Frank75

Joined

• started 6 topics
• posted 585 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Frank75

• 
  149

  My plan--fully revealed

  by Junction-Guy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i think most of you already know what i have been planning.

  i have mentioned it somewhat already.

  i have sent bits of pieces of my story to several christian ministries, and they want to know more.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  "Ok to answer your question more thorough, I have homosexual tendencies and same sex attraction to a degree, but gay sex itself does not turn me on. I can only fully enjoy sex with a woman, but yet the attraction part is still there. Therefore what does this make me? Bi?."

  Dave:

  The above makes you bisexually oriented. Mainstream Christianity is what makes people in your position feel guilty by labeling it "unnatural". But since Bisexuality and even homosexual behavior occurs with frequency in the animal kingdom, the term unnatural is a perverse lie!

  You're not alone though as in the people here as well as your sexual attraction.

  Bisexuality describes how people feel, not necessarily how they act:

  	A person can feel attractions to both men and women, decide to remain celibate, and still be considered a bisexual by themselves and others.
  	A bisexual might make a conscious decision to confine their sexual activity to person(s) of one gender and still be considered a bisexual by themselves and others

  My 2 cents worth would be to put the religion on hold until you have had the therapy too. If not you're wasting your money.

  Bisexuality is a sexual orientation which refers to the aesthetic, romantic, or sexual attraction of individuals to other individuals of either gender or sex. Most bisexuals are not equally attracted to men and women. [1]

  In the mid-1950s, Alfred Kinsey devised the Kinsey scale in an attempt to measure sexual orientation. The 7 point scale has a rating of 0 ("exclusively heterosexual") to 6 ("exclusively homosexual"). Bisexuals cover most of the scales' values (1-5) which ranges between "predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual" (1) to "predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual" (5). In the middle of the scale (3) is "equally heterosexual and homosexual". [1]

  Although observed in a variety of forms in human societies and in the animal kingdom throughout recorded history [citation needed] , the term "bisexuality" (like the terms "hetero-" and "homosexuality") was only coined in the 19th century. [2]

  Kinsey Survey:

  Male Bisexuality - 46% of the male population had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or "reacted to" persons of both sexes, in the course of their adult lives (p. 656, Male). 11.6% of white males (ages 20-35) were given a rating of 3 (about equal heterosexual and homosexual experience/response) on the 7-point Kinsey

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  I missed your post about Allegre joining the Dark side Metatron!

  "Allegre's second thoughts!"

  That is huge, sort of like Jesus converting to Islam! Better yet Jesus joining Al Qaeda!!

  Sorry Abaddon.....

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.

  But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.

  Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.

  "That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."

  Thanks for the link Metatron.

  I just wonder if any of the 2000 scientists listed are dead!

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  "In fact water vapour is one of the largest components of Greenhouse gas at 30% . If we are contributing to that percentage then the cry should be against taking hot showers, wave pulls at water parks or those water misiting systems at outdoor malls in the summer time! Can you see the protests now!" - Frank75

  I've known that for a long time, and often wondered over the years how environmentalists think (if, indeed they dwell on the matter) that would effect the environment if hydrogen fuel cell powered cars were to become a reality. One of the things people in favor of them say with great zeal is "they don't put off ANY pollutants, just water vapor".

  AATW:

  Although I was making a joke you are absolutely right. What is it about us as humans that we think we are so able to control our environment. In the sorcerer's apprentice a small task turns into a catastrophe. Many of the pro Kyoto and IPCC supporters must face up to the reality on some level, even if it is while they sleep, that they are opening a Pandora's box!

  Speaking of water.......

  Katrina has scared the hell out of a lot of people, and we are hearing everything from God's wrath to Global warming as the reasons for the catastrophe. However the major catastrophe was the failure to strengthen the levies on one hand and on the practical side, situating a major US city on the river delta of one of the largest Rivers on the planet. When New Orleans was founded, flooding took place all along the Mississippi River. Flood management throughout the heartleand has limited the flood risks there and so what happened with Katrina was a disaster waiting to happen.

