anthropenic Global Warming' (AGW). Governments in turn are
using AGW as an excuse to terrify, control and tax their citizens. In
the UK we have suffered massive increases in 'Carbon taxes' on motor
fuel and larger engined cars. A lot of our taxes are being given the
dodgy third world dictators to 'preserve the rain forests'. They will
probably just spend the money on weapons to subdue their own
populations and do nothing to preserve the rain forests! Atmospheric
CO2 is a food stuff for trees and plants, used in photosynthesis, by
the way,


Plants fed increased CO2 grow larger but have less nutritional value. A
net loss.

* *Warming the poles changes the steering currents of the jet stream,
leading to more erratic and extreme weather.

* *The arguments against global warming are of the same type, to cloud
and confuse, as those used against the smoking/cancer link. Or against
seat belt use (too costly), or so may others.

* *What we do is another matter, but the link is clear. Only those who
believe in fairy tales, like Intelligent Design or Trickle Down
Economics, disbelieve.

* *Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Oh thank you, brother. We have long suspected the correlation between
GW denial and the Christian SneakySnake.

Now, what were we saying about the overcrowded heavens. Who can deny
that!
  #3  
Old February 2nd 10, 04:39 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,uk.rec.cycling,misc.consumers.frugal-living
delboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 314
Default I finally get it: If GW is not man-made, then God is punishing uswith it

On 2 Feb, 14:02, jeff wrote:
delboy wrote:
On 1 Feb, 16:24, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-
the-jungle wrote:

snip

I normally ignore anything written by the Tibetan Monkey, but this
tine I won't.


The history of the Earth is that the climate is somewhat variable due
to changes in its orbit, changes in the activity of the sun, volcanic
activity and large meteorite strikes (probably what wiped out the
large dinosaurs). There have been major Ice Ages when much of Europe
and North America were under many feet of ice, and Inter-Glacial
periods when tropical animals such as Hippos frolicked in the River
Thames in England. These episodes had nothing to do with human
activity!


* *Sure. So?



Between the 14th and 19th century there was a cold period known as the
Little Ice Age from which we are probably still emerging.


* We are way warmer than anytime in the last million years.



We have only been able to accurately measure surface temperatures for
a few hundred years and Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the
atmosphere for a few tens of years. In the 20th century there was an
0.7 degree increase in average global temperature, accompanied by an
increase in CO2 levels of about 30% due to burning fossil fuels.


A good bit higher, and ice core data is fairly close. The relationship
between CO2 and the greenhouse effect is well established. Other gasses,
like methane, have larger GH potential, but they exist in much smaller
quantities and do not persist anywhere near as long.

* In fact it is impossible to add 40% CO2 to the atmosphere and not have
warming.

Global temperatures now appear to have stopped rising. Indeed Northern
Europe had a particularly cold winter this year.


* It's all about global averages. Do you really think that global
warming says that the earth warms uniformly, each year. In fact 2009 was
near (some say tied for) the warmest year on record, and for the
southern hemisphere, the warmest.

* So, your argument is that because mother nature has natural cycles
that we should ignore the man made changes.



Certain scientists and universities have jumped on to the above
correlation between global temperatures and CO2 emissions to extract
funding (and personal wealth) from Governments for research into into
so-called 'Anthropenic Global Warming' (AGW). Governments in turn are
using AGW as an excuse to terrify, control and tax their citizens. In
the UK we have suffered massive increases in 'Carbon taxes' on motor
fuel and larger engined cars. A lot of our taxes are being given the
dodgy third world dictators to 'preserve the rain forests'. They will
probably just spend the money on weapons to subdue their own
populations and do nothing to preserve the rain forests! Atmospheric
CO2 is a food stuff for trees and plants, used in photosynthesis, by
the way,


Plants fed increased CO2 grow larger but have less nutritional value. A
net loss.

* *Warming the poles changes the steering currents of the jet stream,
leading to more erratic and extreme weather.

