Science disproves global warming

Full story: The Paradise Post

We have not heard much about global warming lately. Politicians and social engineers are no longer urging us to prepare for the worst.
Comments
1 - 20 of 5,237 Comments Last updated Mar 15, 2014
First Prev
of 262
Next Last
Brad Arnold

Chippewa Falls, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

13

9

9

The science of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere serving as a greenhouse gas was well established by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, so there is no valid argument that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not cause global warming.

"Long-time greens are painfully aware that the arguments of global warming skeptics are like zombies in a '70s B movie. They get shot, stabbed, and crushed, over and over again, but they just keep lurching to their feet and staggering forward. That's because -- news flash!-- climate skepticism is an ideological, not a scientific, position, and as such it bears only a tenuous relationship to scientific rules of evidence and inference." --David Roberts, The Nation, 24 February 2008
Gord

Calgary, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

10

6

6

Brad Arnold wrote:
The science of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere serving as a greenhouse gas was well established by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, so there is no valid argument that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not cause global warming.
"Long-time greens are painfully aware that the arguments of global warming skeptics are like zombies in a '70s B movie. They get shot, stabbed, and crushed, over and over again, but they just keep lurching to their feet and staggering forward. That's because -- news flash!-- climate skepticism is an ideological, not a scientific, position, and as such it bears only a tenuous relationship to scientific rules of evidence and inference." --David Roberts, The Nation, 24 February 2008
A re-post.

Greenhouse effect
"The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in the year 1858 and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in his 1896 paper."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effec...

The "atmospheric greenhouse effect" relies on Radiative Heat transfer from a Colder atmosphere to a Warmer Earth.
Radiative Heat Transfer is accomplished by propogating Electromagnetic Fields.

Fourier had no idea about Electromagnetic Physics when wrote his 1824 Paper.
Tyndall and Arrhenius did not use or understand Electromagnetic Field Physics either.
----------
Maxwell developed Electromagnetic Physics 40 years after Fourier's 1824 Paper.
The Stefan–Boltzmann Law was developed 50 years after Fourier's paper.

The result is that the work of Maxwell, Stefan and Boltzmann confirms the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

And, the 2nd Law completely destroys the myth of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect.

In fact, the AGW Greenhouse Effect VIOLATES:
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
The Law of Conservation of Energy
Electromagnetic Physics
Vector Mathematics
Actual Measurements

Like have stated, many, many times....there is absolutely no "established" Laws and/or Principles of Science that supports AGW.
Mark Schaffer

Las Vegas, NV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

5

4

3

Who are you going to believe? I think I will stick with the actual experts on climate and what all the science academies agree on as well as other rational types. See here:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/conse...
whoever

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

4

2

2

damn can't they find anything more interesting than
global warming articles to put in this podunk newspaper?, we already had this discussion, here we go again, more BS
davis creek local

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

4

3

2

thanks for the primer. very useful to those with open minds. there is also alot of good info of this type on junkscience.com . expect to see the greens get more and more violent, insulting, and in your face as more information against man caused, co2 caused global warming is put out there. anyone who is not a skeptic of something who's main spokesperson ( al gore ) has gotten rich off it is frankly as naaive as they come. like .......who's not aware that boone pickens is positioned to make billions if our natural gas usage doubled in the US?
cheers to you dick
davis creek local

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

and then you have brad up there with his ridiculous posting at the top. i mean, are you going to trust someone from a state who would elect a pro wrestler as gov. and then almost elect al franken to the us senate? now that's somehting to ponder.
Stan Hunter

Moreno Valley, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

1

Silva, why don't you put a stop to Little's incessant stupidity? He has made a career outmof GW, in spite of knowing less than nothing about it. Or anything else, for that matter.
Stan Hunter

Moreno Valley, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

2

davis creek local wrote:
and then you have brad up there with his ridiculous posting at the top. i mean, are you going to trust someone from a state who would elect a pro wrestler as gov. and then almost elect al franken to the us senate? now that's somehting to ponder.
As opposed to California's electing B actors...Reagan...and B Dancers...Murphy..
David Brinkley

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

5

4

3

This is just another example of Little's ignorance. Science has not dis-proven global warming, in fact there is more conclusive evidence of global warming every month. The overwhelming majority of the world's scientists agree that global warming exists and that it is a threat to life the way we know it today.

Little wants to create the illusion that there is a significant segment of the scientific community that believes that global warming doesn't exist. The fact is that the source of all his information comes from bodies that in one way or another are associated with and funded by the fossil fuel, agricultural or timber industries and that these sources are striving to delay action that would mitigate global warming so that their handlers can continue to profit at the expense of the earth's climate. They are simply focused on perpetuating a system that is doomed so that the corporations that they represent do not have to change their way of doing business.

Little likes to use buzz words and phrases that are calculated to infuriate the average reader. He knows better than what he is doing, but helping the rich, apparently, has it's rewards.

If you have doubts about what I say ask Mr Dick to point out exactly who finances the "reports" that he cites. You may be surprised.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Mark Schaffer wrote:
Who are you going to believe? I think I will stick with the actual experts on climate and what all the science academies agree on as well as other rational types. See here:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/conse...
You should try a better site, this is to pro GW as Junkscience.com is to the anti GW groups.

Balance views they ain't.

On the other hand there have been climatologists who have been stating the same thing based on historical climate cycles.

