31,000 Scientist Dispute Global Warming

[jeffsquire]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27031

What's most important is the following text from this article.

"
In the present case in which United Nations apparatchiks have proclaimed that human activity is catastrophically warming the planet, the human cost of error is so great than many other scientists have become motivated to individually examine the evidence. Now, a total of more than 9,000 Americans with PhDs in science and therefore professional educational credentials that, on average, equal or surpass the United Nations 600 -- and a total of more than 31,000 Americans with at least BS degrees in science have signed a petition to the U.S. government specifically rejecting the United Nations claim that human use of hydrocarbon energy is injuring the climate. In fact, the 31,000 scientists state that carbon dioxide released by energy production is actually beneficial to the environment. See www.petitionproject.org.

These are 31,000 individual scientific evaluations. Each scientist actually signed his name and approved the conclusion -- unlike the key 600 United Nations participants who did not sign the U.N. report. Even if, however, the 31,000 had met and led each other to participate -- which they did not and even if the U.N. 600 had signed the UN report which they did not, the vote is 50 to 1, or 15 to 1 if we count only PhDs. Scientific truth is not determined by vote, but if the UN likes to vote, this way does not work for them either."

[Quickurt]

As promised, and I guess this will get moved also..it is off topic

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming02.pdf

http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/index-of-leading-environmental-indicators-2008-report

This site has more than youo have time to read and it ALL substantiates the FACT that global warming is a political scam.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=569586&p=1

http://www.financialpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=145245

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm

PM me if you want more............. :dance:

[jeffsquire]

couldnt have said it better myself

[Jump]

Jeff,

Please review the following and then tell me how many of those 31,000 you would actually like to count?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

[Brucelee]

Jeff,

Please review the following and then tell me how many of those 31,000 you would actually like to count?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine


Go through the list of "thousands of IPCC scientists" and do the same.

The fact is the "science is not settled" and candidly, I think even you know that.

The question is, are we going to spend 45Trillion on fixing a problem that there is considerable dispute even exists?

Also, are you OK with the 1400 nuclear powerplants necessary to "fix the problem"?

See IEA estimates just released. I think the IEA has SOME scientists?

[Jump]

Go through the list of "thousands of IPCC scientists" and do the same.

The fact is the "science is not settled" and candidly, I think even you know that.

The question is, are we going to spend 45Trillion on fixing a problem that there is considerable dispute even exists?

Also, are you OK with the 1400 nuclear powerplants necessary to "fix the problem"?

See IEA estimates just released. I think the IEA has SOME scientists?

Brucelee, I'm not opposed to good science disclaiming global warming or supporting global warming. I just take an issue with these petitions that don't mean squat (from either side). At the very least, can we remove Ginger Spice and Frank Burns from the list of signees and make the number 30,998?

[jeffsquire]

[QUOTE=Jump]Brucelee, I'm not opposed to good science disclaiming global warming or supporting global warming.

___________________________________________

How come I find this hard to believe? In fact, how come I find this to be a bold prevarication considering your previous posts in support of GW?

Have you read the list of "600" names the IPCC claims to have in support of thier sham.? DO you even want to know?

[Brucelee]

Brucelee, I'm not opposed to good science disclaiming global warming or supporting global warming. I just take an issue with these petitions that don't mean squat (from either side). At the very least, can we remove Ginger Spice and Frank Burns from the list of signees and make the number 29,998?


I would agree. I think the point of this is that the science is far from settled. Not so. apparently for the politics, although China and India are clearly not on board.

:)

[Quickurt]

