$125,000 to you if you can prove global warming caused by humans!!!

[BTS]

Ultimate Global Warming Challenge Ups Prize Money to $125,000 for Proving Humans Cause Catastrophic Climate Change







WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Ultimate GlobalWarming Challenge announced today that it raised to $125,000 the cash award to the first person to prove in a scientific manner that human emissions of greenhouse gases will cause catastrophic global climate change.(http://www.UltimateGlobalWarmingChallenge.com) "Surprisingly no one has entered the contest yet," said Steven Milloy,founder and publisher of JunkScience.com and the sponsor of the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge.

"I'm surprised since Al Gore, the United Nations and the mainstream media all seem to think that the notion of man made catastrophic global warming is a no-brainer," Milloy added.



The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge was launched on Aug. 7, 2007 with the popular and highly rated YouTube video entitled, "Can You Save AlGore?" ( "It appears that $100,000 is not enough to spur Al Gore and other climate alarmists to submit their proofs that humans are causing global warming," explained Milloy. "If it's a matter of money, Al Gore and the alarmists should just come out and tell us what sum it will cost the rest of us to see what proof they have.



To schedule an interview, contact Audrey Mullen at 703-548-1160.

[Bryn Mawr]

BTS;717674 wrote: Ultimate Global Warming Challenge Ups Prize Money to $125,000 for Proving Humans Cause Catastrophic Climate Change







WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Ultimate GlobalWarming Challenge announced today that it raised to $125,000 the cash award to the first person to prove in a scientific manner that human emissions of greenhouse gases will cause catastrophic global climate change.(http://www.UltimateGlobalWarmingChallenge.com) "Surprisingly no one has entered the contest yet," said Steven Milloy,founder and publisher of JunkScience.com and the sponsor of the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge.

"I'm surprised since Al Gore, the United Nations and the mainstream media all seem to think that the notion of man made catastrophic global warming is a no-brainer," Milloy added.



The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge was launched on Aug. 7, 2007 with the popular and highly rated YouTube video entitled, "Can You Save AlGore?" ( "It appears that $100,000 is not enough to spur Al Gore and other climate alarmists to submit their proofs that humans are causing global warming," explained Milloy. "If it's a matter of money, Al Gore and the alarmists should just come out and tell us what sum it will cost the rest of us to see what proof they have.



To schedule an interview, contact Audrey Mullen at 703-548-1160.


Might I ask what type of proof is deemed to be acceptable?

Are they perhaps asking for 100% certanty in a science of probabilities?

For me, 90+% is good enough when the future of the race is involved - I wouldn't wait until 99.999% became 100% before I acted.

[Accountable]

BTS;717674 wrote: "Surprisingly no one has entered the contest yet,"
That's because the debate's over. Gore said so.

DIDN'T YOU GET THE MEMO?!?

[gmc]

Accountable;717761 wrote: That's because the debate's over. Gore said so.

DIDN'T YOU GET THE MEMO?!?


I'll give you a mars bar and a packet of crisps if you can prove mankind is having no effect.

[G-man]

Yeah, good luck with that... I'm still waiting for my $100k from Macintosh for a similar challenge, but that's a whole other thing... you'll have your work cut out for you on this one. :p

[watermark]

gmc;717809 wrote: I'll give you a mars bar and a packet of crisps if you can prove mankind is having no effect.


Me too, double that.

[BTS]

Any takers yet?....... for the $125,000

None that I see.........

Weird huh... The doomsayers speak a big spiel about global warming but when offered big bucks they can't produce facts......



And for BM..........

show me REAL facts that say we are causing global warming and not nature!!!!!!! and at the rate of 90% and soon to be

99.999%

[koan]

gmc;717809 wrote: I'll give you a mars bar and a packet of crisps if you can prove mankind is having no effect.


Would those be lamb and mint flavoured crisps? I can see you wanting to rid the UK of such stuff but don't pretend it's a reward. :wah:

[Bryn Mawr]

Bryn Mawr;717728 wrote: Might I ask what type of proof is deemed to be acceptable?



Are they perhaps asking for 100% certanty in a science of probabilities?

For me, 90+% is good enough when the future of the race is involved - I wouldn't wait until 99.999% became 100% before I acted.


BTS;727734 wrote: Any takers yet?....... for the $125,000

None that I see.........

Weird huh... The doomsayers speak a big spiel about global warming but when offered big bucks they can't produce facts......



And for BM..........

show me REAL facts that say we are causing global warming and not nature!!!!!!! and at the rate of 90% and soon to be

99.999%


Would you care to answer my question first - what type of proof am I meant to be providing?

[gmc]

BTS;727734 wrote: Any takers yet?....... for the $125,000

None that I see.........

Weird huh... The doomsayers speak a big spiel about global warming but when offered big bucks they can't produce facts......



And for BM..........

show me REAL facts that say we are causing global warming and not nature!!!!!!! and at the rate of 90% and soon to be

99.999%


I see you're not taking me up on my offer. O.K. I'll add in a bar of toblerone and a tube of smarties.

