 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 574/600) |
|
Mickey_Moose
|
MAY 30, 02:57 PM
|
|
|
|
|
spark1
|
JUN 01, 12:27 AM
|
|
Just noticed this one in a blog by the former editor of a local newspaper on May 22, 2016.
Although no one mentioned this, it seems to me that the Portland schools now face a problem: What to do with books and other material doubting that mankind's use of fossil fuels is mainly responsible for climate change. I suggest a solution in the spirit of the Portland School Board's decision last week to ban such material from the schools: Have students pile up the offending books in a great big heap and set them on fire.
Actually, it's kind of surprising that school books still have not fallen completely into line. Yet, as one person complained to the Portland board, there are still too many books that use words like "may" and "might" to describe what fossil fuels are doing to the climate. And that allows for too much freedom of thought.
Burning books used to be the approved method in totalitarian systems of getting rid of ideas running counter to the prevailing ideology. And presumably Portland school children, brought up in a system that would yield such a decision by a unanimous board, would be enthusiastic about putting to the torch the output of enemies of the state.
Enemies of the state? Sure, that's how some people in government and academia now regard anyone who questions the tenets of the global warming religion. There have been calls, isolated so far, to put climate change skeptics in jail. The attorney general of the United States has asked the FBI to investigate whether Exxon could be prosecuted for misleading the public about climate change. The attorney generals of New York, California and other states are suing the energy company. The attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands has served a subpoena on a non-profit organization keeping the climate debate alive.
We are told that 97 percent of scientists think we're to blame for global warming and we must do something to prevent a catastrophe. The 97 percent assertion has been debunked. But even if it were true, even if 100 percent of all scientists were on board with the theory as proven beyond any doubt, would that be a reason to shut up, shout down and even prosecute and possibly jail anyone who raised questions?
You'd think that if the science were so convincing, it could stand on its own. Its supporters would not have to resort to prosecuting those who dare to have other ideas.
Totalitarian societies typically do their best to suppress free speech and free inquiry in science. That seems to be where we are heading now. It's sad that the school board in Oregon's biggest city is making the place sound like the People's Republic of Portland. (hh)[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 06-01-2016).]
|
|
|
|
avengador1
|
JUN 02, 09:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
JUN 03, 03:33 AM
|
|
Okay just for fun,
Coke claims
- 1.2 billion 8 ounce servings of their
product are consumed daily worldwide.
and an
- 18% share of the soda, pop, cola or
non-alcoholic carbonated beverage consuming
market.
How much CO2 is in the average 8 ounce serving?
This guy has done some math and believes :
| quote | | General estimates have placed a can of Coca-Cola to have 2.2 grams of CO2 in a single can. As a can is around 12 fluid ounces, or 355 ml |
|
about 29.6 mil per 1 ounce
multiplied by 8 ounces = 236.8 mil per 8oz serving.
coke claims 18% market share with 1.2 billion 8 ounce
servings consumed daily.
(1,200,000,000 * 236.8 mil = 9,600,000,000 mil of co2)
9,600,000,000 mil of co2 converted to metric tonnes
Approximately 30,000,000 metric tonnes
30,000,000 metric tonnes of co2 (only 18% of the market)
That about 1,600,000 metric tonnes for ever 1% of the global
market.
100% of the market would contain 160,000,000 million metric tonnes
per day. multiplied by 365 days = 58,400,000,000 metric tonnes of co2.
58.4 billion metric tonnes.
A Popular Global warming website claims that humans
have an output of 29 gigatons of CO2 (29 billion tons)
All cola drinkers consume a combined
58 billion metric tonnes of co2.
All human output is 29 billion tons.
29 billion tons converts to 26.31 billion metric tonnes.
Human Release ________ 27 billion metric tonnes
Human Absorption ______ 58 billion metric tonnes
Human Carbon foot print - 31 billion metric tonnes
So have a cola and a smile. When someone gives
you grief about drinking pop, shake, point, pop and
share..... 
|
|
|
|
avengador1
|
JUN 28, 08:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUN 28, 09:06 PM
|
|
The YourNewsWire report is dated September 29, 2015.
It's about a letter of resignation from a UC Santa Barbara physics professor that was submitted on October 8, 2010. YourNewsWire reports--five years later--that the professor (Hal Lewis) resigned from his tenured faculty position at UC Santa Barbara. Did he? The letter is actually Dr. Lewis's resignation from the American Physical Society.
This was the response from the American Physical Society (APS), posted on October 12, 2010:
APS Comments on Harold Lewis’ Resignation of his Society Membership
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a recent letter to the American Physical Society (APS) President Curtis A. Callan, chair of the Princeton University Physics Department, Harold Lewis, emeritus physics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, announced that he was resigning his APS membership.
In response to numerous accusations in the letter, APS issues the following statement:
There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.
Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.
On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
- Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
- Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
- The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”
Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change. After receiving significant commentary from APS members, the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance of the issue. The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation.
Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.
Source:
https://www.aps.org/newsroo...ases/haroldlewis.cfm[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-28-2016).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUL 13, 06:50 PM
|
|
Bob Inglis, executive director of climate policy advocacy group republicEn, describes his transformation from a Republican and socially conservative Congressional representative from South Carolina who did not accept the reality of Man Made Global Warming into an advocate for free enterprise friendly solutions to curtail the use of fossil fuels and reduce the amount of CO2 in the planet's atmosphere. Mr Inglis interviews with The Weather Channel's Sam Champion on a recently aired segment of "23.5". The video length is 8+ minutes.
That was followed by an interview with Dr. Paul Bunje of XPRIZE, who talked about the $20 million XPRIZE competition to find new ways of capturing CO2 emissions from coal, oil and gas-powered electricity plants and other industrial facilities where fossil fuels are burned to create energy.
NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE
http://carbon.xprize.org[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-13-2016).]
|
|
|
|
avengador1
|
JUL 15, 10:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
JUL 16, 01:46 AM
|
|
If the Government put up 1 billion dollars for
global cooling research , the temperature could
reach 130° and the same scientists will flowed flood
us with data explaining how we could have a record
breaking heat wave and still be in a cooling trend.[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 08-14-2016).]
|
|
|
|
avengador1
|
JUL 21, 09:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|