pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 16 Dec 2008 13:54:37
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: interesting Global Warming Video
http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx

---- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com






 
Date: 16 Dec 2008 23:08:37
From: Tad Perry
Subject: Re: interesting Global Warming Video
"La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:tlkl16xila.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx

You may be surprised to find that I watched this. In fact, I try to review
as much material on this subject as possible. My take is that it relies
heavily on the "this has all happened before and perfectly natural"
viewpoint. This is becoming a fairly widespread viewpoint because if all one
does is investigate the issue up to a point and then stop, it appears to be
a pretty strong argument.

It seems to me that there is a perfect storm of misunderstanding about the
climate change issue. From my perspective, it's very odd that it's snowing
in Florida as we discuss this. That's strange. That's change.

Which brings us to Distraction #1 regarding so-called "Global Warming." Ten
to twelve years ago things were clearly warming up. Now, they're clearing
cooling off. The term "Global Warming" doesn't really fit if things are
going to cool, and so a lot of people drag out making a firm decision
whether they think there is or isn't "Global Climate Change." (Newly renamed
to avoid the misconception that warming is the only possible outcome.)

Distraction #2 is the fact that the Earth has undergone climate change of
this sort throughout it's history. This again allows people to not give it
much thought. That's unfortunate, because I can name two pieces of evidence
(and have done so in this group in the past) that indicate that, even though
this sort of change has happened before, it has *never* happened this fast
before. Since some of you don't listen anyway, I won't report that evidence
here. Google it if you wish. (Good keywords here being "coral" and "sea
tortoises.")

Distraction #3 is the sun. The sun itself has been blanketed the planet with
more energy than usual for the last sun spot cycle. This particular fact is
often used to counter the argument that humans are changing the weather. To
some, one snowflake means "No global warming." To other's an increase in
solar energy negates anything that might be happening on Earth. Other's play
the cow-fart game. "Cow farts produce more methane than we do!" (Yeah, but
why are there so many cows around anyway except to feed the humans that rear
them? No one seems to come up with this point when it comes to the "cow
fart" part of the debate. These animals would not exist in these numbers
without human involvement.)

Distraction #4 is new. It's the politicization of the issue by governments
in an effort to consolidate power over developing nations and their own
populace. Eight or ten years ago, it was those of us who were vocally
promoting the evidence of global climate change that were being shouted down
and castigated. Now there has been a shift and the balance of public opinion
believes that something, even if they can't quite describe it, is definitely
going on with the weather. Now that the tables have turned, there are
scientists that don't agree with the conclusions of the IPCC and who are
being discriminated against because of it. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean
the IPCC is wrong. In fact, my view is that nearly all of the scientists are
wrong and nearly all of them are wrong to a conservative degree. I believe
that they are underestimating the real threat and how fast it can overtake
us.

But why believe a poker player, right? In fact, that may be another
distraction in and of itself, because you can pretend I'm not good at math
and phsyics, but you'd be wrong. Evidence points to severe problems within a
couple of decades. The seas really will rise, and coastal cities will all be
looking at Venice for examples regarding solutions. Storms really will
increase in magnitude and the winds could potentially just sweep away
everything not tied down.

This isn't like someone who's claimed to see a UFO. We have seen the
increase in storm intensity that I'm talking about, and we will see more of
it. Don't let a snowflake distract you. Don't let a scientist saying that
climate has changed before distract you. Don't let politic bodies that seem
to act in their own self-interest distract you. Things are going to change
more than we'd like them to if we don't do something.

It's too bad that there are enough distractions in this debate to prevent
any real progress in terms of avoiding the worst. Sure, it sounds like scare
tactics, but what do I have to gain in trying to scare people? Meanwhile, I
still suggest planting lots of trees. I mean, what would really be wrong
with that regardless of what you believe? They suck up CO2 and they produce
oxygen--pretty much just exactly what we need.

tvp




  
Date: 17 Dec 2008 03:07:26
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: interesting Global Warming Video
On Dec 17 2008 2:08 AM, Tad Perry wrote:

