http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../38574742.html
who thought just a few renegade money grubbing scientists could cause this much panic?
Printable View
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../38574742.html
who thought just a few renegade money grubbing scientists could cause this much panic?
Global warming alarmist unleashes a bot on skeptics
Nigel Leck, an Australian software developer, grew tired of debating climate realists on Twitter so he created a spambot to “wear down” his opponents. The bot, @AI_AGW, scans Twitter every five minutes looking for key phrases commonly used by those who challenge the global warming orthodoxy. It then posts one of hundreds of canned responses hoping to frustrate skeptics. CFACT’s Twitter account @CFACT (follow us!) often receives many of these unsolicited messages each day. Since the bot became active on May 26, 2010, it has sent out over 40,000 tweets, or an average of more than 240 updates per day.
Technology Review gushed that Leck's bot “answers Twitter users who aren't even aware of their own ignorance.” Leck claims that his little bit of trollware is commonly mistaken as a genuine Twitter user leading the unsuspecting to sometimes debate it for days. Eventually it wears people down.
Leck's bot is an innovative, yet appalling new tactic in the ongoing campaign by global warming proponents to stifle debate and end discussion of climate science and policy. Spamming Twitter users is a tactic that is likely to backfire, as have so many of the ploys alarmists have tried in the past. There is nothing internet users find more annoying than trolls using spam to shut down online discussions.
Over the last year we have witnessed the large-scale collapse of public trust in global warming science and policy. The warmist's Climategate emails, relentless propagandizing, refusals to debate, carbon profiteering and lecturing by celebrities who lead lavish lifestyles while preaching austerity for the rest of us, have offended people's intelligence and sense of fair play. Using a spambot to harass climate realists will do nothing to ingratiate the warming argument with anyone with an open mind.
Should climate realists put up a bot of their own? Should we let the two bots debate each other and leave it to the machines? CFACT knows better. When you interact with our @CFACT account on Twitter, you are talking with a live human being. Science demands an open, honest give and take. So does public policy making in a free republic. Harassment and spam is not the answer.
New York Times Tues.,Nov. 9,2010
By John M. Broder
Wash.-With energy legislation shelved in the U.S. and little hope for a global climate change agreement this year, some policy experts are proposing a novel approach to curb global warming: including greenhouse gases under an existing and highly sucessful international treaty ratified more than 20 years ago.
The treaty, the Montreal Protocol, was adopted in 1987 for a completely different purpose, to elimniate aerosols and other chemicals that were blowing a hole in the Earth's protective ozone layer.
But as the signers of the protocol convened the 22nd annual metting in Bangkok on Monday, negotiators are considering a proposed expansion in the ozone treaty to phase out the production and use of the industrial chemicals known as hydroflurocarbons or HFC's. The chemicals have thousands of times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
HFC's replaced even more dangerous ozone-depleting chemicals known as HCFC's, themselves a substitute for the chloroflurocarbons that were the first big target of the Montreal process.
The U.S. has thrown its support behind the proposal and negotiators said there was a strong current of support for the move on Monday. All the signatories to the Montreal Protocol would have to agree to the expansion, but no further approval from Congress would be needed. So far, there hes been no Congressional or industry opposition to the idea.
But the plan is not expected to be adopted this year. Large developing countries , including China, India and Brazil, object that the timetable is too rapid and that payments for eliminating the refrigerant are not high enough.
[ROFL1] International treaties to "combat" climate change are ridiculous and place America at a considerable economic disadvantage to compete with our competitors, and would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to institute and would have IMHO no impact whatsoever. I'm not a believer in Anthropogenic global warming, but regardless of whether one is or is not the smartest thing to do would be to consider the implications of continued use of fossil fuels outside of that argument. We need to seriously acknowledge that 1) fossil fuels are a finite resource 2) While extraction processes are better than they once were, there is still considerable environmental impact that takes place (meaning holes in the earth, spills, etc 3) Our dependence upon fossil fuels makes us and our allies vulnerable to the whims of questionable nations (think Russia), rogue states (Iran), and religious fanatics (think radical Islamists and their influence in the middle east). The best thing to do, independent of cooperation with anyone, would be to embrace nuclear power and develop the technologies to utilize it as we see fit (trains, planes, cars, ships, etc). It's the cleanest, least impactful, most efficient source of energy known to man and we have an estimated 1 trillion years of nuclear fuel (i.e. uranium) in domestic reserves.