[sunny104]

Accountable;717761 wrote: That's because the debate's over. Gore said so.

DIDN'T YOU GET THE MEMO?!?


yeah, and he invented the internet so it must be true! :yh_hypno :yh_silly :wah:

[sunny104]

koan;727736 wrote: Would those be lamb and mint flavoured crisps? I can see you wanting to rid the UK of such stuff but don't pretend it's a reward. :wah:


I would try those! I'll try anything once....:-3 :wah:

[gmc]

koan;727736 wrote: Would those be lamb and mint flavoured crisps? I can see you wanting to rid the UK of such stuff but don't pretend it's a reward. :wah:


Just because canada lacks the culinary expertise to produce any kind of delicacy apart from maple syrup (and what kind of people want to eat tree sap) there is no need to be petty. Any more of this and I will send you a scotch pie guaranteed to make anyone boak just at the sight of the contents.

[koan]

gmc;728200 wrote: Just because canada lacks the culinary expertise to produce any kind of delicacy apart from maple syrup (and what kind of people want to eat tree sap) there is no need to be petty. Any more of this and I will send you a scotch pie guaranteed to make anyone boak just at the sight of the contents.


That's it! I'm sending you all the smog from Toronto!

[AussiePam]

Haggis causes global warming????

[gmc]

AussiePam;728219 wrote: Haggis causes global warming????


It's the gasses you see. You need to be careful not to shoot them when they're digesting their food as they tend to explode.

[Bored_Wombat]

BTS;727734 wrote: Any takers yet?....... for the $125,000

None that I see.........

Weird huh... The doomsayers speak a big spiel about global warming but when offered big bucks they can't produce facts......
There are plenty of facts, and they have already been produced. The IPCC is specifically involved in producing summaries of what is known. They are very conservative, but they can at least describe how well we know that the warming is anthropogenic and what some of the consequences might be.

Junkscience is a known denialist site. The rules go 3:

JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries. All determinations made by JunkScience.com are final.

Which means we will not choose a winner because none of the science you write will be accepted any more than the science that has been written up until now.

It also goes 5:

All entries must represent the original work of an entrant that has been produced specifically for the UGWC.

Which means that work that has been done and submitted for peer review elsewhere cannot be entered - you have to take genuine time away from your life and studies to produce this paper that will not be chosen as a winner, for the reasons above.

Note that genuine interest in science would not include such a requirement. This rule is clear evidence of the disingenuous nature of this "competition".

And, my favourite:

A fee of $15 is required for each entry submitted. There will be no refunds of entry fees.

Your entry will not be read, but it will help fund this denialist website.

The facts are that global warming is anthropogenic. And it kills about 150,000 people per annum. And it will continue to worsen until fossil fuel use is stopped. And even then it will continue to worsen for about 50 to 100 years. This will obviously be catastrophic if it is left until the consequences are catastrophic before fossil fuel use is stopped.

[BTS]

Bored_Wombat;730142 wrote: There are plenty of facts, and they have already been produced. The IPCC is specifically involved in producing summaries of what is known. They are very conservative, but they can at least describe how well we know that the warming is anthropogenic and what some of the consequences might be.

Junkscience is a known denialist site. The rules go 3:

JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries. All determinations made by JunkScience.com are final.

Which means we will not choose a winner because none of the science you write will be accepted any more than the science that has been written up until now.

It also goes 5:

All entries must represent the original work of an entrant that has been produced specifically for the UGWC.

Which means that work that has been done and submitted for peer review elsewhere cannot be entered - you have to take genuine time away from your life and studies to produce this paper that will not be chosen as a winner, for the reasons above.

Note that genuine interest in science would not include such a requirement. This rule is clear evidence of the disingenuous nature of this "competition".

And, my favourite:

A fee of $15 is required for each entry submitted. There will be no refunds of entry fees.

Your entry will not be read, but it will help fund this denialist website.

The facts are that global warming is anthropogenic. And it kills about 150,000 people per annum. And it will continue to worsen until fossil fuel use is stopped. And even then it will continue to worsen for about 50 to 100 years. This will obviously be catastrophic if it is left until the consequences are catastrophic before fossil fuel use is stopped.


Thanks for all the facts on global warming..........bat

Ooops sorry I goofed, there were no facts submitted by you about global warming, just more spiel with nothing to back it up......

So $15.00 (with no refunds on entry fee {have you EVER gotten a refund on a entry fee?}) is just too steep to win $125,000 on a simple matter of presenting facts.

Is it the the $15.00 that bugs you or the fact that you don't have the facts to enter the contest.

You speak of ending fossil fuel use..........Right?

Remember we (USA) tried to do that in the sixties and were on the way to doing just that for our main power supply. Then our nuclear vision was shut down by stupidity. On the other hand, the EU gets the biggest part of their power from nuclear energy and that is why they are cleaner than the USA and support the Kyoto crap.

The libs here put us behind the eight ball years ago when they shut down new power plants that would not pollute the environment like coal does.

Bet they would never take responsibility for it but it is true.

We burn coal today because WHY?????????