> "La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:tlkl16xila.ln2@recgroups.com...
> >
>
http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx
>
> You may be surprised to find that I watched this. In fact, I try to review
> as much material on this subject as possible. My take is that it relies
> heavily on the "this has all happened before and perfectly natural"
> viewpoint. This is becoming a fairly widespread viewpoint because if all one
> does is investigate the issue up to a point and then stop, it appears to be
> a pretty strong argument.
>
> It seems to me that there is a perfect storm of misunderstanding about the
> climate change issue. From my perspective, it's very odd that it's snowing
> in Florida as we discuss this. That's strange. That's change.
>
> Which brings us to Distraction #1 regarding so-called "Global Warming." Ten
> to twelve years ago things were clearly warming up. Now, they're clearing
> cooling off. The term "Global Warming" doesn't really fit if things are
> going to cool, and so a lot of people drag out making a firm decision
> whether they think there is or isn't "Global Climate Change." (Newly renamed
> to avoid the misconception that warming is the only possible outcome.)
>
> Distraction #2 is the fact that the Earth has undergone climate change of
> this sort throughout it's history. This again allows people to not give it
> much thought. That's unfortunate, because I can name two pieces of evidence
> (and have done so in this group in the past) that indicate that, even though
> this sort of change has happened before, it has *never* happened this fast
> before. Since some of you don't listen anyway, I won't report that evidence
> here. Google it if you wish. (Good keywords here being "coral" and "sea
> tortoises.")
>
> Distraction #3 is the sun. The sun itself has been blanketed the planet with
> more energy than usual for the last sun spot cycle. This particular fact is
> often used to counter the argument that humans are changing the weather. To
> some, one snowflake means "No global warming." To other's an increase in
> solar energy negates anything that might be happening on Earth. Other's play
> the cow-fart game. "Cow farts produce more methane than we do!" (Yeah, but
> why are there so many cows around anyway except to feed the humans that rear
> them? No one seems to come up with this point when it comes to the "cow
> fart" part of the debate. These animals would not exist in these numbers
> without human involvement.)
>
> Distraction #4 is new. It's the politicization of the issue by governments
> in an effort to consolidate power over developing nations and their own
> populace. Eight or ten years ago, it was those of us who were vocally
> promoting the evidence of global climate change that were being shouted down
> and castigated. Now there has been a shift and the balance of public opinion
> believes that something, even if they can't quite describe it, is definitely
> going on with the weather. Now that the tables have turned, there are
> scientists that don't agree with the conclusions of the IPCC and who are
> being discriminated against because of it. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean
> the IPCC is wrong. In fact, my view is that nearly all of the scientists are
> wrong and nearly all of them are wrong to a conservative degree. I believe
> that they are underestimating the real threat and how fast it can overtake
> us.
>
> But why believe a poker player, right? In fact, that may be another
> distraction in and of itself, because you can pretend I'm not good at math
> and phsyics, but you'd be wrong. Evidence points to severe problems within a
> couple of decades. The seas really will rise, and coastal cities will all be
> looking at Venice for examples regarding solutions. Storms really will
> increase in magnitude and the winds could potentially just sweep away
> everything not tied down.
>
> This isn't like someone who's claimed to see a UFO. We have seen the
> increase in storm intensity that I'm talking about, and we will see more of
> it. Don't let a snowflake distract you. Don't let a scientist saying that
> climate has changed before distract you. Don't let politic bodies that seem
> to act in their own self-interest distract you. Things are going to change
> more than we'd like them to if we don't do something.
>
> It's too bad that there are enough distractions in this debate to prevent
> any real progress in terms of avoiding the worst. Sure, it sounds like scare
> tactics, but what do I have to gain in trying to scare people? Meanwhile, I
> still suggest planting lots of trees. I mean, what would really be wrong
> with that regardless of what you believe? They suck up CO2 and they produce
> oxygen--pretty much just exactly what we need.
>
> tvp


ive been saying to foliate arid regions for years now too

the seas wont rise as much as many expect because with the higher
temperatures, evaporation increases, causing more storms.

foliating deserts would hold the added moisture, absorb co2 and increase
oxygen.

The key to foliating deserts is to start from the west and head east.

The earths rotation causes wind to head east when the arab clowns tried to
foliate the sahara they started from the wrong side DOH

piece

_______________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 17 Dec 2008 20:28:00
From: Lab Rat
Subject: Re: interesting Global Warming Video

"Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:gia8j7$e6f$1@news.motzarella.org...

