http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/...akes-on-climate-science-at-warsaw/#more-98105 There are few people on Earth as carefully vetted, as rigorously trained and as highly respected as Americaâs Apollo astronauts. They risked their lives in advance of science on behalf of all mankind. CFACT organized an all day global warming conference at Warsawâs Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University, together with some fantastic partners from Poland and Germany, which ran parallel to the UNâs COP 19. CFACT provided headsets for simultaneous translation for the more than 250 Poles who attended with our international delegation to the global warming summit. Colonel Walt Cunningham was lunar module pilot on Apollo VII, the first manned Apollo flight to space. Colonel Cunningham explains why Americaâs space pioneers are shocked and dismayed by todayâs politicization of science to serve the global warming agenda. They call for the elimination of bias from scientific inquiry and a return to the rigorous application of the scientific method.
[/B][/QUOTE] " since co2 is such a small percent of the greenhouse. agw nutter / speculators have stated adding co2 causes more clouds. their theory was more clouds means more warming... but.... Science is still investigating what happens when ghcs are added. the theory had been / is more co2 produces more clouds. " This sounds the illogical meandering rantings of a schizophrenic. It doesn't even make sense. What the fuck are you babbling about. It's very simple. We know what happens when CO2 is added. The temps go up.
So what? SS is basically citizen funded and staffed and they tell the real science. The denier machine is funded by corporations and they tell lies so as to maintain their profits. There is a key difference there.
It says nothing about me, but it shows you are stubborn, ignorant, stupid, ideologically crazed, morons. No-one will ever change that. It's sad.
Wow. Babble babble, what a surprise that there is bullshit on the internet and lot's of fake experts. Are you fucking serious? So environmentalists "lost you" when you read one article that you probably did not understand. So it's evidence that Marxists are out to control your life? You are an idiot. With regard to AGW.. The essential point that no-one disputes is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that largely controls the temperature of the earth and man has raised it's levels by 40% and world temps are rising at historically unprecedented rates. Those facts are really all one needs to know. The rest is just noise.
you are a science moron fc. I believe you cited this study a couple of weeks ago on this thread. it says co2 affects are multiplied by water vapor and clouds. here is an excerpt... but you should read the whole thing and learn something about models. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/ Atmospheric carbon dioxide performs a role similar to that of the house thermostat in setting the equilibrium temperature of the Earth. It differs from the house thermostat in that carbon dioxide itself is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the ground surface by means of the greenhouse effect. It is this sustained warming that enables water vapor and clouds to maintain their atmospheric distributions as the so-called feedback effects that amplify the initial warming provided by the non-condensing GHGs, and in the process, account for the bulk of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect. Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. Together with the similar non-linear responses involving the ocean heat capacity, the net effect is the "natural variability" that the climate system exhibits regionally, and on inter-annual and decadal timescales, whether the global equilibrium temperature of the Earth is being kept fixed, or is being forced to re-adjust in response to changes in the level of atmospheric GHGs. This assessment comes about as the result of climate modeling experiments which show that it is the non-condensing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons that provide the necessary atmospheric temperature structure that ultimately determines the sustainable range for atmospheric water vapor and cloud amounts, and thus controls their radiative contribution to the terrestrial greenhouse effect. From this it follows that these non-condensing greenhouse gases provide the temperature environment that is necessary for water vapor and cloud feedback effects to operate, without which the water vapor dominated greenhouse effect would inevitably collapse and plunge the global climate into an icebound Earth state.
oh no... now you've gone and done it.....Chicken Little is all worked up into a foaming potty mouth frenzy again. ..it's times like this that we get to see the full extent of his mental powers....
It's time, once again, to discuss Skeptical Science's primary funding source, Al Gore, and the hundreds of millions that he made via his global warming hedge funds. Generation Investment Management (GIM) was co-founded in 2004 by David Blood and Al Gore. Website - http://www.generationim.com/ Generation Global Equity Fund has $6 Billion in assets under management in early 2011 and is said to return more than 50% during the 12 months ending in March 2010. http://www.insidermonkey.com/hedge-fund/generation+investment+management/146/ Filings indicate that for an non-operational role, Al Gore gets 0.5% of assets under management each year and 5% of the profits. This amounts $30 Million each year in asset under management fees and an average of $60 Million each year in performance fees over the life of the fund (it has had an average of a 19% return). Of course, these fees have built up over time as the fund grew after inception in 2004. The fund was established in 2004 before he departed on his "Inconvenient Truth" film and tour in 2006 with the obvious intent of creating a scare that would drive money to the fund and it's carbon credit trading schemes. IMDb - Inconvenient Truth: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/ In 2008, Al Gore invests $35 million with the Capricorn Investment Group. "Thatâs a big wad of cash for someone who reported barely $2 million in assets in 2000, when his job as vice president came to an end." http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/al-gores-big-investment/?_r=0 Al Goreâs Inconvenient Loot http://riehlworldview.com/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html Al Gore has thrived as green-tech investor http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...02345_1_clean-energy-clean-tech-firms-al-gore "Just before leaving public office in 2001, Gore reported assets of less than $2 million; today, his wealth is estimated at $100 million." (Actually other news reports indicate his wealth in 2012 was over $250 Million before getting $100M more in his recent Current TV deal.) You can make the case that Al Gore is a very savvy business person who has generated out-sized returns for investors and signficant wealth for himself. The reality is his fund can more properly be described as "Green Cronyism". Since 2008, most of the firms invested in by the fund had funding from the Obama administration. Of the 11 companies he mentioned in his 2008 slide show (e.g. Iberdrola Renovables), nine received or directly benefited from stimulus or clean energy funding. The Obama administration also supported the carbon credit trading scheme that makes a significant amount of the fund's trading profits. Bottom Line: Al Gore creates a hedge fund where he has no day-to-day operational role and then pushes the "Inconvenient Truth" to drive money for the fund. It is hard to made the case that Al Gore is driven by personal charity, true environmentalism (how about all those jet rides) or any type of real belief about 'global warming' --- it is all about making money... something he has been very successful at since leaving office.
So answer the question - Are you part of Skeptical Science's "crusher crew" whose sole intent is to "drown out" those who do not accept their alarmist positions? Simple one word answer - Yes or No.