PDA

View Full Version : The professor's amazing "climate change" retreat


Vincent
02-14-2010, 07:07 PM
The man at the very center of the “climate change” née “global warming” bull@#$% is now coming clean. Well, he’s starting to be forced in that direction as his institute’s email database has been leaked and has revealed that the whole hoax was indeed, well, a hoax. I’m sure it is all very cathartic for Professor Jones to be relieved of the burden of carrying the hoax that has cost mankind untold billions, nah, probably trillions. What now for Jones, his minions, and the stooge left that have fleeced us? I think next year’s Super Bowl half time show ought to feature some executions, and the new Cowboy stadium would be the perfect venue for that. Speaking of colossal waste.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

By Jonathan Petre

Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010

• Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
• There has been no global warming since 1995
• Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. :rofl: :flap: :toofunny: :sofunny:

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. :rofl:
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’. :toofunny:

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by skeptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.

That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.

Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/13/article-1250872-0847D53D000005DC-535_468x295.jpg http://unrepentantoldhippie.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/unbranded-bullshit-stamp.jpg

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Skeptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250813/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-The-professors-amazing-climate-change-retreat.html

MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The professor’s amazing climate change retreat

Last updated at 11:16 PM on 13th February 2010

Untold billions of pounds have been spent on turning the world green and also on financing the dubious trade in carbon credits.

Countless gallons of aviation fuel have been consumed carrying experts, lobbyists and politicians to apocalyptic conferences on global warming.

Every government on Earth has changed its policy, hundreds of academic institutions, entire school curricula and the priorities of broadcasters and newspapers all over the world have been altered – all to serve the new doctrine that man is overheating the planet and must undertake heroic and costly changes to save the world from drowning as the icecaps melt.

You might have thought that all this was based upon well-founded, highly competent research and that those involved had good reason for their blazing, hot-eyed certainty and their fierce intolerance of dissent.

But, thanks to the row over leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit, we now learn that this body’s director, Phil Jones, works in a disorganised fashion amid chaos and mess.

Interviewed by the highly sympathetic BBC, which still insists on describing the leaked emails as ‘stolen’, Professor Jones has conceded that he ‘did not do a thorough job’ of keeping track of his own records.

His colleagues recall that his office was ‘often surrounded by jumbled piles of papers’.
Even more strikingly, he also sounds much less ebullient about the basic theory, admitting that there is little difference between global warming rates in the Nineties and in two previous periods since 1860 and accepting that from 1995 to now there has been no statistically significant warming.

He also leaves open the possibility, long resisted by climate change activists, that the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ from 800 to 1300 AD, and thought by many experts to be warmer than the present period, could have encompassed the entire globe.

This is an amazing retreat, since if it was both global and warmer, the green movement’s argument that our current position is ‘unprecedented’ would collapse.

It is quite reasonable to suggest that human activity may have had some effect on climate.

There is no doubt that careless and greedy exploitation has done much damage to the planet.

But in the light of the ‘Climategate’ revelations, it is time for governments, academics and their media cheerleaders to be more modest in their claims and to treat sceptics with far more courtesy.

The question is not settled.

urgle burgle
02-14-2010, 08:33 PM
yeah...just read about that on big government.....funny how all this almost invalidates itself...
its just funny how some feel about global warming as they do about religion....it has morphe into that for them.
i just opted out of an enviromental science class for a geology class because of this. i would like a real science to study, founded on science, not speculations, hyperobole, and religion.
to me, the idea that this notion of man being the major influence on climate is laughable.
hell....up until about two years ago i had no idea there had been up to six mass extincion events. we only covered the "one" in school....the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. now there is credible speculaiton on that.
you could go into things that are being learned today, based on things learned in the past. the "little" ice age, sunspot activity, etc. perfect example....eons ago (and this is a simplistic example), on the west coast, and around the world, there were no dense population areas. so, no fire departments. meaning, when you had a lightning striked, instead of thousands of acres being destroyed by fire, you had millions. the carbon dioxide from those fires alone dwarf what man does. anyway...just thought id throw that out there.

zulater
02-15-2010, 05:34 PM
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

ricardisimo
02-15-2010, 05:40 PM
Just checking in to see if everyone here in SFF is still in Fantasyland. Good to see nothing's changed.

SteelCityMom
02-15-2010, 06:11 PM
I was pretty sure all it would take to turn the climate change song and dance around would be an extremely cold and harsh winter...being that an extremely scorching hot summer is what brought all this hoopla to the forefront.

There's too many people though who will pay no attention to this though. Many have literally become addicted to the green movement and the eco guilt trips that come with it.

Vincent
02-15-2010, 07:54 PM
Hey, I'm all about "green". The dollar is green. I built an extremely green house in Florida long before this bulldookie emerged. All steel and masonry. Lived in it for 7 years. Saved a ton v conventional, and that was the motive. And the next house I build, Lord willing, will be even more "green", and entirely off the "grid" for the same reason - $$$.

To me "green" isn't "love me I'm a freekin liberal", its independence.

urgle burgle
02-15-2010, 09:26 PM
Let’s see if I can accurately present some thoughts on this matter. I had an epiphany of sorts….
The problem those that oppose the green movement is this….and bear with me.
To sign on to the movement all civilizations of the globe must purposely scale back on technology that we are currently using, decrease comfort for the individual and family, destabilize greatly national economies, and the global economy, and raise taxes. Or at least, the output of money from individuals and families to cover going green.
As we have moved through time, civilization has tried to advance technology, and make the world easier to pass through for future generations. The old “I want my kids and grandkids to have it easier and better than I did”. To a large degree, the green movement would like civilization to take a step backwards. When, in the history of mankind has this happened? The steam engine was made to move forward. So were the combustible engine, the airplane, and nuclear power. These are just to name a few. Each step forward increased comfort levels, economic power and wealth, and the betterment of society.
Now, let us take for example some things that have been used to blast the global warming deniers. Called flat Earthers, using the fact the Earth revolves around the Sun, etc. Now the issue I have with these comparisons is this: these were things discovered by science through a constant. We started with thinking the sun revolved around the Earths (as we thought all things did), then came the Earth revolves around the Sun, the Earth revolves in a circle, then the Earth revolves in an elliptical fashion, then the Earth revolves in a modified elipse. All constants. These are things we could visually witness throughout time, and have empirical data to track. Take poor Pluto. We discovered that not long ago. We called it a planet, and due to other data we witnessed in the cosmos, we updated the poor guy to lesser status, planetoid. We once thought the band of stars you saw in the night sky was the stars at the center of our galaxy. We then discovered that, in actuality, it was only another arm of our spiral galaxy.
We do not have these constants and empirical data for manmade global warming. The science is relatively new. In the span of, roughly, a hundred years, the green movement has gone from one thing to another. New ice age coming, ozone depletion, global warming, climate change. All of this in a short span of time, where as other scientific discoveries have taken much more time to truly understand if the science (the discovery) was correct. And even those things have adjusted in thinking over time.
If we move forward on the things the green movement would want, we have quite a few negative things that will occur, which I noted some above. That is why there is such issue with what is being planned and discussed, all, supposedly, in the name of science.
Now, I also ask this….why, if there is such dire action we need to take now or global catastrophe, is this thing we have to move on? We already have nuclear and coal to utilize in abundance. Why do we not do a “Manhattan Project” style focus on making nuclear energy cleaner, safer, and cheaper? Or doing so with “clean” coal? Why is it that we have to go with unfounded technology such as solar or wind? In addition, I also submit this….the idea global warming is a dire threat. Scientists have stated, roughly, that the “catastrophes” will not occur for 20-100 years. However, a comet/meteor may strike the Earth at anytime.
It has happened in the past, and we know this will happen in the future. Which has a more catastrophic and immediate capability….global warming or a strike of that nature? It has been discussed that we do not have the technology to deal with such an issue, only speculation and theories. We may only get a warning of a couple years to a few months to act. However, we spend a minute amount of money for this very thing. From defending the planet to actually looking at the night sky to find these near earth objects. Isn’t that a more dire and possibly immediate threat?
I am not saying that we need to focus on this possible event. I am using it as a comparison to the supposed immediate action we have to take to global warming. In addition, it has been speculated on how much all of these actions being discussed to curb global warming would actually affect. I do not see moving forward on something we do not have all the science on and that will deeply impact the globe.
Anyway, that’s my take…..

ricardisimo
02-15-2010, 10:16 PM
Hey, I'm all about "green". The dollar is green. I built an extremely green house in Florida long before this bulldookie emerged. All steel and masonry. Lived in it for 7 years. Saved a ton v conventional, and that was the motive. And the next house I build, Lord willing, will be even more "green", and entirely off the "grid" for the same reason - $$$.

To me "green" isn't "love me I'm a freekin liberal", its independence.

I always thought that was a nice perk to solar and the rest. Nothing against saving dough and living independently. I tried setting up my solar off the grid, and was told "no". On the plus side, I get credited when I produce a surplus, and during the winter I need the grid after all, so it's alright.

zulater
02-15-2010, 10:41 PM
Just checking in to see if everyone here in SFF is still in Fantasyland. Good to see nothing's changed.

I'm not in fantasy land. I don't really know if the globe is currently warming or cooling, or what if any impact man has on the whole thing? And neither does anyone else when you come right down to it. But unlike many, I'm just willing to admit I don't know.

Oh I've read the theories from both sides, and neither have convinced me of a damn thing. I think these people write papers to gain further funding and will fudge the facts to suit their purpose whenever neccessary, and sometimes even when not.


Now if you're asking me if it's a good idea to start weaning ourselves from fossill fuels, I'm all for that, starting yesterday. The quicker we can start effeciently using other fuel sources the better.

But here's where i have a problem. With all the alarmist theories on global warming, co2 emmisions, cap and trade nonsense, and the like, ( total garbage imo) I think people are losing sight of things we probably do have more of an impact on, like our waterways. We need to stop using our lakes and oceans as dumping grounds immediatly.

So in essense I'm very skeptical that there's much to be done to change whatever direction the planet is deciding to send us off in climate wise.The realities of meeting the energy needs of 6 billion people are what they are, and unless you're proposing exterminating 2/3 of the worlds population in the next decade if the alarmist view is correct ( it's not :flap:) then I guess we better enjoy what quality time we have left. :drink:.

