Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30878 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.

ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#30886 Jan 13, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Still having trouble with the blanket concept, I see.
Down south, when speaking of some poor soul who's a little slow, we just say "Bless his heart".
Bless your heart.
Like I told your AGW CULT MEMBER BUDDY, "factologist":

There is ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of "the Earth's atmosphere acts as a blanket and helps to keep the Earth from loosing heat to space" ANYWHERE in the IPCC AR4 report or ANY AGW PAPER by ANY of your "so called AGW scientists"......YOU IDIOT.

What a HOOT, but typical for AGW CULT MEMBERS like YOU to not even have a CLUE what is in your AGW QUACK BIBLE, called the IPCC AR4 REPORT!
----------
I have explained EXACTLY how the QUACK AGW "scientists" and the IPCC AR4 REPORT QUOTES describes the Fantasy Greenhouse Effect about a 1000 times now.

Greenhouse Effect: Back Radiation from a Average -20 deg C Atmosphere to a +15 deg C Earth Surface where the Back Radiation is absorbed causing the Earths Surface to warm.
----------
Why don't YOU post the reason why YOU continually refuse to accept the IPCC AR4 REPORT "CRAP science" and always make up your own "Blanket Theory" CRAP?

Where did you read about your "Blanket Theory" CRAP and WHAT IPCC PAPER is it in?

What a HOOT!
PHD

Overton, TX

#30887 Jan 13, 2013
pinheadlitesout wrote:
<quoted text>
Altho I have too many posts, I"pinheadlitesout" never have much useful information to share.
Must be that terrible wreck you were involved in. Get that check up from the neck up before it’s too late.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#30888 Jan 13, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I told your AGW CULT MEMBER BUDDY, "factologist":
There is ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of "the Earth's atmosphere acts as a blanket and helps to keep the Earth from loosing heat to space" ANYWHERE in the IPCC AR4 report or ANY AGW PAPER by ANY of your "so called AGW scientists"......YOU IDIOT.
What a HOOT, but typical for AGW CULT MEMBERS like YOU to not even have a CLUE what is in your AGW QUACK BIBLE, called the IPCC AR4 REPORT!
----------
I have explained EXACTLY how the QUACK AGW "scientists" and the IPCC AR4 REPORT QUOTES describes the Fantasy Greenhouse Effect about a 1000 times now.
Greenhouse Effect: Back Radiation from a Average -20 deg C Atmosphere to a +15 deg C Earth Surface where the Back Radiation is absorbed causing the Earths Surface to warm.
----------
Why don't YOU post the reason why YOU continually refuse to accept the IPCC AR4 REPORT "CRAP science" and always make up your own "Blanket Theory" CRAP?
Where did you read about your "Blanket Theory" CRAP and WHAT IPCC PAPER is it in?
What a HOOT!
You have explained to us exactly how you think that putting on a coat will keep you cool.

Bless your heart.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#30889 Jan 13, 2013
Here is GordSuxObama explaining why you get cold as you put on more clothes:

“The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m^2, and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.Skin
temperature is about 33 deg C, but clothing reduces the surface temperature to about 28 deg C when the ambient temperature is 20 deg C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about Pnet = 100 W.”
http:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_ body

Did you get that? The human body’s surface temperature DROPPED from +33 deg C to +28 deg C!

I will repeat it AGAIN, The human body’s surface temperature DROPPED from +33 deg C to +28 deg C!

Blankets can’t increase a human body’s surface temperature of +33 deg C because the body has to supply heat energy to the colder blanket to increase it’s temperature.

The result is a DROP in the human body’s surface temperature down from +33 deg C to +28 deg C!

As GordSuxObama's server area is around Calgary, Canada, I would guess he has to run around naked up there just to keep warm. His own science tells us that if he puts on a coat, he will freeze to death.

Bless his heart.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#30891 Jan 13, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that you Gord? Or is it Digital Pee?
Taking a break from masturbating? Or did you just get out of the county jail?
You're right, we've all been here before with this nut job. Time to stop humoring him! He's just after the attention.Like if he thinks shite is chocolate pie and wants to take a bite, let him.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#30892 Jan 13, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>You're right, we've all been here before with this nut job. Time to stop humoring him! He's just after the attention.Like if he thinks shite is chocolate pie and wants to take a bite, let him.
I always ignore most of his posts, but I also have to remind him occasionally of how stupid he is. He forgets.