<snip >
> But why believe a poker player, right? In fact, that may be another
> distraction in and of itself, because you can pretend I'm not good at math
> and phsyics, but you'd be wrong. Evidence points to severe problems within
> a
> couple of decades. The seas really will rise, and coastal cities will all
> be
> looking at Venice for examples regarding solutions. Storms really will
> increase in magnitude and the winds could potentially just sweep away
> everything not tied down.
> tvp
>
So, Tad, perhaps you could address your expertise in physics to the
following question: Why does an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere
increase temperatures, and by how much?




   
Date: 17 Dec 2008 03:08:56
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: interesting Global Warming Video
On Dec 17 2008 5:28 AM, Lab Rat wrote:

> "Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:gia8j7$e6f$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
> <snip>
> > But why believe a poker player, right? In fact, that may be another
> > distraction in and of itself, because you can pretend I'm not good at math
> > and phsyics, but you'd be wrong. Evidence points to severe problems within
> > a
> > couple of decades. The seas really will rise, and coastal cities will all
> > be
> > looking at Venice for examples regarding solutions. Storms really will
> > increase in magnitude and the winds could potentially just sweep away
> > everything not tied down.
> > tvp
> >
> So, Tad, perhaps you could address your expertise in physics to the
> following question: Why does an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere
> increase temperatures, and by how much?

increased temps cause more growth, that leads to more trees that die and
THAT produces CO2

co2 is a result of higher temperatures, not the cause

_______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



    
Date: 17 Dec 2008 11:50:43
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: interesting Global Warming Video

"La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:873n16xmch.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 17 2008 5:28 AM, Lab Rat wrote:
>
>> "Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:gia8j7$e6f$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>> <snip>
>> > But why believe a poker player, right? In fact, that may be another
>> > distraction in and of itself, because you can pretend I'm not good at
>> > math
>> > and phsyics, but you'd be wrong. Evidence points to severe problems
>> > within
>> > a
>> > couple of decades. The seas really will rise, and coastal cities will
>> > all
>> > be
>> > looking at Venice for examples regarding solutions. Storms really will
>> > increase in magnitude and the winds could potentially just sweep away
>> > everything not tied down.
>> > tvp
>> >
>> So, Tad, perhaps you could address your expertise in physics to the
>> following question: Why does an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere
>> increase temperatures, and by how much?
>
> increased temps cause more growth, that leads to more trees that die and
> THAT produces CO2
>
> co2 is a result of higher temperatures, not the cause
Skills, you babbling idiot.

Go look at Venus.
See any goddamned trees?

CO2 in the atmosphere lets in light but traps infrared radiation (heat)

It's that simple.

Go talk to the least crazy person you hang out with, MAYBE they can explain
it to you.




     
Date: 18 Dec 2008 22:08:29
From: Lab Rat
Subject: Re: interesting Global Warming Video

"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:nI52l.214$P5.107@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> "La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:873n16xmch.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> On Dec 17 2008 5:28 AM, Lab Rat wrote:
>>
>>> "Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:gia8j7$e6f$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> > But why believe a poker player, right? In fact, that may be another
>>> > distraction in and of itself, because you can pretend I'm not good at
>>> > math
>>> > and phsyics, but you'd be wrong. Evidence points to severe problems
>>> > within
>>> > a
>>> > couple of decades. The seas really will rise, and coastal cities will
>>> > all
>>> > be
>>> > looking at Venice for examples regarding solutions. Storms really will
>>> > increase in magnitude and the winds could potentially just sweep away
>>> > everything not tied down.
>>> > tvp
>>> >
>>> So, Tad, perhaps you could address your expertise in physics to the
>>> following question: Why does an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere
>>> increase temperatures, and by how much?
>>
>> increased temps cause more growth, that leads to more trees that die and
>> THAT produces CO2
>>
>> co2 is a result of higher temperatures, not the cause
> Skills, you babbling idiot.
>
> Go look at Venus.
> See any goddamned trees?
>
> CO2 in the atmosphere lets in light but traps infrared radiation (heat)
>
> It's that simple.