But as i don't subscribe to alarmist theories and am not into fixing what can't or doesn't need to be fixed I think we'd be better to concentrate our efforts where they can actually have a postive impact. I think there's ton more we can do to clean up our water ways and water sources througout the world and we need to start working harder towards that end now and forevermore.

Getting back to so called global warming. For what it's worth, I'm all for funding feasible alternative energy sources. Starting with solar energy, there's finally some significant inroads being made there. I'm also very encouraged by the prospect of harnessing methane eminating from livestock waste etc... and no not because I think it will make a bit of difference towards planetary climate change. But because I don't want to be beholden to evaporating fule sources any longer, because it just doesn't make sense.

Lastly

Let's not ram legislation down peoples throats that will in effect do nothing to help the envirorment, all the while costing our economy billions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of jobs while making Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi richer than the Pope.

In brief that's where I stand ric, no fantasies here..:coffee:

Vincent
02-16-2010, 09:03 AM
I always thought that was a nice perk to solar and the rest. Nothing against saving dough and living independently. I tried setting up my solar off the grid, and was told "no". On the plus side, I get credited when I produce a surplus, and during the winter I need the grid after all, so it's alright.

A lot of "green" technology just works better. In terms of propulsion, Nimitz class carriers are among the most efficient devices on Earth. But you don't hear anybody calling them "green".

I'm a fan of steel framed houses because they're stronger and less expensive than lumber. I like super insulated houses because they are warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer and cost less to condition. Solar, wind and hydro technologies are becoming more practical by the day and are very attractive options in the right setting. Geothermal heat pumps beat hell out of "conventional" AC because they pull heat and cool out of the temperate Earth below. My minivan shuts down three cylinders when there's no load on the engine.

All this "green" stuff is great. I love it. But for different reasons than impact on the environment.

zulater
02-16-2010, 10:04 PM
Climate alarmists conjured a world where nothing was certain but death, taxes and catastrophic global warming. They used this presumed scientific certainty as a bludgeon against the skeptics they deemed "deniers" -- a word meant to have the noxious whiff of Holocaust denial.

All in the cause of hustling the world into a grand carbon-rationing scheme. Any questions about the evidence for the cataclysmic projections, any concerns about the costs and benefits were trumped by that fearsome scientific "consensus," which had "settled" the important questions.

A funny thing happened to this "consensus" on the way to its inevitable triumph, though: Its propagators have been forced to admit fallibility.

For the cause of genuine science, this is a small step forward; for the cause of climate alarmism, it's a giant leap backward. The rush to "save the planet" can't accommodate any doubt, or it loses the panicked momentum necessary for a retooling of modern economic life.

Phil Jones is the director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, a key "consensus" institution that has recently been caught up in an e-mail scandal revealing a mind-set of global-warming advocacy rather than dispassionate inquiry.

Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say "the debate on climate change is over," the keeper of the flame sounded chastened. "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this," Jones said. "This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the . . . past as well."

Jones discussed the highly contentious "medieval warming period." If global temperatures were warmer than today back in 800-1300 AD -- about 1,000 years before Henry Ford's assembly lines began spitting out cars -- it suggests that natural factors have a large hand in climate change, a concession that climate alarmists are loath to make.

Jones said we don't know if the warming in this period was global in extent since paleoclimatic records are sketchy. If it was, and if temperatures were higher than now, "then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented."

Jones also noted that there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995, although the cooling since 2002 hasn't been statistically significant, either.

All of this is like a cardinal of the Catholic Church saying the evidence for apostolic succession is still open to debate.

The other main organ of the climate "consensus" is the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It won the Nobel Peace Prize for its 2007 report -- which turns out to have been so riddled with errors it could have been researched on Wikipedia.

It said Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, warned that global warming could reduce crop yields in Africa by 50 percent by 2020, and linked warming to the increased economic cost of natural disasters -- all nonsense.

These aren't random errors. As former head of the IPCC, the British scientist Robert Watson notes, "The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact."

Too many creators and guardians of the "consensus" desperately wanted to believe in it. As self-proclaimed defenders of science, they should have brushed up on their Enlightenment. "Doubt is not a pleasant mental state," said Voltaire, "but certainty is a ridiculous one."

The latest revelations don't disprove the warming of the 20th century or mean that carbon emissions played no role. But by highlighting the uncertainty of the paleoclimatic data and the models on which alarmism has been built, they constitute a shattering blow to the case for radical, immediate action.

In The Boston Globe, MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel marshals a new argument for fighting warming: "We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come." Really? That's not what we were told even a few months ago -- before climate alarmism acknowledged doubt.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/warming_meltdown_iD1hypJAstOrvovafbIbGK#ixzz0flKr4 u2e

GBMelBlount
02-16-2010, 10:58 PM
In The Boston Globe, MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel marshals a new argument for fighting warming: "We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come." Really? That's not what we were told even a few months ago -- before climate alarmism acknowledged doubt.



....more proof that educated derelicts are a dime a dozen.

tony hipchest
02-17-2010, 12:27 AM
....more proof that educated derelicts are a dime a dozen.

...and internet message board savants are one in a million (or so they think).

MACH1
02-17-2010, 01:04 AM
Get yer shovels ready, here comes a global warming blizzard. :rolleyes:

ricardisimo
02-17-2010, 01:42 AM
....more proof that educated derelicts are a dime a dozen.

This issue might be even more instructive than Evolution vs. Creationism (Oops! I meant to say Intelligent Design) in illustrating the chasm between how science actually works on the one hand, and how non-scientists think science works on the other.

Paradigm shifts are the rule, and indeed, certainty is never a luxury. Sometimes, we might have a theory like String Theory, which is almost certainly wrong (and we're watching it fall apart already), and yet its attendant studies are still producing "good science". As String Theory unravels (pun intended) we're gleaning knowledge of the universe. The fact that the necessary particles are not showing up where they should be is very instructive.

Then there are other theories which are still chock full of holes, but moving in the other direction: new data simply fills in the theory, reaffirming it rather than calling it into question. Evolution is just such a theory. It's still not a certainty, but functionally it is so, and we have yet to find a reason to doubt it. It must be painfully boring at this point in history to be forced to do studies supporting Evolution, just because there are still kooks (with a lot of clout) trying to counter it. Can you imagine still having to do studies trying to confirm heliocentrism, just because Muslims, Christians, Baha'i or someone else violently opposed it?

And then there is Global Warming, which is now where Evolution was eighty or ninety years ago. There is broad consensus, as is demonstrated in the sheer volume of work that is to be found in peer-reviewed scientific journals (as opposed to what Rush Limbaugh or some other angry fellow has to say about it on AM radio). But many of the details still have to be worked out.

However, even if the most dismal prediction of the most pessimistic "alarmist" were to come true, there would still be doubt. Doubt is the engine of the sciences, always. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

Economic interests are deciding this debate. Why is there no vocal anti-String Theory lobby? We're "wasting" our money (billions of dollars, actually) on a theory which we can already see is far off the mark, and which either contradicts scripture directly, or at a minimum is mentioned nowhere in the Bible. So where are the protesters?

It's simple: String Theory isn't a politically useful touchstone issue. It's neither culturally divisive, nor does it impact the bottom line of the fossil-fuel industries.

zulater
02-17-2010, 05:51 AM
Get yer shovels ready, here comes a global warming blizzard. :rolleyes:

The global warming alarmists back fit the data to say whatever they need it to. We have a season with an extrodinary amount of hurricanes, they say get ready for it to be the norm.

We're still waiting.

We have several winters with a low snow total in the North east.Global warming!

We have a year with excessive snow. Global warming!


http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/908/

Well all I got to say is it's time for me to fess up. "I broke the dam!" :flap:

zulater
02-17-2010, 06:04 AM
...and internet message board savants are one in a million (or so they think).

Tony it wasn't that long ago ( geologically speaking) that the Sahara was lush with vegetation and the Medeterranian sea was a dessert.

I'm not denying that some degree of climate change is occuring all over the world. I'm just pointing out that it was happening long before modern man was leaving his "carbon imprint" on the soil.

Vincent
02-17-2010, 06:51 AM
....more proof that educated derelicts are a dime a dozen.

...or that a lot of folks are "educated" far beyond their intelligence.

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-17-2010, 06:52 AM
And then there is Global Warming, which is now where Evolution was eighty or ninety years ago. There is broad consensus, as is demonstrated in the sheer volume of work that is to be found in peer-reviewed scientific journals (as opposed to what Rush Limbaugh or some other angry fellow has to say about it on AM radio). But many of the details still have to be worked out.

However, even if the most dismal prediction of the most pessimistic "alarmist" were to come true, there would still be doubt. Doubt is the engine of the sciences, always. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

Economic interests are deciding this debate.

But even the most adamant pro-global warming advocates have to be bothered by an obvious trend by the scientific community in "fudging" the numbers...admitting to lying about their data....and ignoring any data that would make the end result lean towards anything but their pre-determined results.

Seriously...all the revelations and confessions by those who have lied about their data should at the VERY LEAST make one look at the evidence all over again.

Texasteel
02-17-2010, 07:48 AM
...and internet message board savants are one in a million (or so they think).

Folks on the message board state their opinions. These Experts try to push their opinions off as facts. I think there is a big difference.

Vincent
02-17-2010, 07:49 AM
Then there are other theories which are still chock full of holes, but moving in the other direction: new data simply fills in the theory, reaffirming it rather than calling it into question. Evolution is just such a theory. It's still not a certainty, but functionally it is so, and we have yet to find a reason to doubt it. It must be painfully boring at this point in history to be forced to do studies supporting Evolution, just because there are still kooks (with a lot of clout) trying to counter it. Can you imagine still having to do studies trying to confirm heliocentrism, just because Muslims, Christians, Baha'i or someone else violently opposed it?

Ric, if by "kooks" you mean to marginalize what are the staggering majority of opinions you should note that the position you occupy is indeed the margin. And as you correctly point out, theories are but theories, none more valid than the other until proven. Enter precious doubt.