[Bored_Wombat]

BTS;740450 wrote: Thanks for all the facts on global warming..........bat

Ooops sorry I goofed, there were no facts submitted by you about global warming, just more spiel with nothing to back it up......
The facts are very available. A Nobel prize was awarded for disseminating this information to people who don't read scientific papers on the subject. If you're truly interested read it.

So $15.00 (with no refunds on entry fee {have you EVER gotten a refund on a entry fee?}) is just too steep to win $125,000 on a simple matter of presenting facts.This is a denialist website. No one will win the $125,000 despite the proliferation of facts. Ignoring facts is what they do.

You speak of ending fossil fuel use..........Right?This needs to be done. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere it traceable by isotope ratios to fossil fuel use. Biosphere sequestration such as growing forests does not treat the problem in an enduring way, which is that the biosphere now has a lot more carbon than it has at any point since these fossil fuels were locked away in the carboniferous era.

Remember we (USA) tried to do that in the sixties and were on the way to doing just that for our main power supply. Then our nuclear vision was shut down by stupidity. On the other hand, the EU gets the biggest part of their power from nuclear energy and that is why they are cleaner than the USA and support the Kyoto crap.You misunderstand Kyoto. It doesn't matter who is cleaner, because the requirements are based on 1990 emissions.

The libs here put us behind the eight ball years ago when they shut down new power plants that would not pollute the environment like coal does.Are we still talking CO2 pollution here. I thought you didn't believe in that.

[PurpleChicken]

Regardless of the speil, the facts, the half truths, and the 'reward' from a competition, can we really afford not to act now?!?



Personally I have my doubts about global warming - wondering if it is just part of a natural cycle that extends way longer than we have records for - but I don't think we should sit around for a few more decades to find out. It probably won't kill us to look for cleaner fuels (in fact there will probably be other benefits), but it might kill us to wait!

[Bored_Wombat]

PurpleChicken;741613 wrote: Personally I have my doubts about global warming - wondering if it is just part of a natural cycle that extends way longer than we have records for - but I don't think we should sit around for a few more decades to find out. It probably won't kill us to look for cleaner fuels (in fact there will probably be other benefits), but it might kill us to wait!


A sensible position from 1990, but now we have all this ice core data including atmospheric CO2 concentrations over several ice age cycles, we can now be confident that this is not a cycle:



We also know that it is not natural, because there is first order evidence that the increase is due to the combustion of fossil fuels. (Physics Today)

But you're right, action is needed. Actually, it is probably needed at least a decade ago ... dangerous levels of greenhouse gasses were reached in mid 2005. And far from reducing emissions to 20% of 1990 levels, required to halt the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere, emissions are increasing at an accelerated rate.

[Accountable]

PurpleChicken;741613 wrote: Regardless of the speil, the facts, the half truths, and the 'reward' from a competition, can we really afford not to act now?!?



Personally I have my doubts about global warming - wondering if it is just part of a natural cycle that extends way longer than we have records for - but I don't think we should sit around for a few more decades to find out. It probably won't kill us to look for cleaner fuels (in fact there will probably be other benefits), but it might kill us to wait!
Yup. Doesn't hurt to be careful. Too much propaganda on both sides to filter through for me. I think my mom said it best:



"I don't care who made the mess, just clean it up!!"

[Specfiction]

This strange resistance to accepting Global Warming as real is nothing less than a clear demonstration that there is something seriously wrong with the education system in the US--virtually the only country in the world where this weird opinion is manifest at this level. Every legitimate scientific group in the world has reached consensus on this issue including IPCC, NASA, NOA, NAS, Scripps, and on and on. This is right up there with the number of people in the US that don’t believe in Evolution. What in the world has happened to this country…

The consensus of the scientific community is:

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

[Accountable]

rjwould;753356 wrote: I want to know where the $125,000.00 figure comes from..
2nd mortgage?

[BTS]

rjwould;753356 wrote: I want to know where the $125,000.00 figure comes from..


This is where rj,

http://www.ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

and guess what??????????

It has grown to $150,000 smack-olas........ yes $150,000..

WOW

You best get on there and show EVERYONE how us humans are the cause and all..... Just click............Submit your entry.

[BTS]

Specfiction;753294 wrote: This strange resistance to accepting Global Warming as real is nothing less than a clear demonstration that there is something seriously wrong with the education system in the US--virtually the only country in the world where this weird opinion is manifest at this level. Every legitimate scientific group in the world has reached consensus on this issue including IPCC, NASA, NOA, NAS, Scripps, and on and on. This is right up there with the number of people in the US that don’t believe in Evolution. What in the world has happened to this country…

The consensus of the scientific community is:

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).


well then you 2 should get on over here (http://www.ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/) and claim that $150,000............ prize with all that proof.

Tell us all what you are gonna do with it first tho.. :sneaky:.....K?

[Bryn Mawr]

BTS;753490 wrote: well then you 2 should get on over here (http://www.ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/) and claim that $150,000............ prize with all that proof.

Tell us all what you are gonna do with it first tho.. :sneaky:.....K?


