|
Post by zzZhenon on Dec 10, 2007 10:56:26 GMT -5
Remember: Algore did not invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming. I hear he finally found Manbearpig too. From the Department of Commerce's Nation Climatic Data Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (In other words, the experts that devote their entire career to climate, and the ones that are headed by GWB, and happen to be the ones that your tax money goes to, but hey maybe they are wrong lol) SOURCE: lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q3So. It is a FACT that there is global warming. Now the question is.... is it man-made? Dr Bala of the Lawrence Livermore Lab says: "In the northern latitudes, snow reflects 90 percent of the sun's light and heat. Put a canopy of trees over that snow, and only 10 percent is reflected." "...the greatest benefit in global warming reduction would be to plant more trees in tropical, equatorial regions. In those regions, more water vapor means more clouds, more rain, and more global cooling." SOURCE: cbs5.com/local/llnl.lawrence.livermore.2.454825.htmlSo... In this case, the recent trend over the past couple hundred years has been to chop down the rainforests. Perhaps this is "Contributing Factor #1." So we have increased Greenhouse Gases from cars, electricity, etc. And we have fewer rainforests in the tropical climates. Trees breathe in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen (in simplified terms). Carbon dioxide is the main byproduct of our fuel burning industries and the most abundant Greenhouse Gas. The trend is that we will continue to have fewer tropical rainforests and as our population increases, we will have an exponential increase in greenhouse gases. What other things can we do to cool the earth? Dr Bala doesn't suggest it, but it could actually be worthwhile to chop some forests in the far northern climates. Yes global warming is complicated. But it's all there if you'll read about it.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Dec 10, 2007 11:30:37 GMT -5
From the Department of Commerce's Nation Climatic Data Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (In other words, the experts that devote their entire career to climate, and the ones that are headed by GWB, and happen to be the ones that your tax money goes to, but hey maybe they are wrong lol) SOURCE: lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q3So. It is a FACT that there is global warming. Now the question is.... is it man-made? Dr Bala of the Lawrence Livermore Lab says: "In the northern latitudes, snow reflects 90 percent of the sun's light and heat. Put a canopy of trees over that snow, and only 10 percent is reflected." "...the greatest benefit in global warming reduction would be to plant more trees in tropical, equatorial regions. In those regions, more water vapor means more clouds, more rain, and more global cooling." SOURCE: cbs5.com/local/llnl.lawrence.livermore.2.454825.htmlSo... In this case, the recent trend over the past couple hundred years has been to chop down the rainforests. Perhaps this is "Contributing Factor #1." So we have increased Greenhouse Gases from cars, electricity, etc. And we have fewer rainforests in the tropical climates. Trees breathe in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen (in simplified terms). Carbon dioxide is the main byproduct of our fuel burning industries and the most abundant Greenhouse Gas. The trend is that we will continue to have fewer tropical rainforests and as our population increases, we will have an exponential increase in greenhouse gases. What other things can we do to cool the earth? Dr Bala doesn't suggest it, but it could actually be worthwhile to chop some forests in the far northern climates. Yes global warming is complicated. But it's all there if you'll read about it. Global warming is a joke Z look at the graph, you're a smart guy, you tell me what you conclude. www.scotese.com/climate.htmcommon Z, tell me, why does earths average temp over the last 500 million years so much warmer then today. If you look at the gragh, anyone can see that the temp spikes down, then back up where it stays for millions of years. Saying the earth is gunna get warmer is just commen sence if you look at the graph. One can conclude, that if earth spins around the sun without a major volcano/astroid/commet effecting it, it will return to its average. Constant brainwashing may effect judgement. I know how much you want to "believe" your side is right. You put "faith" in people like Al Gore, but they have personal political agenda's. In the end, commen sence and history will prove me right. Earth, without any major event, heats up to a point where there is no ice at all. Look at the graph Z, then tell me how dumb I am. My shields are up and my crew is bracing for impact
