World's Energy Crisis Postponed?

by leavingwt 58 Replies latest social current

• 

  Farkel

  villabolo,

  I appreciate your response and will give it the due consideration it deserves. It is late in my part of the planet, so I can't get to it tonight. But trust me that I will address what I am able to address it. Perhaps tomorrow. Depends upon how much research it involves.

  Note: I challenged you to give ALL sides and you only gave the side that justifies YOUR point of view. This alone shows your bias on the matter. I wonder if you are interested in facts on the issue or just your viewpoint on the issue. "Bad form," as Captain Hook would say. "Bad form."

  Farkel
• 

  villabolo

  Farkel, you are the other side. If the other side has launched their own sophisticated satellites to do their own research, please tell me.

  villabolo
• 

  Farkel

  :Farkel, you are the other side. If the other side has launched their own sophisticated satellites to do their own research, please tell me.

  You see things as "your side" and the "other side." I see things as the me the "skeptic" and you the "true believer." You have confirmed my skepticism. You see this as "my way or else" and I see this as "I'm a skeptic, so give me ALL the evidence." You refused my request because I'm on the "other side."

  Obviously, you only read what you want to hear. I'm wasting my time. "Sophisticated satellites" is just another stupid excuse, because in your mind that seems to mean something more important than it means. It seems to mean that "sophisticated satellites settle your issue once and for all.

  They don't. That is not the ONLY data available. That is the ONLY data you want to know about.

  Go hug a tree and don't waste my time anymore. You don't want a debate, you just want to be right, even if you might not be right. I'm curious. You're a "true believer." Have a nice day. You are not worth my time or are you worthy of the time of anyone who is trying to learn, is skeptical and who just happens to challenge your ideas.

  Since you already know all there is to know, who am I to challenge that?

  Farkel
• 

  villabolo

  Giving up the fight Farkel? I just want to bring up the type of evidence that requires simple visual interpretation. As far as the satellites are concerned they were built expressly for the purpose of finding out what is happening to earths ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland. How, pray tell, is that a "stupid excuse"? As far as seeing things through one side or the other YOU Farkel are the one who mentioned that I should present all sides. As far as reading all the data I did read metatrons BBC link. But apparently you don't want to read the Nasa satellite report above. Why is that Farkel? Is Nasa part of some Socialist Conspiracy?

  As far as my not being worthy of being responded to that is up to you Farkel but others may get the impression you have lost the fight. Anyway, Ill be here most of tomorrow.

  villa very loco
• 

  avishai

  Farkel, read some of the stuff by meteorologist Anthony Watts. He has some great stuff on calibration of weather stations etc. Villabolo, you can read too if you want. But i suppose you know more than a meteorologist.
• 

  villabolo

  Farkel, read some of the stuff by meteorologist Anthony Watts. He has some great stuff on calibration of weather stations etc. Villabolo, you can read too if you want. But i suppose you know more than a meteorologist.

  Avishai, in reference to your sarcastic remark let me point out one thing to you. A CLIMATOLOGIST is to a weatherman what a doctor is to a nurse. Also a PALEOCLIMATOLOGIST is to a regular CLIMATOLOGIST what a brain surgeon is to a regular doctor. I have already presented links in this thread (Post 909) to Nasa and another site which present evidence about Global Warming with visual evidence that a seventh grader can understand.

  villabolo
• 

  villabolo

  By the way Avishai, Anthony Watts has been rebutted by Climatologists at www.realclimate.org . Just type in his name in the search box and you will find page after page of rebuttals. But I forgot, you must know than a climatologist.

  villabolo
• 

  BurnTheShips

  The interesting thing is that the climate models that predicted and started all the global warming foofaraw back in the 1990's failed to predict the current cooling. They totally botched it! But hey, we are supposed to believe that it will come back in 20 years and wreck the planet based on faith. I am not definitively saying that there is no anthropogenic global warmin, but, sorry, AGWers, the burden and bar of proof needs to be very high for such extraordinary measures. The jury is still very out here. A single human life is not convicted of murder without the case being proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. AGW is not even close to that yet, but you guys propose wrecking an entire economy, along with the attendant cost in human capital, on this theory.

  BTS
• 

  villabolo

  BurnTheShips: "The interesting thing is that the climate models that predicted and started all the global warming foofaraw back in the 1990's failed to predict the current cooling. They totally botched it!"

  The models in question did not predict this cooling because it is the result of SOLAR ACTIVITY. It being solar activity puts it in the domain of solarphysicists not climatologists. It is thus unfair to say they botched anything up. Being a quirk in solar activity it is inevitable that the sun will go back to normal. Twenty years is just a guess, the actual range is 1 to 100 years.

  The issue is moot any way since the release of CO2 will continue and as soon as the sun returns to normal we will resume our course into global warming with interest on top of it. Here, down below is the evidence.

  www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/earthandsun/climate_change.html

  www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org

  villabolo
• 

  villabolo

  My apologies to leavingwt for taking this thread off the subject.

  villabolo