News Article: Interesting article on global warming causes and effecte
- Thread starter Bamaro
- Start date
I think he understands everything very clearly.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5KQUczHeKE]YouTube - EPA Chief Vows to Probe Threatening E-mail[/ame]
Since you want to try to downgrade any link anyone posts in favor of your Capn Kirk meets science guy blogs, I offer video of people's own words and threats.
The Senate committee you disparage has far more resources than any of us do. You do not have to trust the Senator to still look at the hearings and data from enviremental scientist they are consulting.
You basically typify the propagandist and activitism I reference in previous post. Dismissing valid arguments in favor of ever changing arguments to support your agenda. Only the scientist that support your conclusions can possibly be right.
Note also that it is your guys that have refered to polar bears, sea levels and warming and chilling trends over the years. Recent data just conflicts with these previous politically motivated assertions. Science and politics do not mix.
Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN:
"I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound," Landsea added.
As if to further cement these allegations, the UN allowed a Greenpeace activist to co-author a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC's 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN's policy prescriptions."
The UN IPCC's own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be "change[d]" to "ensure consistency with" the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.
Ok, ok, I give in! Obviously, CrimsonCT is the only person here who can possibly understand anything that involves graphs and science. Our job is to just sit down and shut up and quit expressing reasonable doubts torwards man-made climate change. All we are doing is hindering the process that will save all of our lives. We can't question the government on this because they obviously are way more knowledgeable than any of us, and they know what is best for us. It doesn't matter if these policies are a gross encroachment on liberties, we have no choice!!! If you don't agree, your just a dufus (but if you do agree, instant genius). Just deal with it!
not sure what brings you to that conclusion. regardless, CT's understanding or lack thereof (or anyone else's for that matter) has absolutely no bearing on the underlying validity or lack thereof of the "graphs and science"
this doesn't make a lot of sense and has absolutely nothing to do with CTs earlier post.
I
It's On A Slab
Guest
I'm seriously in awe of the reading comprehension demonstrated on this board. Three guys (thus far) have completely missed my point, and one of them now advocates trusting politicians over scientists.
Speaking of irony..You seem to be the pushing the political agenda.
You asked for an example and I gave it to you, in video even. It being at a Senate hearing should add credibility not diminish it. The threat was made in writing. Blurring the issue does not make it less valid.
Last edited:
You said "countless" examples, but provided only one. My original point stands. Regardless, you're siding with a PR campaign, not with any real science. The threat was precipitated by CEI blatantly lying to the public in a string of advertisements centered around global warming, misrepresenting findings to the public in an effort to sway opinion. The researchers, whose work was being falsely represented, were understandably upset. Eckhart's letter may have been too harshly worded, but it was hardly unwarranted.
Also, Sen. Inhofe is an idiot and a crook. Take a look at where his campaign contributions come from before you spout off about agendas.
Last edited:
Here's another to chew on...Tim Ball In addition to my other references to the problem...
February 8, 2007)
Excerpt: “[State Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change…So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.
(January 17, 2007)
Excerpt: The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.
(May 2, 2007)
Excerpt: Legates is a state climatologist in Delaware, and he teaches at the university. He`s not part of the mythical climate consensus. In fact, Legates believes that we oversimplify climate by just blaming greenhouse gases. One day he received a letter from the governor, saying his views do not concur with those of the administration, so if he wants to speak out, it must be as an individual, not as a state climatologist. So essentially, you can have the title of state climatologist unless he`s talking about his views on climate?
Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."
Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."
Still want more?
I like quoting those wacky professors too...
Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
"Scientists who dissent from the (ecological) alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."
“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,†noted Nathan Paldor, professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
You tend to say people are "lying" and use terms like "load of crap" as well. I can see why you defend people like Eckhart. Maybe we should shift the discussion to the "religion of Environmentalism". Your inability to be open to different views might fit in well with such a discussion. Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
As you can see though, Marlo is not alone in his doubts.
“Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists,†the introduction to the Senate report said. “In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics ‘appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.’
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus†of scientists aligned with the U.N. IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false.
“I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall, and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,†he said.
Let's see now... Do you think Eckhart might see some financial gain if the America people made a hard turn toward "renewable" energy. Is he not a member of several of these left wing enviromental agencies. We could also look into ACORE's donors.
Al Gore would benefit financially should we increase our use of Nuclear Energy. He has all kinds of radical left wing nut jobs in his closet. It should be noted though that some of the Scientist that you disparage in the Senate report shared a nobel peace prize with him before they cut ties with him.