1. Climate change is a constant. The Vostok Ice Cores show five brief interglacial
periods from 415,000 years ago to the present. The Greenland Ice Cores reveal
a Minoan Warm Period 1450–1300 BC, a Roman Warm Period 250–0 BC, the
Mediaeval Warm Period 800–1100AD, the Little Ice Age and the late 20th Century
Warm Period 1900–2010 AD.
2. Carbon dioxide is necessary for all life on earth and increasing atmospheric
concentrations are beneficial to plant growth, particularly in arid conditions.
Because the radiation properties of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are already
saturated, increasing atmospheric concentrations beyond current levels
will have no discernible effect on global temperatures.
3. The twentieth century was almost as warm as the centuries of the Mediaeval
Warm Period, an era of great achievement in European civilisation. The recent
warm period, 1976–2000, appears to have come to an end and astro-physicists
who study sunspot behaviour predict that the next 25–50 years could be a cool
period similar to the Dalton Minimum of the 1790s-1820s.
4. The evidence linking anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide emissions and
current warming is limited to a correlation which holds only for the period 1976
to 2000. Attempts to construct an holistic theory in which atmospheric carbon
dioxide controls the radiation balance of the earth, and thus determines average
global temperatures, have failed.
5. The anthropogenists claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists are
agreed on the anthropogenic carbon dioxide theory of climate control; that the
science is settled and the debate is over; and that scientific sceptics are in the pay
of the fossil fuel industries and their arguments are thus fatally compromised.
These claims are an expression of hope, not of reality.
6. Anthropogenists such as former US Vice President Al Gore blame anthropogenic
emissions of CO2 for high temperatures, droughts, melting polar ice caps, rising
sea levels and retreating glaciers, and a decline in the polar bear population.
They also blame anthropogenic CO2 for blizzards, unseasonable snow, freezing
weather generally and for hurricanes, cyclones and other extreme weather
events. There is no evidence at all to justify these assertions.
7. Increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will have negligible
impact on the earth’s radiation balance and will promote plant growth everywhere.
There is no need to sequester CO2 in the ground or to subsidise nuclear
or other non-carbon based methods of energy production.
8. ‘Tropical’ diseases such as malaria and dengue fever are not related to temperature
but to poverty, lack of sanitation and the absence of mosquito control
practices.
9. The decarbonisation of the world’s economy would, if attempted, cause huge
economic dislocation. Any democratic government which seriously sought to
fulfil decarbonisation commitments would lose office. Shutting down coal-fired
power stations and replacing them with renewable energy sources such as
windmills or solar panels will cause unemployment and economic deprivation.
The Nine Facts

For full text, incuding graphs, footnotes, etc.:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/longversionfinal.pdf

[Jump]

How come I find this hard to believe? In fact, how come I find this to be a bold prevarication considering your previous posts in support of GW?



Hmmm. I don't think I've ever had anyone call me a liar before. I guess I'll need you to show me where I've claimed that I believe that man is causing global warming because I don't recall ever saying that. Just because I've argued against much of the crap that is thrown out there trying to prove that global warming is not real does not mean that I think it is real. I don't know if it is or not. Ask me again in 20 or 30 years.

So how about the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Pretty impressive group aren't they?

[stef]

Despite my post count, I didn't register just to respond to this... I was checking what products used a MOST link for ipod connections....

edit: no idea why quotes aren't working right.

But the original post on this thread is idiotic. It may come as a surprise, but science is not a popularity contest and you could have 2 billion people agreeing with you, and it's still not science.

Science does have "voting" of sorts, by other qualified scientists. But laymen such as the OP, and even random degree holders, have NO VOTE. Sorry, your opinion means squat. It's probably a negative vote if you hold office or have any holdings in energy ... as you're almost guaranteed to be an idiot or a liar. Qualified scientists that actually study the data and form an opinion based on that might mean something.

If you can take your opinion and somehow disprove a hypothesis, it will be revised using the new data. It might even be thrown out completely, provided your argument is so strong with ACTUAL MEASURABLE AND REPRODUCIBLE FACTS. But the opinions below again, mean squat. Toss my name on the list, it means nothing, and I hold a degree, too.

1. Climate change is a constant. The Vostok Ice Cores show five brief interglacial periods from 415,000 years ago to the present. The Greenland Ice Cores reveal a Minoan Warm Period 1450–1300 BC, a Roman Warm Period 250–0 BC, the Mediaeval Warm Period 800–1100AD, the Little Ice Age and the late 20th CenturyWarm Period 1900–2010 AD.
That's close, but misleading. Climate change is not a constant. Over geological periods, changes do occur. In the Pleistocene (iirc) we had an ice age. That was 30,000 years ago, and changes occur very slowly. This is proven. Changes do NOT occur drastically, except from drastic events such as, say, a METEOR hitting the planet. Or a huge volcanic eruption. Or perhaps the industrialization of the western world. Minor fluctuations exist, and this is not one of those.


2. Carbon dioxide is necessary for all life on earth and increasing atmospheric
concentrations are beneficial to plant growth, particularly in arid conditions.
Because the radiation properties of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are already
saturated, increasing atmospheric concentrations beyond current levels
will have no discernible effect on global temperatures.

Radiation properties of greenhouse gasses, including CO2, are not saturated. If it were, we'd fill our soda bottles with rainwater. Water is necessary for life, and it can still kill you. Claiming CO2 is necessary is completely irrelavent... it's very much like big tobacco telling you smoking is good for you because it helps plants grow by releasing carbon dioxide. You'll die without enough salt, too, but try eating 100g a day. Complete bunk.

3. The twentieth century was almost as warm as the centuries of the Mediaeval
Warm Period, an era of great achievement in European civilisation. The recent
warm period, 1976–2000, appears to have come to an end and astro-physicists
who study sunspot behaviour predict that the next 25–50 years could be a cool
period similar to the Dalton Minimum of the 1790s-1820s.
Wrong. The 1976-2000 is actually more like 1910 to present, and the temperature line "resembles a hockey stick" with no sign of reversing. Yet.

