Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
JFK, MLK, RFK and the Continuing Unspeakable with Regard to Global Warming Denial
#11
Greg Burnham Wrote:[
Only problem is that in each instance of temperature increase, including the most recent, temperatures began rising PRIOR to CO2 levels. This is DOCUMENTED and those scientists who originally had it backwards have recanted. Perhaps increased temperature is caused by natural cycles (solar and oceanic), which in turn CAUSES an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere--not the other way around. The pattern of increased heat followed by increased atmospheric CO2 is not speculation, but fact.




There's less wallop in that argument than might appear. Most scientists knew the ice core samples showed CO2 rose after temperature. However this begs the obvious question of what will happen when you have an unprecedented spike in CO2 as we do now? This is playing Russian Roulete with big stakes.

The flaw in your argument is it doesn't give due heed to the straight Greenhouse Effect that is a valid scientific phenomenon and will raise temperatures on its own as it is mostly likely presently recorded doing. So in a way you are kind of conflating long term cooling and warming cycles with the separate phenomenon of the Greenhouse Effect. What you really have to worry about is an unnaturally influenced triggering of an out of cycle warming event that gets exacerbated by an unprecedented amount of existing CO2 that unloads trapped arctic CO2 into the atmosphere in an explosive Global Warming event.

Unfortunately the cycle timing argument doesn't get us off the hook.
Reply
#12
Albert Doyle Wrote:There's less wallop in that argument than might appear. Most scientists knew the ice core samples showed CO2 rose after temperature.

The problem with global warming / climate change alarmism is that such claims are BASED ON A FALSE ASSERTION, i.e., "an assumption of catastrophic consequences" being accepted as FACT or DOGMA, as the case may be. Yet, even by your own admission, you said: "Most scientists knew the ice core samples showed CO2 rose after temperature." Well, if they knew this to be true why is there a claim being made that CO2 is driving current global warming when that is clearly impossible due to the fact that the one claimed to be the EFFECT (global warming) precedes the one claimed to be the CAUSE (rising CO2 levels)? This is inescapable logically. It is illogical to claim (all temporal restraints being equal) that any given EFFECT precedes the existence of the conditions (CAUSE) necessary to bring that EFFECT about.

Quote:However this begs the obvious question of what will happen when you have an unprecedented spike in CO2 as we do now? This is playing Russian Roulete with big stakes.

The TRUTH (as you admit) is that WE DO NOT KNOW "what, if anything" will "happen" do we? No, we do not. Moreover, your assertion that we now have an unprecedented spike in CO2 levels is without foundation. Depending on the source, CO2 levels were this high between 5 and 15 million years ago...long before humans were here with their industrial revolution to blame.

Quote:The flaw in your argument is it doesn't give due heed to the straight Greenhouse Effect that is a valid scientific phenomenon and will raise temperatures on its own as it is mostly likely presently recorded doing.

You make no sense. You attempt to come across as knowledgeable, yet what you write is gibberish. The Greenhouse Effect is real. It is not a scientific phenomenon. It is a name for a natural process that is necessary for the sustenance of life on Earth. Without it the planet would be a frozen wasteland. More than 98% of the Greenhouse Effect is a function of WATER VAPOR, the exact amount of which is a variable, and therefore unknown.

Quote:So in a way you are kind of conflating long term cooling and warming cycles with the separate phenomenon of the Greenhouse Effect. What you really have to worry about is an unnaturally influenced triggering of an out of cycle warming event that gets exacerbated by an unprecedented amount of existing CO2 that unloads trapped arctic CO2 into the atmosphere in an explosive Global Warming event.

Unfortunately the cycle timing argument doesn't get us off the hook.

Wait. Stop. The "cycle timing argument" was not mine. It was and is the "global warming alarmist's" argument--only they have it backwards, as you have already admitted. Nice bait and switch.
GO_SECURE

monk


"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."

James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
Reply
#13
This post I find as better science than some.
Thanks Greg for this data.
Jim
Read not to contradict and confute;
nor to believe and take for granted;
nor to find talk and discourse;
but to weigh and consider.
FRANCIS BACON
Reply
#14
Jim Hackett II Wrote:This post I find as better science than some.
Thanks Greg for this data.
Jim

You're welcome, Jim. My recovery must be accelerating as evidenced by the feistiness of my responses in this thread!
GO_SECURE

monk


"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."

