First we all have a responsibility to take care of what we have and that includes our environment but in everything there are two sides to every issue, the extremists and the reasonable.
Take “Global Warmingâ€
“Global Warmingâ€
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
Sorry Marty, if the overall premise of your long-winded argument is that global warming doesn't exist you couldn't be more wrong.
I don't blame you for your misguided view -- I have a feeling you get your information from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. While they may be knowledgable sources for advice on scoring hillbilly heroin and sexual harrassment of coworkers they are far from experts about global warming.
Who are the experts? People with Ph.D.s in climatology and atmospheric science. Among the experts the scientific consensus has been clear for many years now that global warming is occurring and it is largely due to human greenhouse gas production.
As an example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is made up of many of the world's most eminent atmospheric scientists. This group has been meeting regularly for almost 20 years to assess the possibility of global climate change. They just released their most recent report and its available on the web at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm
I challenge you to read it and find fault in their claims.
You also claim that there is a body of scientific evidence against global warming produced by "100s of grant-funded scientists". Again, you have fallen prey to the propaganda artists on the right. Many years ago there WAS dissension among the ranks of the experts as to whether global warming was human caused. However, as the data have accumulated the holdouts have converted and now there really is no legitimate scientific dispute on the existence of the problem.
Having said that, my second challenge is for you to present to me these scientific studies representing conclusive evidence discounting global warming. Frankly those studies don't exist, or they are so far outnumbered by the volumes of studies to the contrary that they are rendered meaningless.
Lastly your cynical claim that scientists are biased due to liberal leanings or the quest for grant funds reveals a basic ignorance of how science is performed. Science advances because dissenting views render old views obsolete. Because global warming is such a well accepted phenomenon among the qualified scientific community, any scientist who could produce data that convincingly renders the theory invalid would become an overnight sensation.
Jeff C.
I don't blame you for your misguided view -- I have a feeling you get your information from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. While they may be knowledgable sources for advice on scoring hillbilly heroin and sexual harrassment of coworkers they are far from experts about global warming.
Who are the experts? People with Ph.D.s in climatology and atmospheric science. Among the experts the scientific consensus has been clear for many years now that global warming is occurring and it is largely due to human greenhouse gas production.
As an example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is made up of many of the world's most eminent atmospheric scientists. This group has been meeting regularly for almost 20 years to assess the possibility of global climate change. They just released their most recent report and its available on the web at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm
I challenge you to read it and find fault in their claims.
You also claim that there is a body of scientific evidence against global warming produced by "100s of grant-funded scientists". Again, you have fallen prey to the propaganda artists on the right. Many years ago there WAS dissension among the ranks of the experts as to whether global warming was human caused. However, as the data have accumulated the holdouts have converted and now there really is no legitimate scientific dispute on the existence of the problem.
Having said that, my second challenge is for you to present to me these scientific studies representing conclusive evidence discounting global warming. Frankly those studies don't exist, or they are so far outnumbered by the volumes of studies to the contrary that they are rendered meaningless.
Lastly your cynical claim that scientists are biased due to liberal leanings or the quest for grant funds reveals a basic ignorance of how science is performed. Science advances because dissenting views render old views obsolete. Because global warming is such a well accepted phenomenon among the qualified scientific community, any scientist who could produce data that convincingly renders the theory invalid would become an overnight sensation.
Jeff C.
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
Marty,
How many peer reviewed scientific articles have you read on the subject?
I dont see why global waring is even placed in the politcal realm? Its not a matter of democrat vs. republican, its a matter or right vs. wrong. Its simply unethical to knowingly aid in the unnecessary destruction of the planet.
Is it happening?
Yes.
Evidence -
Photos of polar ice caps taken 30 years ago vs. today. They are melting at alarming rates.
The northward expansion of equatorial species. Several long term (since 1930's) study sites along tidal areas in California have been invaded by species whose temperature tolerance used to be suited for much further southern locations.
The mean annual temps have risen globally in the last 100 years.
The 10 hottest years ever recorded have been in the last 14 years.
Are we causing it?
Carbon dioxide is a major contributor to global warming due to increased absorption of solar radiation and less reflection of it from our planet.
Right now, carbon dioxide levels are higher then they have been as far back as we can measure (almost 1 million years).
What are potential effects?
Many are unknown.
We have already witnessed droughts (right now), heat waves (2005 was ridiculous), rising sea levels, wildlife decline (polar bears, many amphibians and fish), and severe storms (Katrina).
We expect to see many extinctions of valuable species.
Its all there Marty, do the research, and it sucks. No one wants to give up our lifestyles, I know I dont. But I am pretty sure we also dont want our planet to go to ****. I do my best to reduce my dependency on energy. I ride my bike to school and work. My optimax has a 3 star EPA rating, I use energy efficient appliances when possible and lights. I buy AMERICAN MADE PRODUCTS, support LOCAL farmers, utilize public transportation, and I avoid products with excess packaging.
How many peer reviewed scientific articles have you read on the subject?