4. The evidence linking anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide emissions and
current warming is limited to a correlation which holds only for the period 1976
to 2000. Attempts to construct an holistic theory in which atmospheric carbon
dioxide controls the radiation balance of the earth, and thus determines average
global temperatures, have failed.
The line corresponds to industrialization quite nicely. It also corresponds to the inverse of the number of pirates on the high seas. You can make all sorts of fantastical claims when you don't actually understand what you're talking about.

5. The anthropogenists claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists are
agreed on the anthropogenic carbon dioxide theory of climate control; that the
science is settled and the debate is over; and that scientific sceptics are in the pay
of the fossil fuel industries and their arguments are thus fatally compromised.
These claims are an expression of hope, not of reality.
No, those claims are an expression of intelligent people, and thats how all science is formed. The very computer you're reading this on was made the same way. Skeptics exist for evolution, too, and are summarily dismissed as crackpots because there's overwhelming evidence for evolution. If someone can disprove it using science, then great... the science will incorporate it. But spouting dogma like "evolution doesn't exist" or "global warming doesn't exist" is simply not credible.

6. Anthropogenists such as former US Vice President Al Gore blame anthropogenic
emissions of CO2 for high temperatures, droughts, melting polar ice caps, rising
sea levels and retreating glaciers, and a decline in the polar bear population.
They also blame anthropogenic CO2 for blizzards, unseasonable snow, freezing
weather generally and for hurricanes, cyclones and other extreme weather
events. There is no evidence at all to justify these assertions.
right.... those wacky scientists are just making it up. There's also no evidence that cigarette smoking is bad for you. It's a conspiracy dammit! (I'll admit, Gore is a bit dramatic....)


7. Increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will have negligible
impact on the earth’s radiation balance and will promote plant growth everywhere.
There is no need to sequester CO2 in the ground or to subsidise nuclear
or other non-carbon based methods of energy production.
According to whom? Do you have any idea what you're talking about when you quote these "truths"? Quote the experiment done, with reproducible results, that shows this pipe dream. Was it done using a model... the very ones the anti-global-climate-change people dismiss?


8. ‘Tropical’ diseases such as malaria and dengue fever are not related to temperature
but to poverty, lack of sanitation and the absence of mosquito control
practices.
Okay. Good for you, you know a vector for malaria. But actually, poverty has nothing to do with malaria... they're completely unrelated. It's not like mosquitos are driven away by the smell of money. Improper sanitation encourages mosquito growth, esp things like disposal of used tires creating breeding grounds. But rainfall also encourages the spread. Larger tropical areas, despite the smell of money driving off mosquitos, will still result in spread of malaria. Global climate change can influence this.

9. The decarbonisation of the world’s economy would, if attempted, cause huge
economic dislocation. Any democratic government which seriously sought to
fulfil decarbonisation commitments would lose office. Shutting down coal-fired
power stations and replacing them with renewable energy sources such as
windmills or solar panels will cause unemployment and economic deprivation.
This is, unfortunately, true. This last "fact" demonstrates how politicians are politicizing science, but it's also a fact that science has a bad habit of ignoring borders, politicians, and religion. It goes where physical phenomena tell it to go.

The bulk of this post reminded me of the Iraqi PR announcer saying how the Iraq troops were destroying the infidels, driving them before them, and Iraq would be victorious Real Soon Now. It's so hilarious to read, it's like a saturday night live skit.

What's scary is that you might actually believe it :(

[Brucelee]

Stef,

If you disagree, do so with a little more respect. No need to bash.

[Brucelee]

James Hansen, NASA Temperature Data Scandal, Media Bias......
This interesting information about the NASA Scientist (James Hansen) in charge of collecting and interpreting temperature data used in computer climate models that predict global warming and catastrophic climate change. Can you read this and not smell a rat?

We need some hard information supporting all of these claims, and if these things turn out to be factual, which I think they are, they need to be broadcast far and wide.

Peter


Author
Message
GCB Stokes
Message #6109/09/07 03:17 AM
Here is a little something on Hansen and another politically involved researcher, and the global warming bias news media.
Former NBC newsman, Tom Brokaw who has been affiliated with the Sierra Club and has recently lavished praise on former Vice President Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth.” Brokaw, who called Gore’s film “stylish and compelling”, has called the science behind catastrophic human caused global warming ‘irrefutable.” Brokaw also chose to ignore all 60 scientists who wrote to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in April of 2006 questioning the science of climate alarmism.


Brokaw’s partisan environmental credentials are so firmly established that the former anchor was offered a job in the Clinton-Gore Administration to be the director of the National Park Service in 1993. According to the Washington Post, Brokaw ‘very seriously’ considered the offer at the time but decided to remain with NBC News. "I have a lot of friends in the environmental movement,” Brokaw said. Brokaw’s wife also serves as vice president of the environmental group Conservation International.