|
|
|
Post by algore on Dec 10, 2007 16:26:13 GMT -5
Sick of hearing about Algore and Bush election and the EC results. Both sides were well informed on the rules and how the system works. You don't like it, don't run for office. ALl the sobbing and please pitty us compliants are so self rightous. This is not the only an election has gone to congress for a decision. I´m happy this was the only point that Dr. Shot criticized me for. Because I didn´t actually complain about the result - I even used it to make my point, hence accepting the result. Btw, in my opinion "crediting" the invention of Global Warming to Al Gore is giving him too much importance . Evidence (if you accept it or not) has already been given before him (misleading evidence if you want). Green parties have been over europe since the 80´s, however I do see a trend that they now work with different arguments. 10-20 years ago the main reason to "think green" was pollution - dying trees, dirty water etc... that´s where the whole banish-CO²-movement started, if you for example think of the CO²-filters for cars which are getting a standard. And now "Global Warming" is the new big word on the banners. All evidence aside, it´s the new focus for millions and millions of dollars on research and technology. So in a way it has also got its own agenda-pushing lobby (with the little difference that it aims for sustainable development whereas the fossil-burning industry will find itself without ressources in about 50 years). Al Gore did however give the green movement a face in America (I hope you already thought I wasn´t the real one). Btw Z, I kinda hope the focus stays on such provocative personalities like Gore and Clinton (Hillary), because while the republicans are at it Obama is moving into position to win it all and he will SAVE EVERYONE!!!!!!! Nice debate in general, TGS showed me that he can also make differenciated, but correct arguments and not just catchy but false phrases. The only big problem left is the argument that (TGS has now altered to) a simple majority leads to mob rule (like Hitler and Clinton - nice comparison btw). You say that the electorial system prevents the abuse of the minority by the majority. But... a 43% simple majority is set against...what? ...a 57% real majority. So, by this argument the electorial college would protect a minority by turning it into a majority. In fact, the EC strengthens the simple majority to make it able to govern the country. It is not a majority vs. minority thing, it is federal government vs. states government. Maybe you also meant it this way (because both struggles are dirceted against a dominant central power), but using the wrong phrases will lead to misunderstanding and criticism. I am done with this thread, hope I could help.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Dec 10, 2007 17:47:53 GMT -5
Sick of hearing about Algore and Bush election and the EC results. Both sides were well informed on the rules and how the system works. You don't like it, don't run for office. All the sobbing and please pitty us compliants are so self rightous. This is not the only an election has gone to congress for a decision. I´m happy this was the only point that Dr. Shot criticized me for. Because I didn´t actually complain about the result - I even used it to make my point, hence accepting the result. Al Gore did however give the green movement a face in America (I hope you already thought I wasn´t the real one). Unless you are a tool named AL Gore with a 'wonderful' wife named Tipper not simply a tool named Algore on a public forum then I did not criticize you at all. The Earth revolves around the Sun, not you. Interestingly enough this is a fine segway into Zhenovs point: "From the Department of Commerce's Nation Climatic Data Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (In other words, the experts that devote their entire career to climate, and the ones that are headed by GWB, and happen to be the ones that your tax money goes to, but hey maybe they are wrong lol)" You take a Gov agency ( or two), define it (them) with singularity and continue on how their "experts have devote(d)" their " entire careers to climate" like that is something special - or even true. Where did you get the input that their people have "devoted their entire career to climate". Statements like these, these generalizations, these assumptions that are carefree and not documented are of the same ilk as the presumptions about much 'science' I have seen put forth. There are other groups and agencies and coalitions that do the same and support many a variety of theories; often contradictory. You continue on with your blather mentioning GWB yet for what purpose does that serve? The president does not 'head up' every Gov agency. He has people to manage them, often independantly of one another. Tax money? again I ask for relevence... 