Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
 

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 03:42:32 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

Do u judge someones intellilgence bytheir typing?

It's tempting to regard the evident care someone takes to express
their thoughts as an indication of the care they have taken working
out those thoughts in the first place.

Rod.

Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
 

CO2 only makes up about 2.0% of the gas in the atmosphere and many
scientists consider the whole global warming hysteria, and the methodology
used to collect the sample data, to be pure bull ****. It's ridiculous that
we have become obsessed with the danger of global warming which, even if it
does exist, will not occur until long after all of us are dead and gone.
Yet we gloss over the very real, and immediate danger from global islamic
terrorism, bio-chemical weapons, massive illegal immigration and the
development of atomic weapons by Iran and North Korea.

Irish Mike

"Cynic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:00:29 -0700, "Another Problem Solved By R.G.P."
wrote:

On Jun 15, 7:34 am, Cynic wrote:

So what actions do you propose should be taken? Stop generating CO2
and return to the stone age? Quickly invest our entire GNP in wind
farms?

Oh my. Stone age! Our *entire* GNP! Are those are only options? But
let's talk wind power.

What percentage of US GNP (or GDP) -- would you guess -- *is*
currently invested in wind energy?

Answer: not very much. According to the American Wind Energy
Association, in 2005 wind power supplied 0.5% of electricity
consumption in the USA, the equivalent of only about 1.6 million
households. Meanwhile, in Denmark, parts of Germany and Spain, wind
power supplied over 20% of electricity demand. Why can they do it but
we can't? The AWEA estimates that $50 billion in new investment would
increase wind power-supplied electricity by 700% -- the equivalent of
about 11 million households -- and create 10,000 jobs, by the way. And
$50 billion is a drop in the GDP bucket. US GDP in 2005 was $12
trillion.

And if they spent "only" $50 billion and did that, what would be the
effect on global warming? Would it stop it? Reverse it? Delay it
(by how much)?

I'm sure that you and I could do *something* to reduce CO2 emissions
as well, perhaps by cycling everywhere instead of using our cars. The
reason that I won't consider such a thing is because it will have
absolutely zero practical effect in solving the problem. Teaspoons
and oceans again.

--
Cynic

Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
 

charles wrote:
The problem with wind power, in this country, is that wind is not a
permanent thing.

An example: a couple of winters ago I drove round the M25 on a
freezing morning and passed the wind turbine near Hemel Hempstead.
No wind, so it was not turning at all - at a time when it was needed.

Even if it's turning, it may not be generating useful power. The available
power is proportional to the third power of the wind velocity, so the
difference in power generated between "blades rotating slowly" and "blades
feathered so the turbine doesn't destroy itself" is immense.

Apart from niche applications and offshore wind farms, I think they are
pretty much just green icons. Heavily subsidised green icons which are
making a lot of money for big business.

Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
 

Irish Mike wrote:
CO2 only makes up about 2.0% of the gas in the atmosphere

You can't even get that right, can you? In fact, CO2 makes up only about
0.035% of the atmosphere. Which fact is entirely irrelevant to its role as a
greenhouse gas; it does what it does, in the amounts that it takes to do it.
Your argument is one commonly employed by very stupid people - the argument
from personal incredulity. You just can't believe it. Well here's another
fact to astound you: your body contains only 0.004% by weight of iron. Try
managing without it.

and many
scientists consider the whole global warming hysteria, and the
methodology used to collect the sample data, to be pure bull ****.

Oh do please share their findings with us. I could do with a laugh.

Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
 

Pete wrote:

Scientists get paid a lot of money as they know no one will challenge
them.

Scientists do not get paid a lot of money and people do challenge them.

Selected ones are use to back up silly claims used in the
process of stealth taxing.

Don't plants and trees take in CO2 and give off oxygen at night?

No, plants give off CO2 at night, photosynthesis requires sunlight.

Maybe the answer is to plant lots more trees.

Yes, that could help

I think all the global warming and stealth tax lies are silly. Most
people can see what is really going on. Why is biodiesel taxed? Why
can't people use waste vegetable oil without being taxed?

I agree with you there, though biodiesel is taxed at a lower rate.


Why are there no controls on waste sites and chemical plants that
disregard regulations and laws at night and burn off waste illegally?
I have watched a few on thermal imaging equipment before compiling a
case.

Global warming, yes, natural progression - it's been happening for
thousands of years. Well before we had cars and coal fired power
stations.

Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
 

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
Guess what the temperature on the moon is (same distance
from the Sun as Earth. Very cold you will wisely say because it
has no atmosphere to keep it warm llike the earth with it's
lovely greehouse gases.
So you would expet it to be about -30C would you not?
Guess what it can get to over 100C there.


Over 100C in the day and below -150C at night so on average the moon is
much colder than the Earth



--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to me directly:

Replace privacy.net with: totalise DOT co DOT uk and replace me with
gareth.harris

Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
 

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:44:26 +0100, Gareth wrote:

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
Guess what the temperature on the moon is (same distance
from the Sun as Earth. Very cold you will wisely say because it
has no atmosphere to keep it warm llike the earth with it's
lovely greehouse gases.
So you would expet it to be about -30C would you not?
Guess what it can get to over 100C there.


Over 100C in the day and below -150C at night so on average the moon is
much colder than the Earth

Yup. And if you lay with your head in the frezzer nd your feet in the
oven, on average you will be at a perfectly comfortable temperature.

--
Cynic

Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
 

"Oh do please share their findings with us. I could do with a laugh. "

You may not like it, but the fact is there are many scientists who have
stated publicly that the whole global warming hysteria is just a load of
bull ****. They have also stated that the methodology used to collect the
data is flawed, unreliable and doesn't prove a thing. Just because you
swallowed this crap hook, line and sinker doesn't make it true. Any more
than it made the hysterical predictions about global starvation, global
cooling or Y2K true. The fact is, not one single person living on this
planet today will be alive to see any of your unfounded, hysterical global
warming predictions come to pass. Now, with all due respect, go ****
yourself.

Irish Mike

wrote in message
...
Irish Mike wrote:
CO2 only makes up about 2.0% of the gas in the atmosphere

You can't even get that right, can you? In fact, CO2 makes up only about
0.035% of the atmosphere. Which fact is entirely irrelevant to its role as
a greenhouse gas; it does what it does, in the amounts that it takes to do
it. Your argument is one commonly employed by very stupid people - the
argument from personal incredulity. You just can't believe it. Well here's
another fact to astound you: your body contains only 0.004% by weight of
iron. Try managing without it.

and many
scientists consider the whole global warming hysteria, and the
methodology used to collect the sample data, to be pure bull ****.

Oh do please share their findings with us. I could do with a laugh.

Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
 

Irish Mike wrote:
"Oh do please share their findings with us. I could do with a laugh. "

You may not like it, but the fact is there are many scientists who
have stated publicly that the whole global warming hysteria is just a
load of bull ****.

And like you, they are talking out of their ample arses. That's why I wanted
you to share their findings with us - so that I could show you (well,
probably not you - I suspect you are ineducable!) how hopelessly wrong they
are. But you can't even do that, can you? You're just a clueless ****wit who
believes the crap fed to him by some denialist website.

Have you tried getting rid of that 0.004% of iron from your body yet? Do be
sure to report back your findings!

Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
 

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:26:54 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Irish Mike wrote:
"Oh do please share their findings with us. I could do with a laugh. "

You may not like it, but the fact is there are many scientists who
have stated publicly that the whole global warming hysteria is just a
load of bull ****.

And like you, they are talking out of their ample arses. That's why I wanted
you to share their findings with us - so that I could show you (well,
probably not you - I suspect you are ineducable!) how hopelessly wrong they
are. But you can't even do that, can you? You're just a clueless ****wit who
believes the crap fed to him by some denialist website.

Have you tried getting rid of that 0.004% of iron from your body yet? Do be
sure to report back your findings!

One finding that is pretty indisputable is that global warming is in
the process of taking place. It is highly probable (but not 100%
certain) that the trend will continue for quite some time.

Another fact is that the effects of global warming will not directly
affect myself or my children adversely before we are dead.

It is quite possible that man's activities have contributed to the
cycle to some extent, although the temperature cycle fits in neatly
with historic global cycles, so it is by no means certain that the
effect would not have happened anyway, without any input from mankind.

It is pretty certain that not even the most draconian actions that man
could do now would make any appreciable difference to the outcome, and
it is also pretty certain that man will not be taking anything like
the most draconian action possible.

By the time the effects are beginning to have an impact that would
affect mankind, is is almost certain that man will have developed far
more advanced technology. But even if that does not assist, nothing I
have read would suggest that the effects are likely to be particularly
catastrophic for mankind - nothing worse than many other catastophes,
both natural and manmade that have occured far more suddenly.

--
Cynic