Nobody is going to put themselves out for a prize that is so obviously not going to be paid whatever you do.

It is so ringed about with conditions and so nebulous as to what constitutes acceptable proof that they need never admit to a winner.

The requirements are such that it would cost way more than the prize to make a submission - £75,000 is pocket money in terms of a research budget.

In short, it is a irrelevance that would be ignored by anyone doing serious work in the field.

[Specfiction]

BTS;753490 wrote: well then you 2 should get on over here (http://www.ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/) and claim that $150,000............ prize with all that proof.

Tell us all what you are gonna do with it first tho.. :sneaky:.....K?




You guys ( climate-change contrarians ) don't understand what a proof is. This silly taunt is consistent with the weird movement in this country (US) to substitute unrealistic rhetoric like: junk science, fundamental secularist, and a host of other nonsensical meaningless gibberish for rational scientific "reasoning." Scientific proof is that which is supported by peer-reviewed, refereed scientific journals that represent the credible scientific community. That verifiable evidence is "always" qualified to calculable errors that are confirmed by many labs and reputable scientific organizations like: NASA, Scripps, IPCC, NOA, AMS, AGU, and many more. Man made global climate change has passed that test. That is why every other country, the US military, many corporations, and many US institutions have accepted the "proof." Because a handful of crackpots haven't means nothing. The world is moving in the right direction--as are many things in the US today, better late than never.

[Snidely Whiplash]

This is quite an interesting topic, and was fun to read everyones views!

I am neither a supporter of denier of Climate change. I know from historical facts that the planet is constantly changing, ice age, warming period, ice age, warming period, over and over again for millions of years, that much is certain.

I also know from historical facts that we've had at least one warming period in the past few thousand years that was documented at least by many in Europe, and during that time the 3 degree(3 times more than anyone is predicting today) caused not catastrophe, but plants, animals and humans to flourish as never before in that era.

So before I'll believe Al Gore or the UN's supposed facts, which seem to be falling apart as time goes on, I'll stick to believing the real evidence, which has already been written in the past by the actual events occuring on the planet. As to whether mankind is responsible for some catostrophic changes happening, I see no evidence of that, except that which is written by less than trustworthy politicians and scientists who may just be seeking grant funding by creating a sort of mass hysteria? At any rate, I have noticed no changes personally in the 50 or so years I've been alive, the summers are still hot, and the winters are still cold, just like when I was a kid.

But interesting reading here, none the less..

[gmc]

Snidely Whiplash;836332 wrote: This is quite an interesting topic, and was fun to read everyones views!

I am neither a supporter of denier of Climate change. I know from historical facts that the planet is constantly changing, ice age, warming period, ice age, warming period, over and over again for millions of years, that much is certain.

I also know from historical facts that we've had at least one warming period in the past few thousand years that was documented at least by many in Europe, and during that time the 3 degree(3 times more than anyone is predicting today) caused not catastrophe, but plants, animals and humans to flourish as never before in that era.

So before I'll believe Al Gore or the UN's supposed facts, which seem to be falling apart as time goes on, I'll stick to believing the real evidence, which has already been written in the past by the actual events occuring on the planet. As to whether mankind is responsible for some catostrophic changes happening, I see no evidence of that, except that which is written by less than trustworthy politicians and scientists who may just be seeking grant funding by creating a sort of mass hysteria? At any rate, I have noticed no changes personally in the 50 or so years I've been alive, the summers are still hot, and the winters are still cold, just like when I was a kid.

But interesting reading here, none the less..




At any rate, I have noticed no changes personally in the 50 or so years I've been alive, the summers are still hot, and the winters are still cold, just like when I was a kid.


You say that but don't say where you live or how often you actually go about the countryside. Someone living in london that goes abroad for their holidays and never leaves the city probably would think that. Or someone in the med or somewhere.

On the other hand having been hillwalking all my adult live and I notice a considerable change. I have photos from thirty years ago of snow covered mountains that are still snow covered nowadays but for about half the time they used to be. Instead of -20 we get -12 Instead of two or three feet an low level in the cairngorms we now get two or three inches. I can count on the finger of one hand the number of time it snows in the central belt. On the other hand it rains all the time. Everything comes out of hibernation a month earlier than it used to, flowers bloom early, migrating birds don't bother flying south any more.

If you haven't noticed a change I would suggest it's because you go around with your eyes shut or live in a place where there is little difference between summer and winter anyway. If you live in a big city most of your life the changes in weather are less noticeable. all you see of the sky is between skyscrapers.

[Snidely Whiplash]

gmc;836348 wrote:

If you haven't noticed a change I would suggest it's because you go around with your eyes shut or live in a place where there is little difference between summer and winter anyway. If you live in a big city most of your life the changes in weather are less noticeable. all you see of the sky is between skyscrapers.


Whatever? :-2

But even if the most commonly used predictions were correct, (a 1 degree rise in the past 100 years, and a 1 degree rise in the next hundred years), it would be a physical impossibility for the climate changes like you are describing to happen from that minute change? The UN has recently updated reports and confirms that there has been little or no measurable temp changes in the last 10 years, and NASA & NOAA and others are confirming this from sea temps coming from robotic stations, some even showing very slight cooling.