In his new Discovery Channel special, Brokaw does not disclose the potential and known biases of the scientists he chose to feature. For example, Brokaw presents NASA’s James Hansen as an authority on climate change without revealing to viewers the extensive political and financial ties that Hansen has to Democratic Party partisans. Hansen, the director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed and controlled by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz.

Subsequent to the Heinz Foundation grant, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, a political endorsement considered to be highly unusual for a NASA scientist. Hansen also has acted as a consultant to Gore's slide-show presentations on global warming, on which Gore’s movie is based. Hansen also very actively promoted Gore and his movie, even appearing at a New York City Town Hall meeting with Gore and several Hollywood producers in May.

Hansen also wrote in an article in the journal Natural Science in 2003 that the use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public's attention to the issue a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist.

Brokaw’s special also features Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. Brokaw once again fails to disclose Oppenheimer’s partisan and ideological affiliations to viewers. Brokaw fails to note that Oppenheimer actively campaigned against President George Bush in 2004 and, like Hansen, endorsed Senator Kerry for president. Oppenheimer was affiliated with the partisan group Scientists and Engineers for Change and the green group Environment2004 financially bankrolled in part by the Heinz Foundation where Teresa Heinz-Kerry serves as the chairwoman.

Environment2004, which put up billboards in Florida mocking President Bush in the final months of the 2004 presidential election. Viewers of Brokaw’s program will not be informed that Oppenheimer personally donated to the group Environment2004, a group that was so partisan it encouraged visitors to their Webpage to “get involved” in defeating President Bush.

In addition, Oppenheimer also serves as a "science advisor" to the left wing and politically charged group Environmental Defense and was a co-founder of Climate Action Network. Finally, Oppenheimer appeared with Hollywood activist Leonardo DiCaprio and Gore’s movie producer Laurie David on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show.

[Quickurt]

Stef,
with all due respect, sir, before you act as though the post above is my personal, uneducated opinion, try going to the link posted at the end of the post for the full text and ALL the science needed to prove every word of the synopsis posted.
The Lavoisier Group is composed of some of the top climatologists and paleoclimatologists on the planet.
I would not suggest trying your meager attempts at making yourself sound educated with them.
Feel free to contact them and tell them how "don't mean squat" they are.

[gmboxster]

Issues such as global warming is very emotional and political. Most people are not sciencists. Therefore they will believe what they want regardless of scientific fact, one way or the other. I suggest you do alot of research, educate yourself and then form your own opinion.

[Quickurt]

gmboxster

Quite right.

I've spent far more time than I could really afford over the past two years doing just that.
I get really pissed when someone with an attitude tries to tell me I just have a personal opinion that "don't mean squat." But that's beside the point.
The vast majority of the pro global warming argument is based on computer models that the proponents seem self agrandized enough to believe they are smart enough to, first, understand all the complexities of something like a planetary climate system and, second, get all that understanding into a form a machine can also understand and project the workings of that system out into the distant future.
The majority of the scientific community is, first, debunking those models as highly flawed, second, trying to get out the word that we have far too little knowledge of those complexities involved and, three, the evidence suggests that what influence the activities of man have are far from sigificant in terms of paleoclimatology. One of the major factors in debunking the science of global warming alarmism is the, several times, verification that high CO2 levels FOLLOW high atmospheric temperatures by about 400 years. This means high CO2 levels are a RESULT of very warm periods, not the CAUSE of them, as Al GOre and his church of Druids are trying to claim. The majority of CO2 is contained in the ocean waters which absorb it as they cool and release it as they warm. Basic chemistry.

[insite]

regarding the hockey stick: once the program that generated this infamous fallacy, it was realized that the program ALWAYS produced a hockey stick, no matter what random data was fed to it.

regarding anthropogenic CO2:

our atmosphere consists of 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, and 0.97% trace gasses. of the trace gasses, only a few can cause the greenhouse effect, most notably water vapor (95%), CO2 (3.62%), methane (0.36%) and nitrous oxide (0.95%). water vapor is far and away the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect, yet it is ignored by the climate forecast models used to predict strong warming. the effect of water vapor is the reason we have the phrase "it's not the heat, it's the HUMIDITY!"

now for the kicker: only 3.2% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. that means that we are responsible for literally .01% of the atmosphere, and people are saying that this will end the world. what a load of crap. the earth may be getting warmer, but it has a LOT more to do with that fireball in the sky.


regarding scientific 'concensus?'

a concensus of 100 scientists is undone by ONE fact.
albert einstein

[Quickurt]