  Much of the human cost from these "Natural" disasters is a direct result from locating large human populations in areas that were formerly uninhabited, not from SUV's.

  For example Florida's population was just over 500,000 at the turn of the last century and much of that population was in the Northern part of the state. By 2000 that population had grown to almost 14,000,000! That is 28 times growth in a century. The US population in 1900 was 76,000,000 and now is almost 4 times (281,000,000) that amount according to census data for 2000 (These are all census figures being used)

  Encouraging the earths populations and governments to be stewards as opposed to masters or manipulators of our environment will be the wisest course, not waving a magic wand.

  Frank75

  
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  I am having trouble deciphering from your comments what is 'partly true' and what is not in my statement, which obviously I believe is all true.

  Sorry HS. I was not looking to tar you with anything.

  I agree that whatever happens or is happening is just part of the natural cycle and that our part is minimal and more importantly our ability to change that cycle is rather grandiose of us to think possible.

  What is partly true in my opinion is that "Global warming" is "the issue" that affects "all of us".

  If you mean all of us on this thread, you get partial marks because it is affecting us if only the time being spent chasing our tails. However on a global scale it seems that Global Warming is only taking place in certain parts of the planet. Global cooling is happening in others. Likewise I do not know if you intended to say it was "The" issue or not but I think there are many more important ones facing us. For example who is going to replace this divot George W?

  LOL

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  6OF9:

  Again I will refer to the Defreitas paper that is not critical of global warming but rather the agenda and error ridden IPCC report and the misuse of data by Mann et al in the famous Hockey Stick Graph.

  The Hockey stick graph uses tree ring data for 900 years and then switches to modern instrumental temperature measurements. What planet are you from to think that this is in any way defensible let alone scientific? The very premise in and of itself is totally skewed.

  The IPCC 2001 Report has made much of one of the many reconstructions of global temperatures over the past 1000 years using proxy climate data by prominently featuring it in its Summary for Policymakers (IPCC, 2001b). The reconstruction (Fig. 16) is based on the work of Mann et al. (1998, 1999). Figure 16 shows that from about 1000 A.D. to about 1900 there is a slight 900-year cooling. Starting at around 1900 surface temperature data taken from the IPCC instrumental record are tacked on to the proxy data, which shows temperature rising abruptly. The resulting graph resembles a hockey stick.

  Is it any wonder that the last 100 years show an upward trend? Mann goes from tree rings extrapolations at high altitude then starting in the last 100 years of the study goes to temperature data collected from Urban centers.

  The handle of the ‘hockey stick’ shows a mean trend of little or no change for 900 years, disregarding the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. The blade of the stick provides a dramatic warming in the Twentieth century. The ‘hockey stick’ curve challenges the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age, which followed the Roman Warm Period and Dark Ages Cold Period (McDermott et al., 2001), and have long been considered to be classic examples of the warm and cold phases of a millennialscale climate oscillation that occurred throughout glacial and interglacial periods (Oppo et al., 1998; McManus et al., 1999), as well as across the early Pleistocene (Raymo et al., 1998). The interpretation by Mann et al. (1999) implies that the recent warming is anomalous and thus must be linked to increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

  The ‘hockey stick’ is a compelling image when first seen, and the IPCC 2001 report goes to some lengths to promote it by including it among the few diagrams presented in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). And, nowhere in the SPM will one discover warnings on interpreting the graph. The IPCC has been severely criticized for this, for four reasons. First, the ‘hockey stick’ adds 100 years of oranges onto 900 years of apples. The Mann et al. (1999) 900-year run of data for the handle of the ‘hockey stick’ is mostly tree ring proxies from high altitudes or high latitudes, and their 100-year blade is full-year thermometer measurements from climate stations. These thermometers are recording mainly Northern Hemisphere urban-influenced warming, which is mostly in winter and in early spring.