Thats just my opinion from what see going on in the world. Back in the 1980's these same people were frantic about global cooling, there were scientists telling us we need to do something RIGHT NOW to warm the planet.....? :wah: LOL, well the planet took care of it's self then alright in my view, and will do the same this time around, with whatever actual changes are really taking place, or not taking place..

Oh, and yes, I've been pulled over by police 3 times now for driving with my eyes close.. I really must do something about that! lol.

[gmc]

Snidely Whiplash;836357 wrote: Whatever? :-2

But even if the most commonly used predictions were correct, (a 1 degree rise in the past 100 years, and a 1 degree rise in the next hundred years), it would be a physical impossibility for the climate changes like you are describing to happen from that minute change? The UN has recently updated reports and confirms that there has been little or no measurable temp changes in the last 10 years, and NASA & NOAA and others are confirming this from sea temps coming from robotic stations, some even showing very slight cooling.

Thats just my opinion from what see going on in the world. Back in the 1980's these same people were frantic about global cooling, there were scientists telling us we need to do something RIGHT NOW to warm the planet.....? :wah: LOL, well the planet took care of it's self then alright in my view, and will do the same this time around, with whatever actual changes are really taking place, or not taking place..

Oh, and yes, I've been pulled over by police 3 times now for driving with my eyes close.. I really must do something about that! lol.


Yes I remember the concerns about an ice age as well. It's not in dispute that climate has changed in the past. The question is has man's activities made a significant difference to that process. The evidence suggests that it has, not just carbon emissions but also things like deforestation and the creation of deserts by overfarming or making holes in the ozone layer. There are plenty examples of man made ecological disasters that could have been avoided. I tend to take the approach hat doing something about it will do no harm. Pretending there is no change is a bit like standing in the middle of the road having convinced yourself there is no lorry coming, and if there is then the effects of it hitting you have been exaggerated by alarmists who just want you to spoil the fun you are having following the white line.

[Bryn Mawr]

Snidely Whiplash;836357 wrote: Whatever? :-2

But even if the most commonly used predictions were correct, (a 1 degree rise in the past 100 years, and a 1 degree rise in the next hundred years), it would be a physical impossibility for the climate changes like you are describing to happen from that minute change? The UN has recently updated reports and confirms that there has been little or no measurable temp changes in the last 10 years, and NASA & NOAA and others are confirming this from sea temps coming from robotic stations, some even showing very slight cooling.

Thats just my opinion from what see going on in the world. Back in the 1980's these same people were frantic about global cooling, there were scientists telling us we need to do something RIGHT NOW to warm the planet.....? :wah: LOL, well the planet took care of it's self then alright in my view, and will do the same this time around, with whatever actual changes are really taking place, or not taking place..

Oh, and yes, I've been pulled over by police 3 times now for driving with my eyes close.. I really must do something about that! lol.


That's the second time you've claimed a one degree change as being median. One degree is considered to be the best we can hope for with three being median and six being top end.

Could you please provide links to the UN NASA and NOAA reports you reference?

As for not seeing and difference in fifty years, whilst recognising that local conditions say nothing for global warming, here are a few comparisons for the weather in the British East Midlands :-

In the early 1960s, for year after year, we had snow lying for three to four months at a time. This century it has rarely stayed for more than three to four hours at a time.

In the early eighties the local resi froze hard enough to bring out the ice yachts and skates for a couple of days (it stayed frozen for about four days total). I have not seen even the edges frozen in the past ten years.

It reminds me of one of our ex-members claiming there was no deforestation because he could see just as many trees out of his back door as when he was a child.

[Snidely Whiplash]

Bryn Mawr;836372 wrote:

Could you please provide links to the UN NASA and NOAA reports you reference?




It says i can't post URL links here until I reach more posts? Sorry.



Bryn Mawr;836372 wrote:

It reminds me of one of our ex-members claiming there was no deforestation because he could see just as many trees out of his back door as when he was a child.


It's very common for anyone with an aposing view on this global warming issue to be thought of as a heretic, especially in Europe, so I take no offense at your jab. I understand that to some this has become a kind of religion.

If you would like to view a very good documentary made in UK in hopes you might find some info on possibly another view on this issue, just go to youtube and type into search "the great global warming swindle". It's an 8 segment program, that lasts an hour or so, and has some very tallented and senior scientists, climatologists, biologists and physicists interviewed. You don't even have to agree with any of the findings, but these tops in thier fields from around the world make a very compelling case.

Best of luck with your debate folks. Theres no more point to me contributing further though.

[Bryn Mawr]

Snidely Whiplash;836384 wrote: It says i can't post URL links here until I reach more posts? Sorry.





It's very common for anyone with an aposing view on this global warming issue to be thought of as a heretic, especially in Europe, so I take no offense at your jab. I understand that to some this has become a kind of religion.