Theories need to be sold to attain critical mass. "Evolution" has enjoyed more than a century of aggressive selling only to be yet a theory. Those that doubt, and they are many, have noted the holes.

Let me posit another theory. The "global warming" / "man made climate change" / OMG the freekin sky is falling" hysteria is itself man made. It descends from an agenda. It follows the same pattern as all leftist agendas. First, there is a group of folks being threatened by something, or a species, or a "rain forest" ( we used to call them jungles), or the seas, or the "ozone", or now OMG, Mother freekin Earth. The "threat" to these entities constitutes a "crisis". The crisis demands immediate action and gives license to the anointed to take whatever measures they deem necessary to avert the crisis. These measures always cost the folks that have absolutely @#$%ing bupkus to do with the "crisis" their own rights, cash, and if the agenda follows it's path, their freedom. See the fundamental flaws of leftism make it impossible to sell on its own merits. For leftists to gain any influence in the affairs of man, they must deceive. The "crisis" is a most expeditious deception because it demands immediate action. "No time to think you people. We must save ________!! And if 'we' fail to act it'll be on the heads of 'the children'.". We've all seen the movie a few hundred times.

I can't prove this theory any more than you can prove "evolution" or "global warming" / "man made climate change" / OMG the freekin sky is falling". Nor can you disprove my theory. But please, doubt.

"Global warming" / "man made climate change" / OMG the freekin sky is falling" is just the latest, and may I say, the most ambitious iteration of leftist schemes to enslave mankind. To address this "crisis that threatens our very planet" human behavior needs to be seriously regulated by a global "administration", the West needs to be economically punished for their greed and waste. I know, this sounds a lot like marxism.

A critical mind would note that we live on a rock surrounded by an atmosphere of gasses. This "environment" has weathered eons of upheaval, meteors, sun spots, solar storms and all manner of cataclysmic stuff that should convince us that the "environment" is anything but "fragile". Its really a very impressive design. Did I say that?

I'm going out on a limb here with an attendant theory to my original. Short of all out nuclear war, man has not the capacity to alter climate. We're only that consequential in our own arrogant minds. And even if such a war were to occur, we would be the casualty. The planet would cleanse itself and go on. Life would again "appear" and flourish.

But back to the thread. The folks selling "global warming" / "man made climate change" / OMG the freekin sky is falling" have been discovered. The "inner sanctum" has been breached. The imperial wizard has been revealed to be the bumbling academician he is. The "critical data" that supports the theory "has gone missing". The "data" that remains doesn't support the theory. Oh, and yes, a clear majority of scientists advance data that says otherwise. The "science" behind your theory would seem to be mere monkey twaddle.

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-17-2010, 08:15 AM
Simple put....

Always doubt the "results" from scientists whose paychecks depend on a predetermined outcome.

OR

who have invested heavily in stocks/businesses predicated on a predetermined outcome.

GBMelBlount
02-17-2010, 09:01 AM
GBMelBlount

....more proof that educated derelicts are a dime a dozen.


...and internet message board savants are one in a million (or so they think).

Sorry Tony, did I strike a nerve? :chuckle:

GBMelBlount
02-17-2010, 10:09 AM
Economic interests are deciding this debate.

Perfectly stated. :drink:

GBMelBlount
02-17-2010, 10:11 AM
The global warming alarmists back fit the data to say whatever they need it to.

Bingo.

urgle burgle
02-17-2010, 05:16 PM
Economic interests are deciding this debate. Why is there no vocal anti-String Theory lobby? We're "wasting" our money (billions of dollars, actually) on a theory which we can already see is far off the mark, and which either contradicts scripture directly, or at a minimum is mentioned nowhere in the Bible. So where are the protesters?

It's simple: String Theory isn't a politically useful touchstone issue. It's neither culturally divisive, nor does it impact the bottom line of the fossil-fuel industries.

in one of my earlier posts, i tried to cover, to a degree this part of the issue. Meaning, why there is such resistance to this theory. and, in my opinion, justly so (at least for the time being). i didnt cover it quite so eloquently, but i hope the gist got through. but, ric, you added to some of the points i tried to make. a bit clearer, actually.

urgle burgle
02-17-2010, 05:19 PM
...and internet message board savants are one in a million (or so they think).

i can type cat on here, sometimes, if you spot me the c and the t. does that count?:chuckle:

tony hipchest
02-17-2010, 09:03 PM
Tony it wasn't that long ago ( geologically speaking) that the Sahara was lush with vegetation and the Medeterranian sea was a dessert.

I'm not denying that some degree of climate change is occuring all over the world. I'm just pointing out that it was happening long before modern man was leaving his "carbon imprint" on the soil.funny you should mention...

here in the high deserts of new mexico, hundereds of miles away from the nearest ocean, i can take a 15 minute hike out my front door to about 4000 ft above sea level, and find fossils of coral reefs and seashells, and many other forms of old aquatic lifeforms.

God put them here about 5000 years ago so people like me can enjoy the beach, too. :thumbsup:

oddly enough, i can drive an hour or 2 and find huge beds of dinosaur fossils. who woulda ever guessed that dinosaurs lived in the ocean. :noidea:

indeed, its a strange world we live in.

im sure there are those who believe man is incapable of affecting the worlds climate in the slightest.

even with all the nukes in the world. after all, the earth and "mother nature" is much bigger than us.

zulater
02-17-2010, 10:22 PM
funny you should mention...

here in the high deserts of new mexico, hundereds of miles away from the nearest ocean, i can take a 15 minute hike out my front door to about 4000 ft above sea level, and find fossils of coral reefs and seashells, and many other forms of old aquatic lifeforms.

God put them here about 5000 years ago so people like me can enjoy the beach, too. :thumbsup:

oddly enough, i can drive an hour or 2 and find huge beds of dinosaur fossils. who woulda ever guessed that dinosaurs lived in the ocean. :noidea:

indeed, its a strange world we live in.

im sure there are those who believe man is incapable of affecting the worlds climate in the slightest.

Don't include me in that number Tony. While I think the adverse effects of man produced carbon emmisions are greatly overstated, misenterpreted, and or misunderstood, I don't for a second dismiss the potential devastation that a nuclear shooting match could create to the worlds eco system.

That's one of the major reasons I disagree strongly with those that think we should just ignore the goings on in the Middle East as if it wouldn't effect us. Left to their own devices I fear that Arab and Muslim states would provoke a nuclear responce from Israel that would dwarf any prior event in human history.


even with all the nukes in the world. after all, the earth and "mother nature" is much bigger than us.

I fear nukes, but yes in the end no matter what course man follows when mother earth or the universe decide our times up that will be end of us. Perhaps we'll go down by a catostrophic asteriod strike like the dino's did?. Maybe it will be a series of super vocano's? Maybe the moon gets taken out by an asteriod and that does life as we know it in? Maybe some sort of freakish solar storm? Black hole? Who knows? But what i do know is that man just as every other thing in this universe is a finite being. We're not here for ever. Though we should strive to hang on as long as we can just the same. :chuckle:

7SteelGal43
02-17-2010, 10:43 PM
I was pretty sure all it would take to turn the climate change song and dance around would be an extremely cold and harsh winter...being that an extremely scorching hot summer is what brought all this hoopla to the forefront.

There's too many people though who will pay no attention to this though. Many have literally become addicted to the green movement and the eco guilt trips that come with it.

Sad but true.

Vincent
02-18-2010, 08:19 AM
UN CLIMATE CHIEF TO STEP ASIDE

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021801490.html

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 18, 2010; 8:33 AM

Yvo de Boer, the United Nation's top climate official, announced Thursday that he would step down from his post in July to work in the private sector on environmental sustainability.

"Working with my colleagues . . . in support of the climate change negotiations has been a tremendous experience", De Boer said in a statement. " . . . But I believe the time is ripe for me to take on a new challenge."

Yeah, the time is "ripe" for you to hustle yerass out the door to duck what you know is coming. This guy is sitting on the throne of "global warming" and he wants a "new challenge". Right?

:bs:

Vincent
02-18-2010, 08:34 AM
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/17/the-disappearing-science-of-gl
The Disappearing Science of Global Warming
By Peter Ferrara on 2.17.10 @ 6:09AM

Establishment figures intone about the substantial "body of science" supporting the notion of man-caused global warming. But based on recent events, they need to check the body's pulse. Over the past 3 months, a circus of scandals has played around the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its periodic Assessment Reports on global warming. The latest report issued in 2007 proclaimed a consensus regarding a 90% probability that mankind's activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, were causing global warming that would lead to catastrophic results if drastic steps were not taken to reverse it.

The lasting scientific upshot of that circus of scandals is that the historical global surface temperature record on which the contention of global warming has been based has been thoroughly discredited as manipulated and mangled beyond recovery.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

Three official global surface temperature data sets exist. These include British data (Hadley-CRU) maintained by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, and the Hadley Center for Climate Change of the British Meteorological Office (Met Office). Another is maintained by the National Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S. The third is maintained by NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA-GISS).

Last October, Hadley-CRU admitted in response to Freedom of Information requests that they had actually thrown away the raw temperature data from which they constructed their historical surface temperature record. The original Climategate scandal revelations included emails from CRU Director Phil Jones proclaiming to co-conspirators that he will delete the raw data files before publicly disclosing them under Freedom of Information legal requirements. But if global warming science was so sound and supported by the evidence, why would Jones not want to publicly disclose the evidence to allow full peer review under the scientific method, and prove the case?

A later revelation from the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) explains why. The IEA disclosed that Hadley-CRU had failed to record reports from weather stations in colder regions of Russia, leaving the false impression that those stations were no longer reporting. The IEA believes that the complete Russian data do not support the notion of man-caused global warming. Other revelations disclose the same sort of shenanigans throughout the Hadley-CRU data set.

In any event, without the raw data available for peer review by other scientists to check and replicate the underlying calculations, and examine them for consistency with the publicly reported results, the Hadley-CRU surface temperature record is not science. It provides no foundation for government regulations imposing trillions in additional costs, and foreclosing trillions more in future economic output, nor any basis for the demanded trillions in wealth transfers from developed to underdeveloped countries. You can file it on the library shelf between Alice in Wonderland and Grimm's Fairy Tales.