  Are Tree ring temperature readings even accurate? And what is the possible reason why a scientist would not compile his data exclusively from the same source? i.e. Tree ring data?

  Because tree ring data from 1940 until now shows no substantial warming!

  He also stops at 1980 with his other data source, why? Because Mann was selecting his data to prove a hypothesis. The whole 6of9 defense thing reads like the Apendix on 607BCE in the Kingdom Come Book!

  Tree rings are not necessarily reliable indicators of annual mean temperature as they are primarily responses to growth in the spring and early summer, so indicate temperatures for this time of year. Tree rings are also highly dependent on soil moisture availability in the growing season and solar variability that affects photosynthesis and thus growth rates of trees. The work by Mann et al. (1999) would have been more convincing if it had contrasted 900 years of tree ring proxies with like proxies for the past 100 years — i.e. apples plus apples. But even here, it is not safe to assume tree rings will provide a homogeneous record because of recent CO 2 fertilization.

  ... Third, tree rings and other proxies show substantial warming from about 1850 to 1940, but not since. The curve presented by Mann et al. (Fig. 16) shows proxy records only until 1980, with no temperature greater than in 1940, but does not show data since 1980, which show no warming.

  The little ice age and prior medieval warming periods are not something under dispute by climatologists in general, however Mann's tree ring temperature graph does not show either period!

  Fourth, the Mann curve fails to show several well-known climate events, namely, the Medieval Warm period (from about 800–1200 A.D.) followed by the Little Ice Age. Mann et al. (1999) claim that those events were not global, but rather regional temperature changes.

  Mann says that the little ice age was a Northern European event and so is lacking from the tree rings he collected! That is interesting. People would rely on a scientist who collected historical data from petrified cricket legs that did not verify WW1 and WW2! Give me a break!

  However the author of the Dr Defreitas paper quoted here, himself an inhabitant of the Southern hemisphere cites a number of studies that show the two periods in dispute by Mann are generally accepted to have been global.

  Wilson et al. (1979) provide data for far off New Zealand which, being located in the Southern Hemisphere, is meteorologically unrelated to Europe. Using 18 O/ 16 O dating profiles through a stalagmite, they found “the temperature curve for New Zealand to be broadly similar to England and such climatic fluctuations as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are not just a local European phenomenon” (Wilson et al., 1979, p. 316). Tyson et al. (2000) gathered similar data from a stalagmite from Cold Air Cave, located 30 km southwest of Pietersburg, South Africa. Broecker (2001) cites several highquality data sets as evidence to prove that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are a global phenomenon. Calkin et al. (2001) reviewed detailed research of Holocene glaciation along the northernmost Gulf of Alaska between the Kenai Peninsula and Yakutat Bay. They found that there is clear evidence of the existence of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age in Alaska. Glaciers there reached their maximum Holocene extensions during the Little Ice Age. Given that Alaskan temperatures reached their Holocene minimum during Little Ice Age, from this time to the present, temperatures have been rising in a natural recovery from the coldest period of the Holocene.

  A great deal of recent research has demonstrated that the Little Ice Age was evident even in Australia and reaffirms that it really did happen on a global scale. For example, work by Hendy et al. (2002) and Linsley et al. (2000) shows largely synchronous temperature trends of the South Pacific Ocean over the past 400 years support the view that the Little Ice Age was a truly global phenomenon and not a minor regional anomaly of lands in the vicinity of the North Atlantic Ocean. In addition, the data of Hendy et al. (2002) and Linsley et al. (2000) show temperatures in the South Pacific during the mid-18th century as being as warm as, or even armer than, the present day. This is in contrast to the ‘hockey stick’ temperature history of Mann et al. (1999), which portrays the last two decades of the 20th century as the warmest of the past millennium. Other supporting evidence from around the world is provided by Le Roy Ladurie (1971), MacCracken et al. (1990), Grove and Switsur (1994), Leavitt (1994), Luckman (1994), Villalba (1994), Zhang (1994), Huffman (1996), Keigwin (1996a, 1996b), Huang et al. (1997), Dahl-Jensen et al. (1998), Cioccale (1999), de Menocal et al. (2000), Hong et al. (2000), Naurzbaev and Vaganov (2000), Winter et al. (2000), Verschuren at al. (2000), Broecker (2001), Haug et al. (2001), Holmgren et al. (2001), Johnson et al. (2001), Nicholson and Yin (2001) and Schilman et al. (2001).