* *The arguments against global warming are of the same type, to cloud
and confuse, as those used against the smoking/cancer link. Or against
seat belt use (too costly), or so may others.

* *What we do is another matter, but the link is clear. Only those who
believe in fairy tales, like Intelligent Design or Trickle Down
Economics, disbelieve.

* *Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Typical arguments from those who earn a living by studying AGW/Climate
Change, or believe that it is true. The climate change scientists have
been caught being selective with their data, or even making it up! Why
should we believe them?

Are you happy to pay much increased 'carbon taxes' to be given to
third world dictators as 'carbon offsets'? I'm not!

DC.
  #4  
Old February 2nd 10, 04:56 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,uk.rec.cycling,misc.consumers.frugal-living
TheTibetanMonkey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 411
Default I finally get it: If GW is not man-made, then God is punishing uswith it

On Feb 2, 10:39*am, delboy wrote:
On 2 Feb, 14:02, jeff wrote:


* *What we do is another matter, but the link is clear. Only those who
believe in fairy tales, like Intelligent Design or Trickle Down
Economics, disbelieve.


* *Jeff- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Typical arguments from those who earn a living by studying AGW/Climate
Change, or believe that it is true. The climate change scientists have
been caught being selective with their data, or even making it up! Why
should we believe them?

Are you happy to pay much increased 'carbon taxes' to be given to
third world dictators as 'carbon offsets'? I'm not!


To understand where the truth lies (or be able to tell the lies from
the truth) it helps to understand the metaphor of "MONEY JUNGLE." You
know full well that EVERYTHING is about MONEY in capitalism. For
example, you can NOT ride a bicycle in peace because it costs peanuts
to do so. It must be something BIG & WASTEFUL like an SUV to feed all
the predators out there, such as BIG OIL, etc...

Then it becomes obvious that the BIGGER MONEY is in denying man-made
Global Warming, which means it doesn't make a difference if you ride a
bicycle or not. But I don't expect the Christians and others who
believe in CONSPIRACY THEORIES to believe so. Tell you what: IT'S THE
JEWS WHO COOKED UP THE DATA TO CONTROL US.

Happy now?
  #5  
Old February 2nd 10, 05:51 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,uk.rec.cycling,misc.consumers.frugal-living
jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default I finally get it: If GW is not man-made, then God is punishingus with it

delboy wrote:
On 2 Feb, 14:02, jeff wrote:
delboy wrote:

snip

The arguments against global warming are of the same type, to cloud
and confuse, as those used against the smoking/cancer link. Or against
seat belt use (too costly), or so may others.

What we do is another matter, but the link is clear. Only those who
believe in fairy tales, like Intelligent Design or Trickle Down
Economics, disbelieve.

Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Typical arguments from those who earn a living by studying AGW/Climate
Change, or believe that it is true.


Except, I'm not. I didn't get my information out of the Telegraph or
some such either.


The climate change scientists have
been caught being selective with their data, or even making it up! Why
should we believe them?


The overall evidence is overwhelming. You are quibbling over details.
Even Dr Roy Spencer, Limbaugh's Expert, does not deny man made CO2 is
causing global warming. He only can argue the force of the effect.

Are you happy to pay much increased 'carbon taxes' to be given to
third world dictators as 'carbon offsets'? I'm not!


So much fear of what might happen, instead of what is happening.

Your side has abrogated the say in how to deal with this because they
are off in la la land living in denial of that which is only not real by
force of wishful thinking.

I'll tell you exactly what is the problem with Conservatives.

They hate government and want to break it. And when they are in power
that is what they deliver: broken government.

It's a one trick pony where *every* solution is less taxes, less
regulation and less government. To believe this, you have to deny
reality and push the blame off somewhere else.

In my country, we have seen exactly what faithfully following such
practices can lead to.

Jeff

DC.