I dont see why global waring is even placed in the politcal realm? Its not a matter of democrat vs. republican, its a matter or right vs. wrong. Its simply unethical to knowingly aid in the unnecessary destruction of the planet.
Is it happening?
Yes.
Evidence -
Photos of polar ice caps taken 30 years ago vs. today. They are melting at alarming rates.
The northward expansion of equatorial species. Several long term (since 1930's) study sites along tidal areas in California have been invaded by species whose temperature tolerance used to be suited for much further southern locations.
The mean annual temps have risen globally in the last 100 years.
The 10 hottest years ever recorded have been in the last 14 years.
Are we causing it?
Carbon dioxide is a major contributor to global warming due to increased absorption of solar radiation and less reflection of it from our planet.
Right now, carbon dioxide levels are higher then they have been as far back as we can measure (almost 1 million years).
What are potential effects?
Many are unknown.
We have already witnessed droughts (right now), heat waves (2005 was ridiculous), rising sea levels, wildlife decline (polar bears, many amphibians and fish), and severe storms (Katrina).
We expect to see many extinctions of valuable species.
Its all there Marty, do the research, and it sucks. No one wants to give up our lifestyles, I know I dont. But I am pretty sure we also dont want our planet to go to ****. I do my best to reduce my dependency on energy. I ride my bike to school and work. My optimax has a 3 star EPA rating, I use energy efficient appliances when possible and lights. I buy AMERICAN MADE PRODUCTS, support LOCAL farmers, utilize public transportation, and I avoid products with excess packaging.
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
Im with u Marty, but the political/entertainment machine is in full tilt, from cartoons to the vice pres mind control at its best.
btw libs I know Im a moron you dont have to tell me. someday if your lucky ill be jailed for spreading environmental hate.
HEAT OF THE MOMENT
Weather Channel founder: Warming 'greatest scam in history'
Takes aim at Gore, scientists for manipulating data for political, financial gain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 8, 2007
4:41 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
John Coleman
Taking aim at Al Gore and other "climate change" activists, the founder of the Weather Channel says the campaign to promote the theory of man-made global warming is "the greatest scam in history."
John Coleman, now a meteorologist for San Diego TV station KUSI, calls it a "manufactured crisis" by "dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives" who have "manipulated long-term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming."
Coleman, writing on the website of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, alludes to Gore's award-winning campaign featuring his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."
"I say this knowing you probably won't believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award-winning former vice president of United States," writes Coleman. "So be it."
(Story continues below)
Coleman says he has studied the scientific data and arguments on the issue and conferred with numerous scientists.
"I know I am correct," he asserts. "There is no run-away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of global warming.
Coleman believes scientists with political motives have been joined by extremist environmentalists "to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims."
"Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going," he says. "Soon they claimed to be a consensus."
Then, writes Coleman, "Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild 'scientific' scenario of the civilization-threatening environmental consequences from global warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda."
Now, Coleman says, "their ridiculous, manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue" for the Democratic party, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, school teachers and television networks such as CNN, CBS, NBC and "well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens."
"Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the global warming frenzy with one 15-minute documentary segment, Coleman writes, referring to John Stossel's piece on the network's news program "20/20."
Coleman points out meteorology, his field of life-long expertise, is science, not a religion or something "you believe in."
"In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious," he says.
As the predicted temperature-increases, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super-storm patterns all fail to occur, he says, we "will come to realize we have been duped."
"The sky is not falling," contends Coleman. "And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next 20 years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend."
HEAT OF THE MOMENT
'Global warming' shocker – Who's minding thermometers?
Surface temperature recording stations a shambles, says veteran meteorologist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 18, 2007
9:55 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – Dire "global warming" predictions are based on bad science from the very start, says a veteran meteorologist who found surface temperatures recorded throughout the U.S. are done so with almost no regard to scientific standards.
As a result of his shocking initial findings that temperature monitoring stations were constructed and placed without regard to achieving accurate recordings of natural temperatures, Anthony Watts set out to investigate the facilities used by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
What he found were temperature stations with sensors on the roofs of buildings, near air-conditioning exhaust vents, in parking lots near hot automobiles, barbecues, chimneys and on pavement and concrete surfaces – all of which would lead to higher temperature recordings than properly established conditions.
Aircraft parking within 10 feet of temperature sensor at Derby Field in Lovelock, Nev.
To qualify as a properly maintained temperature station, sensors must be placed in elevated, slatted boxes on flat ground surrounded by a clear surface on a slope of less than 19 degrees with surrounding grass and vegetations ground cover of less than 10 centimeters high. The sensors must be located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces and parking lots.
(Story continues below)
Watts' concerns about the temperatures being used to gauge whether global warming is actually taking place began when he read a 1997 study by the U.S. National Research Council that concluded the consistency and quality of temperature stations was "inadequate and deteriorating." Meanwhile, he learned, the U.S. Historical Climatological Network, responsible for maintaining the stations, was doing nothing to address the problems.