More recently have come scandalous revelations regarding the same problems with the U.S. data sets kept by NOAA and NASA-GISS. In the 1970s, when it was just honestly trying to report the science, NOAA collected the temperature data from 600 Canadian weather stations. But this number has dwindled over the years to just 35 today for the entire expanse of Canada, including just one above the Arctic Circle. Yet, the Canadian government now operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, with more than 100 above the Arctic Circle. The same problems have now been found in the NASA-GISS surface temperature record.

American researchers Joseph D'Aleo and E. Michael Smith published a study on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) disclosing these results based on a review of the reports of NOAA and NASA-GISS themselves regarding the collection of data for their surface temperature records. According to a write-up in the National Post:

Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and [NASA-GISS] have not only reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have "cherry-picked" the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea -- which has a warming effect on winter weather.

D'Aleo and Smith further report that over the past two decades the percentage of Canadian stations in the lower elevations included in the temperature records of the two agencies tripled, while those at higher elevations above 300 feet, where the temperatures are colder, were cut in half. The National Post story continues:
Using the agency's own figures, Smith shows that in 1991, almost a quarter of NOAA's Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today. Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and GISS also ignore data from numerous weather stations in other parts of the world, including Russia, the U.S., and China….The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record. "NOAA… systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which have a tendency to be cooler," the authors say. "The thermometers, in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs."

NASA GISS is run by the unbalanced James Hansen, who, as Patrick Michaels recently explained in National Review Online, "became famous for calling coal [shipments] to your local power plant 'death trains' and advocating war-crime trials for the executives who daily force you to put gasoline in your car." Hansen also testified in defense of saboteurs on trial for vandalism at power plant construction sites in Britain, saying their violence was justified by the contribution to global warming that the power plants would produce. He can certainly be relied upon as an objective data source.

The Truth About Temperature

As a result of this unscientific behavior, the only reliable temperature record now is the one produced by U.S. weather satellites measuring global atmospheric temperatures. Such satellites have only been in operation since 1979, but show no increase in global temperature trends until the unrelated El Nino spike of 1998, with temperatures declining back down since then. By April of this year, that decline had completely offset the 1998 spike, with temperatures back to where they were in 1980. In recent months, another El Nino effect may be causing increased temperatures, but El Nino effects are a normal, temporary, temperature pattern not related to global warming.

Even the distorted surface temperature record was not consistent with man-caused global warming. That record still showed declining temperatures from 1940 until the late 1970s, despite all the burning of fossil fuels during that time, prompting media alarms about a returning ice age. U.S. temperatures by then were little different than in 1900. Heartland Institute President Joe Bast recently summarized, "Earlier this year, the onset of global cooling in 2000 was recognized by all leading scientists and could no longer be kept hidden by the mainstream media. Some scientists forecast two more decades of cooling before any warming returns."

In a shocking recent BBC interview, even CRU director and IPCC temperature guru Phil Jones admits that there has been no global warming over the last decade, and that he doesn't believe "the vast majority of climate scientists think" the debate on climate change is over. Most importantly, he confesses that even the increase in surface temperatures in the record, such as it is, for 1975 to 1998, which is the foundation for IPCC global warming claims, is not unprecedented. He admits that the record shows similar and not statistically significant warming for 1910 to 1940 and 1860 to 1880. That means the ballyhooed warming from 1975 to 1998, for which we have been asked to repeal the industrial revolution, is not outside the range of natural variability.

IPCC Follies

Among other recently revealed IPCC follies, the 2007 Assessment Report hysterically claimed that it was highly likely (up to a 90% probability) that the massive Himalayan glaciers would melt away completely by 2035. Turns out, as the London Sunday Times reported in January, that this claim arose not from a scientific, peer-reviewed study, but from a 1999 news story interviewing a single Indian glaciologist, which was repeated by an article in the popular science magazine New Scientist, which was echoed in a publicity brochure from the World Wildlife Fund, which was the actual basis for the IPCC claim. The original glaciologist now says he was misquoted and provided no date for the doomsday melting of the glaciers, which are the source of a critical water supply for millions.

The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, also runs an energy institute in India which has now received millions in grants to further study Himalayan glaciers, based on the original bogus 2035 melting claim. Running that project for Pachauri is Syed Hasnain, the original glaciologist who started the phony melting scare. This smacks of corruption.

When the actual environment minister of India, Jairam Ramesh, issued a report last year concluding there was no proof that the glaciers were melting abnormally fast, Pachauri self-servingly denounced it as "voodoo science." Email correspondence now proves that Pachauri was aware last fall that the 2035 melting claim was false, but he continued to try to hide that from the public through the December Copenhagen summit. After the full story became public, Pachauri and the IPCC finally admitted the falsehood.

The IPCC's 2007 Assessment Report also claimed that the world has "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s." The cited source for this was one unpublished study which, when actually published in 2008, concluded, "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

The 2007 IPCC report, which, remember, won a Nobel Prize, also claimed that global warming threatened up to 40% of the beloved Amazon rain forest, allegedly because it is extremely sensitive to even modest decreases in rainfall that supposedly may result from warming. That turns out to have been based, again, not on any scientific, peer-reviewed studies, but on a magazine article by two non-scientists, one being an environmental activist who has worked for the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace.
Further claims in the 2007 report regarding disappearing ice in the Andes, the European Alps, and Africa turn out now to have been based on a student dissertation and an article in a climbing magazine written by a hiker. So much for the IPCC's supposed gold-plated standard of peer reviewed science.

This is all consistent with what I have been arguing in this column for over a year, that the U.N. cannot be trusted to report objectively on the science of global warming because it has an institutional self-interest in hyping the issue to gain greatly expanded institutional powers. The right conclusion to draw from all these IPCC follies is as recently editorialized by the Washington Times: "Man-made global warming is not backed up by the science; it's a hoax….It's time to admit it's all baloney and move on."

The Crisis of American Media

As Rick Moran explained at the American Thinker website on January 31, we know of this circus of IPCC follies because newspapers in Great Britain have been doing their job; vetting the 2007 report item by item, coming up with shocking news about global warming claims that formed the basis of argument by climate change advocates pressuring the US and western industrialized democracies to transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to the third world and cede sovereignty to the UN….

Perhaps it's time to ask why this story being revealed overseas with new revelations almost daily in the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Timesonline, and other Fleet Street publications can't get any traction here, [where] we hear crickets chirping when it comes to stories from major newspapers and -- outside of Fox News -- the cable nets.

Instead, American media outlets like Time and Newsweek are still disgracefully reporting the arrant nonsense from global warming fabulists that the record snowfalls pummeling America this winter are actually due to global warming. In America, we can no longer even get the news from the political activists posing as journalists at our major media outlets, which can no longer be distinguished from the Democrat National Committee.

Last year, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman was calling for civil disobedience by global warming activists to force legislation. He now owes his readers, and global warming "deniers," an apology. If he can't do that, the Times would do better turning over his column to Jayson Blair, the disgraced former Times reporter who was discovered fabricating his front-page news stories. Today's wildly leftist New York Times has reached such a low point that one has to turn to publications like Playboy for stories of greater social value.

The disappearing science of global warming now calls for action. In states that have joined interstate compacts to start imposing sacrifices on their people to the global warming gods, the people should rise up and demand that their elected officials withdraw from those commitments or be replaced. Note that 18 states provide for recall of elected state officials. If your Congressman or Senator voted for or supports cap and trade, then join a campaign to replace him or her for foolishness and dereliction of duty. Congress should pass legislation instead to withdraw authority from the EPA over global warming regulation. Representatives who won't support that need to be replaced by those who will.

And America needs to stop looking to the UN for global warming science. Our own bureaucracy has already been corrupted by its own self-interest in using global warming to expand its powers. Instead, we need to appoint a Team B of expert scientists to report on alternative views. It should be headed by Fred Singer, the founder of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and Richard Lindzen of MIT. Let James Hansen and his co-religionists debate with them, and then let the American people decide.

Vincent
02-18-2010, 08:42 AM
"As global warming the political movement is losing its scientific justification, the American people - who will be asked to foot the bill to the tune of trillions of dollars if Obama goes ahead with his "green" plans - are grossly uninformed about the state of the debate."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/global_warming_science_implode.html
January 31, 2010
Global warming science implodes overseas: American media silent
Rick Moran

The revelations have been nothing short of jaw dropping. Dozens - yes dozens - of claims made in the IPCC 2007 report on climate change that was supposed to represent the "consensus" of 2500 of the world's climate scientists have been shown to be bogus, or faulty, or not properly vetted, or simply pulled out of thin air.

We know this because newspapers in Great Britain are doing their job; vetting the 2007 report item by item, coming up with shocking news about global warming claims that formed the basis of argument by climate change advocates who were pressuring the US and western industrialized democracies to transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to the third world and cede sovereignty to the UN.

Glaciergate, tempgate, icegate, and now, disappearing Amazon forests not the result of warming, but of logging. And the report the IPCC based their bogus "science" on was written by a food safetyadvocate according to this Christopher Booker piece in the Telegraph :

Dr North next uncovered "Amazongate". The IPCC made a prominent claim in its 2007 report, again citing the WWF as its authority, that climate change could endanger "up to 40 per cent" of the Amazon rainforest - as iconic to warmists as those Himalayan glaciers and polar bears. This WWF report, it turned out, was co-authored by Andy Rowell, an anti-smoking and food safety campaigner who has worked for WWF and Greenpeace, and contributed pieces to Britain's two most committed environmentalist newspapers. Rowell and his co-author claimed their findings were based on an article in Nature. But the focus of that piece, it emerges, was not global warming at all but the effects of logging.
A Canadian analyst has identified more than 20 passages in the IPCC's report which cite similarly non-peer-reviewed WWF or Greenpeace reports as their authority, and other researchers have been uncovering a host of similarly dubious claims and attributions all through the report. These range from groundless allegations about the increased frequency of "extreme weather events" such as hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves, to a headline claim that global warming would put billions of people at the mercy of water shortages - when the study cited as its authority indicated exactly the opposite, that rising temperatures could increase the supply of water.