Bless his heart.
2 manygoats

Albuquerque, NM

#30893 Jan 13, 2013
Numb skulls on this site may lead to a name change......way 2 many goats.
Those who do not take AGW seriously cannot be taken seriously.http://www.acclimati se.uk.com/index.php?id=9&s ection=blog&blog=406#
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#30894 Jan 14, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Here is GordSuxObama explaining why you get cold as you put on more clothes:
“The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m^2, and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.Skin
temperature is about 33 deg C, but clothing reduces the surface temperature to about 28 deg C when the ambient temperature is 20 deg C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about Pnet = 100 W.”
http:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_ body
Did you get that? The human body’s surface temperature DROPPED from +33 deg C to +28 deg C!
I will repeat it AGAIN, The human body’s surface temperature DROPPED from +33 deg C to +28 deg C!
Blankets can’t increase a human body’s surface temperature of +33 deg C because the body has to supply heat energy to the colder blanket to increase it’s temperature.
The result is a DROP in the human body’s surface temperature down from +33 deg C to +28 deg C!
As GordSuxObama's server area is around Calgary, Canada, I would guess he has to run around naked up there just to keep warm. His own science tells us that if he puts on a coat, he will freeze to death.
Bless his heart.
What a HOOT!

As usual, you AGW IDIOTS have ZERO understanding of The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, The Stefan-Boltzmann Law, The Law of Conservation of Energy and refuse to believe ALL ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS that have been done over the last 100 years that verfify these FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF SCIENCE.

Human body emission

“The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m^2, and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.Skin temperature is about 33 deg C, but CLOTHING REDUCES THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE to about 28 deg C when the ambient temperature is 20 deg C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about Pnet = 100 W.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radia...

The above is based on Physics and ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS, you IDIOT.

The Wiki reference is "Theoretical Prediction and Measurement of the Fabric Surface Apparent Temperature in a Simulated Man/Fabric/Environment System".
----------
If you think a "Blanket" has the power to INCREASE a BODY's temperature, then it HAS TO BE AN ENERGY SOURCE.

Show us your MAGIC BLANKET that CREATES ENERGY ???

It only exists in your very WEAK and CONFUSED AGW CULT MIND.
----------
Measure the temperature of a bottle of water.

Wrap the bottle of water in a blanket and measure the water temperature after 5 min.

Do you really think the water temperature will increase ???

HAHAHA...you AGWers are SO STUPID.

Here is another experiment for you to try.

The Microprocessor in your Computer is covered by something called a HEAT SINK.

According to your delusional AGW mind, that Heat Sink MUST BE heating up the microprocessor, so why not remove it to COOL the Microprocessor ??

Let us know how that works out for you AGW IDIOTS!
----------
I wonder why the MENTAL AGW CULT GIANTS, "gcaveman1" and "factologist" refuse to comment on:

- The ACTUAL IPCC AR4 REPORT quotes about:
Greenhouse Effect: Back Radiation from a Average -20 deg C Atmosphere to a +15 deg C Earth Surface where the Back Radiation is absorbed causing the Earths Surface to warm.

- The IPCC QUACK AGW "scientists", in their JUNK SCIENCE DIAGRAM, shows EXPLICITLY that BACK RADIATION of 324 w/m^2 from the COLD ATMOSPHERE is being ABSORBED by and is HEATING-UP the MUCH WARMER EARTH SURFACE.

- The FACT that the IPCC AR4 REPORT NEVER, EVER mentions that "the Earth's atmosphere acts as a blanket and helps to keep the Earth from loosing heat to space"

- The FACT that none of these AGW CULT IDIOTS will talk about THEIR "Blanket Theory" CRAP and WHAT IPCC PAPER is it in.

That's HILARIOUS!!....but EXPECTED from the AGW CULT.
PHD

Overton, TX

#30895 Jan 14, 2013
More cut and paste useless babble.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#30896 Jan 14, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>

Here is another experiment for you to try.
The Microprocessor in your Computer is covered by something called a HEAT SINK.
According to your delusional AGW mind, that Heat Sink MUST BE heating up the microprocessor, so why not remove it to COOL the Microprocessor ??
Let us know how that works out for you AGW IDIOTS!
I'll tell you how that works out, you idiot. A heat sink is a conductor of heat whereas a blanket is an insulator, you moron. The heat sink conducts heat away from the chip into the surrounding air much easier than the chip can, you stupid moron. A blanket, being an insulator, would insulate the chip from the surrounding air and prevent it from loosing heat.
You are truly stupid about heat!
A Gorey

Chicago, IL

#30897 Jan 14, 2013
Global Warming does my bank account good.
2 manygoats

Albuquerque, NM

#30898 Jan 14, 2013
Hey SUX.....how'd you get that name?
Did your husband give it to you?
Sounds stupid to me, but probably fits you well based on the nonsense you come up with.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#30899 Jan 14, 2013
That poster had to change his name over the months or years. Gord, digital, etc now o'sux.

