Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: who pays
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 1106 (view)
 
who pays
Posted: 6/15/2017 2:45:50 AM
(Sigh) I wonder if the op is still around as this post is years old. my two cents worth? I like a first date to occur during the day and just for a coffee or light lunch. If things go swimmingly, we would progress on to dinner and even to a club or dancing later. I would pay for everything. If the date did not progress in this fashion, and the lady insisted that she pay for half the freight I would take it as read that she is not into me and say bye bye. As I am a good cook I really don't take her to restaurants after that. My dinners are pretty fabulous, we can drink without fear of the booze bus, she ain't going home and funny thing is, that ladies usually ask me out to dinner if they want to go out after that and they always want to pay, so I let them, but! I insist on providing the tip, and buying the drinks. Works for me.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 24 (view)
 
poetry
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:31:58 AM
Night falls softly
Like knickers dropping around ankles

And just like that
Day disappears from sight

Brackish thoughts occupy me
Take my mind cavorting contorting

Alone and adrift
On a ship with no rudder

That only heaves with the tide
Helpless and unable to navigate

In this sea of remorse
That we both wallow in

Till the sun blinks itself awake again
And the bailing starts in earnest.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 7 (view)
 
hy·po·thet·i·cal
Posted: 12/13/2014 2:47:56 AM
Gingerosity one, awesomefiftyman zero, and the winner is.............Oh my goodness...........it's Ginger, by a country mile! Say a few words for the camera pa-leeeze! Damn where's that dancing pickle when you need it!
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Religion into the bliss of insanity
Posted: 10/11/2014 2:27:47 AM

But if we look at observation in nature we'll find in smash repairs industry many clients are repeat clients. Many of the same drivers have repeated collisions under a variety of conditions.


Um, could you tell me the relation of an observation in nature, in relation to the smash repair industry?

Also, what research has given the figures for your statement that many clients in the smash repair industry are repeat clients? Some might be, but many clients?
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 296 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:55:44 PM

the biggest culprit was its use as propellant for years in spray cans,


Nup, sorry it wasn't.


Not to sure of the ozone hole and what contributes to it. Its always been there, just increased in size and freon products got the blame. We won't know for sure, but they say its shrinking slowly.


Ozone (O3) is simply Oxygen (o2) with an extra atom of Oxygen attached to it. It is poisonous and unstable and is found in small amounts (compared to the rest of our atmosphere, about three molecules of ozone for every 10 million air molecules.) and most of this (90%) is found between six and 10 miles above us in the stratosphere.

Ozone can, and is, produced easily by humans, it is found in automobile exhausts, electrical discharge from electric motors and swimming pool ozone generators. It is poisonous, it kills the bacteria found in swimming pools and it kills us, (Photochemical smog)

The problem with Ozone starts with the claim that Ozone 'protects' us from harmful Ultra Violet rays emitted by our Sun, this is untrue. Similar to the way we produce Ozone, this gas is produced in the stratosphere by UV rays colliding with ordinary Oxygen and disrupting the Oxygen molecule causing the Oxygen atoms to scatter in some cases, these disrupted atoms then attach themselves to other Oxygen molecules forming Ozone. So why the holes?

There are no 'holes', only a thinning at times over the poles, think about it..........
The Earth wobbles and slowly tilts through a complete oscillation once every year, in winter each pole undergoes 3 months of complete darkness. No sunlight = no Ozone production.

Ozone does not protect us from UV rays, Ozone is the result of ordinary sunlight hitting ordinary Oxygen, is a normal and natural phenomena, can not be stopped by any efforts of mankind and, all this was discovered, not in 1985 by British scientist Robert Watson as we are led to believe, but in 1956 by Professor Gordon Dobson who after years of research declared that the thinning of Ozone over the poles in winter was a "fascinating natural phenomena" (Don't believe me? Ozone is measured in Dobson units and Dobson invented the Dobson spectrophotometer which is used to obtain these measurements.) All the above is true and easily verified using simple Internet searches so why have we been fed this disinformation huh?

Could it have anything to do with the fact that the patents were running out on the refrigerants and gases that were subsequently banned worldwide? Don't you think it strange that the very company that held those patents were the biggest mover to get them banned? Would you be surprised to find that this same company miraculously came up with new gases to replace the banned ones (with brand new 50 year patents on them)

Yes folks it's all about the money, same as global warming.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 268 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 9/2/2014 5:52:57 PM
We on the glass half full side are always being accused of not following (or understanding, duh) the science but scientists with no vested interests in green schemes say there has been no warming for 19 years.. The climate models are wrong.

I've always said, follow the money. Who has the most to lose when the green cult is exposed?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_warming_for_19_years/

"The Guardian in 2009 predicted five years of rapid warming:

The world faces record-breaking temperatures as the sun’s activity increases, leading the planet to heat up significantly faster than scientists had predicted for the next five years, according to a study.

The hottest year on record was 1998, and the relatively cool years since have led to some global warming sceptics claiming that temperatures have levelled off or started to decline. But new research firmly rejects that argument.

The research, to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, was carried out by Judith Lean, of the US Naval Research Laboratory, and David Rind, of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Fail. Five more years of no warming followed.

Professsor Ross McKitrick says in a new paper that the warming pause has now lasted an astonishing 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere:

The IPCC has drawn attention to an apparent leveling-off of globally-averaged temperatures over the past 15 years or so.... Here, I propose a method for estimating the duration of the hiatus that is robust to unknown forms of heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation (HAC) in the temperature series and to cherry-picking of endpoints… Application of the method shows that there is now a trendless interval of 19 years duration at the end of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature series, and of 16 – 26 years in the lower troposphere. Use of a simple AR1 trend model suggests a shorter hiatus of 14 – 20 years but is likely unreliable…

While the HadCRUT4 record clearly shows numerous pauses and dips amid the overall upward trend, the ending hiatus is of particular note because climate models project continuing warming over the period. Since 1990, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose from 354 ppm to just under 400 ppm, a 13% increase…

In the surface data we compute a hiatus length of 19 years, and in the lower tropospheric data we compute a hiatus length of 16 years in the UAH series and 26 years in the RSS series.

This is “the science”. Why do warmists keep ignoring it?

(Via the ever-excellent Watts Up With That.)

UPDATE

With the science against the faith it has so frantically promoted, the UN searches for someone who will turn the debate. Note well: it’s looking for someone who isn’t a scientist but who can play on guilt, racial politics, gender politics and victimhood:

The United Nations is looking for a young woman to, as BBC put it, be the ‘Malala’ of the climate change movement, serving as a voice that will energize this September’s climate change conference.

The organization has put out a call for a woman under 30 to speak at the opening session of the 2014 Climate Summit, which is being held on September 23 in New York City. The woman has to be from a developing country and must have a background that includes advocacy on climate change or work on implementing climate mitigation or adaptation solutions. So far, the call for applicants has drawn 544 women, who emailed short videos of themselves persuading world leaders to act on climate change to the Secretary-General’s office.

The UN has outed itself with this stunt. Its criteria ensure no leading climate scientists need apply. See, this is no longer about science at all."

Check out the full text and graph on the link above and ask yourself if you dare, could I be wrong?
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 267 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 8/31/2014 1:31:24 AM

You guys do realize that you're discussing physics of the colors that are revealed through a prism with a child holding a crayon from the Crayola box, don't you?


Drink you gotta get off those drugs before you post mate
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Religion into the bliss of insanity
Posted: 8/31/2014 1:28:00 AM

Mr and Mrs King – who are Jehovah’s Witnesses – boarded a cross-Channel ferry from Portsmouth to Cherbourg with Ashya’s six siblings after removing him from hospital.


Exactly! It is not just murdering radicalized women hating Muslims that are the problem, ALL religions are based on a fairy story in one way or another. VANEST55 writes "Seriously are we all heading towards the bliss of insanity???'' Seriously? Yes, unless more of us use our brain to reject this control that 'religion' of all natures seeks (successfully) to have over (some of) us.

