Posted by: graemebird | January 10, 2007

Iresponsible Alarmists Don’t Give A Toss About The Science.

Its the stealing that is the thing. Check out this conversation below:

I sez:

By Allah you people are gullible.

Lets see some science here.

Bring me the evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.

You won’t DO it.

Because you don’t HAVE it.

[Response: Suggest you check out http://www.realclimate.org%5D

Posted by: Graeme Bird | January 09, 2007 at 01:23 PM

It s a bullshit cult site.

And you will not find evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming there.

Instead you will find any amount of feeble excuses for the lack of such evidence.

They call these feeble excuses HIGHLIGHTS.

So because you have derailed things by attempting to hide behind a link and presuming to set me homework lets go again.

“By Allah you people are gullible.

Lets see some science here.

Bring me the evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.

You won’t DO it.

Because you don’t HAVE it.”

This time can we have a PROPER response and not a know-nothing wimpout.

Amazing how right I was hey?

Posted by: Graeme Bird | January 10, 2007 at 02:24 AM

“You won’t DO it.

Because you don’t HAVE it.”

Now how did I know this?

Is it because I’m Nostradamus?

No its not because I’m Nostradamus.

Its just because I know that there is not evidence.

The rest of you should be seeing a pattern forming here.

I’ve posted on this SMH blog.

I don’t know if they’ve approved it or not.

But you might like to see a better explanation of the reality of things then you’ll likely see at realclimate.org.

[Response:
a) Relax a bit.
b) The main purpose of this blog is to look for solutions to AGW, not analyse the science behind it. Based on the available evidence, I’ve accepted that it is happening. Although I have in the past entered into discussions about it with sceptics, I’ve since decided that it’s better to leave that to the research scientists that are working on the problem, hence the reference to realclimate.org
c) I haven’t seen your comment come up on the SMH blog so assume that it was not acceptable to the moderator.
d) If you ever want to go carbon neutral I’d be happy to help you!]

Posted by: Graeme Bird | January 10, 2007 at 02:30 AM

“b) The main purpose of this blog is to look for solutions to AGW, not analyse the science behind it. Based on the available evidence, I’ve accepted that it is happening.”

HAPPENING?

You mean you don’t give a flying fuck if its just happening a tiny bit (which it appears to be) or if its happening in a catastrophic way (which is impossible)…..

Its all the same to you??????????

Well thats how all the thieves talk right?

“Ho ho. Gotcha…. Look…. Human-caused…”

And so these swine think that even the tiniest human-caused warming, in a planet hard-wired for cooling, is an exsuse for massive cost imposition and thieving.

Your’re on the wrong ethical side of this debate pal.

And the wrong scientific side.

Get your act together.

AND WHY THE FUCK WOULD ANYONE WANT TO GO ‘CARBON NEUTRAL’ when CO2 is an unqualified good thing?

[Response: Graeme, you and I are living in different universes. You will not change my mind and I am pretty sure I won’t change yours, so let’s just call it a day and stop wasting each others time, huh?]

Posted by: Graeme Bird | January 10, 2007 at 11:14 AM

Why won’t you change your mind?

Are you therefore admitting to being some sort of irrational bigot?

Why not just go where the evidence is.

And swear off stealing and cost-imposition for all time?

Why should I CHANGE MY!!!!!! MIND!

If I’m right and you are wrong?

Now that is the case. I am in fact right and you are in fact wrong. Both ethically and scientifically.

But I’d change my mind in a second if contrary evidence came in.

Why not just go where the evidence falls?

We are going to have to name and shame people here.

This fraud and unscience has gone too far.

Posted by: Graeme Bird | January 10, 2007 at 12:46 PM

Advertisements

Responses

  1. i would like to fight this global warming fraud, the people i argue with asked me to watch this video http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/
    As you say they don’t even present their evidence for catastrophic warming they just claim there is a consensus. Now they are claiming that the costs of global warming will exceed the two world wars etc.
    i would like to give them a one two punch can you help me understand the stefan boltzman law.

    thanks, jim

  2. Well thats great news Jim. Yes of course I’ll help. But you have to understand it well and link my explanations as much as you can but don’t rely on me because I’m not a scientist.