Very true Insite.
According to David Archibald in a study on solar cycles 24 and 25 and their predicted impact on global climate, we are more than likely in for a serious cooling cycle very similar to what has been called the "little Ice Age", or Dalton Minimum. This was from 1795 to about 1825 with another dip near the end of the 19th century. The fact is, what the druids are calling global warming is the last stages of finally getting NEAR the global temperatures seen before the little ice age and are nothing unusual.
Here is the link to the full article with full footnotes and sources:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/ - go to papers and scroll down to "Solar Cycles 24 and 25"

[Quickurt]

by the by, what happened to our new expert, stef?
I went back and re-read his posts, what a crock of crap. He knows nothing of what he speaks and has the distintive aroma of a "hired gun." :troll:

[stef]

by the by, what happened to our new expert, stef?
I went back and re-read his posts, what a crock of crap. He knows nothing of what he speaks and has the distintive aroma of a "hired gun." :troll:
Negative. Actually, I'm a scientist and have looked at a significant amount of the data over the past 10 years. I'm not a climatologist, however, and don't pretend to be, unlike Quickurt. My wife is a doctor of biology who had done extensive research in the effects of climate change, and I have read all her papers and those used for other research in the field.

In any case, I didn't mean to bash anyone, so don't take that personally if I did. Apologies.

When dealing with science and predictions, the only ones that can appropriately interpret those data are people who have an idea of the field and what the data represent; and can make skilled predictions on that. Those predictions are subsequently tested using scientific methodology. They're more than happy to have predictions/hypotheses disproven, at which point they revise or clarify it to hopefully derive something more accurate.

Those without that knowledge do not have the wherewithal to interpret it correctly. You'll hear entertainers and radio hosts spouting lots of drivel, latching onto one datum and attempting to make that sound ridiculous. That's called entertainment. It's not science, btw.

Politicizing science has nothing to do with science. It's a popularity contest, which Quickurt has bought into. That's okay, he's not a minority in the USA, although worldwide the US has become a laughing stock. It's an overall anti-intellectualism, and is prevalent in today's society. It didn't used to be. Here's a good description: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901_pf.html

Certainly global climate change is a huge economic issue. Nobody (with any credibility) denies this, and nobody except the tree-huggers believes we can suddenly become carbon-neutral. But we also have the other side of things, with pseudo-science "facts" and "truths" that are, again, like listening to the Iraqi dude tell us how the US has been routed.

As a porsche owner, I meet a lot of rich folks who aim to hold onto their money, and I'm continually horrified at their level of denial. Coupled with certain fundamentalists that believe the earth is here to exploit, it makes the environmentalist's plight that much more an uphill battle.

In any case, this wasn't meant to be a hit and run, but I'm no longer interested in participating in non-porsche discussions. I see the direction this will take.

TTFN, and apologies for any rudeness.

[jeffsquire]

Hmmm. I don't think I've ever had anyone call me a liar before. I guess I'll need you to show me where I've claimed that I believe that man is causing global warming because I don't recall ever saying that. Just because I've argued against much of the crap that is thrown out there trying to prove that global warming is not real does not mean that I think it is real. I don't know if it is or not. Ask me again in 20 or 30 years.

So how about the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Pretty impressive group aren't they?
_____________________________
I called you a prevaricator. You called yourself a liar. They are not the same.
Prevaricate means to straddle, or to have both ways. A liar speaks for itself. You know yourself better than I do, but your posts speak for themselves. Personally, I beleive you are a GW alarmist and zealot. But you try to assert that you havent made up your mind. You could be conflicted, bipolar or neither. Again, I find this hard to believe.

[Quickurt]

Stef,
No one is pretending anything.
What I, and many, many peer reviewed studies are saying is most of the Global Warming Hysteria is balogna. Period.
When Al Gore and his ilk continue to run off at the mouth about the debate is over and the science is a consensus, it's BS. There is far from a consensus on the science he is claiming. There has not been a debate and he is refusing to debate anyone, which gives him no right to claim it's over. It hasn't started.
We're not going to agree, and so be it, but if the world is laughing at our refusal to fall inline with their ideas, I'm sitting here playing the worlds smallest violin, because, frankly, I don't give a damn.
You say science is not a popularity contest, funny, the same point I am making, then you turn around and say we're the laughing stock of the world because we don't go along with their popular opinions.
By the way, it's funny how many previous GK alarmists are walking away and admitting they now believe they were wrong, NASA is now admitting there has been no increase in average Northern Hemisphere temps in ten years and Southern Hemisphere temps show zero evidence of any "global warming" but, hey, they must just be buying into anti-intellectualism.
I accept any apologies for being personal and I, also, extend my apologies for taking anything the wrong way and being a bit belicaose in rebuttal, but neither of us knows the full truth and that's the main point I am making, neither does Al Gore or the rest of the druids. The difference is, they are pretending they do and expecting modern society to follow them down a yellow brick road to economic ruin on the sketchiest of facts.