James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
Reply
#15
Greg Burnham Wrote:You're welcome, Jim. My recovery must be accelerating as evidenced by the feistiness of my responses in this thread!

Good to hear Greg!
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.

“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Reply
#16
Greg, Monk,
Friend.
Good to see signs of recovery.
Feisty?
The man that backed McNolan into a logical corner
of his McAdams' own design? On the "air".
Not feisty, more and better in a similar vein
but not feisty if that word implies a playfulness.

I'd say just that is Greg Burnham.
Relentless isn't even close.
We are still involved after all these years, eh?

We all gotta be who we are.

Jim
Read not to contradict and confute;
nor to believe and take for granted;
nor to find talk and discourse;
but to weigh and consider.
FRANCIS BACON
Reply
#17
Jim Hackett II Wrote:Greg, Monk,
Friend.
Good to see signs of recovery.
Feisty?
The man that backed McNolan into a logical corner
of his McAdams' own design? On the "air".
Not feisty, more and better in a similar vein
but not feisty if that word implies a playfulness.

I'd say just that is Greg Burnham.
Relentless isn't even close.
We are still involved after all these years, eh?

We all gotta be who we are.

Jim

Many thanks, my friend. We endure.
GO_SECURE

monk


"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."

James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
Reply
#18
Magda Hassan Wrote:
Greg Burnham Wrote:You're welcome, Jim. My recovery must be accelerating as evidenced by the feistiness of my responses in this thread!

Good to hear Greg!

Thanks Magda!
GO_SECURE

monk


"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."

James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
Reply
#19
Greg Burnham Wrote:
Magda Hassan Wrote:
Greg Burnham Wrote:You're welcome, Jim. My recovery must be accelerating as evidenced by the feistiness of my responses in this thread!

Good to hear Greg!

Thanks Magda!

good to see you up and about there, Monk! Missed your posts.
--David
Reply
#20
David Healy Wrote:
Greg Burnham Wrote:
Magda Hassan Wrote:
Greg Burnham Wrote:You're welcome, Jim. My recovery must be accelerating as evidenced by the feistiness of my responses in this thread!

Good to hear Greg!

Thanks Magda!

good to see you up and about there, Monk! Missed your posts.
--David

Thanks David!
GO_SECURE

monk


"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."

James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Denial of Justice reviewed by Jim DiEugenio Jim DiEugenio 4 4,076 23-05-2019, 10:35 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Amazon PRICE break on JFK and the Unspeakable ONLY Chance to reviralize this best book on Nathaniel Heidenheimer 1 3,036 03-03-2017, 08:31 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  JFK, Obama, and the Unspeakable - James Douglass Peter Lemkin 4 24,061 12-12-2015, 07:27 PM
Last Post: Alan Ford
  JFK and the Unspeakable: A conversation with James W. Douglass, Oliver Stone & Lisa Pease Ed Jewett 27 12,833 10-07-2015, 06:09 AM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  David Slawson=State of Denial Jim DiEugenio 3 2,455 29-06-2015, 06:04 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Interview on INTO THE NIGHTMARE with Chris Gallop of The Continuing Inquiry Joseph McBride 6 3,893 01-06-2014, 11:48 PM
Last Post: Joseph McBride
  Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy - Schotz Peter Lemkin 6 3,816 20-12-2013, 10:50 PM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  JFK and Unspeakable LEAPING up Amazon Sales!!! PASSING UP THE GODWAWFUL SHENON AND SABATO BOOKS Nathaniel Heidenheimer 1 2,767 23-11-2013, 03:37 AM
Last Post: Marlene Zenker
  Jim Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, COPA 2009 - Not to be missed! Peter Lemkin 2 2,588 10-11-2013, 04:41 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle
  Chris Lydon On A New Theory About JFK's Assassination ..BASED ON ....JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE Bernice Moore 1 2,089 14-10-2013, 06:08 PM
Last Post: Marlene Zenker

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)