  #6  
Old February 2nd 10, 06:06 PM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,uk.rec.cycling,misc.consumers.frugal-living
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 509
Default I finally get it: If GW is not man-made, then God is punishing uswith it

Two contrasting opinions. The shame is that one of them held power for
8 years...

People tend to focus on the here and now. The problem is that, once
global warming is something that most people can feel in the course of
their daily lives, it will be too late to prevent much larger,
potentially catastrophic changes.

ELIZABETH KOLBERT, The New Yorker, Apr. 25, 2005

Some of the scientists, I believe, haven’t they been changing their
opinion a little bit on global warming? There’s a lot of differing
opinions and before we react I think it’s best to have the full
accounting, full understanding of what’s taking place.

GEORGE W. BUSH, presidential debate, Oct. 11, 2000


  #7  
Old February 3rd 10, 12:20 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,uk.rec.cycling,misc.consumers.frugal-living
delboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 314
Default I finally get it: If GW is not man-made, then God is punishing uswith it

On 2 Feb, 16:51, jeff wrote:
delboy wrote:
On 2 Feb, 14:02, jeff wrote:
delboy wrote:

snip

* *The arguments against global warming are of the same type, to cloud
and confuse, as those used against the smoking/cancer link. Or against
seat belt use (too costly), or so may others.


* *What we do is another matter, but the link is clear. Only those who
believe in fairy tales, like Intelligent Design or Trickle Down
Economics, disbelieve.


* *Jeff- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Typical arguments from those who earn a living by studying AGW/Climate
Change, or believe that it is true.


Except, I'm not. I didn't get my information out of the Telegraph or
some such either.

* The climate change scientists have

been caught being selective with their data, or even making it up! Why
should we believe them?


The overall evidence is overwhelming. You are quibbling over details.
Even Dr Roy Spencer, Limbaugh's Expert, does not deny man made CO2 is
causing global warming. He only can argue the force of the effect.



Are you happy to pay much increased 'carbon taxes' to be given to
third world dictators as 'carbon offsets'? I'm not!


* So much fear of what might happen, instead of what is happening.

* *Your side has abrogated the say in how to deal with this because they
are off in la la land living in denial of that which is only not real by
force of wishful thinking.

* *I'll tell you exactly what is the problem with Conservatives.

* *They hate government and want to break it. And when they are in power
that is what they deliver: broken government.

* It's a one trick pony where *every* solution is less taxes, less
regulation and less government. To believe this, you have to deny
reality and push the blame off somewhere else.

* *In my country, we have seen exactly what faithfully following such
practices can lead to.

* *Jeff





DC.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Himalayan Glaciers are not Melting!

A pro climate change scientist recently claimed that all the Himalayan
glaciers would be gone by 2032, based on the 20th Century rate of
global warming. In fact these glaciers are not only holding their own,
but getting longer!

DC.
  #8  
Old February 3rd 10, 03:55 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,uk.rec.cycling,misc.consumers.frugal-living
jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default I finally get it: If GW is not man-made, then God is punishingus with it

delboy wrote:
On 2 Feb, 16:51, jeff wrote:
delboy wrote:
On 2 Feb, 14:02, jeff wrote:
delboy wrote:

snip






DC.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Himalayan Glaciers are not Melting!

A pro climate change scientist recently claimed that all the Himalayan
glaciers would be gone by 2032, based on the 20th Century rate of
global warming. In fact these glaciers are not only holding their own,
but getting longer!


Nope:

http://blog.taragana.com/science/201...-un-body-4218/

NEW DELHI - Himalayan glaciers are retreating, and small glaciers will
probably disappear by the end of the century, the UN body in charge of
the Himalayas said Friday.

It was commenting on another UN report that had admitted it blundered by
predicting disappearance of all Himalayan glaciers by 2035.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the UN is under
fire for having included in its 2007 report — without adequate peer
review — an assertion that glaciers in the Himalayas will disappear by
2035 due to global warming. It has since retracted the statement.