If only it was.
The size of the venusian greenhouse effect is due primarily to the depth of
the atmosphere, and the presence of sulphuric acid.
CO2 absorbs at well defined wavelengths. At these wavelengths, there is
enough CO2 in the atmosphere already to make it opaque to about 11 9's. More
CO2 does not make it more opaque. What it does is to increase the residence
time of photons in the atmosphere, by continual emission and resorption of
these photons. Eventually, the energy of these photons either escapes to
outer space via a random walk, or is converted to different wavelengths by
low probability events and then escapes (or is possibly absorbed by a
different absorber).
To the best of my knowledge, there is no theoretical model that can
accurately predict the effect of small increases in CO2 on this process.
Climate models tend to be developed retrospectively by extrapolating trends,
and if the modellers get the causal relationships wrong, the models are
worthless. Not one single climate model has predicted the reversal in
average global temps of the last few years. That in itself is enough to
question all of the assumptions they are based on.
Of course, it doesn't stop anyone with a passing lick of science knowledge
having unshakeable faith in their opinions of GW, no matter which side they
sit on.

And then you have idiots such as Swillz, who have no clue at all.

> Go talk to the least crazy person you hang out with, MAYBE they can
> explain it to you.
>
>




     
Date: 17 Dec 2008 14:29:47
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: interesting Global Warming Video
On Dec 17 2008 6:50 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> "La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:873n16xmch.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Dec 17 2008 5:28 AM, Lab Rat wrote:
> >
> >> "Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:gia8j7$e6f$1@news.motzarella.org...
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> > But why believe a poker player, right? In fact, that may be another
> >> > distraction in and of itself, because you can pretend I'm not good at
> >> > math
> >> > and phsyics, but you'd be wrong. Evidence points to severe problems
> >> > within
> >> > a
> >> > couple of decades. The seas really will rise, and coastal cities will
> >> > all
> >> > be
> >> > looking at Venice for examples regarding solutions. Storms really will
> >> > increase in magnitude and the winds could potentially just sweep away
> >> > everything not tied down.
> >> > tvp
> >> >
> >> So, Tad, perhaps you could address your expertise in physics to the
> >> following question: Why does an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere
> >> increase temperatures, and by how much?
> >
> > increased temps cause more growth, that leads to more trees that die and
> > THAT produces CO2
> >
> > co2 is a result of higher temperatures, not the cause
> Skills, you babbling idiot.
>
> Go look at Venus.
> See any goddamned trees?
>
> CO2 in the atmosphere lets in light but traps infrared radiation (heat)
>
> It's that simple.
>
> Go talk to the least crazy person you hang out with, MAYBE they can explain
> it to you.


every planet is warming, btw

------- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



      
Date: 18 Dec 2008 14:31:46
From: Beldin the Sorcerer
Subject: Re: interesting Global Warming Video

"La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:r3bo16xeam.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 17 2008 6:50 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>> "La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:873n16xmch.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> > On Dec 17 2008 5:28 AM, Lab Rat wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:gia8j7$e6f$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >> > But why believe a poker player, right? In fact, that may be another
>> >> > distraction in and of itself, because you can pretend I'm not good
>> >> > at
>> >> > math
>> >> > and phsyics, but you'd be wrong. Evidence points to severe problems
>> >> > within
>> >> > a
>> >> > couple of decades. The seas really will rise, and coastal cities
>> >> > will
>> >> > all
>> >> > be
>> >> > looking at Venice for examples regarding solutions. Storms really
>> >> > will
>> >> > increase in magnitude and the winds could potentially just sweep
>> >> > away
>> >> > everything not tied down.
>> >> > tvp
>> >> >
>> >> So, Tad, perhaps you could address your expertise in physics to the
>> >> following question: Why does an increase in CO2 levels in the
>> >> atmosphere
>> >> increase temperatures, and by how much?
>> >
>> > increased temps cause more growth, that leads to more trees that die
>> > and
>> > THAT produces CO2
>> >
>> > co2 is a result of higher temperatures, not the cause
>> Skills, you babbling idiot.
>>
>> Go look at Venus.
>> See any goddamned trees?
>>
>> CO2 in the atmosphere lets in light but traps infrared radiation (heat)
>>
>> It's that simple.
>>
>> Go talk to the least crazy person you hang out with, MAYBE they can
>> explain
>> it to you.
>
>
> every planet is warming, btw
>
Not true.