So Watts decided to take up the challenge himself. After surveying a few randomly chosen temperature stations and being shocked at the shortcomings, he set forth on a plan to survey all 1,221 stations, taking photographs along the way. With the help of volunteers, Watts has systematically surveyed one-third of the official weather stations.
The vast majority of the stations surveyed to date fail to meet the prescribed standards. Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 reflecting proper maintenance and standards and 5 representing facilities that are severely compromised, Watts says 70 percent of those stations surveyed received a 4 or 5 rating, while only 4 percent received a grade of 1.
All of the most egregious violations he has observed in the study would result in artificially higher temperatures being recorded.
The global-warming hucksters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
The scaremongers are not always wrong. The Trojans should have listened to Cassandra. But history shows that the scaremongers are usually wrong.
Parson Malthus predicted mass starvation 250 years ago, as the population was growing geometrically, doubling each generation, while agricultural production was going arithmetically, by 2 percent or so a year. But today, with perhaps 1 percent of our population in full-time food production, we are the best-fed and fattest 300 million people on Earth.
Karl Marx was proven dead wrong about the immiseration of the masses under capitalism and the coming revolution in the industrial West, though they still have hopes at Harvard.
Neville Shute's "On the Beach" proved as fictional as "Dr. Strangelove" and "Seven Days in May." Paul Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" never exploded. It fizzled when the Birth Dearth followed the Baby Boom.
"The Crash of '79" never happened. Instead, we got Ronald Reagan and record prosperity. The Club of Rome notwithstanding, we did not run out of oil. The world did not end in Y2K, when we crossed the millennium, as some had prophesied. "Nuclear winter," where we were all going to freeze to death after the soot from Reagan's nuclear war blotted out the sun, didn't quite happen. Rather, the Soviet Empire gave up the ghost.
(Column continues below)
Is then global warming – a steady rise in the temperature of the Earth to where the polar ice caps melt, oceans rise 23 feet, cities sink into the sea and horrendous hurricanes devastate the land – an imminent and mortal danger?
Put me down as a disbeliever.
Like the panics of bygone eras, this one has the aspect of yet another re-enactment of the Big Con. The huckster arrives in town, tells all the rubes that disaster impends for them and their families, but says there may be one last chance they can be saved – but it will take a lot of money. And the folks should go about collecting it, right now.
This, it seems to me, is what the global-warming scare and scam are all about – frightening Americans into transferring sovereignty, power and wealth to a global political elite that claims it alone understands the crisis and it alone can save us from impending disaster.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, from which China and India were exempt, the United States was to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels, which could not be done without inducing a new Depression and reducing the standard of living of the American people. So, we ignored Kyoto – and how have we suffered? The Europeans who signed on also largely ignored it. How have they suffered?
We are told global warming was responsible for the hurricane summer of Katrina and Rita that devastated Texas, Mississippi and New Orleans. Yet Dr. William Gray, perhaps the nation's foremost expert on hurricanes, says he and his most experienced colleagues believe humans have little impact on global warming and global warming cannot explain the frequency or ferocity of hurricanes. After all, we had more hurricanes in the first half of the 20th century than in the last 50 years, as global warming was taking place.
"We're brainwashing our children," says Gray. "They're going to the Gore movie ('An Inconvenient Truth') and being fed all this. It's ridiculous. ... We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was."
Gray does concede that for a scholar to question global warming can put his next federal grant in mortal peril.
While modest warming has taken place, there is no conclusive evidence human beings are responsible, no conclusive evidence Earth's temperature is rising dangerously or will reach intolerable levels and no conclusive evidence that warming will do more harm than good.
The glaciers may be receding, but the polar bear population is growing, alarmingly in some Canadian Indian villages. Though more people on our planet of 6 billion may die of heat, estimates are that many more may be spared death from the cold. The Arctic ice cap may be shrinking, but that may mean year-round passage through northern Canadian waters from the Atlantic to the Pacific and the immense resources of the Arctic made more accessible to man. Why else did Vladimir Putin's boys make their dash to claim the pole?
The mammoth government we have today is a result of politicians rushing to solve "crises" by creating and empowering new federal agencies.
Whether it's hunger, poverty or homelessness, in the end, the poor are always with us, but now we have something else always with us: scores of thousands of federal bureaucrats and armies of academics to study the problem and assess the progress, with all their pay and benefits provided by our tax dollars.
Cal Coolidge said that when you see 10 troubles coming up the road toward you, sometimes the best thing to do is nothing, because nine of them will fall into the ditch before they get to you. And so it will be with global warming, if we don't sell out America to the hucksters who would save us.
btw libs I know Im a moron you dont have to tell me. someday if your lucky ill be jailed for spreading environmental hate.
HEAT OF THE MOMENT
Weather Channel founder: Warming 'greatest scam in history'
Takes aim at Gore, scientists for manipulating data for political, financial gain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 8, 2007
4:41 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
John Coleman
Taking aim at Al Gore and other "climate change" activists, the founder of the Weather Channel says the campaign to promote the theory of man-made global warming is "the greatest scam in history."