This is a great story. It has everything a media outlet could desire; scandal, conflict of interest (IPCC head Pauchuri runs companies that benefited from climate scare stories), government cover ups - why then, has this unraveling of the basis of climate science that posited catastrophic man made warming not been making any news at all in the United States?

It's too easy to simply claim "bias." Media outlets don't pass up juicy stories that could potentially increase their readership and revenue for ideological purposes (except the New York Times - and even they could spin all of this to show skeptics to be using flawed arguments like the liberal Guardianis doing in England).

Perhaps its time to ask why this story being revealed overseas with new revelations almost daily in the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Timesonline, and other Fleet Street publications can't get any traction here. Blogs like Watts up with That and Climate Depot are keeping us informed of the latest from England but we hear crickets chirping when it comes to stories from major newspapers and - outside of Fox News - the cable nets.

As global warming the political movement is losing its scientific justification, the American people - who will be asked to foot the bill to the tune of trillions of dollars if Obama goes ahead with his "green" plans - are grossly uninformed about the state of the debate. Until the media starts to give this story the coverage it deserves, that state of affairs will not change.

SteelerEmpire
02-18-2010, 09:34 AM
The Earth's climate is due to change regardless if its man's doing or if its natural ... I don't know about the rest of the world... but North America is due for a pretty good change of climate (naturally) in the next 30-100 yrs...

Vincent
02-18-2010, 10:14 AM
The Earth's climate is due to change regardless if its man's doing or if its natural ... I don't know about the rest of the world... but North America is due for a pretty good change of climate (naturally) in the next 30-100 yrs...

The Earth's climate changes all the time. We live in a gaseous atmosphere. The Vikings settled in Greenland, farmed, raised livestock and built villages from the 10th to 14th centuries. Then it got chilly. Real scientists have observed a 1500 year climate change cycle dating back 2 millennia.

At question is whether man has anything to do with it. The "science" that says we do "descends" from the agenda to control and fleece the population. The "science" has been revealed to be false, and the house of cards is falling. The same agenda was pursued in the 70s using a different spin - "Man and his damn fossil fuels are causing an ice age that will doom us all in the next 50 years". http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971 That "crisis" wasn't packaged as well though.

Dino 6 Rings
02-18-2010, 12:04 PM
I just wish, they would focus on Pollution.

Global Warming or "Climate Change" as they are now calling it is a Scam because it allows for the continuation of Pollution as long as companies buy carbon credits. Your company pollutes, you either stop it, or you buy (pay the fine) someone else's "carbon credit" who doesn't pollute as much as you. Its a silly thing to even come up with, unless you're the one Selling the Carbon Credits. Which, Al Gore does in fact, Sell carbon credits. He makes money off this.

Pouring Mercury into the water is bad. Dumping toxic plastics into the ocean, landfills, rivers and lakes is Bad, but to try and Tax the people of the US, who actually have some of the best Environmental standards in the world, is just a "wealth distribution" scam on a Global Scale.

If anything, we should refuse to import material from nations that don't meet our own standards. But we don't do that, because of Cost. To build something here costs so much more money than having it built in China specifically because we (US Companies) would have to meet US Environmental Standards, where Mexico, China, India, Eastern Europe, don't have those same standards so the cost is less.

Cheap plastic, imported from China is much worse than a car's emmisions in the US, especially when we have some of the highest requirements for emmissions in the world already.

Entire Rivers in China are completely toxic. They have a Red Smog that engulfs their cities almost every summer, but somehow, US Companies are supposed to be taxed higher here on our soil for their pollution? I don't get it.

Stop the Pollution, world wide, not for the sake of Global Warming or Climate Change, but because its simply disgusting and uncalled for in this day and age. Do we really need cheap plastic from China? Aren't there safer alternatives that just cost a little more? Heck, the US is one of the top Recycling Countries in the world, we actually make the effort.

I'm just sick of the entire thing.

zulater
02-18-2010, 12:39 PM
I just wish, they would focus on Pollution.

Global Warming or "Climate Change" as they are now calling it is a Scam because it allows for the continuation of Pollution as long as companies buy carbon credits. Your company pollutes, you either stop it, or you buy (pay the fine) someone else's "carbon credit" who doesn't pollute as much as you. Its a silly thing to even come up with, unless you're the one Selling the Carbon Credits. Which, Al Gore does in fact, Sell carbon credits. He makes money off this.

Pouring Mercury into the water is bad. Dumping toxic plastics into the ocean, landfills, rivers and lakes is Bad, but to try and Tax the people of the US, who actually have some of the best Environmental standards in the world, is just a "wealth distribution" scam on a Global Scale.

If anything, we should refuse to import material from nations that don't meet our own standards. But we don't do that, because of Cost. To build something here costs so much more money than having it built in China specifically because we (US Companies) would have to meet US Environmental Standards, where Mexico, China, India, Eastern Europe, don't have those same standards so the cost is less.

Cheap plastic, imported from China is much worse than a car's emmisions in the US, especially when we have some of the highest requirements for emmissions in the world already.

Entire Rivers in China are completely toxic. They have a Red Smog that engulfs their cities almost every summer, but somehow, US Companies are supposed to be taxed higher here on our soil for their pollution? I don't get it.

Stop the Pollution, world wide, not for the sake of Global Warming or Climate Change, but because its simply disgusting and uncalled for in this day and age. Do we really need cheap plastic from China? Aren't there safer alternatives that just cost a little more? Heck, the US is one of the top Recycling Countries in the world, we actually make the effort.

I'm just sick of the entire thing.

Great post Dino! :applaudit:

urgle burgle
02-18-2010, 05:13 PM
i like cheese.

Indo
02-18-2010, 05:33 PM
i like cheese.

Perhaps you should visit the Cheese Shop


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B3KBuQHHKx0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B3KBuQHHKx0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

urgle burgle
02-18-2010, 05:58 PM
Perhaps you should visit the Cheese Shop


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B3KBuQHHKx0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B3KBuQHHKx0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

thank you. that was most excellent.....i miss ol Monty...

i shall visti the chees shop, sir.......i shall...

GBMelBlount
02-18-2010, 06:02 PM
Perhaps you should visit the Cheese Shop


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B3KBuQHHKx0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B3KBuQHHKx0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


No Venezuelan Beaver Cheese? Unacceptable!!!. :chuckle:

Vincent
02-22-2010, 08:34 AM
These ninnies just can't get their stories to "hold water" (sorry, had to say it :sofunny:).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown

David Adam guardian.co.uk, Sunday 21 February 2010 18.00 GMT

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.

"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."

Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.

The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.

In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showpost.php?p=774636&postcount=1

urgle burgle
02-22-2010, 11:20 AM
but, WE MUST, implement regulations and laws to stop global cooling...er, global warming..er, climate change...
NOW, or the world WILL END. now, now, now, now, now, now, now....must do it now. we have no recourse.

zulater
02-22-2010, 09:16 PM
The EPA's climate con

Looks like the great climate-change unraveling came none too soon.

Three states last week filed papers challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's scheme to use global-warming fears to seize sweeping power over much of the US economy.

Officials in Texas, Virginia and Alabama charge that recent revelations challenging the scientific "consensus" that humans are causing catastrophic warming also undermine the EPA's decision to regulate greenhouse gasses as a pollutant -- which would give it inordinate power over nearly every industry in the country.

But what about that warming? Certainly, it hasn't been a good few months for climate alarmists.

Among the recent revelations:

* Leaked e-mails in December showed that climate scientists at Britain's formerly prestigious Climate Research Unit conspired to hide inconvenient data while attempting to intimidate warming skeptics.

* A key finding of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 along with Al Gore -- was revealed last month to be utterly bogus.

The IPCC had claimed, with no evidence beyond a citation from a mass-market science magazine, that global warming would cause Himalayan glaciers to disappear by 2035.

* Then, this month, CRU director Phil Jones admitted that temperatures in the Middle Ages may have been even higher than they are today; for technical reasons, this was a huge blow to the alarmists' case. And Jones also confessed that there's been no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years.

Alarmists have been reduced to arguing that drastic steps should be taken to curtail carbon emissions just in case climate change is as bad as they say.

But such an argument completely ignores the costs of such a move -- which the EPA is dead set on imposing.

Giving the agency power over carbon would subject factories, farms and even large apartment buildings to onerous new red tape -- and raise the prospect of the agency shutting some of them down entirely.

Bye-bye, economic recovery.

Not that the EPA cares about whether or not there's a "consensus." The agency's ruling would essentially impose by fiat the cap-and-trade tax that President Obama couldn't get through Congress.

All that matters is its own power.

Here's hoping it can be checked -- before it's too late.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/the_epa_climate_con_0V5iFmpmnuneEYGxvnI22J#ixzz0gK DOQWbs

tony hipchest
02-22-2010, 09:51 PM
ch..ch..ch..changes.

cool site. cool pics. (dont worry, none of the images are real... just complete fabrications to push an agenda)

http://climate.nasa.gov/stateOfFlux/

i know this because my dad is a contractor who works for nasa, flies landstat 7, and took the pictures in image #2 of the 2004 tsunami devastation in indonesia. he told me its all really done with photoshop artists. big business.

X-Terminator
02-22-2010, 10:06 PM
ch..ch..ch..changes.

cool site. cool pics. (dont worry, none of the images are real... just complete fabrications to push an agenda)

http://climate.nasa.gov/stateOfFlux/

i know this because my dad is a contractor who works for nasa, flies landstat 7, and took the pictures in image #2 of the 2004 tsunami devastation in indonesia. he told me its all really done with photoshop artists. big business.

Climate change IS happening. It has always happened, and it will continue until the Sun burns this rock to a crisp in about 4 billion years. The Earth and its climate is, indeed, in a constant state of flux, and eventually it will become inhospitable to life. Where people have disagreed is the notion that many of these alarmists have that it is 100% man-made, that it can't possibly be a natural phenomenon despite all of the supporting evidence, and that we need to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars trying to prevent something that was going to happen if there were no humans on the planet at all. And yes, much of the evidence that has been used by these governmental agencies and the IPCC has been fabricated in order to push an agenda. To believe otherwise is simply being naive.

