Are you a bishop or a pawn in the global warming inquisition?

Question

Anyone else see the similarities of the Spanish inquisition and the global warming religion? If you don't believe then you are an ignorant waste of O2. You will have all of your possesions taken to support the lifestyles of the bishops and their minions. listening to these preachers is truly torture to me.

Why is Jupiter experiencing global warming --- right now?

Why did I believe the concensus of scientisits in the early 70's that said we were coming into an ice age? I can answer that one. Because I was young and gullable--at least I grew out of the gullable part.

Answer 1

I have always been partial to the rook, I don't know why,  I just like the rook.

Answer 2

i am a rook

Answer 3

All of us are Pawns

who want to be kings

and lets not forget the queens

but nevertheless we are pawns

Answer 4

If I believed erroneous reports of Jupiter heating globally I'd be a pawn.  There is no evidence to support the claim that Jupiter is warming globally, so does that make me a bishop?

The exaggerations are based on one researcher who has however offered a threory which predicts that heating might occur near Jupiter's equator:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ju...

The mergers are part of a significant climate change Marcus thinks is imminent. Unlike Earth, Jupiter's equator is not much warmer than its poles, even though the equator receives more sunlight. That implies something is globally mixing the heat pretty effectively, Marcus explains. (Another factor is that Jupiter generates much of its heat from within.)

Marcus' modeling represents "the first time that the heating has been coupled to the vortex dynamics," Gierasch told SPACE.com. "That's a step forward."  

Marcus says the demise of still more spots over the next seven years will mark the end of a newly proposed, 70-year climate cycle.

During this time, Jupiter's equatorial region will warm up a whopping 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 Celsius) and the planet will grow cooler near the poles. Then the stage will be set, as in 1939, for another batch of white ovals to dramatically appear by 2014.

But if the equatorial region warms as Marcus predicts, the biggest of all spots could take on a different appearance. Over the past 300 years it has changed color several times and recently altered from its traditional red to something more like salmon. Scientists aren't sure why, but it likely involves redistribution of chemicals, with underlying layers becoming exposed.

---

So Jupiter's temperature is closely linked to it sstorms (and it generates heat internally), the proposed heating is theoretical, not measured, and the proposed heating would be offset by cooling towards the poles (no indication that the planet isheating globally).

---

The reports of Mars warming are also seriously misrepresented.  Here's a comment from Lori Fenton, one of the researchers whose paper was widely mischaracterized by ExxonMobil's minions, quoted from her own Web site:

"Our Nature article had some press coverage, and some who heard the news would like to attribute our modeled warming (of 0.65° C or 1.2° F) over the 20 year period to changes in solar output, but our work doesn't involve any such changes. The warming we have modeled is caused by changes on the surface of Mars, rather than by any changes in the Sun. Furthermore, the climate forcing process we have identified is caused by the redistribution of bright dust over a darker surface, a process which does not occur on Earth (at least not to such a magnitude that it influences the global climate system). Earth does undergo albedo changes that impact the climate, but the controlling processes are quite different -- such as changes in cloud cover, sea ice, and vegetation. Thus the warming we have modeled is caused by a process that is unique to Mars, and nothing in our work can be used to make inferences about climate change on Earth. I hope this clears up any confusion to the layperson."

http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/~fenton/

People who accept misinformation without conducting a 5 minute Internet search to reveal the truth are definitely pawns.

Answer 5

ug.   I was hoping your question would have merit.  It does not.  Come back with some facts and examples instead of just hear say.  Good luck.  Work on this some more.

Answer 6

Right now we are pawns but we must rise up and not let ourselves be tramples under foot but the Al Gore / Obama / United Nations taxation juggernaut.  Fight back, resist, do not surrender.

Answer 7

I am a spiritual being having a human experience

Answer 8

We are just serfs to those with power and money.

A. Is Jupiter warming? Why are some people so quick to claim extraterrestrial global warming while at the same time denying global warming on Earth?

"The evidence for Jupiter’s global warming is nothing of the sort. It is evidence that there are warm spots, with storms rising to the tops of the clouds. This may just be a local effect, and not global. Jupiter’s atmosphere is fiendishly complex, and not well understood. If you’ve ever looked at the planet through a telescope, you can clearly see thick horizontal bands across the disk; these are enormous wind patterns that dwarf the Earth. A few years ago, one of the dark bands disappeared completely. For reasons unknown to this day, it sank a bit in the atmosphere, and opaque clouds covered it up. I saw it many times through my ’scope, and it was bizarre. Then, after a while, it reappeared, just like that. My point: any claims about Jupiter’s atmosphere when it comes to global warming must be approached very carefully. We don’t understand the dynamics of that system."[1]

B. If you believe that a consensus of scientists in the early 70’s was predicting an eminent ice age, then you are very gullible indeed. This popular belief that scientists were predicting global cooling during the 1970's simply is not true. A survey of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Twenty other articles were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.[2]

"A review of [1970's] literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

Answer 9

In your analogy, I'm a Protestant....and I prefer checkers.  King me!

Answer 10

no! I am a soldier on the opposing force. I enjoy battle, send your global warmers here to me.

Answer 11

I am definitely a pawn.

Answer 12

There was no "concensus of scientists in the early 70's" and responding to global warming does mean anyone will "have all of your possesions taken".

The Myth Of The 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/1310...

An estimated 1.1% GDP from 2010 - 2050 will prevent dangerous global warming.  And the clean renewable energy infrastructure that will be in place by then will continue to support on-going human prosperity long after that.

Answer 13

Hey, you're right, the parallels are amazing! Look at all these people we're killing because they don't believe in global warming! Wow, I never noticed it before!

What's that about Jupiter? And we are coming to an ice age, because we are in a warming period between cooling ones. So while it will be thousands of years in the future, technically we are coming to an ice age.

Answer 14

Help become a warrior in this battle against ignorance.

Sign on here:

http://www.americansolutions.com/actionc...

The so called consensus put on by leftists thinking "scientists" who's political agenda precludes them from ever holding a job in the free enterprise system.  The hatred and lies of the leftist mind becomes obvious.

The rebuttal to the consensus of Global Warming = The letter Science Magazine refused to publish :

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Sc...

Quote:  "Since the results looked questionable, I decided to replicate the Oreskes study."

Results:

"The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:

Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'."