VANEST55 also writes, "It is incumbent on the individual that proposes a comment that He/She declares to be factual to
provide the relative proof positive to support the assertion." May we propose that this apply to you, and all fanatics as well? (not that I am accusing you of being a fanatic but fanaticism appears in many forms)

I really think that people like Vanest55 should sit for a long while naked, to stare into the abyss of their navel, and see if their navel starts to stare back at him. In his case it probably would and while sitting and pondering if a voice, real or imagined says, "Give yourself to him," or "surrender to your Saviour" or even purrs, "you are nothing without accepting his love" Run VANEST55 run like buggery and don't look back, for once you do surrender your mind to another who suggests you do, you are giving control of your life to another.

Not me buddy, I have found God and it's me.

Wanna join up? I'll only tithe you 5% of your wages, that's a bargain in todays market!
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 261 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 8/28/2014 3:28:14 AM
Wvwaterfall, you guys are just so predictable and whenever your chain is yanked, you cry 'It's the science, we understand it-you don't' or, 'show me the research' and then when the research is shown, 'oh that research? It's not defensible research!'

So what happens when your so called 'science' is proven to be false? Yep the good old, 'cooking the books' type of false, as in falsifying records to 'prove' that the Earth is warming when it fact it is cooling? Amazing what 'the science' will do to justify that grant money. Read on and weep.


Australian scientist calls for ‘heads to roll’ over adjusted temperature data
Anthony Watts / 2 days ago August 26, 2014

Yesterday we posted on BoM’s bomb on station temperature trend fiddling. where BoM claimed the trend difference was a result of a station move. Apparently, BoM can’t even keep track of their own station histories! Today, Dr. Jennifer Marohasy writes: Who’s going to be sacked for making-up global warming at Rutherglen?

She writes: HEADS need to start rolling at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The senior management have tried to cover-up serious tampering that has occurred with the temperatures at an experimental farm near Rutherglen in Victoria. Retired scientist Dr Bill Johnston used to run experiments there. He, and many others, can vouch for the fact that the weather station at Rutherglen, providing data to the Bureau of Meteorology since November 1912, has never been moved. Senior management at the Bureau are claiming the weather station could have been moved in 1966 and/or 1974 and that this could be a justification for artificially dropping the temperatures by 1.8 degree Celsius back in 1913.

rutherglen_station_plot_raw_homogenized

The temperature record at Rutherglen has been corrupted by managers at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

Surely its time for heads to roll!


The unhomogenized/raw mean annual minimum temperature trend for Rutherglen for the 100-year period from January 1913 through to December 2013 shows a slight cooling trend of 0.35 degree C per 100 years. After homogenization there is a warming trend of 1.73 degree C per 100 years. This warming trend is essentially achieved by progressively dropping down the temperatures from 1973 back through to 1913. For the year of 1913 the difference between the raw temperature and the ACORN-SAT temperature is a massive 1.8 degree C.


In the case of Rutherglen the Bureau has just let the algorithms keep jumping down the temperatures from 1973. To repeat the biggest change between the raw and the new values is in 1913 when the temperature has been jumped down a massive 1.8 degree C.In doing this homogenization a warming trend is created when none previously existed.

The Bureau has tried to justify all of this to Graham Lloyd at The Australian newspaper by stating that there must have been a site move, its flagging the years 1966 and 1974. But the biggest adjustment was made in 1913! In fact as Bill Johnston explains in today’s newspaper, the site never has moved.

Surely someone should be sacked for this blatant corruption of what was a perfectly good temperature record.

more here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/whos-going-to-be-sacked-for-making-up-global-warming-at-rutherglen/

Defend that Wwwwwaterfall.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 257 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 8/26/2014 4:02:20 AM

If, however, you are somewhat concerned about your grand-kids/great grand-kids facing famine, disease and, well, extinction, then you might want to look into it a bit.


Ahh yes the old guilt trip, laid on with a good dollup of superciliousness thrown in for good measure.

For your info blartfarst, a lot of us have 'looked into it' and for you to suggest that we haven't (and you have) is ludicrous in the extreme. What you don't seem to get is that most of us have examined the subject matter minutely and have come to the rational conclusion all on our own like big people, that what you and the rest of you doomsdayers postulate is a massive crock.

It might do you some good if you stop trying to sell us all on a guilt trip and stopped bleating to the world that the sky is falling, 'cause it ain't.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 254 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 8/25/2014 6:08:26 AM

Here's one primer on how science works


Thanks, I think we are delving into the occult now.

I'm going to minimize negative impacts now, it's called red wine, fark!
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 250 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 8/13/2014 5:16:50 PM
Lying cheat writes

You have an interesting way of expressing yourself.
It's remarkably, some might say miraculously, similar to the way a whole range of right-wing anti-science pseudo-skeptic denialist bloggers express themselves.
'

Hey Lyingcheat (apt name you've chosen btw if I may say so) you love to denigrate anyone who dares to challenge your doomsday views, how about this from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. (Your mates and, definitely not right-wing anti-science pseudo-skeptic denialist bloggers.) Read the full story here.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V17/N33/C2.php

Their conclusions, under the heading" What it means" are:
'In the words of Ding et al., these several findings suggest that (1) "a substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability," that (2) this natural variability "is intrinsic to the coupled atmosphere-ocean system," that (3) "these features are not reproduced in the ensemble average of the historical simulations using the CMIP5 models," which further implies that (4) the output of the most up-to-date CMIP5 models is still a far, far cry from reality."

Read it Lyingcheat, this is more of your lot, scientists refuting AGW. I really would like to see how you put your spin on it.

I say put your spin on it because, of course, it wont convince you though will it, hard to convince a true believer that their religion is nothing more than an elaborate fairy story based on a lie, as all fairy stories are.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 249 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 8/11/2014 7:52:28 PM
.huge sums have been 'squandered on the renewable energy sources.


And what's wrong with this? It's true. Countless billions have been spent on wind turbines that whilst being visually a polluting blot on every landscape they have been erected on, will NEVER earn in produced energy, what it has cost to put them up, in the usable lifetime of each unit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2225544/Good-riddance-wind-farms--dangerous-delusions-age.html

Solar, whilst being less visually polluting, is only now experimenting with new mirror systems which melts salt and keeps electricity turbines generating after the sun has set. Even so most solar is inefficient, unreliable and still needs gas or coal power to generate power at night or on cloudy days.

"At the equator on a sunny day, 950 watts of power shines down on a square meter. That’s about 9 light bulbs’ worth. There is no way, short of violating the laws of physics, to enhance that number. In the U.S., the number is more like 400 watts over the course of a sunny day. We’re down to 4 light bulbs. However, we cannot convert 100% of this energy into electricity. Current technology captures about 15%. Half a light bulb, more or less.
If we covered every roof top of every home in America with solar panels we could likely power the lighting needs of our homes, but only during the day when the sun is shining. During the night, when we actually need lights, panels are useless. As with wind, electrical power can't be stored at large scale. The basic problem here is that solar power isn’t very, well, powerful"
http://thenakeddollar.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/idiots-guide-to-why-renewable-energy-is.html

The study and development of renewable energy is fine, but we should never have been pushed into the corner we are in with this first generation of renewables that we have at the moment. My guess is that eventually Governments will say "see we told you so, it's just not working, look at your utility bills!" and go back to using gas and coal as this, makes them a profit!

People today don't really understand that large scale electricity is produced by the same basic method today as was used and invented by Faraday in the 1820's by the movement of a loop of wire, or disc of copper between the poles of a magnet. This has to be rotated somehow though, this is mainly achieved by using another old technology from the 1800's......steam.

Yes folks, when we are shown those horror close up pictures on TV of stuff belching out of these huge round pot bellied stacks, it's just to scare you, into believing fairy stories like Global warming. if they showed you shots from further away you would see the steam harmlessly turning back to water vapor or humidity.

The modern steam turbine (invented by Sir Charles Parsons in 1884) currently generates about 80% of the electric power in the world, efficiently, reliably and, before we went on this mad rampage of carbon credits, energy targets and electricity providers being forced to pay billions for the erection of wind farms and millions to householders for slinging millions of PV panels on their roofs, cheaply.

She wern't broke, but we went ahead and 'fixed' it anyhow.


.huge sums have been 'squandered on the renewable energy sources.


You better believe it!
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 247 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 8/10/2014 1:55:21 AM

That term and various others came from those who share your side of the debate ... Remember ???
The other side are the Deniers /Skeptics/Non Believers... As those who also share your view like to name us !!.
But I have to agree ...Sounds "Religious" like terms to me...