Anyway, great site and great pictures.

zulater
02-22-2010, 10:18 PM
ch..ch..ch..changes.

cool site. cool pics. (dont worry, none of the images are real... just complete fabrications to push an agenda)

http://climate.nasa.gov/stateOfFlux/

i know this because my dad is a contractor who works for nasa, flies landstat 7, and took the pictures in image #2 of the 2004 tsunami devastation in indonesia. he told me its all really done with photoshop artists. big business.

Glaciers have been changing since they formed.

I think we've already said that some glaciers in the Northerm hemisphere are receding.

And exactly what relevance do pictures of the 2004 tsunami have to the topic? I believe that came about due to an underwater seismic occurance no?

zulater
02-22-2010, 10:28 PM
In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

tony hipchest
02-22-2010, 10:31 PM
And exactly what relevance do pictures of the 2004 tsunami have to the topic? I believe that came about due to an underwater seismic occurance no?

cool site. cool pics.

the topic is climate change, is it not?

i cant help it a nasa site devoted to providing images of the changes also includes devastation in indonesia, and rapid growth in las vegas and the depletion of lake mead (which obviously has nothing to do with man) :rolleyes:

its all fabricated anyways. no need to get defensive or feel threatened.

MACH1
02-22-2010, 11:43 PM
cool site. cool pics.

the topic is climate change, is it not?

i cant help it a nasa site devoted to providing images of the changes also includes devastation in indonesia, and rapid growth in las vegas and the depletion of lake mead (which obviously has nothing to do with man) :rolleyes:

its all fabricated anyways. no need to get defensive or feel threatened.

Um, is lake mead a natural lake or a man made lake. :rolleyes:

ricardisimo
02-23-2010, 02:50 AM
Like I've said before: Our intellectual discipline is a thing of beauty, and the envy of brutal dictators everywhere. Why use goons when you can have people just automatically think the right thoughts all of the time?

So, our dutiful posters here have figured out that economics is at the core of this debate, and one would be quick to assume that they had the fossil-fuel industries' mega-billions in mind. Seems logical, right? Follow the money and all. Most of the money points towards ExxonMobil and friends.

No. Of course not. It's those disreputable scientists doing whatever they have to do to justify their hyper-inflated five- or maybe six-figure salaries. What was I thinking?!? Never mind that most of them are in academia, and will get paid just the same regardless of what they publish. Never mind that they could be making ten times as much toeing the corporate line on this issue (as I suspect might be the case with many of the global warming "doubters").

It's amazing. We do not need to be told what to think or say in this country. We've internalized it so deeply and thoroughly that the goons are just not necessary any more. We all understand immediately that we are to express our doubts openly about a scientific question to which we have devoted zero hours of our lives, and whose principles we do not understand in the least... e.g., you really think if it's snowing more this year there can't be global warming? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Why does everyone have a valid opinion on this scientific issue, and not on, say, neuroplasticity, negative thermodynamic temperatures, or String Theory, as I mentioned earlier? Why is climate change (along with Evolution) democratic, while every other subdivision of the sciences is clearly a technical specialty?

Forget theoretical science. Why would anyone value my opinion on how to restore a '69 Shelby equally with that of a mechanic or a detailer? Why should I have an opinion on the question of how many languages are dying out every year without having devoted a single second of my life to investigating this? Who cares what I have to say about the King's Gambit Accepted? No one cares, and no one should.

But everyone is entitled to an equally valid opinion on Global Warming. It's mind-boggling.

Just found this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6923843.ece), which speaks to this point.

SteelCityMom
02-23-2010, 03:37 AM
Like I've said before: Our intellectual discipline is a thing of beauty, and the envy of brutal dictators everywhere. Why use goons when you can have people just automatically think the right thoughts all of the time?

So, our dutiful posters here have figured out that economics is at the core of this debate, and one would be quick to assume that they had the fossil-fuel industries' mega-billions in mind. Seems logical, right? Follow the money and all. Most of the money points towards ExxonMobil and friends.

No. Of course not. It's those disreputable scientists doing whatever they have to do to justify their hyper-inflated five- or maybe six-figure salaries. What was I thinking?!? Never mind that most of them are in academia, and will get paid just the same regardless of what they publish. Never mind that they could be making ten times as much toeing the corporate line on this issue (as I suspect might be the case with many of the global warming "doubters").

It's amazing. We do not need to be told what to think or say in this country. We've internalized it so deeply and thoroughly that the goons are just not necessary any more. We all understand immediately that we are to express our doubts openly about a scientific question to which we have devoted zero hours of our lives, and whose principles we do not understand in the least... e.g., you really think if it's snowing more this year there can't be global warming? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Why does everyone have a valid opinion on this scientific issue, and not on, say, neuroplasticity, negative thermodynamic temperatures, or String Theory, as I mentioned earlier? Why is climate change (along with Evolution) democratic, while every other subdivision of the sciences is clearly a technical specialty?

Forget theoretical science. Why would anyone value my opinion on how to restore a '69 Shelby equally with that of a mechanic or a detailer? Why should I have an opinion on the question of how many languages are dying out every year without having devoted a single second of my life to investigating this? Who cares what I have to say about the King's Gambit Accepted? No one cares, and no one should.

But everyone is entitled to an equally valid opinion on Global Warming. It's mind-boggling.

Just found this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6923843.ece), which speaks to this point.

For me, it's simple. I don't question man made global warming just because I want to, or because I hate corporations or anything. I question it because there are a number of scientists who question these findings as well and they have had much of their work blocked from being published because they did not fall in line with what is/was being published as fact. I just don't take anything at face value...especially when there are political and economic variables at play.

You make a good point though about how some things are widely debated among the public concerning scientific theories (i.e. evolution and global warming) and others are not. For the life of me I cannot remember the name of the documentary I had seen about a year ago, but it was about how certain scientists were being blackballed and being refused funding when trying to research things like string theory and other astronomical anomalies. Like you mentioned, these are things that really don't make their way to the general public, but do affect many scientists.

Throughout my lifetime I've tried to trust in the scientific theory and the scientists who test them...but over the past couple of years I've been quite disturbed by the fact that it seems to be the norm to only let the popular opinions through...and I guess it's possible that it's been this way for a while. Still, all I can do is try to muddle through both sides of conflicting arguments and form the best opinion that I can.

Here's a couple of interesting articles about elitism in the scientific community.

http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/Misreprestn_Views/FundingBodies.htm
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Independent-scientist.php

zulater
02-23-2010, 05:44 AM
Like I've said before: Our intellectual discipline is a thing of beauty, and the envy of brutal dictators everywhere. Why use goons when you can have people just automatically think the right thoughts all of the time?

So, our dutiful posters here have figured out that economics is at the core of this debate, and one would be quick to assume that they had the fossil-fuel industries' mega-billions in mind. Seems logical, right? Follow the money and all. Most of the money points towards ExxonMobil and friends.

No. Of course not. It's those disreputable scientists doing whatever they have to do to justify their hyper-inflated five- or maybe six-figure salaries. What was I thinking?!? Never mind that most of them are in academia, and will get paid just the same regardless of what they publish. Never mind that they could be making ten times as much toeing the corporate line on this issue (as I suspect might be the case with many of the global warming "doubters").

It's amazing. We do not need to be told what to think or say in this country. We've internalized it so deeply and thoroughly that the goons are just not necessary any more. We all understand immediately that we are to express our doubts openly about a scientific question to which we have devoted zero hours of our lives, and whose principles we do not understand in the least... e.g., you really think if it's snowing more this year there can't be global warming? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Why does everyone have a valid opinion on this scientific issue, and not on, say, neuroplasticity, negative thermodynamic temperatures, or String Theory, as I mentioned earlier? Why is climate change (along with Evolution) democratic, while every other subdivision of the sciences is clearly a technical specialty?

Forget theoretical science. Why would anyone value my opinion on how to restore a '69 Shelby equally with that of a mechanic or a detailer? Why should I have an opinion on the question of how many languages are dying out every year without having devoted a single second of my life to investigating this? Who cares what I have to say about the King's Gambit Accepted? No one cares, and no one should.

But everyone is entitled to an equally valid opinion on Global Warming. It's mind-boggling.

Just found this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6923843.ece), which speaks to this point.

I forgot the smog for a minute, because it's being drowned out by all the smug.



:coffee:

zulater
02-23-2010, 05:54 AM
For me, it's simple. I don't question man made global warming just because I want to, or because I hate corporations or anything. I question it because there are a number of scientists who question these findings as well and they have had much of their work blocked from being published because they did not fall in line with what is/was being published as fact. I just don't take anything at face value...especially when there are political and economic variables at play.

You make a good point though about how some things are widely debated among the public concerning scientific theories (i.e. evolution and global warming) and others are not. For the life of me I cannot remember the name of the documentary I had seen about a year ago, but it was about how certain scientists were being blackballed and being refused funding when trying to research things like string theory and other astronomical anomalies. Like you mentioned, these are things that really don't make their way to the general public, but do affect many scientists.

Throughout my lifetime I've tried to trust in the scientific theory and the scientists who test them...but over the past couple of years I've been quite disturbed by the fact that it seems to be the norm to only let the popular opinions through...and I guess it's possible that it's been this way for a while. Still, all I can do is try to muddle through both sides of conflicting arguments and form the best opinion that I can.

Here's a couple of interesting articles about elitism in the scientific community.

http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/Misreprestn_Views/FundingBodies.htm
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Independent-scientist.php

If ric wants to follow the money and see who stands to gain, he might want to inspect who stands to profit from global alarmism and apply the same amount of scrutiny to them as he does to the "energy barons" that prosper from fossil fuel use now.

He also might want to explain to us how cap and trade benifits the envirorment? Every bit of evidence I see indicates it's a lot of bs that has no net positive effect on carbon emmisions, all the while costing the economy millions in the way of jobs.

ricardisimo
02-23-2010, 11:39 AM
If ric wants to follow the money and see who stands to gain, he might want to inspect who stands to profit from global alarmism and apply the same amount of scrutiny to them as he does to the "energy barons" that prosper from fossil fuel use now.

He also might want to explain to us how cap and trade benifits the envirorment? Every bit of evidence I see indicates it's a lot of bs that has no net positive effect on carbon emmisions, all the while costing the economy millions in the way of jobs.