'tax money' goes to paving streets... tax money goes to entitlements for illegal peoples and on and on. You strongest point is your conclusion: "but hey maybe they are wrong lol" So what is your point, are you pulling a Hillary and shifting from side to side withing a 30 second time span? Again, please clarify for us as I am sure I am not alone. Evil Algore: So Algore has put a face for america to G.Warming? Can I liken this to how Michael Moore has put a body for America to Fast Food? (coulnd't find hideous fat beast icon, sry) Algore was at the White House not long ago, ie: his Nobel prize ( are you shiiiting me!) It was noted ( surely he made it dually noted) that he was 'walking' from the white house as the press followed him for q/a. Wow, he sure is a think green kinda guy, and not in the Dan Quayle sense of the term. How about his house, all 16,000 (?)sq feet of it... he must have a large family living there for all that room. How about his personal and chartered flights? How about his vehicles he drives? Green for photo ops is not really a great display of ...charactre. Zhenov: B4 i forget. I know you understand that for centuries people that truely did devote their lives to a theory or idea often ahd to wait for years even a lifetime ( or longer ) to publish ideas about science, astronomy, geology- earth orbits sun, no? Flat earth? By peer criticism to an occasional harrasy charge many would not dare dispute claims they thought / knew to be untrue. The most popular are known today of course. Just for kicks read up on Galleleo or Cassinni try Louis Pasteur, Claude Bernard and Antoine Béchamp. Basically it is far too early in the infantcy of G.Warming to determine much about what it really is about. "In other words, the experts that devote their entire career to climate, and the ones that are headed by GWB, and happen to be the ones that your tax money goes to, but hey maybe they are wrong lol" Could we not also say this about many other things contempory or otherwise? To receive information from a panel of 'experts' be it the presidents men or not and by use of taxes ( or not) makes one right, does not ( yoda told me that). Look no further than war for a prime example the experts are plentiful, the taxation is in play and the Prez is the commander in chief. Some wars are 'justifiable', others are not quite so.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Dec 10, 2007 18:01:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Dec 10, 2007 18:04:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by algore on Dec 10, 2007 19:32:18 GMT -5
Damn, now I feel the urge to answer although I didnt want to post again...but I like to give compliments too much Unless you are a tool named AL Gore with a 'wonderful' wife named Tipper not simply a tool named Algore on a public forum then I did not criticize you at all. The Earth revolves around the Sun, not you. [/quote] Nah, I was expecting criticism not because I thought I was that important but because you usually give strong returns (I´ve known this since civ3...) So I was expecting ..something, and in the end really felt happy I didnt get crushed. You see for the little time while I made that post my world was revolving around you... So Algore has put a face for america to G.Warming? Can I liken this to how Michael Moore has put a body for America to Fast Food? (coulnd't find hideous fat beast icon, sry) Algore was at the White House not long ago, ie: his Nobel prize ( are you shiiiting me!) It was noted ( surely he made it dually noted) that he was 'walking' from the white house as the press followed him for q/a. Wow, he sure is a think green kinda guy, and not in the Dan Quayle sense of the term. Sorry, I have to give the boring answer that the analogy is wrong. Global Warming did not trigger Al Gore´s messianism in the way that Fast Food caused Michael Moore´s body to inflate. Al Gore´s trigger was the loss of the election, all white-house-turning-away included. Although he probably had it in him, before (I do believe his statements in his movie about his 70´s eco-beginnings) and let´s be honest, everyone at the moment is happy with the way things turned out (not being in office, the republicans like it, the media like it, even Al Gore likes it nowadays). His mansion and the frequent plane flights... well noone´s a Jesus today... Spreading eco-messages via plane flights is like fighting for peace... the end-goals promise to justify it.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Dec 10, 2007 20:44:48 GMT -5