Amen.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 245 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 8/9/2014 9:46:50 PM

Those who ridicule the act of being concerned with climate change are belittling the act of developing safer and sustainable renewable energy, and doing many things in a less destructive manner...as if these wouldn't be good things anyway.


You finished your post saying,'that.... is crazy' I'm starting this post saying this, is stupid, meaning your post!

How arrogant to the max to suggest that because a person does not toe your perceived line in the sand when it come to the AGW debate, they are "belittling the act of developing safer and sustainable renewable energy, and doing many things in a less destructive manner"

I'm sorry man but you should get a life. I for one use solar for most of my energy, have a old style Southern Cross windmill that pumps well water for domestic use, heat my home using firewood obtained from fallen trees, cook on a Metters 'Beacon Light' fuel stove and convert cooking oil into biofuel. I only drink rainwater runoff from my roof. I live very sustainably eat free range eggs, wild feral pigs, rabbits and kangaroo meat. I am extremely interested in sustainability but not to the ridiculous level of living in a cave without clothes and eating berries and roots.

Really drink, just because people don't agree with the fairy story that you do, doesn't mean we all fit into your nice little shoe-box of what you think we all subscribe to.

Global warming? Happening right now, in my living room in front of a roaring log fire with a nice glass of red in my hand. Cheers.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Religion into the bliss of insanity
Posted: 8/2/2014 4:58:13 PM
What a thoughtful and extremely interesting thread and I cannot find anything to disagree with any posts here.

What I find fascinating, is the control of in some cases, great numbers of humans, by religious overlords, with the extreme example of people committing suicide in the name of their religion, however this is not unique to mainstream religion as I'm sure many of you know.

The study of cults showcases in microcosm the mechanics of mind control precisely.

To any sane outsider looking in, an impossibly flawed situation exists and the unhealthy control of the group is obvious but to those ensconced inside, the situation seems perfectly normal and tolerably (to those in control, or those in the ecstasy of belief) or oppressed and unhappy but shackled by the fear of what is supposed to happen if they flee and in older cults the dislocation and shunning by their immediate family.

I think the problem is a flaw we all possess, blind belief.

Listen enough to the prophet who instructs you to give up your better instincts and "surrender to" or "let him in" and "give yourself to the.......... " (fill in the space here of someone deemed superhuman) and you run the risk of being brainwashed to the point of no return.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

Friedrich Nietzsche
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 23 (view)
 
poetry
Posted: 8/1/2014 8:26:01 PM
Angry words uttered

Excuses were stuttered

A door slamming hard

As feet leave the yard

Then words light my screen

"It's started"
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 2439 (view)
 
/////\\\\\ 6 Lines or Less //////\\\\\\
Posted: 8/1/2014 8:19:21 PM
Angry words uttered

Excuses were stuttered

A door slamming hard

As feet leave the yard

Then words light my screen

"It's started"
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 237 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 8/1/2014 7:30:46 AM

Anybody remember my "little kid's game of opposites" approach? It's what the religious do all of the time. Characterizing things, and themselves, as being exactly the opposite as they really are. Pretending to be the sensible ones while belittling the real ones. Going through all of the motions to give off the appearance, confusing those who don't know how to really tell one from the other...increasing the amount of intellectual work required to unweave all of the jibber jabber, so that many people will just throw up their hands and subconsciously decide to go with whoever seems the most immediately convincing.


Umm are you doing drugs?


Because we're not dismissing the common sense available. And we're not blindly dogmatically adhering to a view.


well....yes yes you are. Sorry.


Because the last 50 years versus the last 50 million is irrelevant...is not the keystone of the argument. And your interpretation of all that is a pile of shit.


No really......Are you doing drugs?


Like Humans having an effect, and possibly a dangerous effect, on the climate is all fake...being a blind belief.


Missing is the question mark ? So I'll take it as being a question and answer emphatically.....YES!
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 233 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 7/30/2014 9:01:57 PM
Out of curiosity, Moon Rocket (and anyone else who would like to answer, especially if MR bows out ungracefully), which "skeptic" camp do you identify with?


Well if by skeptic, you mean non believer (in AGW) then that's the "camp" I'm in as far as you are concerned but if by having an inquiring, non-gullible and cautious mind you regard me as a skeptic, then I would guess I am a broad based skeptic.


The "skeptical" side's claims fall into one of these general groups:
-The climate isn't really changing like those alarmists claim, so we don't need to do anything.
-Ok, the climate is changing, but man isn't to blame, so we can't really do anything.
-Ok, the climate is changing, but the changes will be mostly beneficial, so we shouldn't do anything even if we could.


Oh so simple isn't it? Not!

BTW, skeptical is not a dirty word flyguy51 as much as you wold like to change the dictionary meaning and as to your 3 groups that us non-gullible unbelievers must fit into, I would suggest a third, that of the belief that the climate is always changing and will always change but that catastrophic change has and always will be enacted by forces far greater than mankind's puny effects on it.


Or, like your unattributed blog author, self appointed climate expert, and preeminent car dealer Geoff Pohanka, do you subscribe to a muddled, contradictory combination of the three? Seeing as how you plagiarized his writing on here, that seems most likely on the face of it.


By Mentioning CAR DEALER Geoff Pohanka, it would seem that you are seeking to discredit him because of his occupation? So is a car dealer not allowed an opinion? Should a car dealer not author a blog?

No this is another ploy by the likes of you to "shut down critical thinking."

Geoff Pohanka and indeed I have every right to both opinions and blogs and I have a right to quote him, that I didn't credit him is my mistake but the post is much more than his views and to this end I note you haven't replied to any of my comments on Ozone holes but it's easier to attack the man isn't it?

You are presenting a scientific discussion? You flatter yourself mate. So you and lyingcheat are scientists? Well here is one definition e of what a scientist is so maybe you are.

What is a scientist?

When you think of a scientist do you imagine a rather strange older man with white hair? In fact, scientists come in all shapes and sizes.

It is hard to spot a scientist but, if you look in a mirror, you will see one looking back at you. You can work scientifically and be a scientist by observing, and then asking and answering questions about the world around you. Science is a process for finding new information. The steps in the process include:

observing
making an inference
making an hypothesis
collecting data
analyzing results
publishing results.

If you follow these steps you will be working as a scientist.

So if this is a scientist, then I am a scientist also, but a scientist who keeps an open mind and, as a scientist should, is skeptical of fanatical believers who only see what they seek to see then hide behind the voluminous skirts of "THE" science.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 231 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 7/30/2014 5:34:41 PM
AER scientists can help you assess how climate change over the next 10 to 30 years may affect your business, your investment portfolio, or your customer base.


The operative word here? MAY.


Of course, you will dismiss it all as the insurance industry's excuse to charge more.


Well that's one you got right.


But at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself who all is on your side and why, and who all is not. I can tell you right now, that superior knowledge, purity of motives, and superior numbers of experts are NOT on your side, but I will have to leave you with discovering that on your own. No one will be holding their breath, however...


Ahh ha ha! Laughing my guts out with this one! Replace your words with, knowledge from cherry picked sources, singularity of motives and superior numbers of so called experts on the payroll of government funded Climate Change inquiry panels who desperately want to 'prove' the Global Warming fiasco.

But to be fair I believe people like YOU have the highest motives in mind, same with drinkthesunwithmyface and liyingcheat as well. In my opinion guys like you are well intentioned and concerned, I get that, what I don't get is the fact that you dismiss the common sense available in this debate and continually chant to the rest of us that "the sky is falling, run for the hills, we're all gonna die, and by the way, all you people with an opposing view are all stupid!"

The other thing I don't get is your reliance on the scientific prophets of doom (paid in some way by the 'industry') who rely on what has happened in the last 50 years and ignore almost completely what happened in the last 50 million years!

Please consider the following though, Here are a tiny example of some things that some people (in some cases a lot of people) absolutely believed in, some so totally that they gave their lives for their belief.

The Manson Family (Satanism) 1969 killed Sharon Tate and and 6 others in horrific circumstances

"I never went to school, so I never growed up to read and write too good, so I have stayed in jail and I have stayed stupid, and I have stayed a child while I have watched your world grow up, and then I look at the things that you do and I don't understand. . . .
"You eat meat and you kill things that are better than you are, and then you say how bad, and even killers, your children are. You made your children what they are. . . .
"These children that come at you with knives. they are your children. You taught them. I didn't teach them. I just tried to help them stand up. . . "

Part of Manson's testimony certainly no genius but people believed this guy and all his deranged ideas and went out and killed other human beings without remorse!