He must be well-paid based on his damage on science and peace.
PHD

Overton, TX

#30900 Jan 14, 2013
No reason to fabricate stuff up because global warming is all about the money.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#30901 Jan 14, 2013
PHD wrote:
No reason to fabricate stuff up because global warming is all about the money.
You mean the misinformation campaign on global warming is bought and paid for by the oil, coal, and utility companies.

Several skeptical scientists-Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels-have been linked to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism Similarly, groups employing global warming skeptics, such as the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies.

the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (an energy cooperative that draws a significant portion of its electricity from coal-burning plants) donated $100,000 to Patrick Michaels and his group, New Hope Environmental Services, and solicited additional private donations from its members.

The Union of Concerned Scientists have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air'that criticizes ExxonMobil for "underwriting the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry" and for "funnelling about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue."

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a skeptic group, when confronted about the funding of a video they put together ($250,000 for "The Greening of Planet Earth" from an oil company) stated, "We applaud Western Fuels for their willingness to publicize a side of the story that we believe to be far more correct than what at one time was 'generally accepted.'

++++++++++

If it were for money, climatologists would have rushed to make the George Bush administration happy.(You DO realize the President appoints almost all the heads of federal agencies. Only a small number of agencies report to Congress, instead of the President.)

Political pressure on scientists
Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change','global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of a former oil-industry lobbyist.[196] In June 2008, a report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that NASA staff appointed by the White House had censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order to protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election.[197]

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

So, yeah -- we can follow the money. I suspect it is not what your FOX pundits are telling you, am I right?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#30902 Jan 14, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
That poster had to change his name over the months or years. Gord, digital, etc now o'sux.
He must be well-paid based on his damage on science and peace.
Ahh, thanks. That explains why there are 2 nut cases here that argue CO2 does not cause any global warming. i.e, they are the same person.

Obvious he is trying to hide the fact he has NO science background or understanding -- and doesn't care.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#30903 Jan 14, 2013
PHD wrote:
No reason to fabricate stuff up because global warming is all about the money.
Correction: The global warming misinformation machine -- essentially funded by oil, coal, and utility companies -- is all about the money.

Several skeptical scientists-Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels-have been linked to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism Similarly, groups employing global warming skeptics, such as the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies.

the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (an energy cooperative that draws a significant portion of its electricity from coal-burning plants) donated $100,000 to Patrick Michaels and his group, New Hope Environmental Services, and solicited additional private donations from its members.

The Union of Concerned Scientists have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air'that criticizes ExxonMobil for "underwriting the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry" and for "funnelling about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue."

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a skeptic group, when confronted about the funding of a video they put together ($250,000 for "The Greening of Planet Earth" from an oil company) stated, "We applaud Western Fuels for their willingness to publicize a side of the story that we believe to be far more correct than what at one time was 'generally accepted.'

++++++++++

If it were for money, climatologists would have rushed to make the George Bush administration happy.(You DO realize the President appoints almost all the heads of federal agencies. Only a small number of agencies report to Congress, instead of the President.)

Political pressure on scientists
Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change','global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of a former oil-industry lobbyist.[196] In June 2008, a report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that NASA staff appointed by the White House had censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order to protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election.[197]

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

So, yeah -- we can follow the money. I suspect it is not what your FOX pundits are telling you, am I right?
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#30904 Jan 14, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
Obvious he is trying to hide the fact he has NO science background or understanding -- and doesn't care.
At least, 4 toxic topix AGW deniers have no hi skule deegreee. Many more toxic topix AGW deniers have no upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in their hi skule deegreee. Few have college degree. Only a couple of occasional posters(not posted in AGW forums for a year) STATED they have degrees in science or mathematics. The poster named PhD has nothing, but HAS earned the accurate name,'phud fetid feces face'.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#30905 Jan 14, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
Correction: The global warming misinformation machine -- essentially funded by oil, coal, and utility companies -- is all about the money.
Several skeptical scientists-Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels-have been linked to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism Similarly, groups employing global warming skeptics, such as the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies.
Do you have affiliation with Wallops Island NASA?
GeneLuna

Riverside, CA

#30906 Jan 14, 2013
It's been so cold lately, I wonder if I can burn my carbon credits to keep warm!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Bill Richardson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Charges against official fuel state's corruptio... Wed fatbacksx 1
News Sheldon Adelson, Bill Richardson help Sen. Robe... Jul '15 Sterkfontein Swar... 1
News Gross receipt tax increase fails to pass Jun '15 Ralph 6
News Papers of Bill Richardson donated to University... Mar '15 otherpaper 2
News Columnist Navarrette: Sen. Ted Cruz Is 'Authent... (Jan '15) Jan '15 wild child 4
News Bill Richardson: Susana Martinez Will Lose (Oct '14) Oct '14 Quirky 5
News Republican Martinez claims NM governor's seat (Nov '10) Oct '14 Santa Fe looker 233
More from around the web