[Brucelee]

If AL G. really believed in GW he would be selling his home and putting his money where his mouth is. The only thing he is doing with his money is investing in companies that will benefit if we all believe in GW.

Is that like a CONFLICT????????????????

If so, why aren't the Greens calling him on it?

Or Laurie David, or all of the other lib darlings?

Dual standard, you bet! :D

[Quickurt]

If AL G. really believed in GW he would be selling his home and putting his money where his mouth is. The only thing he is doing with his money is investing in companies that will benefit if we all believe in GW.

Is that like a CONFLICT????????????????

If so, why aren't the Greens calling him on it?

Or Laurie David, or all of the other lib darlings?

Dual standard, you bet! :D

And they all scream about Bush, who happens to have one of the most energy self sufficient homes in the country!!

[Brucelee]

And they all scream about Bush, who happens to have one of the most energy self sufficient homes in the country!!


Nothing the President does can be seen in a positive light by some folks. That is the nature of the job.

:D

[insite]

corporate america is evil. unless it sells weather. :confused:

[Quickurt]

Nothing the President does can be seen in a positive light by some folks. That is the nature of the job.

:D

It was the same with the republicrats and Bill Clinton. If he sneezed, they claimed it was biologic warfare.
I remember the the days when, even though we disagreed, beneath it all we were still all Americans, first and foremost. I can't put a finger on when that underlying bond was broken. Vietnam protests?

[gmboxster]

As we all know (hopefully), GW is not so much about the condition of the earth, but rather how much benefit, politically speaking, can obtained from discussing it. Al Gore used GW as a means to further his political career ! As Bruce Lee said if he really believed what he says why does he use private jets, limos, and lives in a very environmentally unfriendly home ? Until we can honestly remove politics from the problems that we face I fear nothing substancial will be done.

[Brucelee]

It was the same with the republicrats and Bill Clinton. If he sneezed, they claimed it was biologic warfare.
I remember the the days when, even though we disagreed, beneath it all we were still all Americans, first and foremost. I can't put a finger on when that underlying bond was broken. Vietnam protests?


Good question.

In my experience, it is clear that politics has changed. This pandering to a particular "voter demographic" is just sickening.

I think we should revoke ALL of their pensions. They did not earn them IMHO.

:D

[teacher]

1. Climate change is a constant. The Vostok Ice Cores show five brief interglacial
periods from 415,000 years ago to the present. The Greenland Ice Cores reveal
a Minoan Warm Period 1450–1300 BC, a Roman Warm Period 250–0 BC, the
Mediaeval Warm Period 800–1100AD, the Little Ice Age and the late 20th Century
Warm Period 1900–2010 AD.
2. Carbon dioxide is necessary for all life on earth and increasing atmospheric
concentrations are beneficial to plant growth, particularly in arid conditions.
Because the radiation properties of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are already
saturated, increasing atmospheric concentrations beyond current levels
will have no discernible effect on global temperatures.
3. The twentieth century was almost as warm as the centuries of the Mediaeval
Warm Period, an era of great achievement in European civilisation. The recent
warm period, 1976–2000, appears to have come to an end and astro-physicists
who study sunspot behaviour predict that the next 25–50 years could be a cool
period similar to the Dalton Minimum of the 1790s-1820s.
4. The evidence linking anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide emissions and
current warming is limited to a correlation which holds only for the period 1976
to 2000. Attempts to construct an holistic theory in which atmospheric carbon
dioxide controls the radiation balance of the earth, and thus determines average
global temperatures, have failed.
5. The anthropogenists claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists are
agreed on the anthropogenic carbon dioxide theory of climate control; that the
science is settled and the debate is over; and that scientific sceptics are in the pay
of the fossil fuel industries and their arguments are thus fatally compromised.
These claims are an expression of hope, not of reality.
6. Anthropogenists such as former US Vice President Al Gore blame anthropogenic
emissions of CO2 for high temperatures, droughts, melting polar ice caps, rising
sea levels and retreating glaciers, and a decline in the polar bear population.
They also blame anthropogenic CO2 for blizzards, unseasonable snow, freezing
weather generally and for hurricanes, cyclones and other extreme weather
events. There is no evidence at all to justify these assertions.
7. Increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will have negligible
impact on the earth’s radiation balance and will promote plant growth everywhere.
There is no need to sequester CO2 in the ground or to subsidise nuclear
or other non-carbon based methods of energy production.
8. ‘Tropical’ diseases such as malaria and dengue fever are not related to temperature
but to poverty, lack of sanitation and the absence of mosquito control
practices.
9. The decarbonisation of the world’s economy would, if attempted, cause huge
economic dislocation. Any democratic government which seriously sought to
fulfil decarbonisation commitments would lose office. Shutting down coal-fired
power stations and replacing them with renewable energy sources such as
windmills or solar panels will cause unemployment and economic deprivation.
The Nine Facts