The End Of The Word According the doomsday believers, the word would end on the 21 December 2012. Well it didn't!

Aum Shinriko 40,000 members, 20 March 1995, Aum members released sarin in a coordinated attack on five trains in the Tokyo subway system, killing 13 commuters, seriously injuring 54 and affecting 980 more. Some estimates claim as many as 6,000 people were injured by the sarin.

Movement Of The 10 Commandments Formed late 80's. March 2000, 300 died in mass suicide/murder, a further 700 were found in mass graves nearby. Speculation was mass murder by the leadership.

Order of The Solar Temple (UFOs) Over 100 murder/suicides.

Heaven's Gate (UFOs) 39 committed suicide in 1997

Peoples Temple (Jones-town) 1978, 918 died murder/suicides.

The list is enormous, Branch Davidians, Unification Church (Moonies), Holes In The Ozone theorists, Y2K doomsdayers and many Muslim sect based terrorist cults too numerous to mention togethern with fringe groups who are tolerated but treated with much suspicion (Church Of Scientology, etc.) The singular tenant with all these however is that slavish adherence to 'the belief' is necessary and dissent is not tolerated. In fact all cults have one thing in common, they shut down critical thinking.

So what does this have to do with Global Warming believers? You guys will join this same odd group of cult based oddities as history proves you wrong.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 229 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 7/30/2014 4:02:40 AM
According to property searches, in 1997 Professor Flannery bought one house on the Hawkesbury with his wife, Alexandra Leigh Szalay, for $274,000.
(Then the one next door for 505,000 in 2002)

Yep and the Global Warming guru Al Gore also lives in a multimillion dollar OCEAN front property and the headquarters of the Australian Greens party is, ta dah............a multimillion dollar waterfront in Tasmania!

When are you poor manipulated Global Warming Alarmists going to wake up?

Just as the brainwashers of Muslim fanatics don't rush off to strap on a body bomb and swan off to receive their 57 virgins in Heaven, neither do the so called 'experts' in 'the science' take what they peddling seriously. They do take seriously however the money that flows into their pockets from their guilt ridden believers anxious to show that they have somehow become superior because they have joined the only caring sharing network in the World, bollocks! Most of us care and most of us give a damn but most of us also are still able to use common sense to work out the charlatans in the room.

Dunno about you but I stopped believing in fairy stories a long time ago.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 226 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 7/26/2014 4:10:49 PM

You won't be able to do that. Your pool will have evaporated due to global warming and who knows what the rains will bring.


I wish I could just post 'Amen' to that but it would probably be deemed too short and disallowed. What also should be disallowed are posts like the one preceding this which shows precisely, an attitude which displays all the attributes of the closed mind of the zealot, angry, foul mouthed, unable to debate without threatening violence and just plain crass.

Lighten up old mate, you'll give yourself an ulcer
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 223 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 7/25/2014 11:10:57 PM
Like I said, hard to debate with brainwashed zealots desperate to be 'right' at any cost.

Maybe it was this listing or sinking ship I was referring to thanks to baffalobill's message 267.


...The Daily Telegraph
January 01, 2014 12:00AM

Global warming activists still trapped by inconvenient ice.

IT began as a journey to "investigate the impact of changing climate" and to "use the subantarctic islands as thermometers of climatic change" but more than 70 global warming activists, journalists and crew, led by University of NSW professor of climate change Chris Turney, are now trapped by millions of tonnes of ice after their ship was caught in freezing conditions off the Antarctic coast.

Attempts by two ice breakers to reach the Russian-registered ship, stranded since Christmas Day, have been abandoned due to bad weather and the volume of ice surrounding the vessel.
The mood is getting more frustrated by the day," photographer Andrew Peacock said in an email. "There are so many variables - every briefing is different - and people are getting a little worried now while the weather stays poor. Lack of control and missing loved ones are starting to put some emotion into our conversations!"

In some quarters, sympathy for the trapped activists is running low.

"You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh at the spectacle of global warming fanatics trapped in the ice on their way to Antarctica, where they planned to make a big deal about the relative shortage of ice," wrote US journalist John Hayward as the ordeal entered its sixth day.

"It's even funnier because the highly sympathetic mainstream media so clearly understands how utterly embarrassing this is."


Ah yes, hard when 'the science' just up and plain doesn't do what you say it should. Wake up guys, you didn't 'fix' the holes in the Ozone layer, the World didn't end new years eve 2000 and there's nothing to fix here. Scaremongering aside, haven't you got better things to do?
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 221 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 7/25/2014 7:49:57 PM
I guess you noticed no one responded to your long winded tome lyingcheat because I guess some of us have to work and to address all your points is tiresome and seemingly pointless as you seem to be brainwashed to the point where even considering you could be wrong in any way is impossible, however in answer to some of the points you try to raise and to definitely address the original topic (isn't funny how climate warming has now morphed into climate change? Rats recognizing that the ship is listing badly?) consider the following written in layman's terms.

For most of the past 10,000 years the earth was warmer than today's temperatures.

The current global warming starting in the mid 1700s, well before man started producing much CO2

The warmest year ever recorded in the USA from 1900 until today was 1934 according to NASA link. The coldest, in the mid 1970s, a period when some scientists and most of the press said the earth was heading toward global cooling if not a return of glaciation.

In the 1970's many of the same scientists who today say that man is causing global warming, were claiming that man was causing a return of an ice age.

Warmest years in USA according to NASA. 1934 1998 1921 1906 1931 1999 1953 1990 1938 1939

Five of the ten warmest years since 1900 were before 1940! The warmest decade in the USA was the 1930s. US temperatures have only risen 0.2 degrees F from 1940! 24 of the 50 US States had their highest ever recorded temperature in the 1930s

Using just the US rural temperature data (not including temperature sensors near urban areas due to the urban heat island affect), today's US rural temperatures are cooler than those of the 1930's. (David Archibald)

Global temperatures declined from 1945 through 1979, yet his was a period of rapid industrial expansion and increasing CO2 production throughout the world. If CO2 and temperatures are linked, why did temperatures fall?

Years of continental record high temperatures:

Europe 1881
Australia 1889
South America 1905
Oceania 1912
North America 1913
Africa 1922
Asia 1942
Antarctica 1974

Global temperatures have declined in five of the last seven decades even though CO2 levels increased throughout this same period.

According to the 351 year temperature record for central England (CET) as maintained by the UK Met Office, England Summer temperatures in the 20th Century were cooler than those of the 18th Century link

A survey of US weather stations shows that 80% of them are poorly maintained and located and have a warming bias of several degrees due to land use changes.

Global temperatures mysteriously jumped when nearly 50% of all global weather stations (many in rural areas) stopped recording climate in the early 1990s. If fact global temperatures have not been warming since 2002 and are somewhat cooler

Earths temperatures are not constant. There were 23 periods of cooling and warming in the past 500 years with the average cycle being 27 years long. There were two cooling and warming periods in the past 100 years alone. 1880-1915 was a period of cooling 1915-1945 was a period of warming 1945-1977 was a period of cooling 1977-1998 was a period of warming 1998-the present, it has been cooling, all related to changes in solar activity and the Pacific El Nino and La Nina cycles. AGW's please note: Global temperatures today are among the coolest in the last 500 million years.

After the Medieval Period the world cooled 4 degrees centigrade, causing the "Little Ice Age". This was a period of glacial advance from the mid 1400's to mid 1800's. Then the world began to warm once again. Many of the glaciers that are now retreating were ones that grew during this "Little Ice Age".

The fastest global temperature change ever recorded was from 1696 to 1732. Temperatures declined 2.2 degrees centigrade, which is 4 times the rate of temperature change and three times the speed of the .6 degree change in temperature of the hundred years of the 20th Century.

While it is true that there has been some warming in the northern hemisphere in the last part of the 20th Century the southern hemisphere has shown no increase and has actually been cooling.

There has been some global warming in the second half of the 20th century but the temperature peaked in 1998 and it has been cooling since. Four of the five most active solar cycles since the 1600's were in this same period of warming. Active solar cycles historically have caused warming temperatures.