The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (Icimod),
however, supported the overall conclusions of the IPCC.

“We can state that the majority of glaciers in the region are in a
general condition of retreat, although with some regional differences;
that small glaciers below 5,000 metres above sea level will probably
disappear by the end of the century, whereas larger glaciers well above
this level will still exist but be smaller; and that deglaciation could
have serious impacts on the hydrological regime of the downstream river
basins,” it said in a statement.


Among many other articles...

On another note, there is increasing evidence that Sarah Palin's brain
is shrinking faster than anyone could have imagined:

http://trueslant.com/johnknefel/2010...her-haha-tear/

With the current rate of mental decline, analysts predicts she will will
be a shoe in for the 2012 GOP nomination.

Jeff

DC.

  #9  
Old February 3rd 10, 05:01 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,uk.rec.cycling,misc.consumers.frugal-living
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 509
Default I finally get it: If GW is not man-made, then God is punishing uswith it

On Feb 2, 9:55*pm, jeff wrote:
delboy wrote:
On 2 Feb, 16:51, jeff wrote:
delboy wrote:
On 2 Feb, 14:02, jeff wrote:
delboy wrote:
snip


DC.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Himalayan Glaciers are not Melting!


A pro climate change scientist recently claimed that all the Himalayan
glaciers would be gone by 2032, based on the 20th Century rate of
global warming. In fact these glaciers are not only holding their own,
but getting longer!


Nope:

http://blog.taragana.com/science/201...laciers-are-in...

NEW DELHI - Himalayan glaciers are retreating, and small glaciers will
probably disappear by the end of the century, the UN body in charge of
the Himalayas said Friday.

It was commenting on another UN report that had admitted it blundered by
predicting disappearance of all Himalayan glaciers by 2035.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the UN is under
fire for having included in its 2007 report — without adequate peer
review — an assertion that glaciers in the Himalayas will disappear by
2035 due to global warming. It has since retracted the statement.

The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (Icimod),
however, supported the overall conclusions of the IPCC.

“We can state that the majority of glaciers in the region are in a
general condition of retreat, although with some regional differences;
that small glaciers below 5,000 metres above sea level will probably
disappear by the end of the century, whereas larger glaciers well above
this level will still exist but be smaller; and that deglaciation could
have serious impacts on the hydrological regime of the downstream river
basins,” it said in a statement.



Among many other articles...

On another note, there is increasing evidence that Sarah Palin's brain
is shrinking faster than anyone could have imagined:

http://trueslant.com/johnknefel/2010...-palin-cant-na...

With the current rate of mental decline, analysts predicts she will will
be a shoe in for the 2012 GOP nomination.

* *Jeff



DC.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Hi IQ is not required for high office. It may be a hindrance. She only
needs to lead the sheep...

http://www.icelandicsheep.com/images...he_sheep_2.jpg

I wonder if they can also deny the extinction of species...

"The interaction between climate change and habitat loss might be
disastrous."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691268/
  #10  
Old February 3rd 10, 10:13 AM posted to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,uk.rec.cycling,misc.consumers.frugal-living
delboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 314
Default I finally get it: If GW is not man-made, then God is punishing uswith it

On 3 Feb, 04:01, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-
the-jungle wrote:

Hi IQ is not required for high office. It may be a hindrance. She (Sarah Palin) only
needs to lead the sheep...


I think George W. Bush has already proved that point!

DC
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Finally made my first vid! Jerrick Unicycling 1 December 14th 06 10:09 PM
Mistakes were made / I made a mistake [email protected] Racing 1 November 26th 06 08:58 AM
Finally my video is made! brownboy13 Unicycling 10 April 9th 06 01:10 PM
I finally made it out Mark McNeill UK 0 February 20th 05 07:10 PM
finally i have made the final uni trailer thinuniking Unicycling 18 December 3rd 03 11:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.