For full text, incuding graphs, footnotes, etc.:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/longversionfinal.pdf



We do not know conclusively, from the assertations that were given by you. Clearly, we see an increase of CO2 emissions as a consequence of an increasingly global demand, per say India and China. In any case, there is an urgent need to recapitulate the demands of oil supply. Just as this week, now we, as a nation, are considering drilling of the arctic oceans to stave energy independence. Yet, as I read Newsweek, we are far from helping ourselves with the plight of those creatures that care greatly in our ecosystem, including polar bears and even honeybees. Without honeybees, we cease to exist. If we were to agree, that as a species, we would exist without polar bears, we would be content (if not at a loss). Yet the fundamental difference lies between, again, our basic ecology, which would be greatly threatened, and is due to hive dislocation. Without pollination, we would live for a few years, and eventually die. Is this speculation? We only know when we consider this. Plus, it is rapidly assumed, by your measures, that we have been through changes throughout the course of human existence, which only is measured at 60.000 years, a blink of an eye in the face of any life. Therefore, we do need to conserve, because given the rate of exhaustion (regardless of Alaskan drilling for to mitigate our pay at the pump) we would be well served by conservation, even if conservation is a question, we need to rate human life as meaningful.
So go we, so too does life. Some people will argue, and that's okay. But some people may also choose to drive less, some people in power will say windmills or nuclear energy, or some will say "hey, who cares?" Either way, we pay.

[Brucelee]

We do not know conclusively, from the assertations that were given by you. Clearly, we see an increase of CO2 emissions as a consequence of an increasingly global demand, per say India and China. In any case, there is an urgent need to recapitulate the demands of oil supply. Just as this week, now we, as a nation, are considering drilling of the arctic oceans to stave energy independence. Yet, as I read Newsweek, we are far from helping ourselves with the plight of those creatures that care greatly in our ecosystem, including polar bears and even honeybees. Without honeybees, we cease to exist. If we were to agree, that as a species, we would exist without polar bears, we would be content (if not at a loss). Yet the fundamental difference lies between, again, our basic ecology, which would be greatly threatened, and is due to hive dislocation. Without pollination, we would live for a few years, and eventually die. Is this speculation? We only know when we consider this. Plus, it is rapidly assumed, by your measures, that we have been through changes throughout the course of human existence, which only is measured at 60.000 years, a blink of an eye in the face of any life. Therefore, we do need to conserve, because given the rate of exhaustion (regardless of Alaskan drilling for to mitigate our pay at the pump) we would be well served by conservation, even if conservation is a question, we need to rate human life as meaningful.
So go we, so too does life. Some people will argue, and that's okay. But some people may also choose to drive less, some people in power will say windmills or nuclear energy, or some will say "hey, who cares?" Either way, we pay.


Being as efficient as we can is a good thing. However, if you are getting your information from Newsweek, I would suggest you are getting feed the party line.

The polar bears are fine. In fact, it was pretty darn cold up there this winter.

Rest easy. Energy efficiency is a solid fact. GW is not.

[Quickurt]

We do not know conclusively, from the assertations that were given by you. Clearly, we see an increase of CO2 emissions as a consequence of an increasingly global demand, per say India and China.
You obviously read the nine facts without going to the full text linked to, including the footnotes of the peer reviewed studies used to come to the conclusions listed.
These are not assertations or opinions they are conclusions drawn, by climatologists and paleoclimatologists, based on extensive factual evidence compiled over many, many years, by many, many scientists.
Their conclusion is: no-one knows enough about something as complex as planetary climate systems to be making the claims being made by the Global Warming alarmists.
Your assumption about CO2 emmisions from China and India's, I guess, oil demand increase may or may not hold merit considering CO2 is a trace element and is nearly inconsequential in green house effect compared to water vapor. Add to that the fact that mankind adds only, roughly, 3% of the CO2 to the atmosphere. 97% is out of our control. The major green house agent - water vapor- is completely out of our control. Add to that the paleoclimatology shows CO2 levels trailed temperature rises during previous warm periods by about 400 years. This suggests elevated CO2 levels are an effect of warming, not a cause. You also assume increased CO2 levels and a warmer climate are bad, even though the last period of global temperatures, even higher than today's, were periods of marvelous abundance and many, many advances to the human race.
Therefore, it should be impossible for the Global Warming alarmists to gain creedence with the media, the public or world governments, unless their is another agenda driving their influence, let alone forcing draconian depravation to worldwide standards of living.

[Brucelee]

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MikeGallagher/2008/06/20/global_warming_hypocrites?page=full&comments=true

Good article. I have met Robert Kennedy on several ocassions and I am not sure if there is a more arrogant man on the planet.

This seems to be a characteristic of the GW crowd. They are so CERTAIN and VAIN GLORIOUS in their view, it is hard to handle.