Once again, the academics in question would get paid just the same if they focused on the relation of primate sexuality to lunar cycles, maybe more. They'll almost certainly get paid more by industry-friendly think tanks if they can find ways to contradict or soften climate change findings. On the other hand, we know for sure where the oil companies' interests lie, and how delaying any moves toward renewables even five or ten years equates to many, many billions of dollars.

Cap-and-trade is nonsense, a liberal pipe dream to counter the conservative opposition to any energy regulation or planning whatsoever. Personally, I think we are looking at some manner of drastic de-industrialization somewhere down the line, either by choice (simpler life styles by all or most of us), or against our will (ravaged economies, closed plants, bikes and walking instead of cars.)

Peak Oil is going to resolve a lot of these issues for us. It's more a question of how smoothly we make the transition, how well we plan for the future that is coming whether we want it or not.

What's the smug comment for, zu? Why the personal attack? I thought you and I were copacetic... is that not so?

ricardisimo
02-23-2010, 11:50 AM
For me, it's simple. I don't question man made global warming just because I want to, or because I hate corporations or anything. I question it because there are a number of scientists who question these findings as well and they have had much of their work blocked from being published because they did not fall in line with what is/was being published as fact. I just don't take anything at face value...especially when there are political and economic variables at play.

You make a good point though about how some things are widely debated among the public concerning scientific theories (i.e. evolution and global warming) and others are not. For the life of me I cannot remember the name of the documentary I had seen about a year ago, but it was about how certain scientists were being blackballed and being refused funding when trying to research things like string theory and other astronomical anomalies. Like you mentioned, these are things that really don't make their way to the general public, but do affect many scientists.

Throughout my lifetime I've tried to trust in the scientific theory and the scientists who test them...but over the past couple of years I've been quite disturbed by the fact that it seems to be the norm to only let the popular opinions through...and I guess it's possible that it's been this way for a while. Still, all I can do is try to muddle through both sides of conflicting arguments and form the best opinion that I can.

Here's a couple of interesting articles about elitism in the scientific community.

http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/Misreprestn_Views/FundingBodies.htm
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Independent-scientist.php

Thanks for the links. I'm going to check them out tonight. As far as not being able to publish, I'm pretty sure that peer-review is the only impediment to publication of just about any sanity or insanity within the sciences. Other specialists need to see your data, check your math, and review your methodology. If they can't do that, then either you won't get published, or - as in the case Vincent posted - you have to file a retraction.

I find it ironic that the very system which keeps the sciences coherent is being used here against the climate change camp. If anything, the Siddall example Vincent cited should prove to everyone that peer-review works, and that it is unbiased. When you have a lot of trained eyes focused on the same thing, you increase the odds that someone will catch errors or possible improvements. That's a big part of how you do good science... which is why people can speak with some authority regarding the strength of any given scientific consensus, including global warming and evolution.

zulater
02-23-2010, 01:34 PM
Once again, the academics in question would get paid just the same if they focused on the relation of primate sexuality to lunar cycles, maybe more.

I disagree. I think this is the soup of the day and grants and funding is readily available to any who wish to further the cause.



They'll almost certainly get paid more by industry-friendly think tanks if they can find ways to contradict or soften climate change findings.

Could some get more from the oil companies? Maybe, or maybe the oil companies already have enough hired guns?
:noidea:


On the other hand, we know for sure where the oil companies' interests lie, and how delaying any moves toward renewables even five or ten years equates to many, many billions of dollars.

I understand that part of it. But I think even the big oil companies are begining to comprehend that oil and coal reserviors are finite and rapidly dwindling, and in order to maintain their perch they have to start deveoping alternative fuel sources post haste.


Cap-and-trade is nonsense, a liberal pipe dream to counter the conservative opposition to any energy regulation or planning whatsoever.

That and to line their own pockets. Don't sell liberal's greed short ric.


Personally, I think we are looking at some manner of drastic de-industrialization somewhere down the line, either by choice (simpler life styles by all or most of us), or against our will (ravaged economies, closed plants, bikes and walking instead of cars.)

Personally I think if global alarmists are right in their assessments we've already crossed the tipping point and there's really nothing to be done but enjoy what quality time we have left. Closing the barn door after your prize stock is getting pulverised by a freight train isn't going to do you a helluva lot of good.

Peak Oil is going to resolve a lot of these issues for us. It's more a question of how smoothly we make the transition, how well we plan for the future that is coming whether we want it or not.

[COLOR="blue"]If we have in fact reached the tipping point it's due to global overpopulation imo. I really don't think there would be an easy answers that we could currently comprehend as civilized people. [/COLOR

]What's the smug comment for, zu? Why the personal attack? I thought you and I were copacetic... is that not so?

Sorry ric. but i just get this sense that you're telling me that if I don't buy into the hype about man made global warming that I must also believe that satan planted dino bones to confuse infidels and the like.


I didn't mean to offend you. :wave:

ricardisimo
02-23-2010, 02:12 PM
No, make no mistake: the dino bones were definitely planted by liberals, hundreds of millions of years ago in a deliberate ruse. They showed great foresight, and knew what sort of confusion would arise... almost as much foresight as when they fabricated Obama's birth certificate 48 years ago. These are consummate tricksters we are dealing with here.

zulater
02-23-2010, 09:32 PM
No, make no mistake: the dino bones were definitely planted by liberals, hundreds of millions of years ago in a deliberate ruse. They showed great foresight, and knew what sort of confusion would arise... almost as much foresight as when they fabricated Obama's birth certificate 48 years ago. These are consummate tricksters we are dealing with here.

Liberals, Satan, we're really just spilitting hairs here rico. :noidea: :chuckle:

tony hipchest
02-23-2010, 10:24 PM
it snowed for like the 7th time here last night. just a little dusting. as i drove through the gate to base thismorning, i told the gate guard that i didnt expect this weather.

her response was "yeah. global warming" with a roll of the eyes. :rolleyes:

this seems to be the ever so popular response. anytime it drops below 50 degrees anywhere, people use that as an excuse to deny the fact that the earth is not getting cooler.

Confused about global warming ups & downs? Here's a new NASA science page that sorts things out

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=270

That feeling of numbness in your toes, even inside your thickest boots, is not lying to you. It's been very cold so far this winter in most of the U.S. and many places at middle latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Washington, D.C., London and Seoul have already shoveled themselves out from major snowfalls. And over the course of 2009, average temperatures across some parts of the U.S. were cooler than the average temperature for a baseline period of 1951-1980.

To many people's confusion, these weather events happened against a backdrop of increasing man-made greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere that are gradually warming the planet. But scientists stress this weather does not mean that those gases are no longer exerting a warming influence. Nor does it go against the grain of basic global warming theory. Cold snaps and bouts of natural cooling that could last years are expected naturally even as the climate continues on a long-term warming trend, forced by man-made emissions.

It's snow joke
So, what has been going on out there these past few months? As for the Arctic winter weather, it is exactly that — Arctic. A pattern of high sea-level pressure over the Arctic has led to weaker westerly winds that typically pin cold air closer to the North pole. According to John M. Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington, the weakened jet stream has allowed cold Arctic air to creep into more southern latitudes over the U.S., Canada, Europe and Asia.


This pattern of pressure is called the "Arctic Oscillation." The oscillation comes in two phases: a "negative phase" where there is relatively high pressure over the North pole and low pressure at the mid-latitudes (at about 45 degrees North); and a "positive phase" in which this pressure system is reversed. This winter, the Arctic Oscillation has been in an extremely negative state. This has caused unseasonably cold air masses to sweep over what are normally temperate latitudes, and unusually mild air masses to be brought in over much of the Arctic itself, Wallace explained.

"The unseasonable temperatures have been accompanied by well-above-normal sea-level pressure in the Arctic, especially over the Atlantic sector. That's how scientists characterize the Arctic Oscillation," Wallace said. "Winter isn't over yet, we're barely to the halfway mark. But this will be a winter to remember because of the Arctic Oscillation."

Nature's wiggles
"The bottom line is, I don't find it extraordinary," Wallace said. "With or without anthropogenic (man-made) warming, you're going to have big variations in these patterns."

The 2009 global temperature analysis released by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) shows that, globally, 2009 was tied for the second hottest year on record. This comes as news reports and blogs question whether global warming is even occurring, given local weather conditions and the fact that warming did not occur at the same rate in the past 10 years as it did during the '80s and '90s. But here is the key: While the rate of warming slowed, the decade ending Dec. 31, 2009 was also the warmest since accurate records began in 1880, according to GISS. And neither the basic chemistry and physics of global warming nor the continuing increase in man-made greenhouse gas emissions has changed.

One spell is not enough
"Frequently heard fallacies are that 'global warming stopped in 1998,' or that 'the world has been getting cooler over the past decade,'" GISS director James Hansen wrote in a recent essay called "The Temperature of Science." "These statements appear to be wishful thinking — it would be nice if true, but that is not what the data show."

Hansen explains that the 5-year and 11-year temperature averages, i.e. the planet's annual average temperature, averaged over 5 or 11 years, are valuable because they place less emphasis on single-year variability. These running averages show a consistent rise in the Earth's temperature over the past 30 years. Further, if the El Niño effect (when unusually warm ocean temperatures occur in the tropical Pacific Ocean) is as strong in 2010 as expected, Hansen said there is a greater than 50 percent chance that it could be the warmest year in the period of instrumental data.

But even if it is, like the recent harsh weather, one year or one particular spell of weather will never alone prove or disprove what is happening to the climate. Even as man-made greenhouse gases exert a consistent pressure on the climate, trapping more heat close to the surface of our planet, surface temperatures from year to year will fluctuate depending on the naturally variable forces at work around the globe. In the early 1990s, the mass of sulfates blasted into the atmosphere by the eruption of the Mt. Pinatubo volcano reflected sunlight and counteracted much of the man-made warming effect for several years. In 1998 El Niño combined with the man-made effect to give us one of the warmest years ever.

Allowing for this variability, global warming theory does not posit a linear, year-to-year increase in temperatures. Nor does it say that harsh winter weather will simply end. What it does say is that increasing concentrations of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, with unchecked growth, will contribute a greater and greater warming influence on the world's climate.