John Coleman, now a meteorologist for San Diego TV station KUSI, calls it a "manufactured crisis" by "dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives" who have "manipulated long-term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming."
Coleman, writing on the website of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, alludes to Gore's award-winning campaign featuring his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."
"I say this knowing you probably won't believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award-winning former vice president of United States," writes Coleman. "So be it."
(Story continues below)
Coleman says he has studied the scientific data and arguments on the issue and conferred with numerous scientists.
"I know I am correct," he asserts. "There is no run-away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of global warming.
Coleman believes scientists with political motives have been joined by extremist environmentalists "to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims."
"Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going," he says. "Soon they claimed to be a consensus."
Then, writes Coleman, "Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild 'scientific' scenario of the civilization-threatening environmental consequences from global warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda."
Now, Coleman says, "their ridiculous, manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue" for the Democratic party, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, school teachers and television networks such as CNN, CBS, NBC and "well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens."
"Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the global warming frenzy with one 15-minute documentary segment, Coleman writes, referring to John Stossel's piece on the network's news program "20/20."
Coleman points out meteorology, his field of life-long expertise, is science, not a religion or something "you believe in."
"In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious," he says.
As the predicted temperature-increases, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super-storm patterns all fail to occur, he says, we "will come to realize we have been duped."
"The sky is not falling," contends Coleman. "And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next 20 years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend."
HEAT OF THE MOMENT
'Global warming' shocker – Who's minding thermometers?
Surface temperature recording stations a shambles, says veteran meteorologist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 18, 2007
9:55 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – Dire "global warming" predictions are based on bad science from the very start, says a veteran meteorologist who found surface temperatures recorded throughout the U.S. are done so with almost no regard to scientific standards.
As a result of his shocking initial findings that temperature monitoring stations were constructed and placed without regard to achieving accurate recordings of natural temperatures, Anthony Watts set out to investigate the facilities used by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
What he found were temperature stations with sensors on the roofs of buildings, near air-conditioning exhaust vents, in parking lots near hot automobiles, barbecues, chimneys and on pavement and concrete surfaces – all of which would lead to higher temperature recordings than properly established conditions.
Aircraft parking within 10 feet of temperature sensor at Derby Field in Lovelock, Nev.
To qualify as a properly maintained temperature station, sensors must be placed in elevated, slatted boxes on flat ground surrounded by a clear surface on a slope of less than 19 degrees with surrounding grass and vegetations ground cover of less than 10 centimeters high. The sensors must be located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces and parking lots.
(Story continues below)
Watts' concerns about the temperatures being used to gauge whether global warming is actually taking place began when he read a 1997 study by the U.S. National Research Council that concluded the consistency and quality of temperature stations was "inadequate and deteriorating." Meanwhile, he learned, the U.S. Historical Climatological Network, responsible for maintaining the stations, was doing nothing to address the problems.
So Watts decided to take up the challenge himself. After surveying a few randomly chosen temperature stations and being shocked at the shortcomings, he set forth on a plan to survey all 1,221 stations, taking photographs along the way. With the help of volunteers, Watts has systematically surveyed one-third of the official weather stations.
The vast majority of the stations surveyed to date fail to meet the prescribed standards. Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 reflecting proper maintenance and standards and 5 representing facilities that are severely compromised, Watts says 70 percent of those stations surveyed received a 4 or 5 rating, while only 4 percent received a grade of 1.
All of the most egregious violations he has observed in the study would result in artificially higher temperatures being recorded.
The global-warming hucksters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
The scaremongers are not always wrong. The Trojans should have listened to Cassandra. But history shows that the scaremongers are usually wrong.
Parson Malthus predicted mass starvation 250 years ago, as the population was growing geometrically, doubling each generation, while agricultural production was going arithmetically, by 2 percent or so a year. But today, with perhaps 1 percent of our population in full-time food production, we are the best-fed and fattest 300 million people on Earth.
Karl Marx was proven dead wrong about the immiseration of the masses under capitalism and the coming revolution in the industrial West, though they still have hopes at Harvard.
Neville Shute's "On the Beach" proved as fictional as "Dr. Strangelove" and "Seven Days in May." Paul Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" never exploded. It fizzled when the Birth Dearth followed the Baby Boom.
"The Crash of '79" never happened. Instead, we got Ronald Reagan and record prosperity. The Club of Rome notwithstanding, we did not run out of oil. The world did not end in Y2K, when we crossed the millennium, as some had prophesied. "Nuclear winter," where we were all going to freeze to death after the soot from Reagan's nuclear war blotted out the sun, didn't quite happen. Rather, the Soviet Empire gave up the ghost.
(Column continues below)
Is then global warming – a steady rise in the temperature of the Earth to where the polar ice caps melt, oceans rise 23 feet, cities sink into the sea and horrendous hurricanes devastate the land – an imminent and mortal danger?
Put me down as a disbeliever.
Like the panics of bygone eras, this one has the aspect of yet another re-enactment of the Big Con. The huckster arrives in town, tells all the rubes that disaster impends for them and their families, but says there may be one last chance they can be saved – but it will take a lot of money. And the folks should go about collecting it, right now.
This, it seems to me, is what the global-warming scare and scam are all about – frightening Americans into transferring sovereignty, power and wealth to a global political elite that claims it alone understands the crisis and it alone can save us from impending disaster.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, from which China and India were exempt, the United States was to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels, which could not be done without inducing a new Depression and reducing the standard of living of the American people. So, we ignored Kyoto – and how have we suffered? The Europeans who signed on also largely ignored it. How have they suffered?
We are told global warming was responsible for the hurricane summer of Katrina and Rita that devastated Texas, Mississippi and New Orleans. Yet Dr. William Gray, perhaps the nation's foremost expert on hurricanes, says he and his most experienced colleagues believe humans have little impact on global warming and global warming cannot explain the frequency or ferocity of hurricanes. After all, we had more hurricanes in the first half of the 20th century than in the last 50 years, as global warming was taking place.
"We're brainwashing our children," says Gray. "They're going to the Gore movie ('An Inconvenient Truth') and being fed all this. It's ridiculous. ... We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was."
Gray does concede that for a scholar to question global warming can put his next federal grant in mortal peril.
While modest warming has taken place, there is no conclusive evidence human beings are responsible, no conclusive evidence Earth's temperature is rising dangerously or will reach intolerable levels and no conclusive evidence that warming will do more harm than good.
The glaciers may be receding, but the polar bear population is growing, alarmingly in some Canadian Indian villages. Though more people on our planet of 6 billion may die of heat, estimates are that many more may be spared death from the cold. The Arctic ice cap may be shrinking, but that may mean year-round passage through northern Canadian waters from the Atlantic to the Pacific and the immense resources of the Arctic made more accessible to man. Why else did Vladimir Putin's boys make their dash to claim the pole?
The mammoth government we have today is a result of politicians rushing to solve "crises" by creating and empowering new federal agencies.
Whether it's hunger, poverty or homelessness, in the end, the poor are always with us, but now we have something else always with us: scores of thousands of federal bureaucrats and armies of academics to study the problem and assess the progress, with all their pay and benefits provided by our tax dollars.
Cal Coolidge said that when you see 10 troubles coming up the road toward you, sometimes the best thing to do is nothing, because nine of them will fall into the ditch before they get to you. And so it will be with global warming, if we don't sell out America to the hucksters who would save us.
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
Jeff C.
Before I answer your questions let me correct you on a few points:
1. I do believe global warming exist, each morning when the sun comes up it warm up! Also when we have solar flares from the sun that warms up even more. O by the way that is happing now!
2. I obtain my information from more then just Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Michael Savage. What surprises me is that you know who they are because I have no idea of one radio host on the “Leftâ€
Before I answer your questions let me correct you on a few points:
1. I do believe global warming exist, each morning when the sun comes up it warm up! Also when we have solar flares from the sun that warms up even more. O by the way that is happing now!
2. I obtain my information from more then just Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Michael Savage. What surprises me is that you know who they are because I have no idea of one radio host on the “Leftâ€
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
The existence of a few nonbelievers doesn't make for a credible argument against global warming, especially given that there is strong evidence that many of these individuals have less than pure motivations.
Let me give you a short primer on how information reaches the scientific community. In order for a new finding to become incorporated into the scientific literature it undergoes a process known as peer review. In this process the methods, findings, analysis, and conclusions are critically evaluated by other experts in the field. The process of peer review prevents what could be considered "bad science" from entering the literature by demanding that it holds up to the highest scientific standards. While a few nonbelievers such as Roy Spencer have no problem making their views known on the internet, most of their claims don't hold up to scientific scrutiny, as evidenced by the fact that very little is published that disputes the general scientific consensus about global warming.
The point here is that if there were a legitimate case to be made against global warming there would be a body of corresponding peer reviewed scientific literature. There is not.
Also, it shouldn't surprise you that even among scientists there are a few unscrupulous individuals who betray the public trust. For example, it is a known fact that Exxon and other similar interests have underwritten many of the nonbelievers. This shouldn't surprise you, remember how scientists for the tobacco companies long maintained that tobacco wasn't carcinogenic or addictive.
Let me give you a short primer on how information reaches the scientific community. In order for a new finding to become incorporated into the scientific literature it undergoes a process known as peer review. In this process the methods, findings, analysis, and conclusions are critically evaluated by other experts in the field. The process of peer review prevents what could be considered "bad science" from entering the literature by demanding that it holds up to the highest scientific standards. While a few nonbelievers such as Roy Spencer have no problem making their views known on the internet, most of their claims don't hold up to scientific scrutiny, as evidenced by the fact that very little is published that disputes the general scientific consensus about global warming.
The point here is that if there were a legitimate case to be made against global warming there would be a body of corresponding peer reviewed scientific literature. There is not.
Also, it shouldn't surprise you that even among scientists there are a few unscrupulous individuals who betray the public trust. For example, it is a known fact that Exxon and other similar interests have underwritten many of the nonbelievers. This shouldn't surprise you, remember how scientists for the tobacco companies long maintained that tobacco wasn't carcinogenic or addictive.
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
Marty,
You seem to be avoiding the already occurring symptoms of global warming. Why are the polar ice caps melting? Why have the 10 hottest years ever recorded occurred in the last 14 years?
People also had a tough time believing Galileo when he said that the earth wasn't in the center of the solar system.
Lets set global warming aside for a second. I will briefly mention another problem that results from the process combustion. This is not theory, it is fact, and has been studied vigorously by concerned forest timber production companies (people on the right). A major byproduct of combustion is NOx. Without getting too much into the science, it causes a few problems.
One is Acid rain. When acidic rainfall occurs (as is does everywhere near urban areas and adjacent to urban areas) it leaches many nutrients out of the soil. It does this by attaching to the positively charged ions like potassium, sodium, calcium etc. and flowing out of the watershed. This results in poor soils in forests east of LA , San Diego, and virtually all areas with high air pollution. (Not to mention it results in increased algal production in the water systems in which the run off enters)
The other problem is the input of nitrogen into the soil. Nitrogen is necessary for plant growth. however when N is added to a system unnaturally, it can have adverse effects. Too much N in forest soils reduce soil diversity on a fungal scale, and now tree's maintain fewer symbiotic relationships with soil fungus, resulting in reduced tree growth and diversity.
Knowing that combustion of fossil fuels WILL DECREASE AMERICAN timber production in the long run, do you feel that we should still not be limited on the amount of fuel we burn each year?
Think about future generations. Think about your family and friends, and what world you will have left them with when you leave.
"All the money you made Won't ever buy back your soul" - Bob Dylan.
Do whats right,
Ryan
You seem to be avoiding the already occurring symptoms of global warming. Why are the polar ice caps melting? Why have the 10 hottest years ever recorded occurred in the last 14 years?
People also had a tough time believing Galileo when he said that the earth wasn't in the center of the solar system.
Lets set global warming aside for a second. I will briefly mention another problem that results from the process combustion. This is not theory, it is fact, and has been studied vigorously by concerned forest timber production companies (people on the right). A major byproduct of combustion is NOx. Without getting too much into the science, it causes a few problems.
One is Acid rain. When acidic rainfall occurs (as is does everywhere near urban areas and adjacent to urban areas) it leaches many nutrients out of the soil. It does this by attaching to the positively charged ions like potassium, sodium, calcium etc. and flowing out of the watershed. This results in poor soils in forests east of LA , San Diego, and virtually all areas with high air pollution. (Not to mention it results in increased algal production in the water systems in which the run off enters)
The other problem is the input of nitrogen into the soil. Nitrogen is necessary for plant growth. however when N is added to a system unnaturally, it can have adverse effects. Too much N in forest soils reduce soil diversity on a fungal scale, and now tree's maintain fewer symbiotic relationships with soil fungus, resulting in reduced tree growth and diversity.
Knowing that combustion of fossil fuels WILL DECREASE AMERICAN timber production in the long run, do you feel that we should still not be limited on the amount of fuel we burn each year?
Think about future generations. Think about your family and friends, and what world you will have left them with when you leave.
"All the money you made Won't ever buy back your soul" - Bob Dylan.
Do whats right,
Ryan
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
These morons will never relent from their retarded point of view. Even if global warming was a hoax, would it really be such a bad thing to reduce the amount of polution caused by greenhouse gases? Additionally, how would anyone in politics, more specifically, Al Gore, profit greatly from promoting a more stable environment through reduction of greenhouse gases? Furthermore, are you retards going to be so audacious as to ignore the convoluted yet transparent situation in Iraq, where it appears clearly that our administration pulled facts out of their asses to start a war and retain sovereignty over a country that is rich in oil, and therefore may in some way profit from that resource? How rational is it to assume that a political figure trying to keep our oceans from rising and reeking havoc on the world is connivingly planning on his great fortune as a result? Al Gore definitely deserves the nobel prize. For all you retards who want to think that it's a hoax, i hope the trend in the environment continues so that you get to witness the aftermath of your ignorance. That's what it's going to take for people like you that lack prescience. Way to go!!!!!!
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
If global warming is man made and not a natural occurring cycle, could you please explain how the Scandinavians farmed Greenland back in 800 AD?
And gave it the name "Greenland"
And why did 19,000 scientists sign this petition?
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
I don't know about you, but I'm not feeling much like a "moron"
And gave it the name "Greenland"
And why did 19,000 scientists sign this petition?
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
I don't know about you, but I'm not feeling much like a "moron"
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
Hey Jeff,
Did you take hypocrisy 101 from Al Gore?
This is typical phony bologna from people like you.
I know, you bought carbon credits right?
Did you take hypocrisy 101 from Al Gore?
This is typical phony bologna from people like you.
I know, you bought carbon credits right?
Jeff C. wrote:I have a 2006 Silverado 2500 4X4 crew cab with the gas 6.0 liter and it only gets about 10-11 mpg towing or otherwise. At least that's what the onboard computer is showing. I can't even afford to drive it on a day to day basis - had to talk my wife into getting another car so I could use her old car to go the 50 miles to work every day.
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
Hey Tobe,
Of course I own a truck. Did you think I frequent the Northern California BASS FISHING web page just to have these sorts of friendly conversations with other hillbillys? I only drive it a few times a month, not because of any sense of social responsibility but because I can't afford the sh1tty gas mileage to use it as my every day vehicle.
I never said I'm an environmentalist, I'm as bad as everyone else here when it comes to environmental behavior. However, the initial thread that I responded to claimed that global warming was a hoax and insinuated that the science wasn't conclusive. Well I am a scientist and it really gets me riled up when the public's view of science is undermined or distorted by EITHER side simply for political purposes.
Speaking of which, the 19000 signature petition you refer to in your previous post is another example of people with political agendas trying to distort science for their own use. Read on:
"The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001."
- From the webpage of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Of course I own a truck. Did you think I frequent the Northern California BASS FISHING web page just to have these sorts of friendly conversations with other hillbillys? I only drive it a few times a month, not because of any sense of social responsibility but because I can't afford the sh1tty gas mileage to use it as my every day vehicle.
I never said I'm an environmentalist, I'm as bad as everyone else here when it comes to environmental behavior. However, the initial thread that I responded to claimed that global warming was a hoax and insinuated that the science wasn't conclusive. Well I am a scientist and it really gets me riled up when the public's view of science is undermined or distorted by EITHER side simply for political purposes.
Speaking of which, the 19000 signature petition you refer to in your previous post is another example of people with political agendas trying to distort science for their own use. Read on:
"The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001."
- From the webpage of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
So no Greenland answer?
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
So no Greenland answer?
-
Dan McKenzie
- Posts: 1220
- Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:57 pm
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
you might want to look a little deeper into OISM.
The petition you link to is an absolute fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Here you can brush up on your "Greenland" history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland
The petition you link to is an absolute fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Here you can brush up on your "Greenland" history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
I see nothing other than opinions calling it fraud.
As to Greenland, your link substantiates the claim there was Global Warming over nine hundred years ago.
As to Greenland, your link substantiates the claim there was Global Warming over nine hundred years ago.
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
I'm not really sure where I sit on this issue . Actually ,since its hyped so much politically , " The worlds coming to an end-you better ralley BEHIND me " type thing . I lean somewhat away from it possibly . True there are changes in the world . Do I think planting corn will help--no way . Grow it completely from the Miss. river to the Pacific ocean ,and you still couldnt run the vehicles in California . Do the math ,I have .Not enough product comes from it .I'm not even going to include what it will do to the farming industry.Grow corn,not wheat (its already started btw) Now wheat is in short supply . But it sure does get people to "lobby" in a direction away from where they were, good or bad . I'm in the auto body paint industry , Next year ,our industry changes again with the reformulation of refinish supplies . Water being a partial replacement for some solvent applications . Now true its better for the eco system ,yet worse in other ways . So the planet "may" heal in time ,our kids may not be any more healthy to enjoy it . Since we are nearly 90% water ,and all industrial applications will be involved ,we have just gave a fast track induction of things that we shouldnt have inside us to ourselves . Think not? Ever think of second hand smoke ? I guess my point is(if I have one,lol) What is pounded in us by the media/politicians/Hollywood is nothing other than salesmanship . If it wasnt profitable in one way or the other to SOMEONE ,we wouldnt hear a darn thing . Charlie
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
One volcanic eruption creates more harmful gas than humanity does around the world. The earth is slowly warming and there is nothing you or I can do to stop it unless you want to have a one world government that executes people who fail to comply. I believe two things. The Chinese will solve the oil/pollutant issue by perfecting a hydrogen vehicle and eliminating the need for oil. They will execute people who are in charge until the job is done then sell the vehicles to the rest of the world. I also know that we could cut Al Gore up and render his fat to create enough biodiesel to power the country for a few years. This is the cause celeb for the fearful sheep of the world and greedy politicians. JMO.
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... nateReport
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Report Released on December 20, 2007
U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)
INTRODUCTION:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]
Scientists from Around the World Dissent
This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC's view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were "futile." (LINK)
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."
This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to "flat Earth society members" and similar in number to those who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (LINK) & (LINK)
The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.
Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped "consensus" that the debate is "settled."
A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) - In addtiion, an August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK) ]
The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.
Examples of "consensus" claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:
Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): "There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat." (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006 - LINK)
CNN's Miles O'Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over." "We're done." O'Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming "are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually." (LINK)
On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as "one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels." (LINK)
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: "About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members." (LINK)
Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic "finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet."
Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): "While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case. (LINK)
The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only "a handful of skeptics" of man-made climate fears. (LINK)
UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to questionâ€
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Report Released on December 20, 2007
U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)
INTRODUCTION:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]
Scientists from Around the World Dissent
This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC's view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were "futile." (LINK)
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."
This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to "flat Earth society members" and similar in number to those who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (LINK) & (LINK)
The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.
Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped "consensus" that the debate is "settled."
A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) - In addtiion, an August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK) ]
The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.
Examples of "consensus" claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:
Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): "There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat." (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006 - LINK)
CNN's Miles O'Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over." "We're done." O'Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming "are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually." (LINK)
On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as "one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels." (LINK)
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: "About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members." (LINK)
Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic "finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet."
Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): "While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case. (LINK)
The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only "a handful of skeptics" of man-made climate fears. (LINK)
UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to questionâ€
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
Thanks Dean.
At that time, the inner regions of the long fjords where the settlements where located were very different from today. Excavations show that there were considerable birch woods with birch trees up to 4 to 6 meters high in the area around the inner parts of the Tunuliarfik- and Aniaaq-fjords, the central area of the Eastern settlement, and the hills were grown with grass and willow brushes. This was due to the medieval climate optimum. The Norse soon changed the vegetation by cutting down the trees to use as building material and for heating and by extensive sheep and goat grazing during summer and winter. The climate in Greenland was much warmer during the first centuries of settlement but became increasingly colder in the 14th and 15th centuries with the approaching period of colder weather known as the Little Ice Age
At that time, the inner regions of the long fjords where the settlements where located were very different from today. Excavations show that there were considerable birch woods with birch trees up to 4 to 6 meters high in the area around the inner parts of the Tunuliarfik- and Aniaaq-fjords, the central area of the Eastern settlement, and the hills were grown with grass and willow brushes. This was due to the medieval climate optimum. The Norse soon changed the vegetation by cutting down the trees to use as building material and for heating and by extensive sheep and goat grazing during summer and winter. The climate in Greenland was much warmer during the first centuries of settlement but became increasingly colder in the 14th and 15th centuries with the approaching period of colder weather known as the Little Ice Age
-
Dan McKenzie
- Posts: 1220
- Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:57 pm
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
maybe we should tell those who have and are under water in the unprecedented floods of 2008 that global warming isn't catastrophic. how anyone could deny the evidence of human activity as the root cause is completely incredible to me.
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
Ok Dan, I’ll bite!
I’m assuming your blaming the unprecedented floods of 2008 on global warming. It was caused because of our SUV, 250 bass boats, using too much water in our toilets, we cut down too many trees, there is too mush C02 in our beers, on and on.
Just answer me this question, Why do they call it the 100 year flood?
Marty
PS - how about Friday the 27 Jun, it is my off day?
I’m assuming your blaming the unprecedented floods of 2008 on global warming. It was caused because of our SUV, 250 bass boats, using too much water in our toilets, we cut down too many trees, there is too mush C02 in our beers, on and on.
Just answer me this question, Why do they call it the 100 year flood?
Marty
PS - how about Friday the 27 Jun, it is my off day?
-
Dan McKenzie
- Posts: 1220
- Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:57 pm
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
answer=because there is no "thousand year flood" 
heck no one else blamed the floods on GW, I figuered I'd scoop everyone
heck no one else blamed the floods on GW, I figuered I'd scoop everyone
-
Fishin' Dave
- Posts: 1797
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 8:09 am
- Location: Felix, Ca.
- Contact:
Re: “Global Warmingâ€
Joe just posted the article from the founder of the weather channel. Good read.Sorry Marty, if the overall premise of your long-winded argument is that global warming doesn't exist you couldn't be more wrong.
NOT TRUE!! Last summer was the coolest summer since records have been kept in the Sacramento/San Joaquin ValleyYou seem to be avoiding the already occurring symptoms of global warming. Why are the polar ice caps melting? Why have the 10 hottest years ever recorded occurred in the last 14 years?
I had just printed it out the other day and can look it up again and post the link. Good point. Just not at the expense of everything I own. I'd love to sell my home and move closer to work (owe more than I could sell for) buy a smaller car (trade in value vs what I owe would leave me with an $8k defecit) and so on...Even if global warming was a hoax, would it really be such a bad thing to reduce the amount of polution caused by greenhouse gases
Look up the "Occidental Coal Company" Al Gore is making bucks off of this for sure!! Why not? It's like the diet pill industry. All you need is desperate suckersAdditionally, how would anyone in politics, more specifically, Al Gore, profit greatly from promoting a more stable environment through reduction of greenhouse gases
weren't the 1997 floods in the midwest worse?I’m assuming your blaming the unprecedented floods of 2008 on global warming
Last question no one has brought up. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT CHINA?? 1/3 of our air polution on the west coast comes from china. Tomorrow we could all crush our cars and ride bikes and we would still have an ugly haze from China. China uses more gasoline than the US and now polutes more. GO TARGET THE GLOBAL LEADER IN POLUTION, CHINA!!!!!!!!!!
Advertising
Copyright © 2013-2025 WesternBass.com ®