From the Department of Commerce's Nation Climatic Data Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (In other words, the experts that devote their entire career to climate, and the ones that are headed by GWB, and happen to be the ones that your tax money goes to, but hey maybe they are wrong lol) SOURCE: lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q3So. It is a FACT that there is global warming. Now the question is.... is it man-made? Dr Bala of the Lawrence Livermore Lab says: "In the northern latitudes, snow reflects 90 percent of the sun's light and heat. Put a canopy of trees over that snow, and only 10 percent is reflected." "...the greatest benefit in global warming reduction would be to plant more trees in tropical, equatorial regions. In those regions, more water vapor means more clouds, more rain, and more global cooling." SOURCE: cbs5.com/local/llnl.lawrence.livermore.2.454825.htmlSo... In this case, the recent trend over the past couple hundred years has been to chop down the rainforests. Perhaps this is "Contributing Factor #1." So we have increased Greenhouse Gases from cars, electricity, etc. And we have fewer rainforests in the tropical climates. Trees breathe in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen (in simplified terms). Carbon dioxide is the main byproduct of our fuel burning industries and the most abundant Greenhouse Gas. The trend is that we will continue to have fewer tropical rainforests and as our population increases, we will have an exponential increase in greenhouse gases. What other things can we do to cool the earth? Dr Bala doesn't suggest it, but it could actually be worthwhile to chop some forests in the far northern climates. Yes global warming is complicated. But it's all there if you'll read about it. Global warming is a joke Z look at the graph, you're a smart guy, you tell me what you conclude. www.scotese.com/climate.htmcommon Z, tell me, why does earths average temp over the last 500 million years so much warmer then today. If you look at the gragh, anyone can see that the temp spikes down, then back up where it stays for millions of years. Saying the earth is gunna get warmer is just commen sence if you look at the graph. One can conclude, that if earth spins around the sun without a major volcano/astroid/commet effecting it, it will return to its average. Constant brainwashing may effect judgement. I know how much you want to "believe" your side is right. You put "faith" in people like Al Gore, but they have personal political agenda's. In the end, commen sence and history will prove me right. Earth, without any major event, heats up to a point where there is no ice at all. Look at the graph Z, then tell me how dumb I am. My shields are up and my crew is bracing for impact The third paragraph is moot because I will strike down the basis of your response in the first two: The CURRENT global warming trend has little to do with volcanic activity, massive continental fires, and other related natural trends. The data I quoted is based on man-made carcinogens and greenhouse gases, as well as the deforestation of the tropical rainforests. Therefore natural trends have little if any effect on our current situation. Let me also point out that your website's graphs show warming and cooling trends over not just millenia, but millions of years. We are talking about 0.5% Fahrenheit in the last 25 years alone from my government agency source.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Dec 10, 2007 21:08:28 GMT -5
There is no basis for my assumption, shame on me.
If you are going to refute my source, please provide one of your own as well as their credibility.
The agency I mentioned is part of the Executive branch, and is therefore headed by GWB. He's their boss.
This is called sarcasm.
sar·casm Pronunciation: \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\ Function: noun Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut Date: 1550 1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain 2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm
Thanks to Meriam Webster Online for this definition.
I don't know that I would compare Global Warming to discovering that the earth was round or that bacteria exist, i.e. pasteurization. However I would say that since those times, documentation of evidence has exponentially improved. Gallileo, Pasteur, etc were effectively in the infancy of science. Should it take hundreds or a hundred years to prove GW? Or isn't 25 years enough? I recall hearing about global warming and greenhouse gases in school in the 80s.