The winter of 2007-2008 had the most snow cover in North America, Asia, and Siberia in over 60 years.

China had its worst winter in over 50 years in the winter of 2007-2008

Many areas of the world experienced a harsh winter in 2007-2008. Quite a few had record low temperatures and it snowed in Baghdad the first time in a century (link), and Saudia Arabia experienced the coldest temperatures in 20 years

Warming periods in earth's history have been ones where mankind has largely prospered due to higher crop yields. Cooling periods are ones where mankind has historically suffered, from lower crop yields, hunger, and disease.
If people had a choice between cooling and warming, wouldn't most chose warming?
There was global warming in the late 20th Century (these temperatures are now falling). But it was no hotter than earlier periods, it was just less cold. The Summer's high temperatures were no warmer, the low temperatures were just not as low. The global warming was not on the high side of temperatures, it was on the low side of temperature ranges. (Patrick Michael)
Land temperatures have increases (but this is probably the result of urban growth which have encroached on land based temperature sensors). Upper atmosphere and sea temperatures have not increased. If CO2 was causing the higher land temperatures the seas and upper atmosphere should also be warming, but they are not. (Patrick Michael)

It was warmer in each of the last three interglacial periods than today.

And regards CO2 Atmospheric CO2 levels are today among the lowest in the last 545 million years!
In fact, the increase in CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere since 1750 is only 1/10,000th, or (100ppm).

CO2 is a trace gas. It is less than 4/100ths of one percent of gases in the atmosphere.

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enters into the atmosphere yearly only 3.2% is from human activity, the rest is from the oceans, volcanoes, and decaying plant matter.

There was 15 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today during the Ordovician-Silurian glaciation, 5 times more during the Cretaceous-Jurassic glaciation, and more also during the Permian glaciation.

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been as much as 25 times what they are today. Current CO2 concentrations are among the lowest in the past billion years and closer to our time frame, current atmospheric CO2 is generally much lower than most of the last 500 million years.

"CO2 is a trace gas, it is less than 4/100's of 1% of all gases in the atmosphere. Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enters the earth's atmosphere every year only 6 billion tons are from human activity, the rest is from natural causes (decaying vegetation, volcanic activity, and the oceans). Man only contributes 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere. If CO2 truly caused global warming like they say it does there would have been a catastrophe long ago.
Without greenhouse gases global temperatures would average 4 below zero F instead of the 59F we now enjoy.
CO2 only makes up 1/10,000th more of the atmosphere than in 1750, an increase of 100ppm.
There is very little CO2 in the air. Of each one million molecules in the atmosphere only 380 are CO2.
The CO2 level in the atmosphere is 380 ppm. Before industrialization it was 270 ppm. CO2's increasing volume in the atmosphere has grown only 1/10,000th since the beginning of industrialization. Plant growth slows as CO2 levels below 220ppm and plants stop growing at CO2 levels of 150ppm. Man and animal life were near extinction due the lack of CO2
Water vapor makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases. CO2 is only 3.6% of greenhouse gases, and since man only contributes 3.2% of all CO2 into the atmosphere, less than 1% of all greenhouse gases come from human activity." Dr. Michael R. Fox
The oceans hold 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere, and it is at equilibrium. If this rate continues atmospheric CO2 can not rise substantially because the sea will absorb most of it.
People get sick at CO2 concentrations above 5,000ppm. There are no scenarios that CO2 will get anywhere near this high, no matter how much the CO2 is produced burning fossil fuels. Many say the high limit is 600 ppm, with nature absorbing the rest. Fossil fuels will run out before CO2 concentrations will get over this level.

During one ice age the atmospheric CO2 was ten times the level of today. Clearly CO2 did not stop this ice age from occurring. Either CO2 doesn't have much impact on climate or the sun's reduced energy caused the ice age, or both.
Plants grow up to 50% faster with CO2 levels of 1000ppm. They grow 15% faster with today's level of CO2, which has led to higher crop production.
Greenhouses use 1,000 PPM of CO2 to increase plant growth. Higher concentrations of CO2 increase crop production.
Plants in arid regions of the earth need less water to grow due to higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The oceans hold 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. This CO2 is given up to the atmosphere as water warms and it absorbs more CO2 as it cools.
Today's atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is among the lowest in the last 600 million years. Where is the global warming?
There has only been a [b1/10,000th/b] increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age. It is hard to think that this small concentration will melt the worlds ice. Suppose CO2 dropped by an equal amount, would it cause an Ice Age? I don't think so! Where is the global warming?
Global CO2 concentrations in the late Ordovician Period were 12 times what they are today (4,400 ppm) yet this did not stop an ice age from occurring. Where is the global warming?
Polar Ice
Some alarmists postulate that the polar ice is disappearing, Antarctica's represents 90% of the world's ice and 70% of its fresh water. Antarctica's sea ice volume was the largest ever recorded in 2008.

Antarctic sea ice extent in 2008 exceeded 1979 in ten of eleven months. Average ice extent was over 17% larger than in 1979. Sea ice thickness was also larger.

While it is true there has been generally less Summer Arctic Sea Ice in the past two decades this loss has been entirely offset by the growth of ice in the Antarctic. When you combine both poles, there has been no net reduction in global ice!

The volume of Antarctic ice in 2008 was averaging one million square kilometers more than normal. Summer ice melt was 40% below the average.

There is evidence that the Arctic sea ice completely melted at least four times before man first walked the earth. Tropical turtle fossils have been found in the Arctic, proving this area was once much warmer than today.

Greenland's temperatures today are cooler than those of the 1940's link NASA GISS.

Recent studies have shown that winds have a larger impact on polar ice formation than does temperature. Changes in winds and sea currents at both poles have caused an increase in ice formation, even though there has not been significant temperature variation in this period. link
The Winter of 2007-2008, had most ice between Greenland and Canada in 15 years.
If all the floating ice in the world melted, what would happen to the sea level? Answer: The sea would not rise but could go lower, since ice has more volume than water. The melting of floating sea ice can not raise sea levels, no matter how much ice there is, try it, half fill a glass with water, float some ice in it, mark the glass, observe the level after the ice has melted; there will be no change.

If land based ice, such as the 650,000 cubic kilometers of ice on Greenland melted the seas would rise considerably. But, in even the worse case, only one tenth of one percent of Greenland's ice could possibly melt in the 21st century. It would take 10,000 years or more to melt under the worst scenarios. (since most of Greenland is well below freezing much of the year, and most likely this melting would be interrupted by another Ice Age, don't worry, Greenland's ice won't melt like some say it will).
When the glaciers of the ice age melted the sea levels only rose one meter per century. If Greenland was to melt at the same rate today sea levels would only rise 4 inches per century according to Prof Morner. There is no possibility of coastal flooding from global warming.
There was considerable ice melt in Greenland during the Medieval warm period (this is when the Vikings colonized it), yet sea level did not rise higher than the sea level found today! How do we know this? The Tower of London was built at sea level in 1150 AD, the sea is the same level today as depicted in paintings from the time it was built.
The warmest temperatures ever recorded in Greenland were in the 1930's.
If all the land based ice melted, yes the seas would rise, but there would be about the same amount of livable land than there is today since Antarctica and Greenland would become habitable. (but don't worry, this won't happen).
Solar Impact
Solar winds are at 50 year low according to NASA, who says that the sun's output is at the lowest level ever recorded by modern instruments (announced on 9/23/2008)
Solar activity as measured by the number of sunspots (RI), Solar Influences Data Analysis Center S.I.D.C., shows recent dramatic changes in the sun. From 1991 to 2007 the average yearly sunspot total was 1,099. In 2008 there were only 55.4 sunspots, a reduction of 95%.
Solar Geomagnetic AP Index is the lowest ever recorded, from the start of tracking in 1932. This correlates with past cooling.
Solar Cycle 23 which will soon be ending will be the longest solar cycle since 1796 and solar cycle 24, which is now beginning, will most likely be very weak. This is a strong indicator that the earth will be cooling and this period will last at least 30 years or more. (this is based on 250 years of observing the relationship between solar output and temperatures.)
Using temperature date from the mid 1700's and early 1800's until the present, the current solar activity should cause temperature declines up to 4 degrees from the high in 1998. The temperature increase in the 20th Century was only .6 degrees, so the expected cooling will be much more severe than the warming.