  What boggles my mind and should boggle yours or at least get you to question the source of your information, is that the most relevant period is the last 30-40 years. During that time (since 79 at least) we have had satellites in the air that have been mapping global temperatures in different altitudes of our atmosphere globally and without prejudice.

  Why does the IPCC not include that relevant data in its report? What does the data show?

  Since 1979 temperature measurements of the lower troposphere have been made by Tiros-N satellites using microwave radiometry (Microwave Sounding Units - MSU). These are the only precision measurements of global temperature available for direct comparison with temperature predictions from GCMs. The satellites cover the whole earth, measuring and averaging the temperature of the lower troposphere. This is the same region modelled by the GCMs. The accuracy of the radiometer measurements is 0.1 °C, which is considerably better than the accuracy of thermometer measurements made on the surface of the earth.

  The satellite (MSU) temperature data set is the only one that is truly global, highly accurate, and uses a completely homogeneous measurement over the entire planet (Spencer and Christy, 1992; Christy and Goodridge, 1995).

  It also measures the part of the lower atmosphere that, according to the climate models, should be experiencing the greatest warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Bengtsson et al., 1999). But satellite data since 1979 show no significant warming trend (Fig. 10). The IPCC play down the importance of these data because they do not show the recent warming trend suggested by the surface temperature record. Clearly, output from GCMs does not apply to surface temperature changes, and can only be checked by data from the troposphere. The IPCC has been testing its models on the wrong temperature record.

  The whole thing reads like Raiders of the Lost Ark.

  Anyway, people will believe what they want to believe. I grow tired of the topic as we seem to keep covering the same ground.

  Perhaps Abaddon will have some enlightenment for us/me

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  However wouldn't it be prudent to find what IS actually causing the temperature rise as opposed to what we think or based on public opinion?

  Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but I believe there are such studies underway. The article I referenced above was in relation to testing the ice at the polar caps. I read another article just a couple of days ago where there is (according to the article) the largest climate study so far. I believe the article said the study was taking place in Norway.

  Big Tex:

  I think you have misunderstood my intention. Isn't that what I am saying in the quote and all along? Most of those accused of being "Nay Sayers" have not said Nay at all, but that they think the Jury is still out. In fact the court has not even heard from the defense yet in many ways.

  Recently in Canada a former Olympic Gold medal skier Nancy Greene said when asked about her position, "In science, there's almost never black and white. We don't know what next week's weather is going to be. To say in 50 or 100 years, the temperature is going to do this, is a bit of a stretch for me". She promoted a cautious approach while most of the Canadian skiers has jumped on the "we gotta do something now" soap box with David Suzuki. For that she has been virtually black balled by the skiing community and has even had her stewardship on a School Trustee board challenged because of it. That is the type of hysteria that is attached to the AGW agenda!

  Those who propose calm and that propose a climate rise is a natural occurrence as an initial premise based on geological history are being drowned out (threatened, maligned and bullied) by those who's initial premise is that we are primarily to blame and we have to do something NOW and DRASTIC before it too late.

  The later say that the science and studies will vindicate their rush to justify their premise "so why wait?". And I am not constructing a straw man either because Kyoto is being promoted now and some of its targets are not only dealing with flawed data (ie the hockey stick graph) but biased unsubstantiated conclusions as well, yet they are pressing for implementation within the next 5 years.

