Comments on: Carbon Footprints In The Sand: The Failure Of Global Warming Science

By: forex robot

forex robot — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:33:46 +0000

My cousin recommended this blog and she was totally right keep up the fantastic work!

By: giordano

giordano — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:02:10 +0000

Yeah OK:

Its interesting how you make an argument, and yet, you don’t. Exactly where does the article say that a theory is the same as a hypothesis? Please do point this out for us.

Also, if you can produce for me the SOURCE DATA for the CRU’s experiments which they claim proves that global warming is real, then I am perfectly willing to take an honest look at it.

Do you have the source data for their experiments?

I highly doubt it since the CRU and all other major climate labs have refused FOIA requests for it repeatedly.

Without the source data to back their so called experiments, all pro-global warming arguments are pure conjecture, and nothing more. Which means all of your arguments are based on FAITH in the claims of the CRU. This is in no way scientific, nor is it rational.

Produce some actual concrete source data, and then we’ll talk. Otherwise, it would be like arguing the finer points of a religion; there would be no end to it, nor anything to gain.

By: yeah OK

yeah OK — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:27:16 +0000

Oh my god, you didn’t say it. “Theory.” In science, theory does not mean guess. If something in science has attained the status of theory, that is a good thing–it means there is data and evidence to back up the statement being made.

If you can’t even tell the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, don’t presume to tell the rest of us that global warming is a fraud. Thanks for playing.

Now, seriously, I try to be open-minded about this. But I also have a slight background in earth science. Just slight. I’m not degreed, I’m not an expert, I’ve just been exposed to the concepts. Apparently, not too many denialists have been similarly exposed.

They’ve got this dude in Scandinavia, I don’t remember his name, but he wrote a book that was essentially a screed about what B.S. the global warming theory is. I was in a bookstore less than a year ago and ran across his latest book, which came after. He’s now decided global warming is happening, but we’re too concerned about it and we ought to be considering the needs of people first.

Right. Because people can totally live independently of the Earth’s biosphere.

And I have yet to have a denialist explain to me how we can add carbon to the carbon cycle and not have the weather go crazy and things warm up overall (maybe not here and there locally, but overall temperature change planet-wide). Not a one. I don’t get it. Do you even try?

By: Patrick Henningsen

Patrick Henningsen — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:09:55 +0000

Well done gentlemen. Well done- you addressed the full scope of the issue which many have not done yet.

Check out my Copenhagen articles and videos/ post any of them if you want to:

http://www.21stcenturywire.com

Keep up the good work!

By: Steynite 402rd « Free Canuckistan!

Steynite 402rd « Free Canuckistan! — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:05:47 +0000

[...] THE BIG PICTURE– “Neithercorp Press – The great secret to the “Global Warming Debate,” the [...]

By: Giordano

Giordano — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:55:31 +0000

Yes, I looked at the “terratons” of CO2 instead of the percentage, so you are correct Creativesam. However, I would point out that the entire atmosphere of Mars is only 25 terratons compared to the Earth’s 5148 terratons, so, the amount of ACTUAL CO2 on Mars is negligible. Meaning, no ice melt on Mars could possibly be attributed to CO2.

By: ogden

ogden — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:45:20 +0000

@ creativesam’s comment…

I think he’s got u there Gio!

Of course, it’s irrelevant what the composition of the atmosphere on Mars is… The point is that it remains unaltered by human activities yet still appears to warm and cool on the same cycles as the Earth…

BUT you are correct, almost all of Mars’ atmosphere is CO2.

Thanks for correcting us on this. We’ll be more careful in the future.

By: creativesam

creativesam — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:22:53 +0000

“Carbon is not a major component of Mars’ atmosphere…”

CO2 is approximately 95% of the atmosphere of Mars.

For a non-authoritative source:
link

By: steelman

steelman — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:07:30 +0000

A little apropos to the medieval warmth period.
The vikings was actually farming on Greenland back then. There was a norse colony on Greenland, that died out, due to the period that followed after the warm period, popular known as the little ice age.
The climate hysterics claims that global warming produces extreme weather, but what we call extreme weather today, is like a sunny afternoon, compared to the extreme weather during the little ice age. Hm..

By: steelman

steelman — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:54:21 +0000

Well, I completely agree on this. I have been convinced that this man made climate change theory was a hoax, since it all started. I believe it started about 1990.
Seems like every radio or TV prog. just got to tell at least one lie about manmade climate change, one more fantastic than the other. And that’s why I got suspicious. It seems they use every possible thing that is wrong in the the world and blame it on carbon. It’s more than obvious that there is an agenda behind it all, especially after climategate. And it’s no debate at all, just lies read out on the major newschannels, presented as the truth. It’s quite frustrating