There is a long and historic correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature. Short cycles have historically led to warming periods and longer cycles to cooling periods on earth. Solar cycle length has more impact on temperature than solar cycle amplitude (height). Solar cycles average 10.7 years in length but few are this long, most are either shorter than the average or longer. The solar cycles in the latter part of the 20th Century have been shorter ones, and thus the warming. 4 of the 5 shortest solar cycles since the 1600's were in the second half of the 20th century. But the current cycles are different. Cycle 23, which is now ending, is 12 years five months long (as of Oct 2008) and is likely to be well over 13 years long. The last time we had a solar cycle this long was 1796 when the world was plunged into the Dalton Minimum, a period of very cold temperatures between 1796 and 1830. The three solar cycles during that cold period were 13.6, 12.3, and 12.7 years long. If the past is a predictor of the future, solar cycle 23 and a weak solar cycle 24 will lead the world into another cold period similar to the Dalton Minimum. This period will last at least 30 years. S0 where is the global warming lyingcheat and others?
The yearly average number of sunspots per year from 1991 through 2007 were 1,361, (according to the S.I.D.C.). Through September of 2008, we are one pace for only 56 sunspots for the entire year. Where is the global warming?
Changes in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 has always followed changes in global temperatures and not visa versa. The Oceans are huge collectors of CO2, in warming periods they release CO2 to the atmosphere and in cooling periods the oceans absorb more CO2. Maybe warming caused by increased output from the sun has helped cause some of the higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. A cooling earth will cause more CO2 to be absorbed by the oceans and may impact CO2 density in the atmosphere. Where is the global warming?
This solar minimum is rather unusual. If we define a period of quiet sun as those months that produced an AP index of 6 or less and compare the total number of quiet months within each solar minimum, then the results would be: Minimum Preceding Number of Months with Solar Cycle AP Index of 6 or less
SC17 11 months
SC18 2 months
SC19 2 months
SC20 5 months
SC21 0 months
SC22 0 months
SC23 3 months
SC24 31 months and counting

But......... what about the Polar Bears ?
The Polar Bear population was at a record high in 2008, five times more than in the 1950's. No matter how you count it, there are more polar bears today than at any time in recent memory.
Over 600 polar bears are legally hunted every year.
Polar Bears mate on land. Their favorite food besides seal meat is blueberries (also found on land).
Polar bears, during the normal Summer Arctic ice melt, either migrate to land or further north where there is no melting.
In the last 10,000 years Polar Bears have survived several warming periods when the Arctic had severe Summer melting, and most likely melted entirely.
Polar Bear populations are thriving due to the abundance of seals, their primary food source. So long as seal populations thrive, so will the Polar Bears.
The species name for Polar Bears is Ursus Maritimus, Latin for sea bear. Polar Bears are excellent swimmers and have been known to swim as far as 200 miles. (322klms)

Storm impact
The number of hurricanes per year that hit the US 1901-1950 were 1.94, and only 1.41 from 1951-2001, 28% less. The 1901-1950 hurricanes were also more powerful on average. But property damage from coastal storms has increased due to over development, higher population density, and falling land levels such as at Galveston TX, where land has sunk over 4 feet due to settling and fossil fuel extraction. (Patrick Michael) Where is the global warming?

Ocean Acidification
The oceans are not likely to become acidic from higher concentrations of CO2 anytime soon. It would take 3,500 years for the oceans to become even slightly acidic at current rates.
Coral reefs thrived during the Ordovician Era when there was ten times more CO2 in the atmosphere. They also thrived when global temperatures were +10C warmer than today. Where is the global warming?

Sea Level Rise
The earth is in an interglacial period. It is normal for there to be some sea level rise, and there has been for 11,000 years.

In summary
There has been global cooling for the past eight years as global temperatures have been declining
There are signs of global cooling since there is a record amount of sea ice in Antarctica and temperatures have been declining in most of the continent for the last fifty years
Solar activity is the lowest level of the space age. There are 400 years of solar records. Whenever the sun is less active there is global cooling. There is no deviation.
There were three ice ages with more CO2 than today. CO2 does not have much impact on global temperatures, does not cause global warming or global cooling.
The PDO has moved into a cool phase, which can lead to global cooling.
If the past is a predictor of the future the earth is headed into a 30 year period of global cooling. Global cooling is much worse for mankind than global warming. Many more people die from the cold than heat. Crop yields will be reduced and global hunger increased from global cooling.

Conclusion
To get to the truth of what drives global climate one must first separate politics from science.
As with the "Holes in the Ozone Layer" theory which scared the pants of governments all over the World and resulted in many inert, useful gases being banned at great cost, "Global Warming" is based on disinformation and outright lies.

Ozone, is simply Oxygen (O2) with an extra atom of Oxygen attached and forming the molecule Ozone (O3). It is poisonous and an extremely unstable gas which will revert back to simple Oxygen and needs constant replenishing. It is easy to make and is used to sanitize swimming pool water through the use of an Ozone generator which uses an electrical current to produce Ozone. So, question, why is it in our atmosphere, how does it protect us from Ultra-violet light and if it's unstable why doesn't it all disappear? Answer, it's there because the Ultra-violet light rays streaming from the sun breaks oxygen into two free atoms in the same way swimming pool Ozone generators do, and these single free atoms attach to O2 to become O3 molecules or Ozone. To stop Ozone production we would have to be able to switch off the Sun, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

Ozone is the result of ordinary sunlight hitting ordinary Oxygen, understand that and you understand why the "holes" were found over the poles, because the annual tilt of the Earth, as it causes summer in the area of Earth most exposed to it, produces six months of darkness at the pole most turned away from the Sun. No Sun, no Ozone production. Get it? And the lie? The holes were not discovered by British scientist Robert Watson in 1985 which was reported widely and wildly by the World media. Truth is, the "holes" were discovered by Professor Gordon Dobson in 1956 and after years of study and research were described in his words as, "A fascinating and NATURAL phenomenon." Don't believe me? Even the instrument used by Watson to "rediscover" the holes and measure the units of Ozone (which by the way are called Dobson units) is called a Dobson spectrophotometer which professor Dobson invented, way back in the 1950's.

Governments all over the World were fooled by the Holes in the Ozone Layer theory because those who dared to postulate other than the so called scientific evidence were ridiculed as misguided, uninformed and of course.......deniers.

With all the evidence above, doesn't the theory of Global Warming appear similar to the Y2k fear (Armageddon) and the holes in the Ozone Layer (we are killing ourselves)? The question we have to sensibly ask ourself now is...........

Just where is the Global Warming?
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 218 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 7/18/2014 6:28:30 AM

While we are still on this subject about saving the planet ...Can anyone explain how this carbon credit system works???
And who initially benefits ???
Please tell me its not some big business venture who ends up laying claim just looking out for his/hers own needs...


You know that it is.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 211 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 7/14/2014 5:15:25 PM
Oh dear lord RPL, you are taking on the masters of the illogical and the purveyors of gobbledegook, well done!


So - did you waste your breath? Well… yes, you did - but not, I suspect, for the reasons you imagined. It's not because you had something intelligent and well thought out to say that was just TOO sophisticated for us poor ignorant skeptics to comprehend - you wasted your breath because what you wrote was both extremely unscientific and completely illogical - i.e., utter nonsense.


Seldom was it better writ nor communicated. Unfortunately some people, in order to appear "smart" pepper their missives with "Rudd speak," which is the new description bestowed on unintelligible communications earned mightily by Australia's ex Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.

This man had the ability to confuse like no other and double, triple, quadrupole negatives rolled off his tongue like waves crashing onto a beach and made up words generously flung about with gay abandon with the resulting question of "huh?" common at the end of his diatribe. The intent was simple, confuse your opponent with jargon and "professoritis" and attempt to appear superior to onlookers whilst hoping that none would notice that you had not said anything meaningful at all.

Your words RPL by comparison are concise and precise, resulting in a clear, strong and intelligent message being conveyed, I wish others who hold the opposite views to yours could simply voice the same, perhaps then we could indulge in more meaningful discussions, without malice, on issues we disagree on.