  An in depth and meaningful study of polar ice caps for example would need more than 5 years. The data presently being used by Kyoto and in Al Gores documentary are skewed as I have already shown.

  By the way here is one study that casts doubt on the Global Warming arguments about thinning ice caps: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N49/EDIT.jsp

  Read it you will be surprised.

  so far I find the arguments that pumping thousands of tons a year of pollution into the atmosphere and has no effect to be unconvincing. I'm sorry but I just find the arguments on one side to be not very persuasive and sometimes downright silly.

  I am all for greening our outlook for future generations but lets not be stupid about it cutting our nose off to spite our face. Besides there is a difference between pollution and CO2 which is not a pollutant. Yes lets clean up the air and those things that foul it up, but don't confuse apples with oranges.

  Also on the subject of silly, blaming CO2 on the earths rising temperature when historical data proves that CO2 levels rise after global temperatures rise sometimes lagging as many as 1200 years, and conversely that the record shows periods where high CO2 levels correspond with some of earths coldest periods is itself silly. Like a drunk who maintains his wife put him out because she doesn't like his red tie.

  Years ago a cry of complaint arose in the US and Canada about managing the forests. One of the so called solutions was to use selective harvesting by thinning forests through several methods. The result? Forestry management actually turned North American forests into a tinder box by interfering with the natural density of forests. Forest fires have been more severe, spread more rapidly, lasted longer and caused more damage as a direct result of that interference. (Jarred Diamond - Collapse!) Now forestry service have changed their approach to account for the knowledge gained. It is the same here, look before you leap!

  There is very little we can do to affect the global concentrations of CO2. If we could eliminate human CO2 altogether it would be only 1% of the global level and 3% of the annual production by mother earth herself. But if we could make a difference and lower levels of CO2 and it caused a depletion in earths agricultural food output for example (including animals as they live off of vegetation) millions would die.

  Or what if we reversed the temperature rise and got the mercury going the other way? Do some research as to what happened to Europe's economy during the mini ice age (It was 1600's by the way, not the end of 19th century)

  You seem like a nice guy Tex, so why not look at Dr Defreitas examination of the UN IPCC report and the Kyoto protocols against the data that science has already gathered.

  Here is the link to the pdf: http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/deFreitas.pdf

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  All sides of this issue accept that humankind has some input into the current global warming scenario on this planet. The issue is just what percentage of this climate change is mankind responsible for? For example, if it is 5% then in reality we have had such little effect as to render our input meaningless, if it is 50% the we have made a major and dangerous contribution to this phenomena.

  Hillary:

  Just a note that the issue you raised needs to be clarified about human involvement. In what way do you mean, CO2 contributions or the fact that we are here as an integral part of an ecosystem? Even the excrement from 6 billion people will produce greenhouse gases such as methane and CO2.

  As far as CO2 is concerned we represent 0.78- 0.98 % of the total CO2 on our planet. We generate 6.5 Gt annually to a total of 750 Gt (+/- 10% or 75 Gt). Other natural contributors of CO2 such as off gassing oceans, volcanic venting etc is approximately 200 Gt per year. We represent about 3% of that total.

  At the same time the amount of CO2 as high as it may seem is actually stable as the earth has been undergoing a greening period over the last 40 years, partly due to mans agricultural endeavors as well as conservation policies. 1992 was flat line CO2 levels and 1998 saw a decrease even though it was the hottest year in the last decade.

  So according to your 50% comment we are not even close, and being lower than the 5% contributor you suggest, the levels of <1% and 3% depending on what perspective you look at (either the total global amount or total global annual output from natural sources) makes our role in CO2 levels very small.

