explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,198
and my reply to the above, next post
Sorry I'm not WayneL, but I'll answer it anyway.
1. John McCain
He was sat in a bamboo cage in the tropical sun for 3 or 4 years by his communist captors with high exposure to charlie's sun.
2. People in Oz, UK etc are more prosperous and can have intermittent high exposure to uv light on their holidays, it appears to be more cancer inducing than steady low exposure.
3. People nowadays don't cover up. don't wear hats and get pissed and fall asleep in the sun.
4. It has sfa do do with weather.
gg
What figues back up this preposterous claim. In the 60's on the beach there was never a hat to be seen. Gentlemen used to wear hats as dress up till late 50's. Look in any school yard and at the beach these days and there are hats everywhere. Cancer is a proven problem due to thinning ozone layer, which also varies seasonally as do satellite photo's following snow storms, which in turn melt in a few weeks.
and what is the anacronym "sfa" ? if we a losing an argument we go down to the gutter, albeit: ratbag attention seeking
I differ on your take of hats.
Just cant' rest till I have your secret of the hats.
Judging from the quality posts of heretics we are more likely to be brought before HREOC for mistreating the intellectually impaired.
A classic example of how it can be done. All dependent on large scale generation and the grid, something those calling for action in this part of the world don't seem too keen on. Sweeden already has close to zero fossil fuel electricity so to get off the CO2 it's simply a matter of running everything from the grid rather than gas, petrol etc.Sweeden is Solialist and are going zero co2 by 2020.
You could always try to support your case with something that holds water.The upshot of all this is that your criticisms of climate optimists, AKA the ad hominem term "Wayne's World", smacks of a deep and disgusting hypocrisy, so obvious that only the most colourful and profane colloquialism could characterize.
As such, it should be disregarded as disingenuous... laughable even.
Cheers
I hold to my previous post, as the the conclusions therein, become even more self-evident following your response quoted above.You could always try to support your case with something that holds water.
Gore has never been on my radar (I haven't seen Gore's epic) and his actions are somewhat incidental to the underlying science.
The unpretentious Calliope will realise that scientists use observations, hypotheses, and deductions to arrive at conclusions.
Using Stefan's law. Arrhenius formulated his greenhouse law, "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression; otherwise expressed in simplified form as:
ΔF = α ln(C/C0)
When you next put your brain into gear and stay on topic, rather than launch into your typical rants that add nothing to the debate, we might get somewhere.
ps: a topical start might be to revisit your sea ice story and the science that underpinned it.
Using Stefan's law. Arrhenius formulated his greenhouse law, "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression; otherwise expressed in simplified form as:
ΔF = α ln(C/C0)
WayneI hold to my previous post, as the the conclusions therein, become even more self-evident following your response quoted above.
I will also point out that my post was in fair response to your criticisms and straw man characterizations. Rather than hold the debate to an adult level, you once again revert to that tactic. One questions your need to do this.
Peeps,
There is a fine line between criticizing actions and attitudes, and ad hominem slur and character assassination. I hope I haven't crossed it again, but as a group in this thread, we are once again heading down that road. Let's not.
Cheers
Yes, perfect day in Lima this morning and very nice in Cuzco this afternoon. Hopefully it stays dry on the Inca Trail but it's the wet season up here, so I'm hoping GW keeps it dry.Another beautiful morning in Townsville.
Weather unchanged.
A nice slow rain last night.
gg
I'm glad you brought up the quality of posts on this thread. The problem is that the alarmist's posts are so pretentious and boring that I can't see you getting any converts.
If you made them shorter and wittier you might do better. The post quoted above shows that you are trying, but I'm sure you can do better. Good luck. After all 'tis the season to be jolly.
Shorter and wittier.... Look its not hard to throw up mass generalisations, a sweeping assertion that all scientists who believe the earth is getting rapidly warmer are simply self interested. And then you can top it off with the statement all the believers are evangelical god botherers. On balance that seems to have been the gist of the arguments against global warming in this forum.
Outside this topic in the real world, the business world I would take just as careful a line on the assertions of grand new business deals, great new products and so on. I would imagine most other members would do likewise. I'd want independent evidence, I'd want to look at the skills and background of the people telling the story (their integrity) , I'd want to know if what they were saying could actually work given basic rules of reality. For example when I'm offered an investment that is going to return 1% a day I know its a scam no matter how plausible or inviting it looks.
The question of whether we are taking the biggest gamble of lives, our children and almost everything else on this planet seems important enough to be considered really carefully. And when 99% plus of all the scientists who actually work in this field believe we are on the wrong track is it time to reconsider?
Have a great Christmas with your friends and family
Cheers
basilio;376090 [B said:The question of whether we are taking the biggest gamble of lives, our children and almost everything else on this planet seems important enough to be considered really carefully. [/B] And when 99% plus of all the scientists who actually work in this field believe we are on the wrong track is it time to reconsider?
it's the economy stupid
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?