On topic, skeptics or deniers (how cute) have long had their voice stifled by the strident and oh so righteous "believers" (sounds so religious, because it is!) who have shouted their so called scientific argument from the rooftops whilst conveniently forgetting that the ammunition provided to feed their claims was financed by the taxpayer's dollar.

As a salesperson I recognize the mechanism of fear and guilt used to peddle and push the global warming scenario, it's the same triggers used in many religions to have followers "believe" that something is occurring that they are helpless to combat, their Saviour of course though, is the person or people behind the scam.

The reality in life though is, thinking for ones-self is hard! It is so much easier to go with the flow, don't rock the boat, keep your head down, don't speak up to bring attention on yourself but more and more thinking people are doing their own research, not believing the doom-sayers and reaching sensible solutions and realizing that sensationalist reporting and biased "research" has been crammed down our thoughts for long enough, it's time the so-called silent majority started to become a little noisy and the real reasons for this "calamity" and others (like the Holes in the Ozone layer) were made public for exactly what they were and are, a scam!
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 206 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 7/13/2014 6:11:25 PM
Yep nice work Baffalobill.

Drinkthesun etc has been busting his, "the sky is falling" rhetoric here forever and woe betide anyone (like us) who dares to proffer a differing opinion to his religious fervor.

Whilst pointing his quivering finger of righteousness at us though and condemning us to eternal damnation, he might want to look up the latest figures, as reported by Metro France that were just released from the French Antarctic Dumont d'Uriulle Station, that June 2014 this year recorded the lowest ever recorded June temperatures since recordings were taken in Antarctica. Or this........

July 13th 2014 (oh that's yesterday!) Brisbane Australia recorded it's coldest temperature in one hundred and three years!

So who do we believe ? A Skeptic or a Professor ?? Well if that Professor is Tim Flannery, who has been dining out on Taxpayer funded "Global Warming" grant allocation dollars since the cows came home I'll take the skeptic any time but wa....wai....wait just a moment there folks, aren't scientists supposed to be skeptics also? Not Messiahs?

No Drink old mate, the sky isn't falling and mankind isn't heating up the planet, truth be known, as far as history is concerned, millions and millions of years of history, Earth is heading into another ice age and there is bugga all that you, me or any other human being can do about it, but don't worry drink, according to real science, and the Milankovtch ice core samples, it won't be happening till you and I are long reduced back to the carbon from whence we started from.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 175 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 4/7/2014 1:00:18 AM

Chasing asteroids is the next big thing.


I think you are onto something aremeself.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 173 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 4/6/2014 3:09:45 AM

Four million deaths per year from cooking fires?


Now that's something we should be talking about!

However more on the anti doom and gloom "deniers" that seem to be creating a backlash (about time) to the religion currently known as global warming .

Australia is holding the G20 Summit later this year and Australia's Prime Minister, Tony Abbott has said climate will not even be on the agenda. The EU and the UN are not happy about that, so we know this is an excellent move. Bravo
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 22 (view)
 
poetry
Posted: 4/4/2014 5:39:58 PM
So quiet
Now it's over

I never heard the clock before
Now it's my friend

It keeps me company
It's not my enemy anymore

I turned the chimes back on
They say "hello"

"I'm still here
You're still here too"

"All's well
See you in half an hour"

So it's the clock
The cat and me

I didn't think I'd miss you
As much as this

Thought once you'd gone
That would be it

Much more time for myself
No one to tell me what to do anymore

Or make me get up
At some ungodly hour

But I still miss you
I wonder if everyone feels the same

When they sell a business?
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 21 (view)
 
poetry
Posted: 4/3/2014 3:45:22 PM
I remember
How you
And I rode
Each other
Like dogs
Fu*king
Sweating
Screaming
Sucking
Kissing
Hoarse
Wet
Silent

Funny
How
Things
Change
Hey?
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 171 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 4/3/2014 3:33:57 PM
To all you Doom and Gloomers out there, what other fairy stories do you believe in? What about.......

"Holes in the ozone layer" Remember that one guys? So what happened? You 'fixed' it?

Nup, nope, nadda, zippo, zero, you didn't.

Still there, still the same size, still alternating from North to South pole every year, just as it has for millions of years. Billions of taxpayer dollars spent on research and many worthwhile gases thrown on the scrapheap for nothing and why?

Because there was nothing there to fix up in the first place exactly like 'global warming'.

Humankind blamed again and guilt ridden, well intentioned but closed minded people rushing off to fight in the holy climate war that is as flawed as the concept of the world being flat.

People believed the pap that was dished up in relation to the 'holes' so hey, move on to the next alarmist campaign, more research dollars given to scientists for global warming research = more need for more research dollars for distribution to scientists who have become reliant on the research buck.

Follow the money, Al Gore did.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 169 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 4/3/2014 12:08:17 AM

It's your posts that are 'alarmist' propaganda,


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Man what a crock. Is that the best you can do?
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 167 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 4/1/2014 3:11:47 PM

You didn't pay attention to what I said


Geeze drink I'm sorry, do I get detention?

In my opinion however, most of what you said is just alarmist gobbledygook, if I didn't pay attention to it it's because I discounted it as fitting into the said category described above, however.......

What do climate change deniers stand to gain?

Well for a start, how about causing a breakout of truth for a change.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 165 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 3/29/2014 5:51:11 PM

Yes, she may be tough…but if we continue to abuse and take her for granted, the way by which she might be a b!tch is to kick us square in the nuts, and then cut our f-cking throats…and be done with us.


Ah yes more doom and gloom. Species have been becoming extinct since the first cells joined up! (Ask a paleontologist) and quite a few disappeared when a big rock hit the Earth some years back. The ice ages knocked quite a few specimens off the register as well and hey nanny noo, guess what? Mankind had nothing to do with it! And a further guess what, WE ARE STILL HERE.

Get a grip guys, you are not the caped crusader, calm down, smell the flowers that aren't extinct and enjoy life.

Hey if you stop winging and whining its really not all that bad! Really want to make a difference? Join your local Progress association, visit the sick or the elderly, connect with a voluntary organization that does some community good, do something that involves PEOPLE not banging around on a key board, you might find that we are not all bad dudes who chuck our bottles out the window and don't recycling our toenail clippings.........heck, you might even find out that humans are as important as the mottled wing blowfly (don't worry we've got plenty here in Australia, we'll export them to you!) OR, God forbid, you might learn to smile again.

Now that wouldn't be half bad would it? You remember smiling don't you? ;-)
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 163 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 3/28/2014 11:10:53 PM

I think it's been tolerable to now to be in climate change denial, but better management of resources for the future of our earth should not be further delayed.


Ok all you "Doom and Gloomers" (Hey I like that!) Here's one that you can go home and organize a protest over.

Rumbles that the scientific establishment may be seriously rethinking the costly climate alarmism that has landed us in the costly word-wide carbon credit debacle thanks to the religion loosely called "climate change" which, really translated into PC speak becomes, me, them and big business (but not you of course!) trashing the planet and causing all sorts of mayhem which, if not stopped by the caped crusader (yes THIS is you of course!) the world as we know it Jim will cease to exist.

Well folks, the American Physical Society, representing 50,000 physicists, has appointed three leading sceptics to help review its previously alarmist position on climate change.

One of them, John R. Cristy, professor of atmospheric science at the university of Alabama, says climate models currently overcook the planet by a factor of 3; while another, Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech says : "warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections".

Hmmm so what is it Gloomers? Money freely dished out in obscene amounts to anyone researching anything remotely resembling "climate science" drying up, as Governments sheepishly realize they have been duped? Or..........

Is it a case of rats fleeing the sinking ship!
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 162 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 3/26/2014 6:43:00 AM
A few hundred million isn't really that much money.


whoa I don't know what you are on per week Drink but you sure are not inhabiting the same world as most of the rest of us if you think a few hundred million isn't really that much money!

The total point is his meteoric rise in worth from 1.7 million in 1999 (when he was selling cows after failing in his presidential bid) to 200 million in 2013 and I agree, the 750k worth of property he owned in 1999 would be petty cash to him now.

Who says there is no money in the climate change industry?
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 160 (view)
 
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 3/25/2014 10:40:41 PM
Interestingly, as we all jabber and Al Gore buys his umteenth mansion on the profits from his involvement in the 'Global Warming Industry' ..............