[Brucelee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfdwa4YED-k


Good sense on GW.

[Brucelee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkyrE8KQFC4&feature=related

[Brucelee]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/other/whatiswrongwiththeipcc.html

[Brucelee]

British Rationing

June 25, 2008

While American politicians mull a carbon cap-and-trade system for industry, their British cousins are already contemplating the next step: personal CO2 rations. And you thought the talk about a "war" on global warming was just rhetoric.

A Parliamentary committee last month proposed giving all British adults "carbon allowances" that they would be required to spend -- along with, you know, real money -- when buying gasoline, airline tickets, electricity or natural gas. Britons who wanted more credits than they were issued could try to buy them -- again, with real money -- from those who hadn't spent their allotment. All of this is supposed to give people a financial incentive to shrink their energy consumption and thus their carbon footprint.

The Labour government, which is already in a precarious political state, isn't dumb enough to support the rationing plan, which Environment Minister Hilary Benn calls "ahead of its time." Instead, it favors a climate-change bill that Parliament is on the verge of passing that would lay much of the necessary groundwork. But eco-eager Britons don't have to wait for Westminster to act. A private test program for personal cap-and-trade began two weeks ago with 1,000 volunteers keeping tabs of their gasoline usage.

It would cost a country like Britain billions of dollars a year to run a personal cap-and-trade system nationwide, but set that aside for a moment. This is the clearest picture yet of how environmentalists want to touch every aspect of modern life, with wartime-like rations for energy. The duration of this fight would make the decade and a half of British rationing for World War II seem like a fleeting moment. The pending climate-change bill calls for a 60% cut in carbon emissions from their 1990 levels by 2050. And once 2050 rolls around, just who exactly will declare the end of hostilities?

The specter of CO2 rationing should also put paid to the idea that the cost of curbing carbon emissions would fall to the owners of dirty old factories. That notion was always a green herring: Like corporate taxes, any carbon-cutting costs that firms accrue will simply be passed on to consumers.

It will come as a shock to most consumers to be asked to pay directly for their carbon emissions. Politicians are still trying to avoid a truly transparent carbon-pricing mechanism such as a tax. The recent protests world-wide over fuel prices have surely stiffened governments' resolve to keep the price of their policies as invisible as the gases they want to curtail.

Britons may or may not think global warming is a dire enough threat to justify this radical overhaul of their lives. In a recent Ipsos MORI opinion poll in the U.K., respondents were evenly split as to whether "climate change might not be as bad as people say."

But Americans haven't even embarked on cap-and-trade for industry yet, although both Barack Obama and John McCain say they favor such a system. Now is the time for U.S. voters to ask the candidates

[Jump]

_____________________________
I called you a prevaricator. You called yourself a liar. They are not the same.
Prevaricate means to straddle, or to have both ways. A liar speaks for itself. You know yourself better than I do, but your posts speak for themselves. Personally, I beleive you are a GW alarmist and zealot. But you try to assert that you havent made up your mind. You could be conflicted, bipolar or neither. Again, I find this hard to believe.


It seems you are using words beyond your means. You are also clueless. We'll leave it at that.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prevaricator

TO LIE. That which is proper, is fit; as, an action on the case lies for an injury committed without force; corporeal hereditaments lie in livery, that is, they pass by livery; incorporeal hereditaments lie in grant, that is, pass by the force of the grant, and without any livery. Vide Lying in grant.


http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=prevaricator

Noun

* S: (n) liar, prevaricator (a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly)

http://www.answers.com/topic/prevaricator

The noun has one meaning:

Meaning #1: a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly

[Brucelee]

There is no need to attack each other here, nor will it be tolerated.

Let's keep the conversation civil. This is more than the GW alarmists do, witness the Hansen comments about jailing the deniers.

Or, as my Mom used to say, "Play nice." :)

[jeffsquire]

It seems you are using words beyond your means. You are also clueless. We'll leave it at that.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prevaricator

TO LIE. That which is proper, is fit; as, an action on the case lies for an injury committed without force; corporeal hereditaments lie in livery, that is, they pass by livery; incorporeal hereditaments lie in grant, that is, pass by the force of the grant, and without any livery. Vide Lying in grant.


http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=prevaricator

Noun

* S: (n) liar, prevaricator (a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly)

http://www.answers.com/topic/prevaricator

The noun has one meaning:

Meaning #1: a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly
_________________________________

So you don't deny being conflicted, bipolar, a GW alarmist or a zealot? I would have a lot more respect for you if you at least admitted it.

From Merriam Websters. Prevaricate: ". . . [to act] in collusion, literally, TO STRADDLE: to DEVIATE FROM the TRUTH.

Since you can't tell the difference I'm not suprised by the company you keep with the GW hucksters.