    That is before you put too much skin into this you better understand it well yourself and not rely on anyone.

    There is in physics this concept of a neutral body in terms of how it deals with electromagnetic radiation.

    Electromagnetic radiation comprises all these things that will travel at the speed of light in a vacuum.

    Well it is LIGHT really. Its ALL light really. The WHOLE SPECTRUM of the electromagnetic radiation ought to be though of as all akin to light in a sense.

    But when you and I talk about light we mean that sliver of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum THAT OUR EYES CAN SEE.

    And that sliver comprises ROYGBIV

    Red Orange Yellow Green Bue Indigo and Violet.

    I will call this radiation ‘LIGHT’ sometimes instead of the full Electromagnetic Radiation. This is not the normal usage. But its easier to explain things that way.

    So we can see the ‘LIGHT’ that is part of ROYGBIV but we cannot see the infrared light or the ultra-violet light.

    These COLOURS of light whether they are the light we CAN or CAN’T see are really a matter of WAVELENGTH.

    And so red has a bigger waverlength the orange. And Blue has a smaller wavelength then Yellow. And VIOLET-LIGHT is the light with the smallest wave-length we can see.

    Now the idea with Stefans Boltzmanns law is that we have space. And we have a sort of NEUTRAL BODY.

    This neutral body is neutral in this sense:

    IT IS NEUTRAL IN THE WAY IT TRANSLATES THE TEMPERATURE OF THIS BODY INTO THE WAY IT SHINES LIGHT OUT INTO SPACE.

    That is shines “LIGHT’ our into space.

    So imagine you have a sort of wrecking-ball made of iron in space. And you get it hot.

    But the light it shines you can’t see it. The ball is 60 degrees Celsius and its shining a lot of light in space but none of which you can see.

    But imagine you heat if up to 500 degrees Celsius and now its shining light in space that you can see.

    Would you call this wrecking-ball a BLACK BODY?

    How can it be BLACK when its yellow and orange?

    But the point is is when these physicists talk about a BLACK BODY they are really talking about a perfectly round object where they have an exact formula which tells them how much and what type of light will shine out AT EACH GIVEN TEMPERATURE.

    So a BLACK BODY is not literally a black body….. Its more an object that is NEUTRAL in terms of the HEAT-LIGHT relationship.

    Now Stefan-Boltzsmanns law says that the amount of TOTAL ENERGY OF THE LIGHT that a black body shines out into space is proportional to THE FOURTH POWER of the temperature with regards to the Kelvin scale.

    Zero degrees Kelvin is about -273 degrees Celsius.

    Lets say 270 for simplicity.

    So Ive got a wrecking ball and its in space.

    And its temperature is 300 degrees Kelvin which we’ll say is about 30 degrees Celsius.

    Lets say it gives off X amount of energy. That is all the “LIGHT” ir produces travels off at the speed of light and the total amount of energy is ONE UNIT OF ENERGY (I use 30 degrees celsius as a base and will only convert to Joules later) PER SECOND.

    Now thats with 300 degrees Kelvin or 30 degrees Celsius.

    Now what if I increase the temperature to 900 degrees Kelvin ( about 630 degrees Celsius)

    Now this ball in space is really shining.

    But tell me this?

    Will it now shine out LIGHT* (ie electromagnetic radiation that can be seen as well as that which cannot) out into space which having the energy of THREE UNITS PER SECOND?

    Or perhaps it will by 9 UNITS PER SECOND?

    Or maybe instead it will be 27 PER SECOND?

    But no. We said the black body will increase its radiation of energy in the form of light out in proportion to the proportionate increase in the surface temperature of the BLACK (ie heat-radiation NEUTRAL) body TO THE FOURTH POWER of the proportionate increase on the Kelving scale.

    So if our wrecking-ball in space gives off light with an energy content of 1 UNIT PER SECOND at 300K then at 900K it will give off 81 UNITS PER SECOND IN THE FORM OF LIGHT* SHONE OUT INTO SPACE.

    Now just try and absorb that.

    And go back to my threads which talk about taking a MARGINALIST approach.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: