PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming Hoax?



Captain Mike D
11-25-2009, 07:30 AM
Seems like maybe there has been some falsification by the global warming experts going on and once again many media oulets are not covering the story

Read it here- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/


And here-
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/24/climategate-totally-ignored-tv-news-outlets-except-fox
(after reading click on bombshell for some of the actual e-mail content)

Guess it just doesn't fit the media agenda even though the e-mails have been verified as being real

Mike

road kill
11-25-2009, 07:44 AM
Seems like maybe there has been some falsification by the global warming experts going on and once again many media oulets are not covering the story

Read it here- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/


And here-
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/24/climategate-totally-ignored-tv-news-outlets-except-fox
(after reading click on bombshell for some of the actual e-mail content)

Guess it just doesn't fit the media agenda even though the e-mails have been verified as being real

Mike


PLEASE!!!
Do NOT let the FACTS get in the way of a feel good topic!!

This topic is part and parcel of the "BIG-TENT" religion!!:D

Bob Gutermuth
11-25-2009, 10:27 AM
Thank God this was revealed before cap and trade got to the floor of congress. Now when is the lamestream media goiong to report this hoax?

Steve Amrein
11-25-2009, 10:33 AM
Thank God this was revealed before cap and trade got to the floor of congress. Now when is the lamestream media goiong to report this hoax?


They wont its not their agenda.

ducknwork
11-25-2009, 10:45 AM
Al Gore is in his basement comtemplating suicide right now...:(

Bob Gutermuth
11-25-2009, 10:47 AM
I hope he isn't going to get any richer off the whole global warming lie.

subroc
11-25-2009, 11:00 AM
Al, the science is settled, Gore.

An Al Gore debate has him alone in a room...

Captain Mike D
11-25-2009, 05:10 PM
Where oh Where are the voices from the left that support the president's view--You know, give away our rights given by the Constitution to the UN at Copenhagen,in the name of Global Warming/Climate change

dnf777
11-25-2009, 05:17 PM
I'm still reeling from the wacky lefty notion that the world is round! Has me a bit worried, as we're driving to NJ for the holidays next month. That's pretty close to the edge, isn't it?

road kill
11-25-2009, 05:22 PM
Where oh Where are the voices from the left that support the president's view--You know, give away our rights given by the Constitution to the UN at Hopenhagen,in the name of Global Warming/Climate change


Fixed!!!!;)

road kill
11-25-2009, 05:22 PM
I'm still reeling from the wacky lefty notion that the world is round! Has me a bit worried, as we're driving to NJ for the holidays next month. That's pretty close to the edge, isn't it?


Nope, Jersey is pretty much over the edge!!:D

Captain Mike D
11-25-2009, 05:46 PM
I'm still reeling from the wacky lefty notion that the world is round! Has me a bit worried, as we're driving to NJ for the holidays next month. That's pretty close to the edge, isn't it?

I would say that you are going to the land down under, but I'm sure that would be offensive to the Aussies.

Mike

subroc
11-25-2009, 06:12 PM
Man caused global warming activists, how does it feel to know that the information you have been using to support a less than tenable position has been edited, massaged as well as cherry picked and in actuality, it is not true?

The best defense in this situation is to continue to try to defend your belief system that is really little more than a house of cards.

You have been duped.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

dnf777
11-25-2009, 08:40 PM
How about peer-reviewed journals reporting on this?
So far I've seen right-wing blogs and obscure foreign papers.
Where's the Nat'l Academy of Science on this?

subroc
11-25-2009, 09:09 PM
You have been duped

JDogger
11-25-2009, 10:02 PM
You have been duped

Maybe so. Only time will tell. In the meantime, do you think atmospheric and environmental pollution should go unabated, in the interest of the bottom line?
Whether or not global climate change is true or false, be it human caused or merely cyclical, do we want to continue to soil our nest, and rely on the planet to absorb the waste of a continually growing population?

JD

subroc
11-26-2009, 05:18 AM
JD

That is a completely different argument.

We now have a set of conditions that has become so linked to financial gain it is hard to separate the two. Your side is hell bent on looting the treasury of rich nations in the name of “climate change” and control so they can push a political agenda that isn’t true, the pollution aspect has been lost by your side.

Hew
11-26-2009, 05:40 AM
How about peer-reviewed journals reporting on this?
So far I've seen right-wing blogs and obscure foreign papers.
Where's the Nat'l Academy of Science on this?
Where is the Nat'l Academy of Science on this indeed. In fact, what is the Nat'l Academy of Science? Perhaps you meant the Nat'l Academy of Sciences? If their opinion is so critical that you'll wait to ignore the obvious until they tell you what to think, one would assume you'd at least know what the actual name of the organization is.

dnf777
11-26-2009, 06:38 AM
Where is the Nat'l Academy of Science on this indeed. In fact, what is the Nat'l Academy of Science? Perhaps you meant the Nat'l Academy of Sciences? If their opinion is so critical that you'll wait to ignore the obvious until they tell you what to think, one would assume you'd at least know what the actual name of the organization is.

Have a nice Thanksgiving, Hew.

Hew
11-26-2009, 07:56 AM
Have a nice Thanksgiving, Hew.
Thanks. You, too. In fact, Happy Thanksgiving to everyone in the Uniteds State of American, the United Nation, and NATOS, too. ;-)

Bob Gutermuth
11-26-2009, 09:13 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/25/gop-senator-tells-climate-change-researchers-retain-controversial-e-mails/?test=latestnews

Uncle Bill
11-26-2009, 12:36 PM
Thanks. You, too. In fact, Happy Thanksgiving to everyone in the Uniteds State of American, the United Nation, and NATOS, too. ;-)


heh heh heh heh...sames to youse. (who invited the MooseGooser prose to this thread???)

UB

Richard Halstead
11-26-2009, 01:29 PM
The global warming can show that carbon dioxide increased during the industrial revolution however a single super volcano eruption can put enough ash into the atmosphere to cool the earth for decades. I am of the opinion that one former VP can add more Carbon Dioxide flying in his private plane to give his speeches that spread the fear of global warming earning him millions.

Bob Gutermuth
11-26-2009, 08:56 PM
It ain't CO2 from Al Bore's jet that bothers me its the BS he is spreading.

subroc
11-27-2009, 08:42 AM
More. Glen Beck video as well.

http://inflandersfields.eu/2009/11/climategate-scientists-forged-climate.html

Uncle Bill
11-28-2009, 11:56 AM
From no less a location than Henry V's backdoor... Minnnneesoooooooota, comes a sing-along in tree-hugger fashion. Enjoy. UB


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

Duckbane
11-28-2009, 04:18 PM
These are the same jokers that want us to believe in dinosaurs.

subroc
11-28-2009, 04:26 PM
These are the same jokers that want us to believe in dinosaurs.

I don't get it.?.?.?

What does one have to do with the other?

A non-question or point like that sidetracks this particualr issue. Feel free to start a dinosaur thread if you wish. Take any tack you wish and I will participate.

JDogger
11-28-2009, 05:22 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5AO4TW20091125?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=11604&sp=true

JD

subroc
11-28-2009, 06:00 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5AO4TW20091125?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=11604&sp=true

JD

Seems like a little panic in their position.

Being caught and guilty of a conspiracy of the magnitude of this would bring out some defence.

This may/will go down as one of the great conspiracies against mankind of all time.

These guys should be flayed in the public square.

BTW, This is a big issue. This is just the start. This will be a "what did you know and when did you know it" kind of thing.

JDogger
11-28-2009, 08:47 PM
Seems like a little panic in their position.

Being caught and guilty of a conspiracy of the magnitude of this would bring out some defence.

This may/will go down as one of the great conspiracies against mankind of all time.

These guys should be flayed in the public square.

BTW, This is a big issue. This is just the start. This will be a "what did you know and when did you know it" kind of thing.

I don't agree. A few emails by some with less than better judgement does not indict the larger scientific community. If we are to say then, that the actions of these few, cast doubt on all, don't we also say then, that the actions of a few SEALS to file timely and accurate reports, then indicts them all?

They'll both be part of yesterday's news cycle.

I do find your post to be somewhat melodramatic. Public flaying? How about stoning? Lets bring back the stocks.

Sounds vaguely talibanesque. Que no?

BTW, I find both sides of the climate change debate to be monetarily and politically motivated. What a surprise! Isn't most everything?

JD

Bob Gutermuth
11-29-2009, 03:57 AM
I wonder when the lamestream media is going to pick up on this story? It took them forever to report on Van Jones after Fox broke the story.

Uncle Bill
11-29-2009, 01:27 PM
I don't agree.

You could knock me over with a feather!:eek:


BTW, I find both sides of the climate change debate to be monetarily and politically motivated. What a surprise! Isn't most everything?

JD



What the hell are you talkiing about Hugh...BOTH sides are 'monetarily' motivated???

Let's disect that phoney bit of self flagellation. YOU ARE ON THE ONLY SIDE that is monetarily motivated. Our side is saying what is happening is part of the normal climate cycles for which we have ZERO control, thus it costs everybody NOTHING to continue living life as we did prior to Algore and his sycophantic followers dreamt up this pile of horse manure.

And if you and your Democrat party shove down America's throat that pathetic carbon-contol bill, even you will get to donate to Algores coffers. It just pisses me off that you socialists are never satisfied until everyone supports Algore and his totally flawed theories.

UB

Sundown49 aka Otey B
11-29-2009, 01:40 PM
Bill having grown up around algore I just have to say this......His nanny read him the book "henny Penny" and he had nightmares about the sky falling. Apparently he still has those dreams about the weather........LOL.

subroc
11-29-2009, 03:29 PM
Now they are destroying evidence????

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

How can we believe anything "scientists" in the man caused global warming camp say. They are hiding, manipulating and destroying data.

YardleyLabs
11-29-2009, 03:39 PM
Now they are destroying evidence????

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

How can we believe anything "scientists" in the man caused global warming camp say. They are hiding, manipulating and destroying data.
I'm sure you noticed that this is reporting an event that happened 25 years ago when few people considered the information to be all that important.

subroc
11-29-2009, 03:48 PM
destroying evidence

YardleyLabs
11-29-2009, 04:17 PM
destroying evidence
The Justice Department destroys evidence concerning purchasers of weapons that will be used in future crimes every day. Shall we put them in jail? Most organizations purge records and files for various reasons -- most related to cost and capacity for storage in conjunction with perceived value -- on a regular basis. While the purging is unfortunate in this case because there are few other comparable records of historical temperature measurements from around the globe, there is nothing to suggest that the decision was in any way related to some form of cover up. In fact, the freedom of information law in the UK that is now the basis for requesting access to this information did not even exist at the time the date was purged.

BrianW
11-29-2009, 04:40 PM
I do find your post to be somewhat melodramatic.

BTW, I find both sides of the climate change debate to be monetarily and politically motivated. What a surprise! Isn't most everything?

JD

Well at least the natural occurrence side ISN'T calling for global governance & taxation as did the UN GenSec
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=582
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

General Assembly

22 September 2009
Opening remarks to the United Nations Climate Change Summit Plenary


First, a successful deal must involve all countries working toward a common, long-term goal to limit global temperature rise to safe levels consistent with science.
It will include ambitious emission reduction targets from industrialized countries by 2020.
It will include actions by developing countries to limit the growth of their emissions while they grow sustainably. They will need substantial financial and technological support to achieve this.
It will also address all major sources of greenhouse gases, including deforestation and emissions from shipping and aviation.
Second, a successful deal must strengthen the world’s ability to cope with inevitable changes. In particular, it must provide comprehensive support to the most vulnerable. They have contributed least to this crisis and are suffering first -- and worst.
Adaptation is a moral obligation. It is a political imperative. It is a smart investment in a more secure future.
It must be given equal priority in the negotiations, though not at the expense of mitigation.
Third, a deal needs to be backed by money and the means to deliver it. Without proper financing, the solutions we discuss are empty.
A deal must make available the full range of public and private resources, so developing countries can pursue low-emissions growth, as well as adapt. It must provide a framework that will unlock private investment, including through the carbon markets.

"Fourth, a successful deal must include an equitable global governance structure ..."

Any time a political entity calls for "substantial" "comprehensive support" for the "most vulnerable" that is code for "tax the rich". This IS going to come from the US, from you & I, and our kids, grandkids etc as we give up our sovereignty in the name of being "equitable" unless it is fought now.

I don't call that "melodramatic", I call that the opposition stating exactly what they plan to do to the US.

Bob Gutermuth
11-29-2009, 04:41 PM
The long and short of it is that global warming is BS meant to sell Americans, and others on crazy tax schemes and a sharing of our wealth with the third world. Cap and trade and the Copenhagen treaty must be defeated.

Uncle Bill
11-29-2009, 04:45 PM
The Justice Department destroys evidence concerning purchasers of weapons that will be used in future crimes every day. Shall we put them in jail? Most organizations purge records and files for various reasons -- most related to cost and capacity for storage in conjunction with perceived value -- on a regular basis. While the purging is unfortunate in this case because there are few other comparable records of historical temperature measurements from around the globe, there is nothing to suggest that the decision was in any way related to some form of cover up. In fact, the freedom of information law in the UK that is now the basis for requesting access to this information did not even exist at the time the date was purged.

Dayum, is there no end to the number of sword cuts you are willing to endure? :confused:

"While the purging is unfortunate" ... not sure if we are supposed to laugh or puke. Are we to believe you and Algore are intending to use empirical data, rather than anything from the archives, to back up your money grab for carbon credits?

If you honestly see no possible corruption in this manuever, please come to Sodak...with your checkbook..I have some beachfront property you might be gulli...oops, interested in.

UB

YardleyLabs
11-29-2009, 05:13 PM
Dayum, is there no end to the number of sword cuts you are willing to endure? :confused:

"While the purging is unfortunate" ... not sure if we are supposed to laugh or puke. Are we to believe you and Algore are intending to use empirical data, rather than anything from the archives, to back up your money grab for carbon credits?

If you honestly see no possible corruption in this manuever, please come to Sodak...with your checkbook..I have some beachfront property you might be gulli...oops, interested in.

UB
As one of the many here who seem to believe that it is ridiculous to discuss the repeated stupidity of the last administration because it is ancient history, you seem to have a wide eyed willingness to see current conspiracy in an action to purge old, unused data 25 years ago.

After reading a constant stream of hysterical claims about the climate change conspiracy uncovered by the illegal hacking of personal email accounts at the Climate Research Unit, I was struck by how few of those claims actually cited any specific messages to support their claims. In fact, all they ever cited were other unsubstantiated claims by similarly biased sources. Reluctantly, I ended up downloading the 70 megabyte compressed file of all the hacked emails and documents.

I will not pretend to have read all the documents. They are mind numbingly boring. Interestingly, one conspiracy is apparent in the various messages: a small number of people were submitting FOI requests for increasingly complex compilations of data to an extent that, if all requests were answered, the entire unit would have had to close down all other activities to fund the cost of responses. There also appears to have been very open discussion of the difficulties of compiling data from a huge number of different sources, each operating, based on its own standards, outside the control of the unit. In fact, if one focuses on the central issues of dispute -- that is, is there evidence of climate change that is most probably the result of human activity -- nothing found in the the documents and messages contradicts this conclusion at all. However, when it comes to credulous minds, there seem to be few more fertile fields than in the fear mongering heads of the deniers and conspiracy theorists. Maybe you should be trying to sell SODAK beaches to them.:rolleyes:

Uncle Bill
11-29-2009, 05:48 PM
As one of the many here who seem to believe that it is ridiculous to discuss the repeated stupidity of the last administration because it is ancient history, you seem to have a wide eyed willingness to see current conspiracy in an action to purge old, unused data 25 years ago.

After reading a constant stream of hysterical claims about the climate change conspiracy uncovered by the illegal hacking of personal email accounts at the Climate Research Unit, I was struck by how few of those claims actually cited any specific messages to support their claims. In fact, all they ever cited were other unsubstantiated claims by similarly biased sources. Reluctantly, I ended up downloading the 70 megabyte compressed file of all the hacked emails and documents.

I will not pretend to have read all the documents. They are mind numbingly boring. Interestingly, one conspiracy is apparent in the various messages: a small number of people were submitting FOI requests for increasingly complex compilations of data to an extent that, if all requests were answered, the entire unit would have had to close down all other activities to fund the cost of responses. There also appears to have been very open discussion of the difficulties of compiling data from a huge number of different sources, each operating, based on its own standards, outside the control of the unit. In fact, if one focuses on the central issues of dispute -- that is, is there evidence of climate change that is most probably the result of human activity -- nothing found in the the documents and messages contradicts this conclusion at all. However, when it comes to credulous minds, there seem to be few more fertile fields than in the fear mongering heads of the deniers and conspiracy theorists. Maybe you should be trying to sell SODAK beaches to them.:rolleyes:


Very nice and erudite in an ostentatious manner. The Stupidity, as you claim, of the last administration... isn't claiming to have scientific proof of man-made global warming...only the magnanimous Algore is intelligent enough to have that knowledge. (sorry if that offends you, but I've never heard you utter the translation of "e pluribus unum" like he did while the nation watched him and the cigar-fettish king tour the Whitehouse)

No, I think I've found the correct soul for my beachfront property in Sodak. You are so full of the koolaide, you'll soon need a beach to keep you afloat.

UB

BTW, your unique "internet inventor" and "scientist exceptionAl", back in his lowly Veep days, told the nation that motto meant "from one, many". Wotta mental midget, and a national sap. ( I do so hate to point out the foibles of your heros)

YardleyLabs
11-29-2009, 06:14 PM
Very nice and erudite in an ostentatious manner. The Stupidity, as you claim, of the last administration... isn't claiming to have scientific proof of man-made global warming...only the magnanimous Algore is intelligent enough to have that knowledge. (sorry if that offends you, but I've never heard you utter the translation of "e pluribus unum" like he did while the nation watched him and the cigar-fettish king tour the Whitehouse)

No, I think I've found the correct soul for my beachfront property in Sodak. You are so full of the koolaide, you'll soon need a beach to keep you afloat.

UB

BTW, your unique "internet inventor" and "scientist exceptionAl", back in his lowly Veep days, told the nation that motto meant "from one, many". Wotta mental midget, and a national sap. ( I do so hate to point out the foibles of your heros)
For what it's worth, I liked Gore's father (my father was his campaign manager in Anderson County, TN) and would have bought Clinton a case of Cuban cigars to keep him in the white house, but I've never thought much of Gore. I read Gore's first book on the environment and found it rather insipid, with more of a focus on his own mid-life crisis as a mediocre senator than anything else.

With respect to the environment, I tend toward a Hippocratic Oath approach -- do no harm -- and believe it is incumbent on those that want to spew their chemicals into the air or water to prove that they are not destroying the futures of my grandchildren. As the age of atomic energy was in its infancy in my hometown of Oak Ridge TN, the philosophy was that people should not be exposed to any level of radiation that was measurable. Unfortunately, all we learned was that the level of radiation that caused irreversible harm was less than what we could measure. Many of the people working on the Manhattan Project, including my father, probably died prematurely as a result.

I personally suspect that the same is true for almost every additive we put in our food and every type of chemical waste that we dispose of into our environment. By allowing polluters to impose their waste on the rest of us without cost, we are giving them an unwarranted public subsidy. By making them pay for those disposal rights we are allowing capitalism to do its job in shaping economic decisions. I am a great fan of capitalism and believe in giving it every chance to work.

Uncle Bill
11-30-2009, 02:39 PM
With respect to the environment, I tend toward a Hippocratic Oath approach -- do no harm -- and believe it is incumbent on those that want to spew their chemicals into the air or water to prove that they are not destroying the futures of my grandchildren.

And of course, by my not buying into the carbon credit/global warming theory, I'm against clean air and clean water, right? What part of this Algore hoax don't you get?


By allowing polluters to impose their waste on the rest of us without cost, we are giving them an unwarranted public subsidy. By making them pay for those disposal rights we are allowing capitalism to do its job in shaping economic decisions. I am a great fan of capitalism and believe in giving it every chance to work.



You can keep repeating this view all you want, but what you are promoting is malarky. How many carbon credits do you intend to provide Algore, so he can continue his farcical trip around the country? His personal polluting while he pontificates as to how guilty we all should be, and expecting all of us to send him millions to keep this incredulous lie alive is preposterous.

UB

subroc
11-30-2009, 02:53 PM
Jeff, in your view, does someone have to believe in the theory of man caused global warming to believe in conservation?

Can someone believe, and be right, that a belief in man caused global warming, is actually harming conservation?

YardleyLabs
11-30-2009, 04:18 PM
Jeff, in your view, does someone have to believe in the theory of man caused global warming to believe in conservation?

Can someone believe, and be right, that a belief in man caused global warming, is actually harming conservation?
I think many conservationists believe in global warming (or global climate change) and that many do not. I suspect that in most cases that both believers and deniers know little about the facts of the matter one way or the other and are simply expressing their own political biases. On the latter question, I guess I would need to hear the argument made. It's an approach I have not heard argued before.

My own beliefs on global climate change are not well defined. I don't feel I know enough about either the facts or the science to make an independent judgment. For those who believe -- often it seems as a matter of religion -- that it is not possible for man to have such a fundamental impact on our environment, I would simply point out that we have had a massive impact on our world in many ways and that the changes we have wrought seem, in most cases, to have many more negative effects than were ever anticipated in advance.

My house is located in a 100 year flood plain and has flooded three times in 13 years. The reason is simple: on-going development has dramatically increased the impermeable surface area surrounding my town and raised the elevations of what were previously natural catch basins. I live down hill from those developments and am the natural beneficiary of the increased run off from the developed properties. This has cost me over $100,000 in uncompensated losses in floods plus a reduction in the value of my house of another $200k+. Complaints about the risk of just such effects were made before the properties were developed and those who stood to gain financially from development denied that the risks were real. They opposed any acts by government that might negatively affect their ability to develop the land. Oddly, none of those people has apologized or offered to share a portion of their profits to compensate my losses. In fact, many of those people are among those who now suggest that anyone living in the affected areas is crazy and should be denied flood insurance. In fact, the next time I file a flood insurance claim, my eligibility for flood coverage may be canceled because I have already had three losses. The cost to raise my house is estimated at $200,000+. For what it is worth, my house is almost 100 years old and my town, which has been devastated by this flooding, is over 300 years old. Before the most recent set of floods, there had been only one flood in the prior century.

How does this relate to global warming? The discussions are much the same. Immediate gain is weighed against future risk. Science is used by partisans on both sides not to answer any questions, but to prevent answers from ever being allowed to be evaluated objectively. Ultimately, decisions are made that favor immediate gain and those arguing to protect against what might happen otherwise are classified as anti-capitalist ninnies. This is also the same logic that brought us our most recent economic collapse, and the same logic that blocked efforts to reduce the use of lead in paints and gasoline, or asbestos in construction, or even to try to curb some of the health consequences of smoking. In all of these cases, there were massive investments by those with economic stakes involved to muddy the scientific waters and to delay public action for decades. The issue has never been one of one side or the other opposing economic progress. In almost every case, economic progress would have happened no matter what. Rather, the issue is that one side typically wants to be able to harvest the benefits of that progress without having to pay the full cost. Why shouldn't developments be required to have development plans that prevent any increase in run-off as a consequence of the development? Why shouldn't utilities have to preserve the quality of the air and water and to protect it from changes as a consequence of their activities? The things we do will obviously have effects on our world as well as effects on our "standard of living." The objective of economics is to force those consequences -- both negative and positive -- to be internalized so that they can be factored into pricing and thereby into consumption decisions. There is lots of room for discussing how this should be done. However, there is no question in my mind that we currently give too much of a free pass to activities that threaten both our present and our future.

M&K's Retrievers
11-30-2009, 09:32 PM
I think many conservationists believe in global warming (or global climate change) and that many do not. I suspect that in most cases that both believers and deniers know little about the facts of the matter one way or the other and are simply expressing their own political biases. On the latter question, I guess I would need to hear the argument made. It's an approach I have not heard argued before.

My own beliefs on global climate change are not well defined. I don't feel I know enough about either the facts or the science to make an independent judgment. For those who believe -- often it seems as a matter of religion -- that it is not possible for man to have such a fundamental impact on our environment, I would simply point out that we have had a massive impact on our world in many ways and that the changes we have wrought seem, in most cases, to have many more negative effects than were ever anticipated in advance.



My house is located in a 100 year flood plain and has flooded three times in 13 years. The reason is simple: on-going development has dramatically increased the impermeable surface area surrounding my town and raised the elevations of what were previously natural catch basins. I live down hill from those developments and am the natural beneficiary of the increased run off from the developed properties. This has cost me over $100,000 in uncompensated losses in floods plus a reduction in the value of my house of another $200k+. Complaints about the risk of just such effects were made before the properties were developed and those who stood to gain financially from development denied that the risks were real. They opposed any acts by government that might negatively affect their ability to develop the land. Oddly, none of those people has apologized or offered to share a portion of their profits to compensate my losses. In fact, many of those people are among those who now suggest that anyone living in the affected areas is crazy and should be denied flood insurance. In fact, the next time I file a flood insurance claim, my eligibility for flood coverage may be canceled because I have already had three losses. The cost to raise my house is estimated at $200,000+. For what it is worth, my house is almost 100 years old and my town, which has been devastated by this flooding, is over 300 years old. Before the most recent set of floods, there had been only one flood in the prior century.

How does this relate to global warming? The discussions are much the same. Immediate gain is weighed against future risk. Science is used by partisans on both sides not to answer any questions, but to prevent answers from ever being allowed to be evaluated objectively. Ultimately, decisions are made that favor immediate gain and those arguing to protect against what might happen otherwise are classified as anti-capitalist ninnies. This is also the same logic that brought us our most recent economic collapse, and the same logic that blocked efforts to reduce the use of lead in paints and gasoline, or asbestos in construction, or even to try to curb some of the health consequences of smoking. In all of these cases, there were massive investments by those with economic stakes involved to muddy the scientific waters and to delay public action for decades. The issue has never been one of one side or the other opposing economic progress. In almost every case, economic progress would have happened no matter what. Rather, the issue is that one side typically wants to be able to harvest the benefits of that progress without having to pay the full cost. Why shouldn't developments be required to have development plans that prevent any increase in run-off as a consequence of the development? Why shouldn't utilities have to preserve the quality of the air and water and to protect it from changes as a consequence of their activities? The things we do will obviously have effects on our world as well as effects on our "standard of living." The objective of economics is to force those consequences -- both negative and positive -- to be internalized so that they can be factored into pricing and thereby into consumption decisions. There is lots of room for discussing how this should be done. However, there is no question in my mind that we currently give too much of a free pass to activities that threaten both our present and our future.

Our home is located on a Corp. of Engineers lake which has had three 100 year floods since the dam was completed in the late 1940's. Perhaps they should change the defination of "100 year flood" or maybe just let more water out sooner.

Steve Amrein
12-01-2009, 12:00 PM
I just wanted to post a pic of "BS-1" Which belongs to the internets inventor. I can also post pics links to his over blown electric bill, Pics of corp jet rides to climate summits and maybe find the profits he is making on his marketing job. The cause would be more believable if he practiced what he preached. I do feel we should conserve because thats the right thing to do. BTW that Sea Doo is 12 feet long and it does not run on solar either.
http://www.lesjones.com/www/images/posts/big.zU7.big.191.BIO.SOLARONE.jpg

Henry V
12-01-2009, 05:59 PM
... Ultimately, decisions are made that favor immediate gain and those arguing to protect against what might happen otherwise are classified as anti-capitalist ninnies. This is also the same logic that brought us our most recent economic collapse, and the same logic that blocked efforts to reduce the use of lead in paints and gasoline, or asbestos in construction, or even to try to curb some of the health consequences of smoking. In all of these cases, there were massive investments by those with economic stakes involved to muddy the scientific waters and to delay public action for decades. The issue has never been one of one side or the other opposing economic progress. In almost every case, economic progress would have happened no matter what. Rather, the issue is that one side typically wants to be able to harvest the benefits of that progress without having to pay the full cost. Why shouldn't developments be required to have development plans that prevent any increase in run-off as a consequence of the development? Why shouldn't utilities have to preserve the quality of the air and water and to protect it from changes as a consequence of their activities? The things we do will obviously have effects on our world as well as effects on our "standard of living." The objective of economics is to force those consequences -- both negative and positive -- to be internalized so that they can be factored into pricing and thereby into consumption decisions. There is lots of room for discussing how this should be done. However, there is no question in my mind that we currently give too much of a free pass to activities that threaten both our present and our future.
Great stuff. Total cost accounting is needed rather than privatizing the benefits in the short term and socializing the long term costs. Super fund anyone? Corps of engineer flood projects anyone? A truly conservative approach to all these types of issues is exactly what Jeff describes. Unfortunately, the short term view wins most often and we are all left holding the bag for the consequences and of course there is no role here for strong regulation.

subroc
12-01-2009, 06:15 PM
Do people need to step down when they are telling the truth and what they provide is above reproach?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120102737_pf.html

It appears there is plenty of manipulation to go around.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/11/30/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate.html

I expect this is just the tip of the iceberg (pun intended)...

Henry V
12-01-2009, 11:26 PM
Didn't someone ask earlier about what the National Academies of Science have to say about this "hoax". Perhaps take a look here http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/

Also, for current reading on this topic check out http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/executive_summary.html

dnf777
12-02-2009, 04:55 AM
Didn't someone ask earlier about what the National Academies of Science have to say about this "hoax". Perhaps take a look here http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/

Also, for current reading on this topic check out http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/executive_summary.html

Yeah, I did. But someone soiled their underwear over the fact that I typed "Science" instead of "Sciences" in their name. Totally discredited everything I had to say, and all the work of the National Academy of Sciences....just because I forgot an "s"! :rolleyes: That's how it works here. Just wait and see the responses you get on this one! ;-)

subroc
12-02-2009, 05:47 AM
Hide the decline...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded

subroc
12-02-2009, 07:41 AM
Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_as/climate_australia

subroc
12-04-2009, 05:40 PM
A world wide scandal ignored by the MSM.

This is beyond obscene...

http://mrc.org/press/releases/2009/20091204124643.aspx

YardleyLabs
12-04-2009, 06:02 PM
A world wide scandal ignored by the MSM.

This is beyond obscene...

http://mrc.org/press/releases/2009/20091204124643.aspx
I don't watch any of the network channels, but the new york Times has reported the story fairly heavily as have CNN and MSNBC.

Goose
12-04-2009, 06:05 PM
A world wide scandal ignored by the MSM.

This is beyond obscene...

http://mrc.org/press/releases/2009/20091204124643.aspx

Not a peep from our leftist media on the biggest story ever but is anyone surprised? I'm not. Liberals lie and then they lie some more. And when they're caught they lie again while trying to tax the crap out of the rest of us. Where's Barry on this one? What a freakin' cover up by this Administration. Disgraceful.

I can't wait for Dopenhagen next week. Lies will be flying around like big, fat carbon footprints.

AGW was a lie from the beginning and we all knew it. So when will Algore return his fraudulently acquired Nobel Peace Prize? And when will the bloated one stand in front of a microphone and apoligize to us all for the fraud, lies, deceit and theft perpertrated by his chums in the scientific community?

We live in Cuba now.

subroc
12-04-2009, 06:08 PM
The left wing media's (MSM) biggest lie or crime has routinely been the sin of omission.

YardleyLabs
12-04-2009, 06:11 PM
Not a peep from our leftist media on the biggest story ever but is anyone surprised? I'm not. Liberals lie and then they lie some more. And when they're caught they lie again while trying to tax the crap out of the rest of us. Where's Barry on this one? What a freakin' cover up by this Administration. Disgraceful.

I can't wait for Dopenhagen next week. Lies will be flying around like big, fat carbon footprints.

AGW was a lie from the beginning and we all knew it. So when will Algore return his fraudulently acquired Nobel Peace Prize? And when will the bloated one stand in front of a microphone and apoligize to us all for the fraud, lies, deceit and theft perpertrated by his chums in the scientific community?

We live in Cuba now.
Do you guys just repeat this cr@p without ever checking your facts? The story has been very widely reported although few outside of the Fox Network and right wing blogs believe it is evidence of widespread fraud. Do searches on the NYTimes, Washington post, CNN, and MSNBC web sites and you will find numerous stories. It has also shown up in my local paper based on AP reporting and on the local news channels.

subroc
12-04-2009, 06:35 PM
Jeff

Media Research Centers article was a specific criticism aimed at ABC, CBS and NBC. This is a pretty big story worldwide. Scientists have had to step down, at least temporarily. A university is conducting an investigation. The major networks in the United States ignore the story. That is a scandal in itself. The reason for the omission is politics and a social agenda. Evan a lefty like you should be concerned.

Gerry Clinchy
12-04-2009, 07:00 PM
This was quoted by Newsmax, rightist, I know ... but if there stats are close to correct you've got to snicker a bit ... haven't these guys heard of teleconferencing? What good is technology ... like the internet if you don't use it yourself?


... happening as preparations are under way for next week's United Nations climate change meeting in Copenhagen, where 16,500 people from 192 countries will fly in using private jets, consume 200,000 meals, and produce an estimated 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide, roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006.

YardleyLabs
12-04-2009, 07:10 PM
Jeff

Media Research Centers article was a specific criticism aimed at ABC, CBS and NBC. This is a pretty big story worldwide. Scientists have had to step down, at least temporarily. A university is conducting an investigation. The major networks in the United States ignore the story. That is a scandal in itself. The reason for the omission is politics and a social agenda. Evan a lefty like you should be concerned.
However, both the article you cited and the comments by Goose and by you attributed this to the main stream media in general and the article to the New York Times in particular. Neither assertion is correct since the story was covered by both. I cannot comment on the ABC, NBC and CBS network news programs since I have not watched them. However, the Philadelphia affiliate news programs definitely mentioned the story as have all the major and minor news papers in my area. I would be surprised if the major network news programs failed to mention this story. I suspect they did. I simply have no way to verify it and your source has proven wrong in the places where I was able to verify. BTW, having now read the majority of the emails, I tend to think the story has received much more overage than was warranted, but that is a personal judgment.

Marvin S
12-04-2009, 09:35 PM
BTW, having now read the majority of the emails,

Into minutiae, are you? :cool:

Gerry Clinchy
12-05-2009, 08:36 AM
Yardley

BTW, having now read the majority of the emails, I tend to think the story has received much more overage than was warranted, but that is a personal judgment.

Given that 192 countries are scheduled to meet to make major economic commitments based on the global warming theory, the fact that some of these conclusions may be in question is of considerable interest.

As was mentioned by another poster, I would have more faith in Gore and his ilk if they were prepared to make the same sacrifices that they believe the "common people" should be willing to make. Gore certainly has the financial capability to embrace the energy conservation, low-carbon-footprint technology available ... far more so than a low-income worker who will pay 30% more for their electricity in PA in 2010. This is the perfect showcase to "lead by example" and "put your money where your mouth is."

I truly question the President's "national tour" to rally the populace over his achievements. I'd really like to think that he was directing all his attention to working out the problems of controversial legislation. Not to mention all the jet fuel and gasoline being expended on his touring. (He spent a day here in the Lehigh Valley yesterday ... like a campaign trip in its nature.)

dnf777
12-05-2009, 09:45 AM
Al Gore is not the end-all and be-all of global warming. He has chosen to make it HIS raison-d'etre, and cash-cow, but none of those establish him as an expert.

He should not be cited or referenced in regards to supporting the claim of man-induced global climate change.....by the same token, he is not the keystone in the arch, which without, the whole system collapses and is discredited!

Rather, we should look at what the preponderance of legitimate, credible scientists with expertise in climatology are saying, and agreeing upon. It is perfectly legit to question to accuracy of any such claims (part of scientific process and peer review), especially when they're being made by a politician. But random character assault, reputation smearing, and typical political jabbing has NO PLACE in legitimate scientific discourse.

If those scientists are found to have been academically dishonest in pursuit of personal gain, it's curtains for their careers! I suspect they will live handsomely off Fox news consultant fees however, just to add my personal slant. But they will be expelled from their professional societies and never published in a peer-reviewed journal again.

Difficult as it may be, attempts should be made at keeping politics and science separate, to protect the integrity of at least one of them!

YardleyLabs
12-05-2009, 10:12 AM
Yardley


Given that 192 countries are scheduled to meet to make major economic commitments based on the global warming theory, the fact that some of these conclusions may be in question is of considerable interest.

As was mentioned by another poster, I would have more faith in Gore and his ilk if they were prepared to make the same sacrifices that they believe the "common people" should be willing to make. Gore certainly has the financial capability to embrace the energy conservation, low-carbon-footprint technology available ... far more so than a low-income worker who will pay 30% more for their electricity in PA in 2010. This is the perfect showcase to "lead by example" and "put your money where your mouth is."

I truly question the President's "national tour" to rally the populace over his achievements. I'd really like to think that he was directing all his attention to working out the problems of controversial legislation. Not to mention all the jet fuel and gasoline being expended on his touring. (He spent a day here in the Lehigh Valley yesterday ... like a campaign trip in its nature.)
Gerry,

In saying that I suspect that the story has received too much play, I am basing my comment on the fact that nothing I have seen appears to have any effect on scientific conclusions concerning climate change. The data involved has always been problematic because it has involved collection of information from weather stations throughout the world. These stations have been under the control of diverse parties with different interests. They have used different measurement techniques and have had different reliabilities. Reporting has been sporadic over the years. The data have been useful but have never stood alone. That situation will not change since there is no worldwide "network" or weather stations -- there are simply large numbers of independent stations operated for a variety of different purposes unrelated to issues of climate change.

With respect to Gore, he is his own person. He is not a scientist and he is not the "leader" of some mythological climate change movement. For all I know, he buys carbon credits to offset his own footprint -- I know people who do. However, in the end he does little individually to affect carbon pollution. With respect to the President, I believe that the President's job is primarily one of communication -- with the American public, with other levels of government in our own country, and with the governments and populations of countries around the world. I see no way to do that without traveling most of the time. When I ran a national consulting practice, I was out of town 2-3 days of every week and flew 200,000 miles per year. I had a family and thought nothing of flying home even if only for a few hours for a meal because I would not permit my business travel schedule to dominate my family life. The President's job is a lot more difficult and demanding than any I have ever had. The fact that he has to fly with an army of security and support staff is a reality of his job. For the sake of all of us, I hope that never becomes an excuse not to travel as much as the job demands. I would hate to have a President who isolates himself in the White House, in Crawford, or in Hyannis Port instead of going to places like Allentown where the rest of us live. I would also hate to have a President who failed to make the time needed for his family even if that means date nights in NYC. It's cheaper than cigar dates in the Oval Office.

dnf777
12-05-2009, 10:38 AM
Jeff,
That is a great point, regarding the lack of consistency in climate data gathering. As anyone who has pursued any type of investigation knows, having the luxury of a controlled environment where you can isolate your study variables and have a well-defined control group, is really limited to those studying eating or sexual behaviors in laboratory mice!

It is impossible to isolate any root cause, variable or to even know WHAT needs to be accounted for.....especially when studying large scale issues.....the economy, population trends, education techniques (we've learned that simple standardized tests only predict who are the good 'test-takers') animal behavior, and no greater example than the global climate.

Was it Eisenberg or Pauling that said no matter what you study, it will behave differently when being studied? So in effect, it's difficult under the BEST of circumstances to discover the truth. Notwithstanding observation bias....if you stand to profit by proving or disproving something. The pharma has profited billions off of selected publishing of results and selected funding of investigation. Who would pay for a study that might possibly show that your goose lays toxic eggs, when you're getting payed for gold?

For all the above reasons, it gives nay-sayers the easiest course to argue. Climatologists have a nearly insurmountable mountain to climb, and frankly, even if they did, people don't change until forced to. It took over 40 years to get over 50% of drivers to wear seat-belts, after they showed a 70% decrease in the chance of death! If people won't go to the hassle of "bucklin' up", why the heck would they buy a carbon credit, even if it was legit?

badbullgator
12-05-2009, 10:44 AM
Al Gore is not the end-all and be-all of global warming. He has chosen to make it HIS raison-d'etre, and cash-cow, but none of those establish him as an expert.

He should not be cited or referenced in regards to supporting the claim of man-induced global climate change.....by the same token, he is not the keystone in the arch, which without, the whole system collapses and is discredited!

Rather, we should look at what the preponderance of legitimate, credible scientists with expertise in climatology are saying, and agreeing upon. It is perfectly legit to question to accuracy of any such claims (part of scientific process and peer review), especially when they're being made by a politician. But random character assault, reputation smearing, and typical political jabbing has NO PLACE in legitimate scientific discourse.

If those scientists are found to have been academically dishonest in pursuit of personal gain, it's curtains for their careers! I suspect they will live handsomely off Fox news consultant fees however, just to add my personal slant. But they will be expelled from their professional societies and never published in a peer-reviewed journal again.

Difficult as it may be, attempts should be made at keeping politics and science separate, to protect the integrity of at least one of them!

Didn't he win a Nobel Prize for this???????? Gosh, if you can't site a Nobel prize winner......

road kill
12-05-2009, 10:49 AM
Didn't Hollywood give Al an OSCAR for this HOAX!!:shock:


Dude invented the internet & man made global warming!!:D

YardleyLabs
12-05-2009, 11:08 AM
Actually, he won both the Nobel prize and the Oscar for his work in publicizing the almost unanimous conclusions of scientists concerning the existence of climate change and the likely role of humans in making climate change worse than it would otherwise be through greenhouse gas pollution. It still amazes me that after running a campaign where he seemed incapable of connecting with an audience that he won awards for his communication skills. None of the science was his, nor did he ever pretend that it was.

What seemed clear before and still seems clear today is that the world is experiencing climate change and that the mechanisms of that change are complex and only partially understood. It also seems clear that man has played a role in that change. None of the reports from the Climate Research Unit have affected the scientific basis of those conclusions. I would feel much better about those deniers that say that we have experienced similar concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the past if that past had occurred at a time when humans and human civilization existed. However, the last time we had similar concentrations, Neanderthals were still hoping to survive and the world looked very different from what it is today.

subroc
12-05-2009, 12:13 PM
...With respect to Gore, he is his own person. He is not a scientist and he is not the "leader" of some mythological climate change movement...

Ohhh, really?

He won an oscar and a peace prize for his work in this area. He is claerly the figure head if not the outright leader of the movement.

Goose
12-05-2009, 01:14 PM
Over 16,000 perennial liars (delegates) will gather together at Nopenhagen this week for a week long lie-a-palooza. In the process they will create some 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide...a footprint larger than some small countries. Included in this group will be scientists from the University of East Anglia...now more commonly known as the University of Lies. They're the global experts on AGW. Just ask them (or read their emails).

It would have been nice if the University of Lies scientists were able to bring with them the raw data supporting their claim of anthropogenic global warming. BUT THEY THREW ALL THE RAW DATA AWAY!!! THEY FREAKING DUMPED IT!!!

I wonder why they threw this data away? The scientists say it's no big deal because they still have the "value-added" data. Let me translate..."we have the data we faked because the original, real data proved us wrong".

There are lies, damn lies and science.

We live in Cuba now.

YardleyLabs
12-05-2009, 01:20 PM
Ohhh, really?

He won an oscar and a peace prize for his work in this area. He is claerly the figure head if not the outright leader of the movement.
I'd say he is as much a figure in the environmental movement as Rush Limbaugh is in the conservative movement. So basing attacks on the environmental movement on Gore's personal behavior is equivalent to basing attacks on conservatism based on Limbaugh's drug addiction.

dnf777
12-05-2009, 01:28 PM
Ohhh, really?

He won an oscar and a peace prize for his work in this area. He is claerly the figure head if not the outright leader of the movement.

Can you cite one peer-reviewed published article or experiment Al Gore authored or designed regarding climate change?

He won those awards for publicizing the issue, and getting the public forum underway.

By YOUR OWN ACTIONS (responding and becoming active in this forum) you have validated the reason for his awards.

If you read my post, the first thing I mention is that Al Gore is NOT the authority on global warming, but he did get us talking. (and typing)

subroc
12-05-2009, 02:06 PM
I'd say he is as much a figure in the environmental movement as Rush Limbaugh is in the conservative movement. So basing attacks on the environmental movement on Gore's personal behavior is equivalent to basing attacks on conservatism based on Limbaugh's drug addiction.


not even close. Gore is speaking as an expert on global warming, and advocating a behavior based on that expertice that he himself isn't willing to commit to. In addition he has a financial stake in you acting on his advocation.

Rush, on the other hand, isn't advocating drug use.

YardleyLabs
12-05-2009, 02:21 PM
not even close. Gore is speaking as an expert on global warming, and advocating a behavior based on that expertice that he himself isn't willing to commit to. In addition he has a financial stake in you acting on his advocation.

Rush, on the other hand, isn't advocating drug use.
Gore speaks as an expert in communication. He is no more an expert in global warming than a Wall Street Journal reporter is an expert businessman. You accuse Gore of hypocrisy because he advocates energy conservation but is a conspicuous energy consumer in his private life but Limbaugh is not a hypocrite because he is a drug addict who does not advocate using drugs (I fail to see this logic). Your "killer" blow is that Gore then makes money pursuing his advocacy for the environment. Are you suggesting that his financial interest in a cleaner environment is somehow more corrupting than Limbaugh's estimated $30 million/year income from hate journalism?

subroc
12-05-2009, 02:22 PM
...the almost unanimous conclusions of scientists concerning the existence of climate change and the likely role of humans in making climate change worse than it would otherwise be through greenhouse gas pollution....

Of the scientists that he chose to use.


...What seemed clear before and still seems clear today is that the world is experiencing climate change and that the mechanisms of that change are complex and only partially understood..

Agree


...It also seems clear that man has played a role in that change...

That, isn't clear. You may accept the position, but it isn't clear.



...None of the reports from the Climate Research Unit have affected the scientific basis of those conclusions...

And you know that how? If we cant trust the data they use for the theory, how can we trust the conclusion?



...I would feel much better about those deniers that say that we have experienced similar concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the past if that past had occurred at a time when humans and human civilization existed. However, the last time we had similar concentrations, Neanderthals were still hoping to survive and the world looked very different from what it is today..

What does one have to do with the other? The planet has been warmer numerous times before. It has been cooler numerous times before. The planet has had far greater concentations of co2 in the atmosphere before. co2 isn't a bad greenhouse gas. co2 is probably the smallest concentration of reflective gasses in the atmosphe, the greatest is water vapor. The sun is responsible for all the heat on the planet. In times of high sun spot activity, the temperature rises. these are facts. The models used are suspect.

subroc
12-05-2009, 02:36 PM
Gore speaks as an expert in communication. He is no more an expert in global warming than a Wall Street Journal reporter is an expert businessman...

Did you really just say that? I would posit that, generally, in media, those that are "experts in their fields" are hired by news outlets to report on subject matter. In sports, they use retired players and coaches almost exclusivly, are they experts? While in some cases there are cub reporters that may know little or nothing, in time they become the experts. They call that experience. is the money honey an expert?

gore has spent a lifetime, while he isn't a researcher, he is an expert at advoacting his position. He knows the data he is presenting and could give you chapter and verse on which biased journal of left wing source it comes from.


...You accuse Gore of hypocrisy because he advocates energy conservation but is a conspicuous energy consumer in his private life but Limbaugh is not a hypocrite because he is a drug addict who does not advocate using drugs (I fail to see this logic). Your "killer" blow is that Gore then makes money pursuing his advocacy for the environment. Are you suggesting that his financial interest in a cleaner environment is somehow more corrupting than Limbaugh's estimated $30 million/year income from hate journalism?


This isn't about Rush. This is a solid left wing tactic. Change the subject or bring some ancillary point that has little to do with the subject at hand to muddy the waters when you point has little to no merit.

YardleyLabs
12-05-2009, 03:10 PM
Of the scientists that he chose to use.

That, isn't clear. You may accept the position, but it isn't clear.

I think you will be hard pressed to find any articles in peer reviewed journals authored by earth scientists that challenge either the existence of global climate change as a trend or the involvement of humans in accelerating that change through greenhouse gas pollution. The reports and proceedings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contain very good summaries of the literature.




And you know that how? If we cant trust the data they use for the theory, how can we trust the conclusion?
The data from East Anglia played a relatively minor role in studies of global climate change, for which most of the data predates the information in the CRU database. As noted by the American Meteorolgical Association in reaffirming their position on global warming and the role of humans in the process:

"For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited. " [see http://www.webcitation.org/5lnFDGhdZ]


What does one have to do with the other? The planet has been warmer numerous times before. It has been cooler numerous times before. The planet has had far greater concentations of co2 in the atmosphere before. co2 isn't a bad greenhouse gas. co2 is probably the smallest concentration of reflective gasses in the atmosphe, the greatest is water vapor. The sun is responsible for all the heat on the planet. In times of high sun spot activity, the temperature rises. these are facts. The models used are suspect.
The last time CO2 levels approached those seen today, homo sapiens had not yet evolved (my apologies to those whose religious views are that evolution never happened). There have been very few times in human history when temperatures were at current levels and there is no information on what effects this had on low-lying areas then. In addition, those periods were when temperaturesa were at levels seen now, not at levels expected over the next century.


Did you really just say that? I would posit that, generally, in media, those that are "experts in their fields" are hired by news outlets to report on subject matter. In sports, they use retired players and coaches almost exclusivly, are they experts? While in some cases there are cub reporters that may know little or nothing, in time they become the experts. They call that experience. is the money honey an expert?

gore has spent a lifetime, while he isn't a researcher, he is an expert at advoacting his position. He knows the data he is presenting and could give you chapter and verse on which biased journal of left wing source it comes from.I've known many journalists from publications including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc. Their specialties vary for reporting but their true specialty is as reporters -- they read, interview, listen, and report. Their knowledge tends to be more broad than deep and they seldom have the backgrounds to critically assess competing claims. I would say that Gore has been an active student of environmental literature for the last 30 years. He has written on the subject frequently, including two books and a movie, and has spoken on it hundreds, if not thousands, of times. He has never conducted any original scientific research and has no training as a scientist. He is to climate research what he was to the Internet -- an enabler in his political roles, a fan, and a communicator.





This isn't about Rush. This is a solid left wing tactic. Change the subject or bring some ancillary point that has little to do with the subject at hand to muddy the waters when you point has little to no merit.
I used Rush as a simple analogy of how inappropriate it was to judge an entire area of science and poltics by the personal foibles of a single partisan. In that sense i believe my analogy was directly pertinent.

brandywinelabs
12-07-2009, 10:26 AM
[QUOTE=YardleyLabs;532481]I think you will be hard pressed to find any articles in peer reviewed journals authored by earth scientists that challenge either the existence of global climate change as a trend or the involvement of humans in accelerating that change through greenhouse gas pollution. The reports and proceedings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contain very good summaries of the literature.

In fact, that is one thing I read in the emails, don't have time to qoute it, but global climate change is definately question. They were throwing away documents that did not support what they wanted to hear.

I will not, however, dispute the fact that we are causing a lot of polution. Now does that mean we should have to switch to flourescent lights?. I think not. Should there be clean coal technology?
Yes. The point is the extremeists have gone too far. Too me that is what irks me most about this whole thing and plays to a lot of emotion. Extremeism on both parts.

YardleyLabs
12-07-2009, 11:18 AM
I think you will be hard pressed to find any articles in peer reviewed journals authored by earth scientists that challenge either the existence of global climate change as a trend or the involvement of humans in accelerating that change through greenhouse gas pollution. The reports and proceedings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contain very good summaries of the literature.

In fact, that is one thing I read in the emails, don't have time to qoute it, but global climate change is definately question. They were throwing away documents that did not support what they wanted to hear.

I will not, however, dispute the fact that we are causing a lot of polution. Now does that mean we should have to switch to flourescent lights?. I think not. Should there be clean coal technology?
Yes. The point is the extremeists have gone too far. Too me that is what irks me most about this whole thing and plays to a lot of emotion. Extremeism on both parts.
Compact fluorescent bulbs save more than you might think. If every family replaced two incandescent bulbs with two compact fluorescents, the savings wouls be the equivalent of removing 1.6 million autos from the road and the energy savings large. I've replaced my most frequently used and my hardest to change bulbs and was immediately able to see the difference in my electricity bill.

The issue on the data is that adjustments that were poorly documented were applied to the data in an effort to maintain comparability. The original data for some years was then thrown away in the mid 1980's. This makes it impossible for independent researchers to review what adjustments were made and make their own decisions on whether or not the adjustments were appropriate. However, the data affected by these adjustments and data loss has not been central to any of the arguments supporting global climate change and the impact of human activity. Most of these arguments have been supported based on much older data from geologic sources and information on recent trends has been supported primarily from more recent data. None of this data was affected by the East Anglia questions. Throughout the investigations into global climate change, there have been multiple sources of data and the results of all have appeared to point in the same direction.

WaterDogRem
12-07-2009, 11:25 AM
If every family replaced two incandescent bulbs with two compact fluorescents, the savings wouls be the equivalent of removing 1.6 million autos from the road and the energy savings large.

So what’s the equivalent of the Copenhagen Climate Meeting's Carbon Dioxide footprint?

Steve Amrein
12-07-2009, 11:34 AM
I find funny that neon and flourescent have a few things in common. Both have mercury and phosphorus added to make them work. In some states in the north east they are outlawing or banning neon because of this yet they are wanting everyone to go out and trade out incandesant lamps that have none. LED's are much more efficiant than all of the above. I think all of the technology and manufacturing is now in China.

dnf777
12-07-2009, 11:59 AM
[QUOTE=YardleyLabs;532481]I think you will be hard pressed to find any articles in peer reviewed journals authored by earth scientists that challenge either the existence of global climate change as a trend or the involvement of humans in accelerating that change through greenhouse gas pollution. The reports and proceedings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contain very good summaries of the literature.

In fact, that is one thing I read in the emails, don't have time to qoute it, but global climate change is definately question. They were throwing away documents that did not support what they wanted to hear.

I will not, however, dispute the fact that we are causing a lot of polution. Now does that mean we should have to switch to flourescent lights?. I think not. Should there be clean coal technology?
Yes. The point is the extremeists have gone too far. Too me that is what irks me most about this whole thing and plays to a lot of emotion. Extremeism on both parts.

The the "Journal of Climate Change", by Erslevier Publications. I read the abstracts online, as their little fireside rag only costs $2300/yr for subscribers!

I just finished Superfreakonomics by Dubner and Levitt. You may have read their first book, Freakonomics. Both are amazing compilations of relevant facts and statistics. Their most recent book really moves the climate debate beyond where it is here. I don't have the time or inclination to summarize their excellent chapter on climate change, but I really think it would bring many disparate positions on this forum much closer together on common ground.

road kill
12-07-2009, 12:48 PM
So what’s the equivalent of the Copenhagen Climate Meeting's Carbon Dioxide footprint?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

Good call WaterDog Rem.......



:rolleyes:

WaterDogRem
12-07-2009, 03:16 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

Good call WaterDog Rem.......



:rolleyes:

As usual, it's do as I say, not as I do.

But you gotta love the prostitutes giving free intercourse in the name of climate change. Hopefully all the attendees use this perk and take more than they brought home with them.

Henry V
12-07-2009, 07:35 PM
Given all the climate experts here could someone answer a couple of basic straightforward questions?

There is solid irrefutable data that CO2 concentrations are increasing.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/SIOMLOINSITUTHRU2008.JPG
There is also solid irrefutable data that CO2 concentrations are higher than ever in documented history
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif
and for a longer record
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif
(noting, of course, that we are now measuring levels substantially above anything measured historically)

I would also note that the observed CO2 increase just happens to coincide with the industrial age and burning fossil fuels which, over the past 120 years has resulted in the cumulative release of hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide that had previously been stored in the earth and that this carbon has a unique fingerprint which has been measured.

1) What other theory do you have for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 120 years?
And,
2) If this observed increase in atmospheric CO2 levels will not cause the earth's climate to warm as predicted by most all of the climate models, specifically what is your theory on what this increase in CO2 will result in?

Please provide credible scientific references for your theory with your answer. Thanks.

subroc
12-08-2009, 04:35 AM
an article

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp

Could you site a study that includes the concentration of all greenhouse gasses and their concentration during that period including water vapor?

Could you also point out sun activity during that period?

why has the temerature of the earth been warmer many times before?

Why has the temerature of the earth been cooler many times before?

can you explain the little ice age and what caused it?

Can you explain the medieval warm period and what caused it?

Why are you so ready to give control of vast amounts of the worlds wealth, in the name of global warming, to scientist that have proved they are less than scrupulous?

Gerry Clinchy
12-08-2009, 10:17 AM
Were the graphs displayed involved in the manipulation of data discussed in the leaked emails?

http://www.nytimes.com:80/2009/12/08/science/earth/08epa.html?th&emc=th

Now the EPA has had its say. They have taken the matter into their own hands. They were ordered to do so by the Supreme Court, the article says. They have unilaterally decided that the questions raised are insufficient to stem their pro-active stance on the issue.

When will the time come that the EPA decides that human flatulence is a greenhouse gas? How will they regulate that? One could also say that the increase in population has increased that particular gas. Should the EPA, then, enforce population control?

Does this increase in greenhouse gas emissions take into account the increase in world population over this same period of time? If such a comparison has been done, why do we hear so little of it? It seems impossible that doubling or tripling the earth's population could not, in and of itself, cause an increase in greenhouse gases. Much less the deforestation that came along with such expansion. If we compared the earth's population 120 years ago & the CO2 levels then and multiplied those CO2 levels by the population increase, alone, would that not account for some significant change?

If people save energy like oil and gas (due to price), will there be more use of residential coal stoves, wood stoves, etc. that may do more to produce dirty air & greenhouse gases than the higher efficiency oil & gas furnaces?

dnf777
12-08-2009, 10:30 AM
an article

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp

Could you site a study that includes the concentration of all greenhouse gasses and their concentration during that period including water vapor?

Could you also point out sun activity during that period?

why has the temerature of the earth been warmer many times before?

Why has the temerature of the earth been cooler many times before?

can you explain the little ice age and what caused it?

Can you explain the medieval warm period and what caused it?

Why are you so ready to give control of vast amounts of the worlds wealth, in the name of global warming, to scientist that have proved they are less than scrupulous?

Those are all excellent questions that deserve careful scrutiny. To dismiss those questions would be fool-hearty, just as would dismissing the possibility that global climate change exists, and may be man-made. All the above require honest, unbiased study. Something I have not seen on this forum regarding climate change.

ducknwork
12-08-2009, 10:54 AM
When will the time come that the EPA decides that human flatulence is a greenhouse gas? How will they regulate that? One could also say that the increase in population has increased that particular gas. Should the EPA, then, enforce population control?


Great. I hope the government doesn't read your post. I don't want baked beans outlawed. A pig picking just wouldn't be the same without them!

Gerry Clinchy
12-08-2009, 11:12 AM
Great. I hope the government doesn't read your post. I don't want baked beans outlawed. A pig picking just wouldn't be the same without them!

LOL! Think of all the other foods they could outlaw!

Think of the signs in restaurants, offices, etc. Instead of "No Smoking", they'll say things like "Flatulence-Free Work Place"

ducknwork
12-08-2009, 11:30 AM
"Flatulence-Free Work Place"

I don't know about you, but where I work, that would be a welcome sign.


My coworkers need to check their pants regards,

WaterDogRem
12-08-2009, 12:07 PM
What percentage of CO2 makes up the atmosphere?

dnf777
12-08-2009, 12:59 PM
What percentage of CO2 makes up the atmosphere?

Do you mean what percentage of all the world's CO2 is contained in the atmosphere vs. water and soil.........or what percentage of the atmsophere is comprised of C02? As a percentage of the atmsophere, C02 is very, very small.

Many scientists feel that we're barking up the wrong tree with c02. Methane for example is 4x more potent at trapping heat than co2, and there are 10x more ruminates in the world than cars. If you look at co2 versus sulfur and methane, it is a relatively minor contributor to greenhouse gasses. Not to mention water vapor.

for all you anti-global warming types, I will happily admit that Al Gore is over zealous and borders on ridiculous. But I will maintain that he has done what needed to be done at this point. Just like step one for an addict, admitting there is a problem is key, and he got the public discussion going. Now we must not let politics dictate science. I think al gore's over-zealousness is matched and exceeded by those who summarily dismiss global warming as non-existent or completely natural as a non-issue.

ducknwork
12-08-2009, 01:05 PM
I think al gore's over-zealousness is matched and exceeded by those who summarily dismiss global warming as non-existent or completely natural as a non-issue.

You may be correct, but those on Al Gore's side are the ones in power, so the other side doesn't matter as much.

Bayou Magic
12-08-2009, 01:39 PM
an article

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp

...

Please read the article provided by subroc regardless of your position on climate change. It is long and rather detailed, but very much worth the effort.

fp

Henry V
12-08-2009, 02:25 PM
...
Could you also point out sun activity during that period?

why has the temerature of the earth been warmer many times before?

Why has the temerature of the earth been cooler many times before?

can you explain the little ice age and what caused it?

Can you explain the medieval warm period and what caused it?

Good questions. Direct answers to all of them and many more can be found at:
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
or
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
or
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses
or
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
or
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

Most of these sites take all the anti-global climate change myths and debunks them directly with science.

For the question
Could you site a study that includes the concentration of all greenhouse gasses and their concentration during that period including water vapor?
Well, here is the data for methane in the relatively short term
http://zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Atmospheric%20Methane_2.gif
And methane in the long term
http://zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Atmospheric%20Methane_4.gif
The data on nitrous oxide for the long term looks like this from a different ice core - see blue line.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/flueckiger2002/fig1.gif
And here is a nice summary for all three at one site that includes CFC measurements
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2009.fig2.png
And one that converts concentration to a measurement of radiative forcing
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2009.fig4_med.png
You and I both know that the primary naturally occurring greenhouse gases are methane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and water vapor. The record is clear that methane and CO2 have dramatically increased coincident with the industrial age of the past 120 years. Nitrous oxide has also increased but not by as much.

Regarding water vapor, you can imagine that getting a historical record for water vapor from ice cores would probably be tough to do. You always seem to get hung up on water vapor. It is only one of many ghgs yet you act as if it is the most important. The fact that two of the other gases have risen dramatically is not enough I guess. Well, here is a record on water vapor since the 1980’s in Colorado.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/images/water_vapor.jpg
Is that helpful? As you can imagine, water vapor is quite variable depending on the location. I seem to recall that worldwide there is not much of any trend but there are some significant trends in some regions (e.g upper midwest).


Why are you so ready to give control of vast amounts of the worlds wealth, in the name of global warming, to scientist that have proved they are less than scrupulous?
Excuse me? A few stolen emails release just prior to a big meeting and you are saying that all climate science and the whole scientific body of evidence is thrown out the door?. Give me a break. If you want to discredit the data I presented go for it. Present your evidence to the contrary. Present models to the contrary. If you don't want to answer my questions, just say so.

On the question of control of global wealth, exactly what wealth are you talking about? The wealth of oil exporting countries maybe. I assume that you make the assumption that just because the economy of the last 100 years was primarily based on fossil fuels that the next hundred years should and will also. I respectfully do not agree.

For Gerry,

Were the graphs displayed involved in the manipulation of data discussed in the leaked emails?
Absolutely not. The graphs are of empirical data. There is no modeling involved. The empirical data on temperatures, CO2 concentrations, sea level, all suggest a warming planet. You can deny the measurements if that is your prerogative or chalk them up to natural background. I do not.


What percentage of CO2 makes up the atmosphere?
I suggest you do some homework on climate science at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
But then again you seem to have already made up your mind which is quite interesting given that you have asked this basic question. You should also then look up how much ozone makes up of the upper atmosphere to put this all in context.

You all on the right can discredit the researchers, discredit the science, obstruct, delay, and bring up way out of right field consequences all you want. This approach is right out of the tobacco, errr ah wait, I mean oil/coal/natural gas industry playbook. It will only make the case stronger in the long term.

Now that I have provided answers to all your questions could someone please answer mine. They were:
1) What other theory do you have for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 120 years?
And,
2) If this observed increase in atmospheric CO2 levels will not cause the earth's climate to warm as predicted by most all of the climate models, specifically what is your theory on what this increase in CO2 will result in?
As always, please provide credible scientific references for your theory with your answer. Thanks.

road kill
12-08-2009, 02:34 PM
Is this all verbatim from the "Big Tent" bible??:cool:

Steve Amrein
12-08-2009, 02:58 PM
The problem is people are breathing. we need to kill off enough people to get back to a level before global warming. Maybe this is where the death panel stuff will come into play.

YardleyLabs
12-08-2009, 02:59 PM
Please read the article provided by subroc regardless of your position on climate change. It is long and rather detailed, but very much worth the effort.

fp
The article is an interesting read, very one sided, and identifies nothing that would reduce credibility of IPCC assessments at all. The article begins with weighty conclusions -- "the air has been going out of the global warming balloon'" It then begins an essentially ad hominen attack on global warming researchers quoting "MIT's Michael Schrage" as saying the researchers are engaged in "malice, mischief and Machiavellian maneuverings."

This is where the article begin losing credibility since it never identifies Schrage or his qualifications. A little research shows him the be an associate in the business school with a Bachelor's Degress in computer engineering with no scientific or meteorological background whatsoever. The author then backs off a little bit, saying he won't engage in Schadenfreude (i.e. taking pleasure in the misfortune of others) despite the fact that one of the emailers at the CRU characterized Richard Lindzen as being like one of the tobacco Institute scientists hired to try to confuse scientific investigations into the effects of smoking. Of course, what the author seems to not know is that Lindzen (an atmospheric physicist who agrees that there is global warming but questions the relevance of CO2), in addition to being a contrarian on issues related to climate change, also believes that there is no demonstrable link between smoking and cancer (in addition to being a heavy smoker).

The balance of the article goes through various issues of discussion addressed tangentially in the stolen emails treating them as a smoking gun evidencing nothing that challenges conclusions concerning climate change but as things that must be interpreted with the perspective that these are scientists guilty of cooking the books. However, the article actually shows nothing to suggest that the books were cooked or that the discussions evidenced in the messages were in any manner being concealed from scientists in general. As the article itself notes, there are tremendous difficulties involved in trying to reconstruct temperature information for periods that predate the availability of accurate measurement. Information from multiple sources is not always consistent.

Many efforts have been made to reconcile those inconsistencies. That is a process that has occurred out in the open but has also involved debate among competing views. Such debate is an integral part of science, not evidence that something is wrong. That fact seems to be getting lost in the discussion.

Along with that is the fact that the IPCC process represents a systematic approach for seeking consensus and that there is consensus that global warming is a reality and that it is almost certainly related to human activity. Consensus does nit mean unanimity and it does not mean that all issues have been resolved.

I would worry much more about conspiracy if the message were clear, unambiguous, and unanimous for such results are almost always the product of propaganda, not science. The real world is never quite so clean just as the greatest field champions are still dogs.

Henry V
12-08-2009, 04:06 PM
Please read the press release at http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html it's long and rather detailed, but very much worth the effort.

The information is also quite consistent with the first line of the closing paragraph of the other article
Climate change is a genuine phenomenon, and there is a nontrivial risk of major consequences in the future.

Bayou Magic
12-08-2009, 04:07 PM
The article is an interesting read, very one sided, and identifies nothing that would reduce credibility of IPCC assessments at all. The article begins with weighty conclusions -- "the air has been going out of the global warming balloon'" It then begins an essentially ad hominen attack on global warming researchers quoting "MIT's Michael Schrage" as saying the researchers are engaged in "malice, mischief and Machiavellian maneuverings."

This is where the article begin losing credibility since it never identifies Schrage or his qualifications. A little research shows him the be an associate in the business school with a Bachelor's Degress in computer engineering with no scientific or meteorological background whatsoever. The author then backs off a little bit, saying he won't engage in Schadenfreude (i.e. taking pleasure in the misfortune of others) despite the fact that one of the emailers at the CRU characterized Richard Lindzen as being like one of the tobacco Institute scientists hired to try to confuse scientific investigations into the effects of smoking. Of course, what the author seems to not know is that Lindzen (an atmospheric physicist who agrees that there is global warming but questions the relevance of CO2), in addition to being a contrarian on issues related to climate change, also believes that there is no demonstrable link between smoking and cancer (in addition to being a heavy smoker).

The balance of the article goes through various issues of discussion addressed tangentially in the stolen emails treating them as a smoking gun evidencing nothing that challenges conclusions concerning climate change but as things that must be interpreted with the perspective that these are scientists guilty of cooking the books. However, the article actually shows nothing to suggest that the books were cooked or that the discussions evidenced in the messages were in any manner being concealed from scientists in general. As the article itself notes, there are tremendous difficulties involved in trying to reconstruct temperature information for periods that predate the availability of accurate measurement. Information from multiple sources is not always consistent.

Many efforts have been made to reconcile those inconsistencies. That is a process that has occurred out in the open but has also involved debate among competing views. Such debate is an integral part of science, not evidence that something is wrong. That fact seems to be getting lost in the discussion.

Along with that is the fact that the IPCC process represents a systematic approach for seeking consensus and that there is consensus that global warming is a reality and that it is almost certainly related to human activity. Consensus does nit mean unanimity and it does not mean that all issues have been resolved.

I would worry much more about conspiracy if the message were clear, unambiguous, and unanimous for such results are almost always the product of propaganda, not science. The real world is never quite so clean just as the greatest field champions are still dogs.

Much of what you write can be said of the sources provided by Henry with one exception: there isn't an ounce of unbiased material in his sources. While some of the statements in the article show bias, much of what is stated deserves consideration if one is seeking the truth that probably lies somewhere in the middle. The hacked (stolen as you phase it) or leaked emails IMO should raise serious questions about intent of the scientists responsible for the bulk of the studies on which the IPCC relies.

One of the sources provided by Henry relies heavily on the works of Cook and Briffa. Cook and Briffa are two of the primary parties in the hacked emails raising serious concerns over the IPCC studies! Should not that cause everyone to take a hard look at the methods and data used to produce the finds upon which so much is at stake?

fp

YardleyLabs
12-08-2009, 04:13 PM
Much of what you write can be said of the sources provided by Henry with one exception: there isn't an ounce of unbiased material in his sources. While some of the statements in the article show bias, much of what is stated deserves consideration if one is seeking the truth that probably lies somewhere in the middle. The hacked (stolen as you phase it) or leaked emails IMO should raise serious questions about intent of the scientists responsible for the bulk of the studies on which the IPCC relies.

One of the sources provided by Henry relies heavily on the works of Cook and Briffa. Cook and Briffa are two of the primary parties in the hacked emails raising serious concerns over the IPCC studies! Should not that cause everyone to take a hard look at the methods and data used to produce the finds upon which so much is at stake?

fp
What portions of the emails evidence deceptive and inappropriate manipulation of data that has been used as a basis for concluding that there has been global warming attributable in part to human activity and that is inconsistent with data from independent sources? You'll have to excuse me if I haven't seen any yet or if I haven't even seen specific allegation that this is the case.

Gerry Clinchy
12-08-2009, 07:32 PM
dnf777

Many scientists feel that we're barking up the wrong tree with c02. Methane for example is 4x more potent at trapping heat than co2, and there are 10x more ruminates in the world than cars. If you look at co2 versus sulfur and methane, it is a relatively minor contributor to greenhouse gasses. Not to mention water vapor.

Did y'all miss this little nugget from Dave? Why isn't the EPA talking about controlling methane instead of CO2? It couldn't be a political thing, could it?

Yardley

Along with that is the fact that the IPCC process represents a systematic approach for seeking consensus and that there is consensus that global warming is a reality and that it is almost certainly related to human activity. Consensus does nit mean unanimity and it does not mean that all issues have been resolved.


If there is not unanimity; and if all issues are not resolved ... some serious economic steps are being contemplated based on the unresolved issues.

YardleyLabs
12-08-2009, 07:47 PM
dnf777


Did y'all miss this little nugget from Dave? Why isn't the EPA talking about controlling methane instead of CO2? It couldn't be a political thing, could it?

Yardley


If there is not unanimity; and if all issues are not resolved ... some serious economic steps are being contemplated based on the unresolved issues.
Unanimity only exists in fairy tales and propaganda -- not in science or in other parts of the real world. Some serious economic steps are involved whether actions are taken to stem greenhouse gas pollution or not. If the science concerning greenhouse pollution is correct, the impact of doing nothing will be devastating economically socially, and in lives lost needlessly. The responsibility for that will rest on the shoulders of those who oppose action now. If action is taken that is in fact not essential, the responsibility for the associated costs and dislocation will rest with those that favor action. Either way the risks are great. But doing nothing is as much a decision as acting and is supported by a lot less evidence.

Personally, I believe that where there is doubt concerning the long term safety of the garbage we spew into the atmosphere, the burden of proof rests with the polluters. Rather than offering science showing that there is not an issue, the polluters and their political spokespersons use ideology and propaganda to confuse. What they are counting on is that the costs to prevent disaster must be incurred now, while the costs of disaster are off in the future -- hopefully after they have cashed in their bonus checks.

dnf777
12-08-2009, 07:52 PM
Personally, I believe that where there is doubt concerning the long term safety of the garbage we spew into the atmosphere, the burden of proof rests with the polluters. Rather than offering science showing that there is not an issue, the polluters and their political spokespersons use ideology and propaganda to confuse. What they are counting on is that the costs to prevent disaster must be incurred now, while the costs of disaster are off in the future -- hopefully after they have cashed in their bonus checks.

There's a saying in surgery that when it comes to life and death decisions, one would rather err on the side of ACTION, than INACTION.

The trick is to figure out when to apply that, and when to ignore it as yet another cliche! :confused:

dnf777
12-08-2009, 07:55 PM
[QUOTE=Gerry Clinchy;533780]dnf777


Did y'all miss this little nugget from Dave? Why isn't the EPA talking about controlling methane instead of CO2? It couldn't be a political thing, could it?



And that's not even counting the 6 Billion two-legged ruminators converting twinkies into greenhouse gas! :D

Henry V
12-08-2009, 10:39 PM
Much of what you write can be said of the sources provided by Henry with one exception: there isn't an ounce of unbiased material in his sources.

One of the sources provided by Henry relies heavily on the works of Cook and Briffa. Cook and Briffa are two of the primary parties in the hacked emails raising serious concerns over the IPCC studies! Should not that cause everyone to take a hard look at the methods and data used to produce the finds upon which so much is at stake?
fp

Bayou Magic, I hope I am misreading your seemingly plain statements but it appears that you are saying that the data and resources I posted were “biased” and then you provide no evidence. Is that right? Or is it that you first say that none of the material I posted is unbiased and then state that just "one source" is biased?

Either way, in the interest of gaining a better understanding of the science, please help me figure this out.
Is it the plot of CO2 or water vapor data directly collected at sampling sites of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that is biased?
Is it one of the data plots of ice core CO2 levels where the literature citation is provided that is biased,
Or is it the methane data plots or the nitrous oxide data plots or one of the combined data plots that I linked to directly from the NOAA website that are biased?

If you are going to claim bias in this data the least you can do is specifically let all of us know which plot of empirically measured data is biased and let me know your source of reference.

If it is not the plots of empirically measured data that are biased, I assume you are referring to one of the six website links that I provided. Your second paragraph seems to suggest this because you state “one of the sources relies heavily on the works of Cook and Briffa”.
Once again, please help me out. I posted links to six websites that link further to lots of science based materials backed literally by tens and hundreds of peer reviewed scientific articles that, in turn, rely on hundreds more scientific articles. Specifically, which one of the sources “relies” on their peer reviewed scientific work? From a quick search, it appears that Cook and Briffa do dendroclimatology work. I know that none of the plots of empirical data that I posted are based on their work on tree rings.

Without any evidence to back your assertion that the stuff I posted is biased I'll view your post as complete and utter nonsense. If you are going to play the biased science card, the least you can do is back it up.

If you are going to suggest that the validity of the science based data and materials that I posted is the same as the content of an article found in a popular conservative magazine and written by a non-scientist, (which is exactly what you did) you had better back that up too as long as your at it.

Bayou Magic
12-09-2009, 08:34 AM
Let me start my final post on this by highlighting a major difference between my perspective and that of Henry regarding source bias: I do recognize the political bias in the source provided by subroc where, apparently, Henry sees no political bias in his sources. No need to continue beating that horse...

The huge red flag in the hacked emails is the issue of data dumping by the researchers. I only wish the 40+ research phd's that I work with would discard something, anything, please! We continue to house and preserve redundant samples (samples, not just the data obtained from samples!) from completed projects of bygone years. Innocent or not, what appears to be intentional destruction of data raises serious questions and places a cloud over that portion of the research. Why proceed down the current path without removing the doubt caused by the recently discovered data destruction? Why not bring in an unbiased third party to investigate and publicize the findings?

Is man having an influence on climate? Very possibly according to our director who openly admits that many unanswered questions remain. What is the GHG emission level that nature can absorb without measureably and negatively affecting climate? In other words, what is the true target (limit) for global GHG emissions? According to our director who I know personally and speak with regularly, no one can accurately answer that question. More, much more, research is needed.

So, do we charge ahead and change the energy base of the global community based on current research? Do we do nothing? IMO, the best answer lies somewhere in the middle while continuing much needed research. Wouldn't it be great if politics played no role in determining the correct course?

fp

Pete
12-09-2009, 08:49 AM
uummmm dont plants love high co2 levels and dont they celebrate by emmiting oxygen ,,,thus making us happier,,,,,I'm all for high levels of co2

Its been the coldest winter in 0ver 20 years here and it isnt even winter yet.

global warming baaa humbug

Pete

Henry V
12-09-2009, 01:37 PM
Let me start my final post on this by highlighting a major difference between my perspective and that of Henry regarding source bias: I do recognize the political bias in the source provided by subroc where, apparently, Henry sees no political bias in his sources. No need to continue beating that horse...

fp
I will beat this horse at least one more time since you made a claim that the data and information I presented was biased but did not show any specific examples and now still want to equate the political bias in a right wing political publication with that of every scientist publishing in peer reviewed journals.

First, can you tell me where I ever indicated that there was "no political bias" in anything I posted. For the record, I would make this claim regarding the data plots but it would be foolish to make this claim for all the articles linked to the websites. I posted plots of empirical data (that are examples of results quite consistent across the world) specifically to avoid this charge. To be clear, are you suggesting that any of the data plots are invalid and have sampling bias or another type of scientific or statistical bias?, or just some sort of nebulous "political" bias? Where is the bias in the data plots?

Second, thanks for clarifying that you were worried about "political" bias in something that I posted. This raises some additional questions. For example, in the NOAA data plots, when did that political bias begin? Back in the 1950's when they started taking measurements. Further, did the political bias switch over time when political power changed? In the ice core data how did political bias affect the results? There are many core samples available from many glaciers and from multiple places in the ice caps collected and analyzed by scientists from many different countries yet they all show the same trends in CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide. Where does the political bias comes through in these? Maybe you are just implying that all these scientist cooked their books to achieve the same outcome despite tha fact that this work has taken place over decades.

Care to offer your theory on why CO2 is higher than it has been for many thousands of years or what the consequences of unprecedented CO2 levels will be for the climate? Maybe you think that some sort of negative feedback will kick in. If so, what feedback and when? We have Pete's refuted theory, any others?

Gerry Clinchy
12-09-2009, 02:15 PM
NY Times on the Copenhagen meeting
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/science/earth/09cost.html?th&emc=th

Lest we forget the cost of this: trillions. But, of course, the high cost of energy will be offset by all those new jobs that will be created.


And they don’t look at the cost of inaction, which is the extinction of the human race. Period.”

Scary enough for ya? Of course, the way I understand it, our sun would one day nova and unless the human race has found a way to head for another star somewhere, we'll be toast anyhow.

This quote is from Kevin Parker, the global head of Deutsche Bank Asset Management, who tracks climate policy for the bank. Seems to me that Deutsche Bank is one of those that got left holding a lot of toxic assets in the recent housing implosion.


Some of the poorest and most vulnerable nations are calling for a gigantic transfer of wealth from the industrialized world to island nations and countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America that are most likely to feel the ravages of a changing climate.

Many poor nations are insisting that wealthier nations make deeper cuts in their emissions and contribute more money to help the poorer countries, a split that widened in Copenhagen on Tuesday as competing documents of a potential agreement circulated.

Over time, some of the hundreds of billions of dollars the poorer countries are demanding will begin to flow, as global carbon markets become established and governments in rich countries begin to open the spigot of public spending.

But in the meantime, the industrialized countries have proposed a relatively modest fund of about $10 billion a year for each of the next three or four years to help poorer countries adapt. Even that effort remains the subject of conflict over which countries should contribute how much, what body should oversee the spending and how to determine which projects qualify for finance.


$10 billion is "modest" to some folks, I guess.


President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s spokesman said last week that the president supported a short-term fund to aid developing nations and that the United States would pay “its fair share.” In many multilateral efforts, the United States picks up a quarter to a third of the tab.

JDogger
12-09-2009, 06:34 PM
I find it funny that the same politicians that deny climate change science as phony are the same ones who deny evolution and embrace the Rapture.

JD

Henry V
12-09-2009, 10:24 PM
Here's a good one: http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/5413-the-peak-oil-crisis-copenhagen--prelude-to-extinction.html

Julie R.
12-10-2009, 08:13 AM
Global warming is the biggest swindle ever conceived by leftist one-worlders desperate to justify anything that authorizes wealth transfer.
Yes I know that's a generalization but just look at the billions earmarked for the developing countries.

What makes anyone think these billions will ever be used for pollution amelioration? Everyone knows this money will end up in the pockets of tinpot dictators. Hell, even food money doesn't make it to the needy; they continue to starve, and to multiply, while their 'leaders' live in mansions and arm their friends. Even actual food sent to poor nations rarely makes it into the gaping maws of the hungry; it's stolen by pirates or warlords and sold for guns, drugs or whores.

And for those busy tub thumping in outrage over what a racist I am because I think giving money to poor nations is a bad idea, will you please enlighten me on just one example? Explain how all the billions sent to feed Ethiopia over the past 25 years has raised the standard of living there. I'm sure you lefties fondly tip a blunt as you recall Bob Geldorf and his bags of grain for starving Ethiopians in 1984. During that famine, the Ethiopian population was about 34 million. Now, 25 years and many billions later, the population has exploded to over 72 million. And guess what, they STILL can't feed themselves, they're still lining up for food and money and they're STILL multiplying in exponential numbers.

Pals
12-10-2009, 08:24 AM
Once again Julie nails it right on the head!! It was mentioned in another post about it being illegal/immoral to steal emails-well how about the legalities of altering scientific data to suit ones agenda?

Seal the Deal indeed.

Gerry Clinchy
12-10-2009, 08:42 AM
Well, now both Julie and Dave mention population growth over recent years. One might note that the Industrial Revolution also parallels the growth of medical technology to help increase the life span. During that same period, advances in travel and communication make it possible to send food to areas of famine or natural disaster. I think it would be interesting to compare population growth to CO2 level increases. It seems obvious to try and determine how much increase in CO2 is due to population increase alone. Have ANY researchers done that?

But Julie, some of that food must have gotten to the population of Ethiopia if they were able to reproduce at such a prolific rate, especially with famine an infant death rates being what they are in that part of the world. Maybe we should have sent some condoms along with the food? :-)

If we can put "conditions" on the money the US govt gives to US companies; and we seem to have put "conditions" on A'stan and P'stan sending troops to A'stan and P'stan; it seems just as reasonable that we should put some "conditions" on US money such as population control?

Am I just being "simple" ... fewer humans, less CO2 being breathed out, less energy being used for all purposes associated with each human.

Even China has realized that they can benefit overall by population control. That seems to coincide with their own increase in capitalistic tendencies.

dnf777
12-10-2009, 08:52 AM
ld. Maybe we should have sent some condoms along with the food? :-)

.

Careful Gerry,
While I agree with you, past conservative administrations have changed the locks of people when they dare mentioned those liberal love tools, known as "condoms"!!

Julie R.
12-10-2009, 09:08 AM
I think it would be interesting to compare population growth to CO2 level increases. It seems obvious to try and determine how much increase in CO2 is due to population increase alone. Have ANY researchers done that?

Am I just being "simple" ... fewer humans, less CO2 being breathed out, less energy being used for all purposes associated with each human.



Yes Gerry, you're oversimplifying things ;) "If you can't feed em, don't breed em" is such a simple concept, but it so lacks the glamour of the lefty mindset, "If you breed them, we will feed them." No industrialized nation has an increasing birth rate, yet the poorest Third World nations all reproduce at such exponential rates they're all doubling their populations in less than a generation. Haiti is another good example: back in the Papa Doc and Baby Doc years, it was widely reported that a population of 3 million would devastate the island. It now has a population of 9 million and growing; the hills have been completely denuded of every tree or shrub and the standard of living is the lowest by far in the entire western hemisphere.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-africa-has-to-learn-lessons--the-hard-way-if-necessary-1929014.html
This was written about Ireland's aid to Africa, but it should be required reading for their own Bono as well as any bleeding heart do-gooder and all Hollywood "Save Darfur" libtards like George Clooney.

YardleyLabs
12-10-2009, 09:26 AM
Global warming is the biggest swindle ever conceived by leftist one-worlders desperate to justify anything that authorizes wealth transfer.
Yes I know that's a generalization but just look at the billions earmarked for the developing countries.

What makes anyone think these billions will ever be used for pollution amelioration? Everyone knows this money will end up in the pockets of tinpot dictators. Hell, even food money doesn't make it to the needy; they continue to starve, and to multiply, while their 'leaders' live in mansions and arm their friends. Even actual food sent to poor nations rarely makes it into the gaping maws of the hungry; it's stolen by pirates or warlords and sold for guns, drugs or whores.

And for those busy tub thumping in outrage over what a racist I am because I think giving money to poor nations is a bad idea, will you please enlighten me on just one example? Explain how all the billions sent to feed Ethiopia over the past 25 years has raised the standard of living there. I'm sure you lefties fondly tip a blunt as you recall Bob Geldorf and his bags of grain for starving Ethiopians in 1984. During that famine, the Ethiopian population was about 34 million. Now, 25 years and many billions later, the population has exploded to over 72 million. And guess what, they STILL can't feed themselves, they're still lining up for food and money and they're STILL multiplying in exponential numbers.
Actually, the funds are not intended to get them to reduce pollution. They are intended to help with adaptation efforts. Africa and the Pacific Oslands have almost no carbon footprint byt have an inordinate proportion of their inhabited lands near sea level. They will be the ones that bear the primary brunt of global climate change. Your comments on the inadequacy of their governments address a serious issue that must be addressed for those nations to become more effective.

Gerry Clinchy
12-10-2009, 09:26 AM
Careful Gerry,
While I agree with you, past conservative administrations have changed the locks of people when they dare mentioned those liberal love tools, known as "condoms"!!

If this is acceptable for use by US high school students, would seem okay for Ethiopian high school students?

Yet, it would appear that some "conditions" upon the money being given away would be appropriate.

The article cited mentions use of the money to subsidize not cutting down forests & not clearing land. Sounds a bit like paying US farmers not to plant food. We've all seen how well that works, haven't we?

The U.S. govt just agreed to pay Native American tribes $3.4 billion for mismanagement of Indian lands (nationwide). Only took over 100 years for the govt to admit that they had screwed up that govt program. Imagine at least 100 more years to fix whatever they mess up with govt "management" of health care. If the govt manages energy as well as the Indian lands, we'll be reading by candle light again.

txbadger
12-10-2009, 09:32 AM
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6

Julie R.
12-10-2009, 09:48 AM
Actually, the funds are not intended to get them to reduce pollution. They are intended to help with adaptation efforts.

And we all know these billions will fund many innovative methods to help them adapt. ;) However I'm sure a handful of despots are eagerly looking forward to more whores, Escalades, flat screen TVs and modern weaponry.


Africa and the Pacific Oslands have almost no carbon footprint byt have an inordinate proportion of their inhabited lands near sea level. They will be the ones that bear the primary brunt of global climate change. Your comments on the inadequacy of their governments address a serious issue that must be addressed for those nations to become more effective.

African countries along with other nations south of the Equator may currently produce almost no carbon footprint right now, but they're all exponentially multiplying and making billions more little carbon footprints, aren't they?

Bob Gutermuth
12-10-2009, 10:23 AM
What will it take to convince Al Bore and the tree huggers that global warming is about as real as Santa Claus? It hasn't been that long ago that the tree huggers were talking about a coming ice age.

WaterDogRem
12-10-2009, 10:48 AM
It was mentioned in another post about it being illegal/immoral to steal emails-well how about the legalities of altering scientific data to suit ones agenda?

Are we really sure the emails were stolen? Could it of been a whistle-blower?

Just wondering because I'm sure there are hundreds of computer geeks trying to find who "stole/hacked" these emails and we don't know who it was?

Gerry Clinchy
12-10-2009, 12:50 PM
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...0-274616DB87E6 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6)


Definitely some references here that O's staff should be reading and investigating.


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/co...y-1929014.html (http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-africa-has-to-learn-lessons--the-hard-way-if-necessary-1929014.html)

There is something to be said for empowering people to take control of their own destiny, rather than just giving a hand-out. The former can take a lot more energy, thought and time than the latter.

dnf777
12-10-2009, 12:56 PM
If this is acceptable for use by US high school students, would seem okay for Ethiopian high school students?

Yet, it would appear that some "conditions" upon the money being given away would be appropriate.

The article cited mentions use of the money to subsidize not cutting down forests & not clearing land. Sounds a bit like paying US farmers not to plant food. We've all seen how well that works, haven't we?

The U.S. govt just agreed to pay Native American tribes $3.4 billion for mismanagement of Indian lands (nationwide). Only took over 100 years for the govt to admit that they had screwed up that govt program. Imagine at least 100 more years to fix whatever they mess up with govt "management" of health care. If the govt manages energy as well as the Indian lands, we'll be reading by candle light again.


Gerry,
I don't know enough to comment on much of what you mention, but your comments sound good. As for condom use in Africa....I agree. Giving anti-AIDS medicine (Bill Gates Fndt) only exacerbates the problem, unless the activity is changed, which it has not.

I hate to sound like a hard-right conservative, but if a group of people cant control their population, nature will do it for them. Typically, when females of most animal species are malnourished, they cease to ovulate, and exercise built in population control until there is enough to eat. If that fails, disease and starvation take over and control populations in a much harsher way. We humans are not distinct from the laws of nature. Sure, we can buy a little isolation in the richer contries, but it will all catch up eventually. In poor nations, despite Sally Struther's efforts, nature wins out.

This is how giraffes evolved long necks, bats evolved their acoustic hunting skills, and maybe humans evolved opposing thumbs not to push ecollar buttons, but to accept handouts and free sustenance! A good friend of mine from Sri Lanka pointed out that where he's from, the poor people are deathly thin, and only the wealthy are fat. We have it all backwards here at home.

Steve Amrein
12-11-2009, 08:35 AM
I am wondering if anyone can tell me the cheapest place to buy property at higher elavations. Algore said a few days ago that the polar ice caps will be melted in a decade. Or maybe i should just buy property her as it will be beach front soon. Now I know why Algore boiught that bigazz boat. BTW he is overstating the earths core by about a 1000 % also. I guess when you are making stuff up you might as well go big. I am still glad he invented the interweb :rolleyes:

Goose
12-11-2009, 09:05 AM
I am wondering if anyone can tell me the cheapest place to buy property at higher elavations. Algore said a few days ago that the polar ice caps will be melted in a decade. Or maybe i should just buy property her as it will be beach front soon. Now I know why Algore boiught that bigazz boat. BTW he is overstating the earths core by about a 1000 % also. I guess when you are making stuff up you might as well go big. I am still glad he invented the interweb :rolleyes:

Man, that's hot! Shouldn't we be melting:)

Here's what Algore said, "...but two kilometers or so down (in the earth) in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot..."

Wow! That's hotter than the sun's surface!!! No wonder there's global warming...we're freakin' melting and don't even know it:)

I'm thinking he got this 'slightly exaggerated' bit of data from the globalwarmingexpertscientists at the University of East Anglia where they make all this stuff up.

Evan
12-11-2009, 09:31 AM
When you are down in the dumps and think you have real PROBLEMS, Just remember:

SOMEWHERE IN THIS WORLD..
THERE IS A MR. PELOSI.

Evan

Henry V
12-11-2009, 09:55 AM
Another good one - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=1

badbullgator
12-11-2009, 10:07 AM
I am wondering if anyone can tell me the cheapest place to buy property at higher elavations. Algore said a few days ago that the polar ice caps will be melted in a decade. Or maybe i should just buy property her as it will be beach front soon. Now I know why Algore boiught that bigazz boat. BTW he is overstating the earths core by about a 1000 % also. I guess when you are making stuff up you might as well go big. I am still glad he invented the interweb :rolleyes:


Did anyone see one of the opening speakers at dopenhegan? It was some big fat dumb woman for Fiji that was balling her eyes out because she is scared because she has been told that rising sea levels are going to kill her and her children…. Yeah that’s the ticket, play on the emotions of the poor dumb folk you have sold this line of shit too.

Goose
12-11-2009, 11:09 AM
Did anyone see one of the opening speakers at dopenhegan? It was some big fat dumb woman for Fiji that was balling her eyes out because she is scared because she has been told that rising sea levels are going to kill her and her children…. Yeah that’s the ticket, play on the emotions of the poor dumb folk you have sold this line of shit too.

How about that opening video they showed at Crackenhagen! A little girl wakes up in her bed and she's in the middle of a big, desolate, hot desert. All of the sudden an earthquake threatens to swallow her and the little stuffed polar bear she sleeps with. She runs and runs and runs to keep ahead of the giant crack threatening to swallow her up but she drops the little stuffed polar bear and he gets eaten by the earth. Alas, out in front of her is a giant tsunami wave that threatens to drown her. She's doomed! We're doomed! The earth's doomed!

The horror.

We live in Cuba now.

Pals
12-11-2009, 11:23 AM
[Did anyone see one of the opening speakers at dopenhegan? It was some big fat dumb woman for Fiji that was balling her eyes out because she is scared because she has been told that rising sea levels are going to kill her and her children…. Yeah that’s the ticket, play on the emotions of the poor dumb folk you have sold this line of shit too.]


[How about that opening video they showed at Crackenhagen! A little girl wakes up in her bed and she's in the middle of a big, desolate, hot desert. All of the sudden an earthquake threatens to swallow her and the little stuffed polar bear she sleeps with. She runs and runs and runs to keep ahead of the giant crack threatening to swallow her up but she drops the little stuffed polar bear and he gets eaten by the earth. Alas, out in front of her is a giant tsunami wave that threatens to drown her. She's doomed! We're doomed! The earth's doomed!]

It's all part of the SEAL THE DEAL, resorting to scare tactics has been the UN's and the global warming crusaders fall back position.

badbullgator
12-14-2009, 09:21 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34412503/ns/us_news-environment

I think this is GAME OVER in dopenhegan. No way you will ever get an agreement. China does not want one, nor does India......

Bob Gutermuth
12-14-2009, 11:13 AM
What a shame Osama is going to try and pass cap and trade despite the fact that global warming is a hoax. Our electric and other energy bills are going to skyrocket over a lie.

Captain Mike D
12-15-2009, 06:38 AM
What a shame Osama is going to try and pass cap and trade despite the fact that global warming is a hoax. Our electric and other energy bills are going to skyrocket over a lie.

It won't just be what we pay for energy. Food will cost more due to the higher costs to plant, reap process and deliver. All finished goods will cost more due to higher production and distribution costs. Everything will go up !!

Mike

road kill
12-15-2009, 07:02 AM
When you are down in the dumps and think you have real PROBLEMS, Just remember:

SOMEWHERE IN THIS WORLD..
THERE IS A MR. PELOSI.

Evan

Even worse.......


....there's a Mr. Frank!!:shock:



Hoax and Change regards!!

Pals
12-16-2009, 01:08 PM
Now it has turned into a complete circus, unbelievable.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580346,00.html

Uncle Bill
12-19-2009, 01:59 PM
This MAY have been submitted before, but since I've been gone for a while, I missed it. But Mox Nix, for Henry V. and the other Algore followers and Frankin devotees, info like this should be repeated often and frequent. ( a little levity for KG there).

UB

One page pretty much sums it up:


http://blog.mises.org/archives/010939.asp (http://blog.mises.org/archives/010939.asp)

JDogger
12-19-2009, 03:39 PM
This MAY have been submitted before, but since I've been gone for a while, I missed it. But Mox ix, for Henry V. and the other Algore followers and Frankin devotees, info like this should be repeated often and frequent. ( a little levity for KG there).

UB

One page pretty much sums it up:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/010939.asp (http://blog.mises.org/archives/010939.asp)


One page does not completely sum it up. There are 246 comments mostly by Hayden's peers, many of them critical of his letter. Don't miss those.

JD

YardleyLabs
12-19-2009, 04:26 PM
The letter is pretty much nonsense, beginning with the letter "s". When I was a graduate student, I spent a lot of time in classes where we investigated and developed models for predicting near term changes in the economy. There were a number of established models, none of which was very good at making near term predictions. My professor at the time, Ray Fair, was one of the first to make major breakthroughs in that arena. His "solution" was to largely ignore the major models -- all of which focused on efforts to simulate the full complexity of the economy -- and focused instead on specific indicators of short terms decisions being made by the people whose activities drove the economy. He was the first to use things such as surveys of corporate purchasing agents, surveys of consumers, etc., and to incorporate those into econometric models for predicting the economy over a two year interval. Today his methods have become the basis for all those indicators that Wall Street watches so closely.

At the same time, my university was host to what was then the most comprehensive model of world weather conditions in existence. Once again, this model sought to simulate all the factors that drive weather. At that time, the model was pretty good. Given about 40 hours pf processing time, it could provide pretty accurate predictions of what the weather would be 24 hours in the future. Unfortunately, by the time the calculations were done, it was a "prediction" of history since the predictive window had passed 16 hours before.

There are three points to this.

First, models of highly complex systems are at best estimates within a level of uncertainty that can be refined heuristically over time but cannot be eliminated.

Second, models that simulate the overall system pretty well over time, may err significantly when used to explain short term variability because even the best models are necessarily incomplete.

Third, short term predictions are unlikely to use the same models as long term predictions and are more likely to depend on "leading indicators" that provide no insight into the underlying forces involved.

Given this situation, it is no wonder that there are multiple models. That is not evidence of the absence of "settled" science. To understand what is settled about science, you would need to look at the components of models that are shared in common and the products that are supported by a range of different analytic approaches. That is the basis on which scientists cite a broad consensus (a consensus need not be unanimous) concerning climate change. It is also why you do not see deniers who are in the business of developing alternative models -- it is much easier to criticize and blow smoke when your objective is to avoid clarity than it is when you are trying to help improve understanding.

In saying that global warming is not a bad thing, Hayden is stretching to just be stupid. As one living in PA, I will admit that there are many times when I would prefer to have the weather of Maryland or Virginia without actually having to move. However, a few extra degrees increase in the temperature of Sicily, where I lived for many years. would turn it into the Sahara. Similarly, a few extra feet in ocean levels might mean nothing in Denver, but it would wipe out much of our coastal areas, including my own home which is located 50 miles from the ocean but only a few feet above sea level.

I am certain that we will adapt, but that adaptation will have massive economic and social implications -- dwarfing those of minor changes like cap and trade. Given that there is no time in human history when temperatures have been as high as "most" scientists believe will occur in the foreseeable future, I would not be too cavalier in assuming that a little more sunscreen will be all we need to survive.

Uncle Bill
12-19-2009, 04:30 PM
One page does not completely sum it up. There are 246 comments mostly by Hayden's peers, many of them critical of his letter. Don't miss those.

JD


:D:confused: It always amuses me...albeit in a somewhat confused manner...the frequency with which you continually fall on the sword for such a corrupt hoax.

Are you a disciple of Algore???...a believer he invented the internet etc.?

Are you indeed such an atheist to believe the powers of man can destroy this planet? Or are you just an environmentalist of the ignoramus variety, similar to the HSUS, or PETA animal rights activists?

Just what are you Hugh? Are your only redeeming qualities found in loving a retriever and its' games? How can you be so damned conflicted, and still not be going crazy?

Are you positive after your party has annihilated major parts of our constitution, they will suddenly honor the amendments you cherish? You know damned well the majority of your party's leadership are against ALL of your 2nd amendment rights, and many of your 1st amendment rights as well. Who do you propose to stop them when they start goring your ox?

Ah yes! Just recall you heard it from me first... your ilk will seldom get what you want, but most assuredly you will get what you deserve.

UB

JDogger
12-19-2009, 04:44 PM
Wow Bill,
Sword falling, ox goring and getting not what I want, but what I deserve.

All in one post...welcome back.:razz:

Someone in an earlier post brought up the subject of "hanging on waaaaay to tight", but it's gone now. Sorry you missed it.

JD

Uncle Bill
12-19-2009, 06:07 PM
The letter is pretty much nonsense, beginning with the letter "s". When I was a graduate student, I spent a lot of time in classes where we investigated and developed models for predicting near term changes in the economy. There were a number of established models, none of which was very good at making near term predictions. My professor at the time, Ray Fair, was one of the first to make major breakthroughs in that arena. His "solution" was to largely ignore the major models -- all of which focused on efforts to simulate the full complexity of the economy -- and focused instead on specific indicators of short terms decisions being made by the people whose activities drove the economy. He was the first to use things such as surveys of corporate purchasing agents, surveys of consumers, etc., and to incorporate those into econometric models for predicting the economy over a two year interval. Today his methods have become the basis for all those indicators that Wall Street watches so closely.

At the same time, my university was host to what was then the most comprehensive model of world weather conditions in existence. Once again, this model sought to simulate all the factors that drive weather. At that time, the model was pretty good. Given about 40 hours pf processing time, it could provide pretty accurate predictions of what the weather would be 24 hours in the future. Unfortunately, by the time the calculations were done, it was a "prediction" of history since the predictive window had passed 16 hours before.

There are three points to this.

First, models of highly complex systems are at best estimates within a level of uncertainty that can be refined heuristically over time but cannot be eliminated.

Second, models that simulate the overall system pretty well over time, may err significantly when used to explain short term variability because even the best models are necessarily incomplete.

Third, short term predictions are unlikely to use the same models as long term predictions and are more likely to depend on "leading indicators" that provide no insight into the underlying forces involved.

Given this situation, it is no wonder that there are multiple models. That is not evidence of the absence of "settled" science. To understand what is settled about science, you would need to look at the components of models that are shared in common and the products that are supported by a range of different analytic approaches. That is the basis on which scientists cite a broad consensus (a consensus need not be unanimous) concerning climate change. It is also why you do not see deniers who are in the business of developing alternative models -- it is much easier to criticize and blow smoke when your objective is to avoid clarity than it is when you are trying to help improve understanding.

In saying that global warming is not a bad thing, Hayden is stretching to just be stupid. As one living in PA, I will admit that there are many times when I would prefer to have the weather of Maryland or Virginia without actually having to move. However, a few extra degrees increase in the temperature of Sicily, where I lived for many years. would turn it into the Sahara. Similarly, a few extra feet in ocean levels might mean nothing in Denver, but it would wipe out much of our coastal areas, including my own home which is located 50 miles from the ocean but only a few feet above sea level.

I am certain that we will adapt, but that adaptation will have massive economic and social implications -- dwarfing those of minor changes like cap and trade. Given that there is no time in human history when temperatures have been as high as "most" scientists believe will occur in the foreseeable future, I would not be too cavalier in assuming that a little more sunscreen will be all we need to survive.


Wow! I'm breathless! Superfluity is your bag, man. That 'minor change of cap and trade' is really good to know when my power company sends me that increase they couldn't trade away.

BTW, FWIW, isn't "cap and trade" almost identicle to those 'indulgences' the reformation era Catholic priests were selling to the 'well healed' in their congregations?

But I must admit, after reading all that erudition, I'm feeling just plain stupid. Forgive me, but I need a 'fix'.





If you ever feel a little bit stupid, just dig this up and read it again; you'll begin to think you're a genius.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,


Question: If you could live forever, would you and why?
Answer: "I would not live forever, because we should not live forever, because if we were supposed to live forever, then we would live forever, but we cannot live forever, which is why I would not live forever,"--Miss Alabama in the 1994 Miss USA contest.


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that, but not with all those flies and death and stuff."


--Mariah Carey
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,"Smoking kills. If you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your life,"


-- Brooke Shields, during an interview to become spokesperson for federal anti-smoking campaign .
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,"I've never had major knee surgery on any other part of my body,"


--Winston Bennett, University of Kentucky basketball forward.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"


--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .



,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."



--Al Gore, Vice President
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"


--Lee Iacocca
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,"The word "genius" isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."


--Joe Theisman, NFL football quarterback & sports analyst.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,"We don't necessarily discriminate. We simply exclude certain types of people."


-- Colonel Gerald Wellman, ROTC Instructor.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,"Your food stamps will be stopped effective March 1992 because we received notice that you passed away. May God bless you. You may reapply if there is a change in your circumstances."


--Department of Social Services, Greenville , South Carolina
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,


"If somebody has a bad heart, they can plug this jack in at night as they go to bed and it will monitor their heart throughout the night. And the next morning, when they wake up dead, there'll be a record."
--Mark S. Fowler, FCC ChairmanMan, I needed that. I was worried I may not recover from that Yardley post. Although I don't think he confuted my views about this Algore hoax, it was quite scary and intimidating. So it was a good thing I saved that 'booster' for my intelligence. But I'm still wondering about Joe Theisman's statement.:rolleyes:

UB

luvmylabs23139
12-19-2009, 06:10 PM
The letter is pretty much nonsense, beginning with the letter "s". When I was a graduate student, I spent a lot of time in classes where we investigated and developed models for predicting near term changes in the economy. There were a number of established models, none of which was very good at making near term predictions. My professor at the time, Ray Fair, was one of the first to make major breakthroughs in that arena. His "solution" was to largely ignore the major models -- all of which focused on efforts to simulate the full complexity of the economy -- and focused instead on specific indicators of short terms decisions being made by the people whose activities drove the economy. He was the first to use things such as surveys of corporate purchasing agents, surveys of consumers, etc., and to incorporate those into econometric models for predicting the economy over a two year interval. Today his methods have become the basis for all those indicators that Wall Street watches so closely.

At the same time, my university was host to what was then the most comprehensive model of world weather conditions in existence. Once again, this model sought to simulate all the factors that drive weather. At that time, the model was pretty good. Given about 40 hours pf processing time, it could provide pretty accurate predictions of what the weather would be 24 hours in the future. Unfortunately, by the time the calculations were done, it was a "prediction" of history since the predictive window had passed 16 hours before.

There are three points to this.

First, models of highly complex systems are at best estimates within a level of uncertainty that can be refined heuristically over time but cannot be eliminated.

Second, models that simulate the overall system pretty well over time, may err significantly when used to explain short term variability because even the best models are necessarily incomplete.

Third, short term predictions are unlikely to use the same models as long term predictions and are more likely to depend on "leading indicators" that provide no insight into the underlying forces involved.

Given this situation, it is no wonder that there are multiple models. That is not evidence of the absence of "settled" science. To understand what is settled about science, you would need to look at the components of models that are shared in common and the products that are supported by a range of different analytic approaches. That is the basis on which scientists cite a broad consensus (a consensus need not be unanimous) concerning climate change. It is also why you do not see deniers who are in the business of developing alternative models -- it is much easier to criticize and blow smoke when your objective is to avoid clarity than it is when you are trying to help improve understanding.

In saying that global warming is not a bad thing, Hayden is stretching to just be stupid. As one living in PA, I will admit that there are many times when I would prefer to have the weather of Maryland or Virginia without actually having to move. However, a few extra degrees increase in the temperature of Sicily, where I lived for many years. would turn it into the Sahara. Similarly, a few extra feet in ocean levels might mean nothing in Denver, but it would wipe out much of our coastal areas, including my own home which is located 50 miles from the ocean but only a few feet above sea level.

I am certain that we will adapt, but that adaptation will have massive economic and social implications -- dwarfing those of minor changes like cap and trade. Given that there is no time in human history when temperatures have been as high as "most" scientists believe will occur in the foreseeable future, I would not be too cavalier in assuming that a little more sunscreen will be all we need to survive.
WE just has a massive snow storm in NC!!!! WHAT GLOBAL WARMING????

We're freezing our rears off!!!!!!

This is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth pile of crap!!!

Uncle Bill
12-19-2009, 06:11 PM
Wow Bill,
Sword falling, ox goring and getting not what I want, but what I deserve.

All in one post...welcome back.:razz:

Someone in an earlier post brought up the subject of "hanging on waaaaay to tight", but it's gone now. Sorry you missed it.

JD


That's all well and good...but, but, but...

Are you a disciple of Algore???...a believer he invented the internet etc.?

Are you indeed such an atheist to believe the powers of man can destroy this planet? Or are you just an environmentalist of the ignoramus variety, similar to the HSUS, or PETA animal rights activists?

Just what are you Hugh? Are your only redeeming qualities found in loving a retriever and its' games? How can you be so damned conflicted, and still not be going crazy?

Are you positive after your party has annihilated major parts of our constitution, they will suddenly honor the amendments you cherish? You know damned well the majority of your party's leadership are against ALL of your 2nd amendment rights, and many of your 1st amendment rights as well. Who do you propose to stop them when they start goring your ox?

HEY!!! Enquiring minds want to know.

UB

JDogger
12-19-2009, 07:36 PM
That's all well and good...but, but, but...

Are you a disciple of Algore???...a believer he invented the internet etc.?

Are you indeed such an atheist to believe the powers of man can destroy this planet? Or are you just an environmentalist of the ignoramus variety, similar to the HSUS, or PETA animal rights activists?

Just what are you Hugh? Are your only redeeming qualities found in loving a retriever and its' games? How can you be so damned conflicted, and still not be going crazy?

Are you positive after your party has annihilated major parts of our constitution, they will suddenly honor the amendments you cherish? You know damned well the majority of your party's leadership are against ALL of your 2nd amendment rights, and many of your 1st amendment rights as well. Who do you propose to stop them when they start goring your ox?

HEY!!! Enquiring minds want to know.

UB

I'll not respond out of fear of over-erudition, except to say that I have three retrievers, which puts my redemption @x3.
Without actually doing a word and post count, it would appear at a casual glance that the shear volume of your posts today, and their associated links, would place you in the top ranks of verbosity on RTF PP.

All Hail, The Mighty Wind on the Prairie. http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/love0030.gif

JD

I like that smiley. Admin should consider upgrading our meager menu.

Pals
12-19-2009, 10:10 PM
That is an awesome smiley-where did you get that JD?

Uncle Bill
12-20-2009, 12:22 PM
I'll not respond out of fear of over-erudition, except to say that I have three retrievers, which puts my redemption @x3.
Without actually doing a word and post count, it would appear at a casual glance that the shear volume of your posts today, and their associated links, would place you in the top ranks of verbosity on RTF PP.

All Hail, The Mighty Wind on the Prairie. http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/love0030.gif

JD

I like that smiley. Admin should consider upgrading our meager menu.


So, rather than to admit to what you believe, Hugh, we are expected to buy into, based on your sig line, that you are NOT brain-washed, but you have "reasoned" principles?

"One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift

Unlike you, my switch to principled beliefs of conservatism was BECAUSE of reasoning. You, OTOH, seem to have no basic principles for what you believe, or at least are unwilling to express them. Which leads me to suspect you are a generational Democrat/liberal that was 'raised' in that ideology.

How much reasoning did you give to why you continue to follow the party of your parents? Were they also happy to see their party embrace the killing of babies?...The same sex marriages and homosexuality being flaunted daily?...The unrelenting class envy and wealth distribution constantly promoted by Democrats, as opposed to individual responsibility?

Oddly enough, after living through the Great Depression, WW II, the FDR and HST era as a voting Democrat, my father, after seeing what the last Democrat he voted for, Jimmy Carter had done, and the way the Democrat party was leaving him, he "reasoned" he no longer belonged to that batch of liberals-headed-for-socialism.

If you have indeed selected that Johnathan Swift quote as something you follow, can you tell me what 'reasoning' you used to continue to vote for and support the policies of the present day Democrat party and this current administration of czars?

UB

JDogger
12-20-2009, 07:59 PM
OK Bill, I'll play.

I'll try to keep it brief though. (You do know brief don't you?)

I have a little time now, belly full, beverage in hand, having just returned from mentoring an all day youth snow goose hunt at Bosque del Apache NWR. It was a blast. If you get a chance, do it. The dog, however, seemed a bit perplexed that I was allowing him to retrieve other peoples birds.

In the interest of expediency, I will insert my answers, Hew style, in the body of your post.


So, rather than to admit to what you believe, Hugh, we are expected to buy into, based on your sig line, that you are NOT brain-washed, but you have "reasoned" principles? Buy into whatever pleases you Bill, it is obvious you do so.

"One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift I remember we had a saying in the Army, "you can't shine sh*t". Get my drift?

Unlike you, my switch to principled beliefs of conservatism was BECAUSE of reasoning. You, OTOH, seem to have no basic principles for what you believe, or at least are unwilling to express them. Which leads me to suspect you are a generational Democrat/liberal that was 'raised' in that ideology. Nope. Both life long republicans. Now, just my mother, but I forgive her...after all, she's my mom.

How much reasoning did you give to why you continue to follow the party of your parents? I didn't. I was a hippy. Remember? Were they also happy to see their party embrace the killing of babies?...The same sex marriages and homosexuality being flaunted daily?...The unrelenting class envy and wealth distribution constantly promoted by Democrats, as opposed to individual responsibility? I repeat...they weren't democrats, and if you won't attack my mom, I won't attack yours. Fair enough?

Oddly enough, after living through the Great Depression, WW II, the FDR and HST era as a voting Democrat, my father, after seeing what the last Democrat he voted for, Jimmy Carter had done, and the way the Democrat party was leaving him, he "reasoned" he no longer belonged to that batch of liberals-headed-for-socialism. Freedom of choice, who would fail to applaud it. It still exists.

If you have indeed selected that Johnathan Swift quote as something you follow, can you tell me what 'reasoning' you used to continue to vote for and support the policies of the present day Democrat party and this current administration of czars? I don't. I mostly vote third party candidates, as I find little difference in the two major parties. Is my vote thrown away? Not really. At least I don't have to say, "I voted for the lesser of two evils", as many here proclaim.

UB

If it seems to you Bill, that I overly poke sticks at conservative republicans, as opposed to liberal, progressive democrats, might it be that overwhelmingly, it is they who post here? ("Surprise, surprise", -G. Pyle USMC).

BTW Take a look at the number of whiney posts I have initiated in comparasion to you and the other bleating, warbling, ululating posts of yours and others of your ilk.

Like, um, ahh, totally unreasoned regards, dude...
Hugh

Note to KG. My apologies in advance for any lapses in spelling, grammar, syntax, or punctuation.:D

Oh, and yeah, http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

JDogger
12-20-2009, 09:59 PM
That is an awesome smiley-where did you get that JD?
where does anyone get anything on the internet? copy and paste, nancy...JD

Uncle Bill
12-21-2009, 01:06 PM
Hugh believes he is a 'real' American with this philosophy:

"I don't. I mostly vote third party candidates, as I find little difference in the two major parties. Is my vote thrown away? Not really. At least I don't have to say, "I voted for the lesser of two evils", as many here proclaim."

Thanks for letting us know how inconsequential you are. So now we know you are only involved on this BB to rile things up, with nothing to lose, and have little invested in what most other Americans see as important.

FWIW, Hugh, you aren't fooling anyone with that statement...you are way too transparent in your leftist tendancies, and I'm being kind with that observation.

May you and the other "independants":rolleyes: on this board enjoy what the messianic administration and the corrupt Democrats have caused to destroy a once great 'freedom-loving-nation', and turned it into a facist-leaning socialism. Humpty Dumpty has fallen, and Atlas has shrugged. Congratulations! You and your ilk have succeeded in making that Obama "Hope and Change" a reality. God help us if the voters in 2010 continue this fiasco.

UB

JDogger
12-21-2009, 11:04 PM
Hugh believes he is a 'real' American with this philosophy:

"I don't. I mostly vote third party candidates, as I find little difference in the two major parties. Is my vote thrown away? Not really. At least I don't have to say, "I voted for the lesser of two evils", as many here proclaim."

Thanks for letting us know how inconsequential you are. So now we know you are only involved on this BB to rile things up, with nothing to lose, and have little invested in what most other Americans see as important.

FWIW, Hugh, you aren't fooling anyone with that statement...you are way too transparent in your leftist tendancies, and I'm being kind with that observation.

May you and the other "independants":rolleyes: on this board enjoy what the messianic administration and the corrupt Democrats have caused to destroy a once great 'freedom-loving-nation', and turned it into a facist-leaning socialism. Humpty Dumpty has fallen, and Atlas has shrugged. Congratulations! You and your ilk have succeeded in making that Obama "Hope and Change" a reality. God help us if the voters in 2010 continue this fiasco.

UB

Bill, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, yours is not so much a "principled philosophy" as it is a "social pathology". I fear dementia may have taken hold. I pray not.

I've been encouraged by another, to not further antagonize you. I'll consider it, but am unlikely to hold to it. You're far to much fun.:razz:

JD

Henry V
04-02-2010, 10:21 PM
Seems like maybe there has been some falsification by the global warming experts going on and once again many media oulets are not covering the story

Read it here- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

And here-
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/24/climategate-totally-ignored-tv-news-outlets-except-fox
(after reading click on bombshell for some of the actual e-mail content)

Guess it just doesn't fit the media agenda even though the e-mails have been verified as being real

Mike

Just an update on the investigation into the big email scandal that started this thread that, of course, proved all scientists involved with climate change research were misleading and the thousands of research papers on climate change were all wrong.

U.K. Panel Calls Climate Data Valid: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31climate.html

Climate researchers 'secrecy' criticised – but MPs say science remains intact at:www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/31/climate-mails-inquiry-jones-cleared

Phil Jones Exonerated by British House of Commons at http://www.desmogblog.com/phil-jones-exonerated-british-house-commons

House of Commons Exonerates Phil Jones
http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/30/house-of-commons-exonerates-climate-scientist-phil-jones/

Of course, here is the FOX news version. Scientists Cleared -- After One-Day Probehttp://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/31/climate-gate-inquiry-largely-clears-scientists/

The 63 page report is available at http://www.realclimate.org/docs/387.pdf

Buzz
04-02-2010, 11:57 PM
Henry,

Rachel Maddow talks about that and other things on her show tonight.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show#36155851

M&K's Retrievers
04-03-2010, 01:39 AM
Henry,

Rachel Maddow talks about that and other things on her show tonight.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show#36155851

Wow! She is out there.

Lickety Split Regards,

Buzz
04-03-2010, 08:21 AM
Wow! She is out there.

Lickety Split Regards,


How's that fake tasting?

M&K's Retrievers
04-03-2010, 10:32 AM
How's that fake tasting?

Now, where did I put that step ladder?:confused:

T. Mac
04-15-2010, 03:55 PM
Anyone else getting whiplash?

Looks like we are now in for nature caused global cooling: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36556083/ns/us_news-environment/

dnf777
04-15-2010, 03:58 PM
So those of us who drive large SUVs and trucks can get a snobby attitude that WE'RE saving the planet??

Gerry Clinchy
04-15-2010, 05:44 PM
So those of us who drive large SUVs and trucks can get a snobby attitude that WE'RE saving the planet??

LOL! Makes one realize how insignificant a role humans really play in the scheme when a volcano blows its top.

luvmylabs23139
04-15-2010, 06:40 PM
Al Gore will just say that global warming caused the volcano to erupt!

pat addis
04-16-2010, 06:36 AM
Al Gore is in his basement comtemplating suicide right now...:(

boy i hope he doesn;t do it if they cremate him the fire depts from 3 states will be busy putting out the grease fire have you seen him lately