No it does not make them absolutely right, but it does make them "probably" right. Otherwise why are they in office? Why is a doctor a doctor? Why is a scientist a scientist? I am none of these, but I am intelligent enough to trust others' judgement in their area of expertise.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Dec 10, 2007 21:30:28 GMT -5
Global warming is a joke Z look at the graph, you're a smart guy, you tell me what you conclude. www.scotese.com/climate.htmcommon Z, tell me, why does earths average temp over the last 500 million years so much warmer then today. If you look at the gragh, anyone can see that the temp spikes down, then back up where it stays for millions of years. Saying the earth is gunna get warmer is just commen sence if you look at the graph. One can conclude, that if earth spins around the sun without a major volcano/astroid/commet effecting it, it will return to its average. Constant brainwashing may effect judgement. I know how much you want to "believe" your side is right. You put "faith" in people like Al Gore, but they have personal political agenda's. In the end, commen sence and history will prove me right. Earth, without any major event, heats up to a point where there is no ice at all. Look at the graph Z, then tell me how dumb I am. My shields are up and my crew is bracing for impact The third paragraph is moot because I will strike down the basis of your response in the first two: The CURRENT global warming trend has little to do with volcanic activity, massive continental fires, and other related natural trends. The data I quoted is based on man-made carcinogens and greenhouse gases, as well as the deforestation of the tropical rainforests. Therefore natural trends have little if any effect on our current situation. Let me also point out that your website's graphs show warming and cooling trends over not just millenia, but millions of years. We are talking about 0.5% Fahrenheit in the last 25 years alone from my government agency source. Ok, so, earths global temp is 15 degrees cooler then its average over the last 500 million years. You see that when it gets cool, it heats right back up. You saying that this data is worthless? I bet if earth was warmer then average over the last 500 million years, you would say "see, republicans are killing the earth. Its never been this hot before" But the TRUTH is that earth is emerging from an ice age. The TRUTH is that earth generally rides at the 22 degree mark when not effected by external events. This "inconvenent truth" blows your man made global warming arguement away. You even ignore the math right in front of you. It was colder 5000 years ago. It was even colder 10,000 years ago. If you follow the rate of warming..... it matches. The more the earth warms up, the faster the warming takes place. If I offended you by callin you brainwashed I'm sorry. I won't claim to be above emotional responces. I'll recognize I'm wrong and opologize.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Dec 10, 2007 22:49:33 GMT -5
"If you are going to refute my source, please provide one of your own as well as their credibility." -zhenov the warrior princess You're usually reasonably reasonble, so I will take the time to do so. "Is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) filled with climate change deniers? " NASA Debunks Part of Global Warming Myth, Will Media Report It? By Noel Sheppard | November 14, 2007 - 12:23 ET Such seems likely to be alleged by hysterical alarmists in the press when and if they read a new study out of NASA which determined that "not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming." Link to full story <a must read>: newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/14/nasa-debunks-part-global-
|
|
[KC]Bopper
Worker
The Knight Who Says 'Giddy-Up!'
Posts: 136
|
Post by [KC]Bopper on Dec 11, 2007 2:41:08 GMT -5
Once I went to an Electrical College but I found the course material too shocking.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Dec 11, 2007 5:59:07 GMT -5
Once I went to an Electrical College but I found the course material too shocking. Once you were funny... and I was shocked!
|
|
|
Post by ordoabchao on Dec 11, 2007 12:25:05 GMT -5
Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/121107_global_warming.htmThe so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant. Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity. Authored by Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia), the study appears in this month's International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society. www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0“Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.” The findings of the report help to explain why we are witnessing climate change in almost every corner of our solar system, from Mars to Pluto, to Jupiter and to the moons of Neptune - and clearly identify the sun as the main culprit and not CO2 emissions - which are being used as a pretext for control freaks to completely dominate every aspect of our lives. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106suvjupiter.htmcanadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908take that electrical college thread
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Dec 11, 2007 13:04:01 GMT -5
Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/121107_global_warming.htmThe so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant. Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity. Authored by Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia), the study appears in this month's International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society. www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0“Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.” The findings of the report help to explain why we are witnessing climate change in almost every corner of our solar system, from Mars to Pluto, to Jupiter and to the moons of Neptune - and clearly identify the sun as the main culprit and not CO2 emissions - which are being used as a pretext for control freaks to completely dominate every aspect of our lives. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106suvjupiter.htmcanadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908take that electrical college thread Global warming is nothing more then commies trying to slow down capitolist countrys. China will never sign kayoto. They are trying to make countrys that don't reduce there emitions to imposable levels, pay fines to the church of global warming. Its a SCAM. Liberals are just to brainwashed into thinking they just care more about the earth then the rest of us. This false sence of importance makes the average liberal feel above everyone else. They drive there hibreads, thinking they are saving the earth, and everyone else is just ignorent. Kinda ironic eh? They do not realise the liberal elites are out for themselfs and would say anything to get in the spot light. Anyone that goes along with the global warming SCAM is a sheeple. They just follow there side with a blindfold on. If Al Gore says it, it must be true. Don't dought that global warming is just a way to SCAM good hearted Americans. "Mankind, no wait, America. Ya, America is destrying the earth and we only got 10 years left...... to destroy America"
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Dec 11, 2007 17:29:44 GMT -5
Ugh it's going to take me a while to respond to all of these
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Dec 13, 2007 2:34:50 GMT -5
Ugh it's going to take me a while to respond to all of these Start with the articles and links ordoabchao has provided. The links give you the 'refuting' that you have requested. I offer up some more, sit back and enjoy. NASA Debunks Part of Global Warming Myth, Will Media Report It? newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/14/nasa-debunks-part-global-Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice? It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle 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. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-John Stossel: ‘Don’t Look to Government to Cool Down the Planet’"Consensus is the stuff of politics, not science," says Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute.
The scientific process ought to be left to play itself out with as little political bias as possible. Politically influenced research is poison to science.
Part of the problem is the IPCC itself. Reiter points out, "It's the inter-governmental panel on climate change. It's governments who nominate people. It's inherently political. Many of the scientists are on the IPCC because they view global warming as a problem that needs to be fixed. They have a vested interest." newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/john-stossel-don-t-look-These three were from Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters. ---------------------------------------------------------- Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing’ At UN ConferenceBALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to “have the courage to do nothing” in response to UN demands. I Dont wan't to post the entire article here. Please read it and browse the links offered up within the article. canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/925In case you need more...DEBUNKING GLOBAL WARMINGGlobal Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? This is one of the best pieces I have seen. Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htmScientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field. canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htmAre sunspots prime suspects in global warming?Climate-change 'optimists' say complex natural cycles may be at the heart of global warming. In 1801, the eminent British astronomer reported that when sunspots dotted the sun's surface, grain prices fell. When sunspots waned, prices rose.
He suggested that shifts in grain prices were a stand-in for shifts in climate. Large numbers of sunspots led to a warmer sun, he reasoned. With more warmth reaching Earth, crop yields would increase, depressing grain prices. www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theorywww.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641Greenland ice yields hope on climatewww.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/06/greenland_ice_yields_hope_on_climate/ Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fearswww.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml Global warming? It's natural, say expertswww.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?CNN Meteorologist: ‘Definitely Some Inaccuracies’ in Gore FilmCNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano clapped his hands and exclaimed, "Finally," in response to a report that a British judge might ban the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" from UK schools because, according to "American Morning," "it is politically biased and contains scientific inaccuracies."
"There are definitely some inaccuracies," Marciano added. "The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming." media.newsbusters.org/stories/cnn-meteorologist-definitely-some-inaccuracies-gore-
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Dec 13, 2007 6:37:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Dec 13, 2007 14:05:14 GMT -5
I think that just giving brainwashed people info that counters there brainwashing is proving in-effective. I think we need to target global warming "believers" on a one by one basis, dig to some commen ground, then build our case in there minds. Once logic has a firm foundation, maybe we'll be-able to have a reasonable point by point debate. Granted, this is a lot of work, but nobody wants to be brainwashed, and should get easier as other "believers" see there complex "vision of doom" blown out of the water by logic and truth.
good luck out there
|
|
capitalistpig
Settler
Those trying to save you from 1984 are leading you into a brave new world.
Posts: 51
|
Post by capitalistpig on Dec 15, 2007 23:34:31 GMT -5
Well put TGS, you remind me of a young Capitalist Pig.
|
|