In 1999, Al Gore, then U.S. vice president and a Democratic candidate for president, had a net worth of about US$1.7-million today Al Gore, who's detractors see him as a limousine liberal, tiresome pedant and climate alarmist who lives a jet-setting, carbon-profligate lifestyle while preaching asceticism for everyone else, is estimated to be worth around a cool 200,000,000.00 (million)

The former senator, who spent most of his working life in Congress, back in 2000, about US$750,000 of his net worth was tied to two homes he and his then-wife Tipper owned in Virginia and Tennessee.

He’s moved up the housing ladder since then. He owns a 20-room, 10,000-square-foot antebellum mansion in Nashville’s wealthy Belle Meade neighborhood that’s mostly shrouded from view by a thicket of Southern foliage and a massive iron gate. In 2010 he purchased an oceanfront six-bedroom, US$8.9-million villa in Montecito, California, where Oprah Winfrey and Kirk Douglas have lived.
(Source, and thanks to, Ken Wells and Ari Levy, Bloomberg News, May 6, 2013 ) Not bad for a guy who is fond of telling the rest of us to tighten our belts and reduce our carbon footprints!

Anyways I hope the irony of Al Gore's oceanfront 8.9-million villa is not lost on the county city halls and councils who are imposing relocation levies on sales of waterfront properties all over the world, (for when such properties are swamped and their hapless owners forced to leave by supposed rising sea levels) 'cause it seems - unlike what he's telling us - Big Al's not worried at all!

Oh and regarding energy consumption? In 2007, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, using a public records request, published Gore’s Nashville home utility bill, showing it used almost 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006 — 20 times the national average household consumption. (That's just for ONE of his mansions!) But I digress I'm supposed to be handing out a dire warning so.........

"Now look you good people, you tighten up now and pay those carbon taxes, we got a rocky road ahead and look there, look up, that there skies a falling, heh heh.......... not in Montecito, California though, no sir! Come on in, the waters just fine!"
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 20 (view)
 
poetry
Posted: 3/25/2014 4:05:51 PM
Wink at me Sun
On your waking

Give me your breath
Gentle breeze

Hide all my tears
Falling raindrops

Clouds
Carry off all my fears

Stars lift my thoughts
And my feelings

Then hide my body
With night

I don't need my thoughts
Nor my anger

To wake me
With nightmares tonight.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 106 (view)
 
He's been caught
Posted: 2/12/2014 3:51:54 AM
Oh c'mon you lot! she was dating the guy for 2.5 months FCS!

She should not have been trolling through his phone!

After that short period of time BOTH are making up their mind whether this is the 'real thing' but really! Are you saying that we all should be snooping through potential partners phones after such a short period of time? The answer is a big NO guys and deep down you know it!

Someone mentioned insecurity in a previous post and I couldn't agree more!

Methinks she protestith too much.

Methinks he dodged a bullet!

Thankewverymush......Rocket.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 457 (view)
 
How to find out penis size
Posted: 1/23/2014 4:34:48 PM
You hope vagina size isn't like tossing a brick up an alley or kicking a can down Main Street.


Guys! Mind you I once asked a lady after we had sex if she was into fisting (cuz y'know.......) and she said yes!

I bailed. However.........

Now I've heard m_church's story...


One women actually had small skin tears and bled after we had sex. It was painful for her just putting it in for the first few times and took her about 2 to 3 months before she could accommodate me without problems. Another went to her doctor because of pain afterwards. She said she felt bruised inside.
A few others have told me that bumping against the cervix is either painful or uncomfortable.


I'll pass any more like that onto him!
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 19 (view)
 
poetry
Posted: 1/23/2014 4:04:01 PM
Cryptic stalker waiting there
Biding time, watch and stare
What is it you're waiting for?
Salacious talk or more of more?
I don't get why you are here
Too much time on hands I fear
And even if I had the time
I won't reply, your poems don't rhyme
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 17 (view)
 
poetry
Posted: 1/22/2014 10:29:18 PM
Maybe we
Should be
Like seagulls
Keep our faces
Turned into the wind
Swim straight
At the tide of adversary
Not worry
For tomorrow
Not care For the tears
Of our miseries
Coursing down
Our face
As they bead
And roll off our feathers
To mix with the rain in the sand
Grand
It would be grand
To stand with your mates
Shoulder to shoulder
Us against the elements
No reason to fight
A delight
It would be
Maybe we
Should live
Like seagulls.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 88 (view)
 
appearances
Posted: 1/21/2014 1:26:50 PM
Good to see this thread has 'cooled down' a mite, would be sad to see this closed down by the mods. That said I would like to throw in my view on this if I may.

Seems it's all down to 'makeup' no-one has mentioned makeovers, plastic surgery, botox, collagen injections, liposuction, etc and I wonder why? Doesn't this fall into the 'appearances' category? And what about the guys? What about manscaping? how about a nose job where an improvement can be experienced? Cannot do, why?



Because the makeup isn't the real face. It hides flaws, and done right, can make you look absolutely nothing like you do without it.
(rockin-trucker82)

Well duh yeah, but isn't that the point? Stories abound about waking up next to someone who was definitely not the person you went to bed with the night before and I married someone who would always flee to the bathroom to 'fix herself up' first thing in the morning and really she was a glamor and an aerobics teacher to boot! This continued until I threatened to lick it all off one day if she didn't pull back a bit and that gave her 'permission' to just be her natural self. Gradually she relaxed and showed her real face then we divorced. (c'mon, only joking guys, back off!)

Look to be honest, I like a woman to look fantastic when I take her out and if she wears makeup, fine, whack it on, if not? I'm pleasantly surprised with her natural look, but, I don't give a bugga about her makeup getting all over my shirt, my face or my sheets (oh please!) in fact, washing everything the next day is done with a smile on my face! (big sigh) But there are bigger fish to fry here no?........

Breast enhancements and other improvements.

What about that for a hand grenade? What's your take on those? (I'll keep my ammunition dry for the moment on that one) But one I would really place in the appearance category is down there, the manscaping (you know who you are, yeah......ok I'm coming out, me too!) The bikini wax, the Brazilian, the landing strip instead of the jungle? Who dares go here?

I for one will, because I am a tradesman..........
And I work 10 times more effectively with a clean workbench!
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 79 (view)
 
appearances
Posted: 1/19/2014 12:10:35 AM
Ok so this is all becoming a bit weird but........


So what are you going to suggest next? That we all do away with the practice of wearing clothing and become nudists,


Look I'm up for this, damn it, why not! And I would still pull your chair out for you at a restaurant, after the waiter covered the seat with a fresh napkin of course, (Oh Gasp, Shock Horror, fingers trembling to ward off another nasty man!) Nooooo I'm just assuming you would be wearing make-up, no?
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 66 (view)
 
appearances
Posted: 1/18/2014 4:46:13 AM

MoonRocket: How could you? You are the manly man who gladly opens women's doors! :) Ok, let's not discuss doors anymore! Shhhhhh! Forget I brought it up! ;P


Ah yes but the ex...what? Could be the ex....racehorse, yes?

And as for you drivingmissdaisy twice! Twice you mentioned them and what did the moderator of all things good and evil say? Don't mention the d-d-d-d-d the d-d-d-d don't mention the bluddy doors!
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 64 (view)
 
appearances
Posted: 1/17/2014 8:52:40 PM
I hate wearing makeup myself, [I could never stop it cracking at the laughter lines!] however, I have a horse [not this one in the pic!] that could definitely benefit from a makeover as she is one ugly mother. Might see what can be done for the saleyards, oh and she bites too, might try high heels on her, then she would be so distracted and in pain that she might behave herself for five minutes. Yeeeeee hah!

Actually she reminds me of my ex.........um, nah not going there.
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 15 (view)
 
poetry
Posted: 1/16/2014 8:01:38 PM
The fool looks
And finding nothing
Realizes what he sought
Was his all along

He packs his bag
Whistling as he walks away
He was never happier
 Moon_Rocket
Joined: 4/20/2012
Msg: 2432 (view)
 
/////\\\\\ 6 Lines or Less //////\\\\\\
Posted: 1/16/2014 8:01:11 PM
The fool looks
And finding nothing
Realizes what he sought
Was his all along

He packs his bag
Whistling as he walks away
He was never happier
 
Show ALL Forums