Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong&q

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:38 pm

Some surprise...it's only time until the radicals are debunked, but the money trail is so deep and thick with "research" that it will take a while. Interesting aspect about the use of a boundary condition that simplifies the equations (i.e. an infinitely thick atmosphere) as opposed to a proper one...

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm

Ryan Holton · **Posted:** Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:54 pm

You mean The Algore lied?

:roll:

steve remchak · **Posted:** Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:03 pm

Satch will be so glad to hear this. i see round three forthcoming.

William Gravely · **Posted:** Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:57 pm

Hey wait a second. You mean while I was over at your house visiting with the rest of your family (and picking up that radiator, thanks!), you were upstairs on the forum?

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:11 pm

William Gravely wrote:

Hey wait a second. You mean while I was over at your house visiting with the rest of your family (and picking up that radiator, thanks!), you were upstairs on the forum?

lol, when I get a link sent to me that makes sense, up it goes! (catching up on e-mail at end of day)

Ryan Holton · **Posted:** Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:57 pm

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

William Gravely wrote:

Hey wait a second. You mean while I was over at your house visiting with the rest of your family (and picking up that radiator, thanks!), you were upstairs on the forum?

lol, when I get a link sent to me that makes sense, up it goes! (catching up on e-mail at end of day)

You need to read some junkscience.com

Steven Milloy is the man :thumbsup:

Todd Breakey · **Posted:** Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:19 pm

Ryan Holton wrote:

You mean The Algore lied?

:roll:

I've said it many times The Algore is a liar. I blame him solely for our drought. He promised us more hurricanes due to global warming. And when they didn't happen, he changed his tune so that now it is "global climate change."

What a bogus idiot. :roll:

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:39 pm

"John McCain has a proud record of common sense stewardship. Along with his commitment to clean air and water, and to conserving open space, he has been a leader on the issue of global warming with the courage to call the nation to action on an issue we can no longer afford to ignore" http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Iss ... b278db.htm

Maybe John will pick Al to be his VP candidate . . . :lol:

ChuckNelson · **Posted:** Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:48 pm

If you believe there is no negative effect from emmisions please go into your garage, close the doors, start your car, and take notes for the next hour or so. Get back with the results.

It is not about warming or cooling, it is about a cumulative negative effect.

Todd Breakey · **Posted:** Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:59 pm

I'm not saying that Chuck. I just feel that the whole man is the sole cause of global warming thing is pretty arrogant.

:rant:

I have no problem admitting that man has had an effect on the global climate. I do think it is VERY arrogant to say that man is the ONLY reason that we have a changing climate.

It is proven that people farmed land in Greenland 400 years ago that is now coverd in a 500 foot glacier. It is also proven that Falls lake is dryer now than it was when I moved here in 1984.

I also have no problem saying that the automobiles that we all love so much have an effect on the environment. But Al Gore shouldn't be saying that to an assembly of environmentalist and then hop in his Suburban in a motorcade to get on his private jet. Tell everyone to drive Prius' and then go and burn hydrocarbons like their going out of style. That is hypocritical to me.

And don't even get me started on the carbon offset scam. What a crock of shart that is!!!

:rant:

Sorry, now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:51 pm

Given that we don't even have the ability to solve the Navier-Stokes equations in closed form for a turbulent flow field (i.e. we have to rely on empirically derived constants), not to mention that even predicting the weather 6 hours ahead of time is often fleeting, anyone thinking they have an accurate model of weather/climate many years into the future is either a quack or a great salesman...take your pick.

MarcusMcRae · **Posted:** Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:08 am

Todd Breakey wrote:

And don't even get me started on the carbon offset scam. What a crock of shart that is!!!

.

I will walk to work so you can drive your suv and all you have to do is pay me $500 a year. That is true genius.

Ryan Holton · **Posted:** Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:29 am

ChuckNelson wrote:

If you believe there is no negative effect from emmisions please go into your garage, close the doors, start your car, and take notes for the next hour or so. Get back with the results.

It is not about warming or cooling, it is about a cumulative negative effect.

Ahhh yes, change argument when the "consensus" theory is being proven to be crap.

Thanks for playing

We should be good stewards of the earth but we also have needs that fossil fuels seem to meet just fine for now. When something better comes along, we will switch to it.

steve remchak · **Posted:** Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:42 am

Ryan Holton wrote:

ChuckNelson wrote:

If you believe there is no negative effect from emmisions please go into your garage, close the doors, start your car, and take notes for the next hour or so. Get back with the results.

It is not about warming or cooling, it is about a cumulative negative effect.

Ahhh yes, change argument when the "consensus" theory is being proven to be crap.

Thanks for playing

We should be good stewards of the earth but we also have needs that fossil fuels seem to meet just fine for now. When something better comes along, we will switch to it.

sniff, sniff hmmnn. that smells of conservatism there Ryan. :lol:

George Bright · **Posted:** Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:46 am

ChuckNelson wrote:

If you believe there is no negative effect from emmisions please go into your garage, close the doors, start your car, and take notes for the next hour or so. Get back with the results.

I know someone who did that all night long. Because the car had a properly functioning cat all that person got was a headache and a 72 hour commital.

THSCC Forums

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong&q

Who is online