On a side note, I'm also not a really a huge fan of humans trying to actively "combat" climate by conducting massive scale temperature lowering experiments in the atmosphere. I'd rather let nature run her course...we have a very long history of screwing stuff up very badly, when initially we thought it was a great idea.
On another note, I'm always a fan of not pumping extraneous crap into the atmosphere/environment. Pullution is a way bigger problem than CO2...we exhale CO2 and plants turn it into food.
some of you seem to be assuming that these are well-intentioned plans to fix things us humans have broken... with all things global warming, I apply the 1st rule of politics- "follow the money" People like Al Gore have forever made me associate "global warming" with "scam"
on yet another note, I've got to let funkfool know that he freaked me out a bit raising this nearly 2 year old post from the dead... I thought someone hacked my account, and was posting spam with my username...[ROFL1]
And 2 years later global warming is still a scam. algore got rich and the rest of us suffered under this bullshit.
Holy thread resurection 68Charger!!
Didn't mean to freak you out man...
I just figure - if there is a thread already generally about what I'm gonna post... might as well keep it together...
Anyway... the lying autonomons have resorted to automation...
This is the same as shouting down your opposition because you cannot win with facts and a logical argument.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...aice-melt.html
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._3294531_n.jpg
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...of-global-warm
http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-global-warming/
Sea levels have risen ~10ft this year.
Global warming isn't a myth. Although the Earth does go through periodic warming periods, this particular period is being accelerated by Humans. It's a chain reaction. The snow melts, releases co2, inefficient power plants also produce co2. co2 makes the earth get warmer, thus more snow melts, thus more co2....ect ect ect. Its not a myth, its fact. Not to mention, the worlds tropical rainforest population has dropped, which was a huge absorber of co2. Mix all that together its like drinking a four loko, doing a line of coke, and chugging a 40.
The bolded is the human part of the equation that wasn't around...say...5000 years ago? Its not a scam, there is far more evidence suggesting it happens than evidence suggesting its bullshit. The only excuse people think to come up with its bullshit is because Al Gore's movie....well fuck Al Gore and the "liberal media and scientists"...even without him it would still be a relevant truth that it has happened.
besides any arguing over who/what is responsible for any possible warming trend (part of a natural cycle, possibly), please back this specific statement up with FACTSQuote:
Originally Posted by lebru
I don't buy that the ocean levels have risen 10 feet just this year. Every other time I've heard about ocean levels rising, the stats say 10 in in 100's of years, not one year.
Aren't all the cities in Florida under 500' in elevation? A 10' increase in sea level would wipe out places like Italy, Louisiana, and Florida.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
My main point- he leads with some URL links, that are all based on the SAME FLAWED/SKEWED DATA, then his contribution to the post is lead with a total bullshit statement.. hard to take anyone seriously when they don't take their facts seriously...
lebru, your post is so full of fail I don't know where to begin-
seriously, at least act like you've researched it for longer than it took for you to watch "An Inconvenient Truth"
you clearly don't know anything about the process of global warming, let alone the scientific method. Allow me to make it about as easy as a coloring book to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger
The earth has warming cycles.
We are currently in a warming cycle. There is no doubting that. (It is how nature works, it has happened throughout history as soil tests will show. Most of these are available through academic journals).
Warming cycles produce co2 trapped in permafrost, releasing it into the atmosphere.
Human factor has been proven to accelerate the natural course of the warming by several factors.
1)Massive dirty energy plants(usually in upcoming 3rd world countries, since the US generally has cleaner burning coal.
2)Less rain forest density, meaning less absorption of co2 from the atmosphere.
3) Unregulated burning of fossil fuels, without paying the costs for damaging the environment (you can't drive a car without insurance, why should you be able to burn fuel without paying for the damage its caused)
So, more co2 (from both human and natural causes) + less absorption = more warming of the earth. Hence, sea levels rising, ice shelfs melting at a far accelerated rate.
Its funny because, I don't have to do in-depth research to find evidence of it happening, and yet you can't find any evidence to prove that it isn't happening. It has already been proven, you now have to disprove it.