"The bottom line is this: there is no global cooling trend," Hansen wrote in his 2009 temperature analysis. "For the time being, until humanity brings its greenhouse gas emissions under control, we can expect each decade to be warmer than the preceding one."




gu..gu..gu..gore. :rolleyes:

zulater
02-23-2010, 10:39 PM
The numbers get twisted to say whatever anyone wants whenever they want.

We got 6 billion people on this planet. probably about 4 billion more than we should have. I don't give a flying f what you use to warm your tee pee, with this many people there's going to be an effect on the planet.

Cap and trade wont do jack squat. Neither will anything else you propose (imo) other than mass extermination of a good percentage of the worlds populace. ( any volunteers?)

But personally I don't think the consequenses are that immediate or catostrophic anyway.

Who's to say a warmer planet is neccessarly a bad thing?

I say keep making stides to go solar, employ methane gas already being produced by livestock, and any other alternative fuel source you can think of.

Stop polluting our waterways. Stop with all the plastics and other materials that arent bio degradable.

So by all means do what you can as soon as you can without crippling the economy. But just don't expect a great deal of difference, and don't be surprised in 100 years when Florida's coastline and climate remain remarkably unchanged.

:coffee:

GBMelBlount
02-23-2010, 10:43 PM
But even if it is, like the recent harsh weather, one year or one particular spell of weather will never alone prove or disprove what is happening to the climate.

Fantastic point Tony! Thanks for posting! :chuckle:

There is NO proof of global warming but they're trying like hell to pass it off as fact...

for greedy, selfish & liberal reasons.

tony hipchest
02-23-2010, 11:02 PM
so NASA is now a greedy, socialist, liberal program that will twist numbers to say anything that anyone wants?

the reaction to my 2 last posts on this subject suggest that some think the entire NASA scientific program is a piece of liberal propoganda agenda that needs to be totally stricken from the budget.

i know those who wish to keep 90% of their earnings, most certainly dont want to have anything to do with it.

so i guess the theme for today is "NASA = bad = Obama". "STARwars = good = Reagan"

:toofunny: i learn so much on this board. LMAO!

There is NO proof of global warming but they're trying like hell to pass it off as fact...

:rofl:

zulater
02-24-2010, 06:09 AM
so NASA is now a greedy, socialist, liberal program that will twist numbers to say anything that anyone wants?

the reaction to my 2 last posts on this subject suggest that some think the entire NASA scientific program is a piece of liberal propoganda agenda that needs to be totally stricken from the budget.

i know those who wish to keep 90% of their earnings, most certainly dont want to have anything to do with it.

so i guess the theme for today is "NASA = bad = Obama". "STARwars = good = Reagan"

:toofunny: i learn so much on this board. LMAO!



:rofl:

NASA's not above misinterpreting or even manipulating data. There's more than one tragedy to prove that. I'm not saying they're neccessarily agenda driven in this case, but the "science" of climate change is so inexact and uncertain that no one can say what's to come with any measure of authority.

And cap and trade is garbage Tony. Garbage that will cost this economy billions, garbage that will needlessly change our lives for the worse.

I think I've already stated about 20 times on this thread I'm all for making every effort to convert to alternative fuel sources. Clean up our waterways, and recycle whenever possible. But my problem with global alarmists is that they're married to cap and trade, which is total bs.

zulater
02-24-2010, 06:14 AM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Speaking of NASA, they've also shown evidence that warming is going on at Mars. I guess too many Martians are driving SUV's these days tony?


:coffee:

GBMelBlount
02-24-2010, 06:20 AM
tony's article

But even if it is, like the recent harsh weather, one year or one particular spell of weather will never alone prove or disprove what is happening to the climate

GBMelblount

There is NO proof of global warming but they're trying like hell to pass it off as fact...

tony's response

:rofl:


Sorry, I was just agreeing with YOUR article. :chuckle:

You're ":rofl:" is about as consistent as you saying you would vote for the least competent and least experienced candidate for president of the United States because you thought he would surround himself with good people.....

Is that why your boss hired you? :toofunny:

Thanks for starting my day off with a laugh.

ricardisimo
02-25-2010, 03:16 AM
But my problem with global alarmists is that they're married to cap and trade, which is total bs.

I'm going to pass on that "alarmist" moniker, and just go to the second point, where I'm not following you. This much is clear: Almost everyone in the US Federal government either supports some variety of carbon market ("liberals") or else opposes absolutely any form of carbon restriction or regulation ("conservatives").

A few people are left out of this duopoly entirely: something like 99% of the climate science community, who know that neither is a viable option; and the vast majority of the voting-age public, who agree that more drastic measures are required. These are people who simply don't matter in a vibrant democracy like ours.

You do the math and tell me for whom the Federal government works.

zulater
03-01-2010, 07:25 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/Climategate-expert-tells-MPs.html

urgle burgle
03-02-2010, 03:14 AM
and the vast majority of the voting-age public, who agree that more drastic measures are required. .

huh?

ricardisimo
03-05-2010, 03:18 AM
huh?

http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTWDRS/EXTWDR2010/0,,contentMDK:22405859~pagePK:64167689~piPK:641676 73~theSitePK:5287741,00.html

... for example.

And here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8550504.stm) is more communist nonsense about dinosaurs. As if.

zulater
04-05-2010, 06:49 AM
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/arctic_cap_is_growing_dNSZjigQWTUE0TViMeLdXL



Scientists have discovered that the size of the Arctic ice cap has increased sharply to levels not seen since 2001.

A shift in the chilly winds across the Bering Sea over the past few months has caused thousands of square miles of ocean to freeze.

The same phenomenon is also partly responsible for the cold winter experienced in New York and the eastern US this year. It allowed icy blasts of air to escape from the Arctic and make their way south.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/arctic_cap_is_growing_dNSZjigQWTUE0TViMeLdXL#ixzz0 kE3RtDwk

Vincent
04-05-2010, 08:17 AM
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/arctic_cap_is_growing_dNSZjigQWTUE0TViMeLdXL

Scientists have discovered that the size of the Arctic ice cap has increased sharply to levels not seen since 2001.

A shift in the chilly winds across the Bering Sea over the past few months has caused thousands of square miles of ocean to freeze.

The same phenomenon is also partly responsible for the cold winter experienced in New York and the eastern US this year. It allowed icy blasts of air to escape from the Arctic and make their way south.

Be thankful that we have pinheads to "facilitate" the "transition" from "climate change" to "ice age", and maintain the "man caused" spin. If left to our own devices, we'd lose that focus. :rolleyes: :jerkit:

We are evil. Evil, I tell you!!

fansince'76
04-05-2010, 08:35 AM
We must eradicate livestock farts or we iz doomed!

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2010/04/04/rivers.nz.belches.cnn

Indo
04-06-2010, 04:04 PM
We must eradicate livestock farts or we iz doomed!

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2010/04/04/rivers.nz.belches.cnn

The scary thing is that $1.7M was originally allocated in the Stimulus Package for studying Pig Farm Odors...Your "Govt" Dollars at work

http://inspiredeconomist.com/2009/03/28/is-the-hog-odor-earmark-in-the-stimulus-package-more-pork-or-a-green-step-forward/

Vincent
04-06-2010, 05:01 PM
We must eradicate livestock farts or we iz doomed!

We just need to find a way to "harness" them.

http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2008/01/cowfarts.jpg

I'm only half kidding. Lets say we were to devise a means of capturing all this unpleasantness. Its Methane, like any other Methane. It could be used as propellant. Nah, not hairspray, it wouldn't sell. Follow me on this. I'm thinking pig farts. I'm thinking cruise missiles.

http://anda.they.org/Brody/Bunker/Photos/missile-pig.jpg

Needs a little work, but its a start.

St33lersguy
04-06-2010, 05:05 PM
This hack should not be a scientist

fansince'76
04-06-2010, 05:07 PM
We just need to find a way to "harness" them.

http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2008/01/cowfarts.jpg

I'm only half kidding. Lets say we were to devise a means of capturing all this unpleasantness. Its Methane, like any other Methane. It could be used as propellant. Nah, not hairspray, it wouldn't sell. Follow me on this. I'm thinking pig farts. I'm thinking cruise missiles.

http://anda.they.org/Brody/Bunker/Photos/missile-pig.jpg

Needs a little work, but its a start.

Interesting "bioweapons" - reminded me of another project that was conceived a while back:

http://home.att.net/~basset_5/bloom_co.gif

:chuckle:

ricardisimo
04-06-2010, 05:16 PM
We just need to find a way to "harness" them.

Are you telling me you didn't see Mad Max: Thunderdome????? Pig Power rules the world!!!

Vincent
04-06-2010, 05:19 PM
Are you telling me you didn't see Mad Max: Thunderdome????? Pig Power rules the world!!!

Actually I did. Had forgotten that "epic".

Indo
04-07-2010, 11:20 AM
Who could ever forget Aunty Entity

http://bestuff.com/images/images_of_stuff/210x600/aunty-entity-60513.jpg

Vincent
04-07-2010, 02:22 PM
Who could ever forget Aunty Entity

http://bestuff.com/images/images_of_stuff/210x600/aunty-entity-60513.jpg

David Bowie once said "I'm standing next to the hottest place in the universe" while appearing on stage with Tina. Strong comment coming from one of such diverse "experience" about a woman, who at the time was pushing 50. Ms Turner is cut out of different cloth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrdzqMlQt10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2huwXkGsKo&feature=related

Apparently her "effect" was universal. Recall the Ed Grimley/Ms Malone SNL skit, "I must say" http://theneitherworld.com/edgrimley/malone.htm Please somebody find that video!

Yeah, we're WAY off topic. But it could be argued that there's some linkage between Ms Turner and climate change.:chuckle:

Indo
04-07-2010, 03:25 PM
Since we are so far off topic, I'll just take it a little further

Who could forget her as The Acid Queen...

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b_z9V6HlAeI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b_z9V6HlAeI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Vincent
04-07-2010, 09:47 PM
Who could forget her as The Acid Queen...

That wasn't really a "stretch" for her. Mysterious dame.