If you would like to view a very good documentary made in UK in hopes you might find some info on possibly another view on this issue, just go to youtube and type into search "the great global warming swindle". It's an 8 segment program, that lasts an hour or so, and has some very tallented and senior scientists, climatologists, biologists and physicists interviewed. You don't even have to agree with any of the findings, but these tops in thier fields from around the world make a very compelling case.

Best of luck with your debate folks. Theres no more point to me contributing further though.


ʖQue? How on Earth did that come out of my comments?

As for the Great Global Warming Swindle - hasn't everybody seen it? It is very far from being a compelling case. High on emotion but light on fact. It does put forward one interesting line of argument (that temperature rise leads CO2 levels rather than lags) but often contradicts itself and never provides data to substantiate it.

Why do you feel that there is no point to your contributing further? Stay and discuss the issues.

[Bored_Wombat]

Snidely Whiplash;836332 wrote: I am neither a supporter of denier of Climate change.
Point of nomenclature.

Claiming that scientists are wrong and there is no antropogenic climate change (as you do), would make you a denier and not a supporter.

[Snidely Whiplash]

Bryn Mawr;836440 wrote: ʖQue? Why do you feel that there is no point to your contributing further? Stay and discuss the issues.


I will if I am welcomed to..? But I won't get into any heated arguments or name calling, which I've been exposed to on occation, and it's not worth the energy or time wasted.



Bryn Mawr;836440 wrote: ʖQue? How on Earth did that come out of my comments?




I did not make that reply about climate change being a religion to some aimed directly towards yourself or anyone else here, just as a general statement.. This issue is becoming a kind of religion to some, and some not like minded are often treated as heretics are in any religion, there are many comparisons to be made on this.



Bored_Wombat;836546 wrote: Point of nomenclature.

Claiming that scientists are wrong and there is no antropogenic climate change (as you do), would make you a denier and not a supporter.


In my first post I made clear that climate change is always going on around us, it has from the begining of this planet, certainly no one can argue that, I never have, nor ever will. In the 70-80's there was global cooling, then some global warming in the years after that, now in the past 10 years there seems to be little or no change...? I can't in good conquence jump on anyones climate change bandwagon and take sides, theres just not any sure evidence of anything of certainty as far as I see, except that the planets climate is always changing, and a lot of people are screaming and panicing that we have to do something about it, and do it right now or we're all doomed..???? I just don't buy into this emotion driven hysteria, it doesn't make any sense to me..?

What I don't support or deny is "man made" climate change at a catastophic level, I'm not convinced of this at all.? Obviously mankind has some impact on the environment and atmosphere, but to what extent I'm not willing to say with certainty where I can defend that position with scientific consences..... The only reason Al Gore says that is because he refuses to even discuss his movie with critics on any level. There are too many reports, papers, studies, journals, blogs and web sites and web pages galore on both sides of this argument for me to be certain in any stance I take on this? So I will not..! I will not jump on this ridiculus money making sceme that the politicians are all drooling over and stiring up, I will not be suckered into another lie made by my government or the UN, because if past history means anything, the chances are very high indeed that what they are telling us are lies made for thier politcal reasons, money or power.... It is they're nature....

Thats about it...

Enjoy your day, it's unseasonably cool here... LOL..:wah:

[gmc]

posted bt snidely whiplash

What I don't support or deny is "man made" climate change at a catastophic level, I'm not convinced of this at all.? Obviously mankind has some impact on the environment and atmosphere, but to what extent I'm not willing to say with certainty where I can defend that position with scientific consences..... The only reason Al Gore says that is because he refuses to even discuss his movie with critics on any level. There are too many reports, papers, studies, journals, blogs and web sites and web pages galore on both sides of this argument for me to be certain in any stance I take on this? So I will not..! I will not jump on this ridiculus money making sceme that the politicians are all drooling over and stiring up, I will not be suckered into another lie made by my government or the UN, because if past history means anything, the chances are very high indeed that what they are telling us are lies made for thier politcal reasons, money or power.... It is they're nature....

Thats about it...

Enjoy your day, it's unseasonably cool here... LOL..


It's great how you assume that those who argue the case for man having an impact on global warming are doing so for nefarious political reasons while those that argue it to be a lot of rubbish have only the purist motives at heart. The argument is apolitical. Perhaps you should question the motives of those who do not wish any kind of action taken and whose main counter argument seems to be that concern for the environment is some kind of conspiracy put about by tree hugging sandal wearing hippies designed to ruin business.

As to name calling having chosen snidely whiplash as a name you have rather chosen a rod for your own back. the Hints of sado masochism contained therein do suggest you might enjoy a bit of name calling. Or maybe I've been getting too many of these strange e-mails.:-3

[Snidely Whiplash]

gmc;836881 wrote: posted bt snidely whiplash



It's great how you assume that those who argue the case for man having an impact on global warming are doing so for nefarious political reasons while those that argue it to be a lot of rubbish have only the purist motives at heart. The argument is apolitical. Perhaps you should question the motives of those who do not wish any kind of action taken and whose main counter argument seems to be that concern for the environment is some kind of conspiracy put about by tree hugging sandal wearing hippies designed to ruin business.