More evidence that Greenlands density (In case you weren't aware, Greenland is largely permafrost, and contains huge amounts of trapped co2), as well as rising ocean levels
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0323161819.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0713101412.htm
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2010/2010GL042460.shtml
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Reso...8081279213064/
http://climate.nasa.gov/images/newsPage-16.jpg
Quote:
This image, created with sea surface height data from the Topex/Poseidon and Jason-1 satellites, shows how ocean surface heights have changed from 1993 to now.
Now, Global Warming isn't the kill all for the world. Yes it is happening, but we have already adapted to it and are already reversing the effects. The next step on the course of the earth is a magnetic polar shift, which were are long overdue for. If you actually studied science, it would make sense. But it seems like you have no background at all in Biology, let alone Atmospheric Sciences. Let me guess, you also believe the earth was created ~6000 years ago, in 4004bc, the lunar landings never happened, evolution is false, and that all muslim's are evil?
no, it's VERY simple- let me take you back 3 whole posts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lebru http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images...s/viewpost.gif
Sea levels have risen ~10ft this year.
besides any arguing over who/what is responsible for any possible warming trend (part of a natural cycle, possibly), please back this specific statement up with FACTS
care to visit this question, or just want to keep trying to baffle with bullshit?
if you don't want to get past the 1st F'ing sentence in your post that was your own, I don't feel like reading past the first sentence of yours- seems fair, doesn't it?
even if you don't agree- answer it anyway... please?
The image you posted shows a MAX of 10mm/year, since 1993- so 170mm... assuming it was the same data every year (a very large assumption), that would be 6.7" in 17 years, a bit shy of your assertion of 10' THIS YEAR...
exaggerations do not even resemble truth...
I don't think you understand what people in this thread are saying about Global Warming lebru. This Global Warming Activism is what people think is bullshit, not the warming itself.
Trying to relate car insurance to paying a tax on using energy is a poor, poor analogy. It is not just weak, but incomparable. Can you come up with something else?
Damn, Stuart can give that damn bot a run for it's money. Possible career path Stuie?[Coffee]Quote:
Originally Posted by funkfool
See that big bright thingy in the sky during the daylight hours?
That big bright thingy is call The Sun and it heats the entire Earth as well as everything else within it's range. There's your global warming.
The best thing about people like lebru is that the rest of us are supposed to stop what we're doing. lebru and people like him are part of the elite thinkers delivering the message so they get to continue to use fossil fuels.
Ok - follow me for just a moment here...
The earth warms...
the earth cools...
A cycle...
We agree so far... ?
It is as if the earth is 'breathing' so to speak...
You buy this analogy?
Yes?
So -
Trying to control the cycle..
to STOP global warming....
Now..
if we stop global warming...
we stop the cycle....
we prevent the earth from doing something...
it is naturally SUPPOSED TO DO!
If it stops cycling...
What will happen?
Now,
Humans have had an effect on the planet...
The real question is:
How much...
It is my assertation that in the 4+ billion years of earth history...
Mankind is but a blip of a speck in time AND effect.
Mankinds actions affect the atmosphere, geology and chemistry of the earth... but that only effects our furious attemt to exist upon it.
Mankind will NOT be able to stop the cyclic action of the earths' warming and cooling... (and why would we want to?)
No matter WHO gets rich off our backs.
We just don't have that much influence.
The Scientific Method
I agree with funkfool.
Negative human impact is very localized, I mean what percentage of property is Rocky Flats in relation to the rest of Colorado, North America, the earth as a whole?
These are facts the even the environuts agree with.
Fact: The earth has be COOLING for 10 years (they say it's temporary)
Fact: The rain forest put off as much CO2 as it absorbs due to decomposition
Fact: Only thirty years ago the same environuts wanted to put black soot on the ice caps because they thought we were entering a mini ice age.
Fact: Leading global warming scientist altered data to push their cause so they can't be trusted at all.
Fact: Al Gore is a scumbag fear monger using global warming to make a buck.
Fact: They can't even say with certainty whether or not it will rain tomorrow so how the hell do they know what will happen in a 100 years from now?
I seem to recall 30-35 years ago, ( I know, before some of you were born.) These same little CO2 molecules were all going to gather in the atmosphere and, combine into a "sun screen" thus blocking the light and heat from reaching the surface. Thus causing "Global Cooling".
