Until we get a Carbon Tax, we haven't even started - Page 17 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15050328
Truth To Power wrote:Please provide evidence that this money went to Prof Gray.

Right. Same as the number on leprechaun climate change, and for the same reason: it is absurd nonsense beneath the notice of genuine climate scientists.

Because the question had already been settled by Angstrom, 100 before.

But little understanding of the underlying physics.

That is a despicable slander of a man whose shoes you are not fit to clean.

Because the question had already been settled by Angstrom, 100 before.

That is a despicable slander of a man whose shoes you are not fit to clean.


Let's add hero worship to your flaws. You think this man wasnt paid as an advisor and speaker by an organisation funded by the oil industry. The hypocrisy of claiming others are in it for money is clear.

He was a great researcher of hurricanes and discovered some important patterns throughout his career. However, his inability to cope with the information age is well documented. An old man in his seventies who couldn't get more research funding because his methods were outdated.

If you think Angstroms assistant could make more acturate measurements than today's scientists or even replicate the atmosphere at higher levels without the direct observations made in the 1950s then you really are deluded.

I've provided multiple papers that show evidence has moved understanding forwards since Angstrom. You are yet to counter any of them.

As promised, everytime you claim Angstrom has never been disproved I'll offer another paper showing his understand was incomplete and flawed..
Callendar, G.S. (1941). "Infra-Red Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, with Special Reference to Atmospheric Radiation." 

He proved that there are gaps in the absorbtion bands of H2O where CO2 is strongly absorbant. Again something Angstrom was ignorant of and yet you still want to hang your hat on his work.

You even claimed his experiments had been recently replicated successfully multiple times and yet still you provide no evidence to support this.

It's truly pathetic that you can't recognise what a fool you are making of yourself by seeing one set of 100 year old research as fact when the world is full of later evidence that provides better understanding of what is happening in our atmosphere. You are stuck in your cherry picking world having to deny anything that doesn't fit rather than looking at why that might be the case. You are in a trap of your own making.

Still waiting for your proof that you have a more detailed understanding of the absorption spectrum of molecules than the spectroscopy measurements stored in the HITRAN database that you previously tried to claim distorted the facts.
#15050339
Truth To Power wrote:
And were wrong.




No, they were right. Subsequent events prove that.

At that time, climate modelling, as we think of it now, was not within the reach of most scientists. Only DARPA and Exxon had the deep pockets needed to do the job properly. They both found warming independently.

Your source takes money from Big Oil. It doesn't do real science, it's a propaganda blog.

There was a big fight in climatology as to what was going on and why. That happened mostly in the late 80s and 90s. By the end of the millenium, the fight was over. Now there is no doubt.

At least not among the sane.
#15050346
late wrote:


Both programs that found warming were secret, at that time.

AND... there was only one scientific paper that found cooling. The two scientists that authored it had to retract the paper. They screwed up badly. You aren't talking about science, the media loved it and ran with it, and got a lot of mileage out of it.

I loved the retroactive bit. Where did you find that piece of idiocy. Or did you make it up?
1966 research by the Coal industry

James R. Garvey, who was the president of Bituminous Coal Research Inc., a now-defunct coal mining and processing research organization. 

“There is evidence that the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is increasing rapidly as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels,”
“If the future rate of increase continues as it is at the present, it has been predicted that, because the CO2 envelope reduces radiation, the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere will increase and that vast changes in the climates of the earth will result.” 
“Such changes in temperature will cause melting of the polar icecaps, which, in turn, would result in the inundation of many coastal cities, including New York and London,”

All the fossil fuel industry knew but suppressed it to avoid shooting the golden goose.
#15050349
BeesKnee5 wrote:
1966 research by the Coal industry

James R. Garvey, who was the president of Bituminous Coal Research Inc., a now-defunct coal mining and processing research organization. 

“There is evidence that the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is increasing rapidly as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels,”
“If the future rate of increase continues as it is at the present, it has been predicted that, because the CO2 envelope reduces radiation, the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere will increase and that vast changes in the climates of the earth will result.” 
“Such changes in temperature will cause melting of the polar icecaps, which, in turn, would result in the inundation of many coastal cities, including New York and London,”

All the fossil fuel industry knew but suppressed it to avoid shooting the golden goose.



I don't know about that. I do know a little about computer modelling. It's a bitch to do without computers. Preferably good ones.

In the 1970s, that was beyond the reach of most scientists. Which is why the only good work back then was done by DARPA and Exxon, and both were done in secret.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... years-ago/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... years-ago/
#15050350
Truth To Power wrote:That's just baldly false:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/ ... ot-a-myth/

In particular, see the spreadsheet of references -- 190 of them -- at the end..

Indeed
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/ ... ensus.xlsx

Look at the papers claimed to be showing cooling and then show me where in the actual paper that this is the case.
#15050401
BeesKnee5 wrote:Indeed
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/ ... ensus.xlsx

Look at the papers claimed to be showing cooling and then show me where in the actual paper that this is the case.

I will rely on the genius of President Trump and the will of God for my climate change authority.
Praise the Lord.
#15050412
late wrote:Nicely done.