As to name calling having chosen snidely whiplash as a name you have rather chosen a rod for your own back. the Hints of sado masochism contained therein do suggest you might enjoy a bit of name calling. Or maybe I've been getting too many of these strange e-mails.:-3


One of the TV shows I grew up with, before the internet, before computers, before cable or satelite TV, before any of the things you have in your lives, was local television, about 6 channels... That was my childhood... The Dudley Do-right show was one of the characters I grew up with, simply because there was little else...

How dare you post this arogant insulting dribble...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Snidely Whiplash

First appearance "Dudley Do-Right", a spin-off of The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show

Portrayed by Hans Conried (Cartoon series)

Alfred Molina (Live action film)

Information

Nickname(s) Snidely

Species Human

Occupation Stereotypical villain

Snidely Whiplash is the cartoon villain who is archnemesis to Dudley Do-Right in the tongue-in-cheek series The Dudley Do-Right Show by American animation pioneer Jay Ward. The series was a spin-off of The Bullwinkle Show, a version of The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show that began in 1963.

Whiplash is the stereotypical villain, in the style of stock characters found in silent movies and earlier stage melodrama, wearing black clothing, cape, and a top hat, and twirling his long handlebar moustache. His sidekick is named Homer. In the cartoon's opening segments, he is seen tying Nell Fenwick to a railroad track. He is the antithesis of Do-Right, a picture-perfect stereotype of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police do-gooder.

The character was voiced by Hans Conried in the original cartoon series. Snidely was later played by Alfred Molina in the live action Dudley Do-Right movie, which starred Brendan Fraser as Dudley.

In one cartoon episode Whiplash and Dudley change hats; Dudley becomes a supervillain and Whiplash becomes the Fearless RCMP who receives a medal for bringing the evil Dudley Do-Right in.


I am complaining to admin here about your reply, and will no longer post here at this site...

I knew I'd be attacked for not sharing your views... :-2

Goodbye... :-3

[gmc]

Snidely Whiplash;836962 wrote: One of the TV shows I grew up with, before the internet, before computers, before cable or satelite TV, before any of the things you have in your lives, was local television, about 6 channels... That was my childhood... The Dudley Do-right show was one of the characters I grew up with, simply because there was little else...

How dare you post this arogant insulting dribble...



I am complaining to admin here about your reply, and will no longer post here at this site...

I knew I'd be attacked for not sharing your views... :-2

Goodbye... :-3


Well if you name yourself after some obscure cartoon character no one has heard of on this side of the atlantic (SIX channels that's three more than I grew up with) what did you expect. The flowerpot men or the woodentops and I might have recognised the characters. Maybe I should changed my name to spotty dog that'll fool you. or the soup dragon I always liked the clangers.

If you can't tell when someone is pulling your leg it's not really my problem.

If you don't want to discuss your views then what are you doing on a discussion forum? If you chose to take someone disagreeing with you as a personal attack then good luck to you but it would seem you have self esteem issues. I suggest you avoid discussion forums in the future as by there very nature you will find yourself involved in disagreement which if you always take personally you will end up convinced everybody dislikes you.

[Bryn Mawr]

Snidely Whiplash;836777 wrote: I will if I am welcomed to..? But I won't get into any heated arguments or name calling, which I've been exposed to on occation, and it's not worth the energy or time wasted.





I did not make that reply about climate change being a religion to some aimed directly towards yourself or anyone else here, just as a general statement.. This issue is becoming a kind of religion to some, and some not like minded are often treated as heretics are in any religion, there are many comparisons to be made on this.





In my first post I made clear that climate change is always going on around us, it has from the begining of this planet, certainly no one can argue that, I never have, nor ever will. In the 70-80's there was global cooling, then some global warming in the years after that, now in the past 10 years there seems to be little or no change...? I can't in good conquence jump on anyones climate change bandwagon and take sides, theres just not any sure evidence of anything of certainty as far as I see, except that the planets climate is always changing, and a lot of people are screaming and panicing that we have to do something about it, and do it right now or we're all doomed..???? I just don't buy into this emotion driven hysteria, it doesn't make any sense to me..?

What I don't support or deny is "man made" climate change at a catastophic level, I'm not convinced of this at all.? Obviously mankind has some impact on the environment and atmosphere, but to what extent I'm not willing to say with certainty where I can defend that position with scientific consences..... The only reason Al Gore says that is because he refuses to even discuss his movie with critics on any level. There are too many reports, papers, studies, journals, blogs and web sites and web pages galore on both sides of this argument for me to be certain in any stance I take on this? So I will not..! I will not jump on this ridiculus money making sceme that the politicians are all drooling over and stiring up, I will not be suckered into another lie made by my government or the UN, because if past history means anything, the chances are very high indeed that what they are telling us are lies made for thier politcal reasons, money or power.... It is they're nature....

Thats about it...

Enjoy your day, it's unseasonably cool here... LOL..:wah:


Twenty years ago some fairly dire predictions were made about global warming using the best climate models available at the time and taking into account the then current and predicted levels of pollution.

The climate today is almost exactly on the mid point of those predictions.