Now, I had a 7th grade science teacher that was a full blown hippie, and as sure as his morning dobie, He was positive that by 1980, There was going to be a layer of ice covering the earth.
As you can see, my confusion on whether to buy sun screen or long johns..
I'll give your post a 6/10 as an inflammatory bot response- I found it more amusing than inflammatory... not enough guilt for my lavish western lifestyle- but the personal attacks on intelligence and religion were a nice touch... without those, it would have scored a 4 [Coffee]Quote:
Originally Posted by lebru
+1.0E+18Quote:
Originally Posted by RARGUNS
Be prepared... have both!Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
[Coffee]
I don't think that lebru is quite the elitist some of you think. There is merit to the idea of Global Warming, I mean Climate Change, or whatever. I think he's just way off on his claim of ocean levels rising. Otherwise, he seems very grounded when he says things like 'Global Warming is not the end of the world.'
If all the ice in the world melted, would it even raise the ocean levels 10'? We already know that any ice that is already in water is taking up more volume than it would if it were to melt. So the only ice melt that could contribute to ocean levels is ice that is 100% on land. With the Earth being 2/3 ocean and only 1/3 land, and MOST of that 1/3 land NOT AT ALL covered in ice; I find it very hard to worry about the ocean level if all the ice were to melt.
It'd still likely be catastrophic (and a shame) if all the ice were to melt, but the ocean level would be the least of our worries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
I know... where would I find twinkies?!
Sorry, I quit reading his posts after I got to the alarmist "10' this year" bovine scatologyQuote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
I'm with funkfool, too- I think man has a history of being arrogant and exaggerating their influence... the world went through warming and cooling cycles long before the industrial age, so the environment is capable of "climate change" with or without our influence... but where's the profit in that?
On a new diet, Bear?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBear
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08...sor/index.html
Now I have heard, That sea levels rise once every 24 hours (+or-)
http://burncoathead.com/images/main_image.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by funkfool
Yeah but, would I need to put the sunscreen on the long johns?
Fixed it for ya... but good one... 10' would be a mild tide, some ports are 15-30' in AlaskaQuote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
What do I know about tides, I grew up here.. [Tooth]
The picture is of Burncoat Head Park, in Nova Scotia The place of the greatest average tides in the world..
http://burncoathead.com/tides.shtml
10mm sea level rise in the past few years? possible.
10 feet? Utter bullshit.
SPF Long sleeved shooting shirt
Now, if it were just impregnated with anti-zombie antidote....
Quote:
Originally Posted by funkfool
Mmmmmmkay,,,,.. So, if I just rolled the sleeves down on the old flannels, It wouldn't do the same thing?
Don't over think it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
[ROFL2]
Oh, I didn't. As soon as the brain started to hurt, I moved on... [Tooth]
Wow it annoys me when someone belittle another just because their opinions are not aligned. The arrogance!
Some of you Global Warming denyer's sound like a bunch of land lubber's that don't give a hoot about rising sea level's due to climate change.
Thank God, that you are in the minority!
In a survey, which was financed by a grant to Stanford from the National Science Foundation, 1000 randomly selected adults were interviewed by phone between June 1, 2010, and June 7. When respondents were ask if they thought that the Earth's temperature probably had been heating up over the last 100 years, 74% answered affirmatively. And 75% of respondents said that human behavior was substantially responsible for any warming that has occured.
Fully 86% of our respondents said that they wanted the federal government to limit the amount of air pollution that businesses edmit, and 76% favored government limiting business's emissions of greenhouse gases in particular. Not a majority of 55 or 60 percent- but 76 percent.
Large majorities opposed taxes on electricity {78%} and gasoline {72%} to reduce consumption. But 84% favored the federal government offering tax breaks to encourage utilities to make electricity from water, wind and solar power.
Do any of you want to have our future generations looking back at our generation, and have them look back and say: Why oh why didn't they do something about climate change, before the point of no return?
The fact is that ice melting from the glaciers won't be the major cause in sea-level rise. It will be the rising temperatures that heat up the molecule's in seawater that expands the seawater, that will cause a significant rise in height of our ocean's here on Earth.
And Obama was elected President by average Americans. What does that prove?