A good giveaway that your expert in science isn't an expert in science is the word consensus. Scientist deal in facts and theories, not having a consensus.
blahhh

West Des Moines, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

1

pink
Flipping Out

Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Nov 25, 2008
 
Dick, a very good article but I'm sorry to say you still have the same old "Dicks" out there who will never see the light of day. Does stan ring a bell??
Stan Hunter

Moreno Valley, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

2

1

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
You should try a better site, this is to pro GW as Junkscience.com is to the anti GW groups.
Balance views they ain't.
On the other hand there have been climatologists who have been stating the same thing based on historical climate cycles.
A good giveaway that your expert in science isn't an expert in science is the word consensus. Scientist deal in facts and theories, not having a consensus.
As usual, teeny, you again prove that you know very little about science. Scientists deal in far more than facts and theories. Facts and theories are a very high order, well above conjecture and hypotheses, for example. At these lower levls, there will be consensus. From this consensus, we can then advance to theories and facts.
Stan Hunter

Moreno Valley, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

1

Flipping Out wrote:
Dick, a very good article but I'm sorry to say you still have the same old "Dicks" out there who will never see the light of day. Does stan ring a bell??
Dick Little is going to educate me? How? With the lies and propoganda that Silva lets him publish on a regular basis? And what in the h-ll do you know about GW...other than the fact that you don't like it, dimwit?
MDJ

Georgetown, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

1

Stan Hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
As opposed to California's electing B actors...Reagan...and B Dancers...Murphy..
Here I thought you had gone into hibernation with all the other troll types. Lets see if you ahve any original insults. I'm still waiting for you to debate the facts... Oh thats right to have facts you have to first have a brain, sorry.
MDJ

Georgetown, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

1

Stan Hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
Dick Little is going to educate me? How? With the lies and propoganda that Silva lets him publish on a regular basis? And what in the h-ll do you know about GW...other than the fact that you don't like it, dimwit?
You're right, it is impossible to educate the genetically challenged. Shame about that "IQ" gene being MIA in your families gene pool. Too bad the darwin factor hasn't kicked in.
MDJ

Georgetown, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

1

Brad Arnold wrote:
The science of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere serving as a greenhouse gas was well established by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, so there is no valid argument that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not cause global warming.
"Long-time greens are painfully aware that the arguments of global warming skeptics are like zombies in a '70s B movie. They get shot, stabbed, and crushed, over and over again, but they just keep lurching to their feet and staggering forward. That's because -- news flash!-- climate skepticism is an ideological, not a scientific, position, and as such it bears only a tenuous relationship to scientific rules of evidence and inference." --David Roberts, The Nation, 24 February 2008
The nation is such an authoritative magazine. I'm sure they are right up there scientifically with the hard core "Dilbert" cartoons.
Jaime ONeill

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

3

1

1

MDJ employs the usual right wing reasoning techniques. If a fact is in evidence, and if the right wing finds that fact to be an inconvenient truth, then the only available ploy is to discount the source. The Nation is unreliable, as is The New York Times, The London Times, Harper's, The Atlantic, or any other information source except for Fox "News," of course.
Fortunately, the voters have decided they're tired of blind stupidity and have voted to go with intelligence for awhile and see how that works. After eight years of the right wing standard bearer we've had, it's likely to look like a pretty good option. We tried stupid, and look where that's gotten us.
MDJ? Does that stand for Mighty Dumb Jerk?

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

Jaime ONeill wrote:
Fortunately, the voters have decided they're tired of blind stupidity and have voted to go with intelligence for awhile and see how that works. After eight years of the right wing standard bearer we've had, it's likely to look like a pretty good option.
Obama won the election but it looks like Clintons’ 3rd term. Was there some sort of deal struck between the Clintons and Obama?
The logic guy

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Nov 25, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

So Lorne Gunter reported all this? I wonder if Lorne Gunter might be followng an agenda? Well, instead of considering the information, let's conisder the source:

Here are a few other comments by Lorne Gunter:

"Human rights commissions are the new Inquisitions."

"I have come to revile human rights commissions"

"Reformers believe the people should be the sovereigns in a democracy, while Tories cringe at the thought of sharing national decision-making with their children’s nanny, their chauffeur and secretary"

"Where once sovereign states were skeptical of surrendering sovereignty, social democratic governments (and often the bureaucracies serving conservative ones), especially in the developed world, have begun using the [United Nations/non-governmental-organ izations] nexus the way they use the courts: to effect changes to domestic public policy that would be difficult or impossible democratically. In other words, they use the UN and the NGOs to circumvent democracy."

"Stifling dissent and keeping secret its dealings with the United Nations are but two of the ways the Liberal government is using the international body and non-governmental organizations to engineer domestic and international policy"

"At the beginning of [former prime minister Pierre] Trudeau's career in federal politics, Canada was a nation governed largely by consensus. By the end, it had been transformed into a nation where everything -- politics, relations between the sexes, individual rights, court decisions, and so on -- everything, was about politics: Who had the power, and who could use it to force their ideas upon all the others."

Yes, I suspect this person has an agenda; he is an ultaconservative that dispises and attacks anything from beyond his realm of politcal thought that resembles facts, tolerance or an alternative world view. He peddles his opinions are facts and then sherry picks fringe thinkers are justification and support.

And you, Dick Little, keep your opinions out of my facts; keep your politics out of my science. And finally, in answer to your question; Why has the climate change conversation become silent? Because we are in the middle of global economic melt down and we just completed a presidential election.

Snap out of it, Bozo, try to think on your own.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 262
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••