We have better climate models now, we know so much more about the triggers and determining factors that we can make even more accurate predictions of future weather - your one degree rise is not inside best case.

Yes, world climate has always varied, within strict bounds but the variation today is not in pattern and is occurring at a rate not seen since a global cataclysm fifty five million yeas ago. It took two thousand centuries for the climate to recover then - I'm not sure that mankind can wait that long for better weather.

[Bored_Wombat]

Snidely Whiplash;836777 wrote: In my first post I made clear that climate change is always going on around us, it has from the begining of this planet, certainly no one can argue that, I never have, nor ever will. In the 70-80's there was global cooling, then some global warming in the years after that, now in the past 10 years there seems to be little or no change...? I can't in good conquence jump on anyones climate change bandwagon and take sides, theres just not any sure evidence of anything of certainty as far as I see, except that the planets climate is always changing, and a lot of people are screaming and panicing that we have to do something about it, and do it right now or we're all doomed..???? I just don't buy into this emotion driven hysteria, it doesn't make any sense to me..?
Yes. I understand your position. It is called "denier".

There are too many reports, papers, studies, journals, blogs and web sites and web pages galore on both sides of this argument for me to be certain in any stance I take on this?This is key to the denier position.

If you're interested, it's not true.

There are many papers, studies and journal articles that support the AGW position. "Supporter" is the scientific position.

There are no papers, studies or journal articles that deny the AGW position.

There are blogs and web sites and web pages galore on both sides, that is true.

But only one side has any peer reviewed scientific articles backing it.

[Bored_Wombat]

gmc;837038 wrote: (SIX channels that's three more than I grew up with)
And four more than I.

[Accountable]

gmc;837038 wrote: If you can't tell when someone is pulling your leg it's not really my problem.
I thought he was pulling your leg, but he's not back yet. :yh_eyebro

[Snidely Whiplash]

gmc;837038 wrote: Well if you name yourself after some obscure cartoon character no one has heard of on this side of the atlantic (SIX channels that's three more than I grew up with) what did you expect.


I expected to be treated with some respect, and not ridiculed for my username, or my viewpoint like i have in previous posts.. Is that too *@#^ing much to ask as a newbie posting to a new group of strangers?

You're like a bunch of hungry vultures circling your prey......

The sad thing is, I'm not your prey..... I just wanted to post my view and make friends...

Bye

[Bored_Wombat]

Snidely Whiplash;837435 wrote: Bye
Toddle-oo

[Bryn Mawr]

Snidely Whiplash;837435 wrote: I expected to be treated with some respect, and not ridiculed for my username, or my viewpoint like i have in previous posts.. Is that too *@#^ing much to ask as a newbie posting to a new group of strangers?

You're like a bunch of hungry vultures circling your prey......

The sad thing is, I'm not your prey..... I just wanted to post my view and make friends...

Bye


No one has ridiculed you for your viewpoint - some might have disagreed with it but that is the nature of discussion.

No-one is going to agree with you just because you're a newbie - make some valid points and people will agree with them.

[Bored_Wombat]

Bryn Mawr;837476 wrote: No one has ridiculed you for your viewpoint - some might have disagreed with it but that is the nature of discussion.

No-one is going to agree with you just because you're a newbie - make some valid points and people will agree with them.


I find it difficult to believe that someone can have a genuine chip in their shoulder that high. I think we're being trolled.

[spot]

Snidely Whiplash;837435 wrote: I expected to be treated with some respect, and not ridiculed for my username, or my viewpoint like i have in previous posts.. Is that too *@#^ing much to ask as a newbie posting to a new group of strangers?

You're like a bunch of hungry vultures circling your prey......

The sad thing is, I'm not your prey..... I just wanted to post my view and make friends...

ByeYou do seem to be wallowing in it for fun. What you're ignoring is that we have hundreds of "newbie posting to a new group of strangers" comparisons on the site and the few who explode in righteous wrath are those who seemingly came here for the excitement of throwing themselves off the battlements like Tosca. I can't see any other justification for your outrage. People who sign up in order to post solely in a conflict zone like the thread you picked out are considered to have arrived with an agenda, I did it myself and I got hammered for months in consequence.

If every newbie ran into abuse when they joined then your screams would strike a sympathetic chord. When it's one in a hundred then by default it's something they brought with them. If you'd like to hang around and join in I'm sure matters will settle down quickly enough.

[Wild Cobra]

"Surprisingly no one has entered the contest yet," said Steven Milloy, founder and publisher of JunkScience.com and the sponsor of the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge.


I'm not surprised. They know their science is junk when they do actual fact checking. From all the checking I've done in the last several years, I only see CO2 increases having no important increase. It would become toxic before enough of it can increase the temperature by any notable degree. I see the biggest man made harm to be the soot produced by Asia. They don't use clean burning coal technology.

Anyone see "An Inconvenient Truth?"

Notice on the title screen, the black soot covered ice that's melting? Well guess what. That soot traps most of the suns rays rather than reflecting 90% of it harmlessly back in space like the ice would normally do!