  But as I have tried to show CO2 is not related to rising temperature (at least as a forcing) nor is it a large component of what are called Greenhouse gases either. (I believe less than 3% is CO2, so if Greenhouse gas is behind Global Warming then our <1% of that 3% is minuscule)

  In fact water vapour is one of the largest components of Greenhouse gas at 30%. If we are contributing to that percentage then the cry should be against taking hot showers, wave pulls at water parks or those water misiting systems at outdoor malls in the summer time! Can you see the protests now!

  None of the 'global warming hysteria' contributors who have laid down the challenge on this thread have provided any scientific evidence that indicates that mankind’s input into the global warming scenario is actually negligible,

  Ok here goes:

  On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?

  L. F. Khilyuk1 and G. V. Chilingar1
  
  Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA

  Abstract The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate. Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth’s climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.

  Likewise there are numerous studies that point to increases in global CO2 levels and even a warmer climate in general being positive in nature even desirable! See posting on page 5 of this thread.

  Global Warming is the issue of the day that effects us all, it is a natural cycle taking place which we will just have to learn to survive as best as we can and that man's input into the problem is far less than is being touted in some quarters. On a geologic timescale, which takes place over hundreds of thousands of years, what is happening is not unusual, though even the little that mankind is contributing to the problem is not helping the situation.

  First part is partly true (but there are many more serious issues than this issue which amounts to a tempest in a tea pot) although that idea that "natural cycles" are backed up by science is very unpopular with fundy's who believe that God placed us here on the perfect earth 6000 years ago.

  When confronted with two ideas, such as Science on one hand pointing to a geological history of 100's of millions of years consisting of upheaval after catastrophe, warming periods followed by extreme cold and Ice Age after Ice Age, and the other being Apocalyptic expectation that confirm their superstitions, the resulting hysteria is what we see happening. We all like a good conspiracy and this one is as good as any. That is what I see through all of this.

  We will see change in the future and some of that will be catastrophic in nature as our planets history proves. We will either adapt and survive or perish. The only thing we can do in the mean time is make the best of our time here and our place in the biosphere. That means taking better care of natural resources, managing forests, wildlife and our oceans and being more responsible in practical ways to make the best of our time as species here.

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  So, why, again is global warming bad? Think of all the areas in northern latitudes that are presently uninhabitable because they are so cold? Ocean rise?

  I guess that's bad if you have coastal property. Hurricances? I guess that's bad if you insure coastal property.

  What I find fascinating is the ABSOLUTE certainty of man's direct causation of the warming when the evidence, as I see it, is simply that global temps. have increased

  over the last century. Man's responsibility seems to me to be a CONCLUSION based on that evidence and then stated with ABSOTULE certainty. Sounds a liitle bit

  like faith in an invisible kingdom.

  Hallelujah!

  Frank75
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Frank75

  CO2 is not the enemy, but a welcome addition to our biosphere:

  The quote below is a conclusion reached by the following scientific paper which can be seen in it entirety here:

  http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/0_CO2ScienceB2C/pdf/health2pps.pdf

  Enhanced or Impaired? Human Health in a CO 2 -Enriched Warmer World
  
  V. Conclusions

  ---

  Although historical and projected future increases in the air's CO 2 concentration and its wrongly-predicted ability to lead to catastrophic global warming have been universally hailed by climate alarmists as diabolically detrimental to human health, scientific studies clearly demonstrate that such is not the case. Throughout the entire course of the Industrial Revolution, during which time the air's CO 2 content rose by 35% and its near-surface temperature by about 0.6°C, there has been no detectable negative impact on human longevity. In fact, human lifespan has concurrently experienced an almost unbelievable increase that shows no signs of ultimately leveling off or even slowing down. What is more, warming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO 2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. In addition, elevated levels of atmospheric CO 2 have been shown to increase the amounts and effectiveness of disease-fighting substances found in plants that protect against various forms of cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

  In light of these many well-documented observations, it is abundantly clear we have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO 2 and global warming, i.e., the "twin evils" of the extreme environmental movement. Indeed, these phenomena would appear to be our friends … and friends of the entire biosphere.

  Frank75