Remember his original claim was that the scientist in the 1970s were unanimous.

I just love how he repeatedly provides evidence to disprove his own claim. Even WUWT could only achieve 52%-48% in the late seventies, and that's by including papers that weren't in peer reviewed literature.
#15050535
BeesKnee5 wrote:Remember his original claim was that the scientist in the 1970s were unanimous.

I just love how he repeatedly provides evidence to disprove his own claim. Even WUWT could only achieve 52%-48% in the late seventies, and that's by including papers that weren't in peer reviewed literature.

Peer reviewed literature is worthless on climate change. Climate change has been classified as an act of God by all insurance companies for many decades. So no pointy headed scientist is going to overrule the insurance companies or God.
Praise the Lord.
#15050566
Hindsite wrote:Peer reviewed literature is worthless on climate change. Climate change has been classified as an act of God by all insurance companies for many decades. So no pointy headed scientist is going to overrule the insurance companies or God.
Praise the Lord.


Climate change isn't classified as an act of God by insurance companies.

Acts of God are single unforeseen events, like lightning strikes and tornadoes. Not the climate as a whole

There is an important point here though, insurers are walking away from fossil fuels because there is an increasing amount of litigation against it and a recognition that fossil fuels contribute to an increasing amount of payout for natural disasters.
#15050574
BeesKnee5 wrote:Climate change isn't classified as an act of God by insurance companies.

Acts of God are single unforeseen events, like lightning strikes and tornadoes. Not the climate as a whole

Since you mentioned it, Insurance companies are paying for more things they used to classify as acts of God because of lawsuits. A tree in my backyard was hit by a lighting strike and it fell on my above ground swimming pool and State Farm Insurance paid for all but a $200 deductible.

But I still think climate change comes with the things that God created and put in place, like the sun, moon, winter, spring, summer, and fall. Those are clearly classified as acts of God, unless you are an atheist.
#15050576
Hindsite wrote:Since you mentioned it, Insurance companies are paying for more things they used to classify as acts of God because of lawsuits. A tree in my backyard was hit by a lighting strike and it fell on my above ground swimming pool and State Farm Insurance paid for all but a $200 deductible.

But I still think climate change comes with the things that God created and put in place, like the sun, moon, winter, spring, summer, and fall. Those are clearly classified as acts of God, unless you are an atheist.


If you beleive God is responsible for everything then everything is an act of God. So man burning fossil fuels and affecting the climate is an act of God and so is the harm that is caused by it. Blaming the sky fairy is a convenient way to absolve yourself of responsibility.

I wasn't going to mention that most policies don't have an act of God exclusion clause. It just seemed a bit cruel.
#15050579
BeesKnee5 wrote:If you beleive God is responsible for everything then everything is an act of God. So man burning fossil fuels and affecting the climate is an act of God and so is the harm that is caused by it. Blaming the sky fairy is a convenient way to absolve yourself of responsibility.

I wasn't going to mention that most policies don't have an act of God exclusion clause. It just seemed a bit cruel.

I don't believe God is responsible for everything and I did not say that. You used what is called a straw man fallacy.
#15050629
Hindsite wrote:I don't believe God is responsible for everything and I did not say that. You used what is called a straw man fallacy.


Where do you draw the line?

Your choices seem rather arbitrary.

Doesn't your God tell you?

Say a boat sinks or a plane crashes. Is it worth asking God to save you if the cause of the crash is an act of God?
#15050718
BeesKnee5 wrote:Where do you draw the line?

Your choices seem rather arbitrary.

Doesn't your God tell you?

Say a boat sinks or a plane crashes. Is it worth asking God to save you if the cause of the crash is an act of God?

I don't blame God for any of those things. However, it is always worth asking God to save you. Who knows when he might answer your prayer?
HalleluYah
#15050772
Hindsite wrote:I don't blame God for any of those things. However, it is always worth asking God to save you. Who knows when he might answer your prayer?
HalleluYah
You don't blame god for acts of God that result in ships sinking and planes crashing?

Do you blame him if the act of God doesn't cause a ship to sink?

Looks to me like you've tied yourself in knots trying to cherry pick what is and isn't the fault of your imaginary friend.
#15050922
BeesKnee5 wrote:You don't blame god for acts of God that result in ships sinking and planes crashing?

Do you blame him if the act of God doesn't cause a ship to sink?

Looks to me like you've tied yourself in knots trying to cherry pick what is and isn't the fault of your imaginary friend.

I never blame God, because I think everything God does is for a good purpose, even climate change.
Praise the lord.
#15050945
Hindsite wrote:I never blame God, because I think everything God does is for a good purpose, even climate change.
Praise the lord.


You don't call it blame, you call it Gods will. but it's the same thing, an invisible hand controlling events for a purpose. If it leads to people, animals and the environment coming to harm then by passing on the responsibility to a non entity and refusing to accept the evidence of human influence you can carry on burning fusil fuels.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
The Irishman...

Very few great actors are conservatives. The vast […]

No he wasn't. Hitler didn't even attend a meeting[…]

I have a suggestion to anyone reading that who is[…]

And that only makes sense if they had a common […]