James Hansen was well funded by George Soros.
While we are at it we could look into Boxer, Pelosi, Reid, Obama etc. etc. etc. this could get messy.
Again, I am not quoting a politician. I was pointing to the info brought forth in the hearing.
I will leave you with some Michael Crichton...
"How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of religion, and back to a scientific discipline? There's a simple answer: we must institute far more stringent requirements for what constitutes knowledge in the environmental realm. I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that simply aren't true. It isn't that these "facts" are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their case to present it in the strongest way. Not at all---what more and more groups are doing is putting out is lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods that they know to be false...At this moment, the EPA is hopelessly politicized. In the wake of Carol Browner, it is probably better to shut it down and start over. What we need is a new organization much closer to the FDA. We need an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in this field get honest fast...So it's time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that."
Last edited:
Seeing how Tim Ball has no qualifications to be speaking on this subject and has been constantly ridiculed for misrepresenting his training, this is even less convincing. But it's my fault for letting you pull me off topic. None of this matters.
Since you missed my point the first time, maybe it'll hit on the rebound:
Since you missed my point the first time, maybe it'll hit on the rebound:
Tim Ball is just one of at least a dozen I cited. Even so, since he questions your beliefs then you deem him unworthy. This only points more toward the environmentalism way of thinking that I mentioned previously.
This was the whole problem with the Obama supporters. They did not think for themselves. They did not research the issues or question the candidate. Polling indicated this. They just supported the guy the media hyped. Is this what is being taught in our Universities today? To not question? To not think? This is the problem with socialism. It takes away freedom. Freedom to think, Freedom to to succeed. Everyone is expected to take what is given to them as they are herded like [URL="http://www.topix.com/us-house/marion-berry/2008/10/catching-wild-pigs-or-how-to-control-an-american-a-lesson-in-change"wild pigs[/URL] Sorry. That is not the way I am made up. I like to question things that ar presented to me. Seeing a variety of data on any subject can only broaden one's knowledge.
This is the data your people have been putting out for decades now. Every summer, when tempertures rise, scientist/enviromentalist start their yearly doomsday talk. On the otherhand, in the winter, when tempertures drop, scientist/global warming skeptics start pointing out how wrong the other group was. Polar bears dying off, polar ice caps melting, sea levels rising, a new ice age, overpoulation, temps cooling, temps rising... these are the scare tactics I have been talking about. Stuff your guys put out. It is only natural for other scientist to see through the propaganda and point out the decreptancies. I want them to. I do not have satelites that can go back and check yearly temps. I will not be going out and checking on the polar bear population. I do not have submarine data (anymore) of ice buildup in certain parts of the world. If this stuff is not important, as you say, then why do your guys put out the false info to begin with?
I do not call them idiots (you have) but I do know that they have to have funding to do their research. When they take money from certain enviromental, political or energy based groups that have certain agendas, they can become politicized. I provided multiple examples of this. There is evidence of the IPCC's political leanings. The EPA, especially with Carol Browner's socialist influence, will definitely have an political agenda. I do not know how much clearer I can be. Energy/renewable energy companies provide funding. George Soros, Michael Moore, every kind of enviremental group you can think of pushes money towards these studies. Guess what. If the scientist(s) do not come up with the results they are looking for then they go find another scientist(s). I've even shown you examples of states that do this. There are people behind this global warming issue that stand to make a whole lot of money. Maybe you are involved with one of these such companies, I don't know. Maybe you cannot see this and you are just taking your own advice and not questioning anything. Believing everything you are told. Corrupt? You tell me. You define it.
I do not disagree but in this case, there is consensus on both sides of the debate and I think that I have adequately shown this in my previous posts. You put down Nobel Peace Prize winning scientist and other leaders of science when you try to belittle my examples. I assure you this does not make you look smarter than everybody else and it certainly does not help your argument. Some of these scientist were on your side at some point. You hype up numbers on your side of the issue and try to reduce numbers on the other side. I will admit that I have seen where people from both sides are doing this but give it a break. There is sufficient evidence out there that show much support for both sides of the issue. As I referenced earlier, Untill we get away from the politicizing, propaganda and extremism, it is going to be hard to come to any valid conclusions. We need equal funding to both sides of the issue and for the politicians and government agencies to step aside (will never happen). To me, with the often proven wrong scare tactics and constant propaganda, it seems to be your side that likes to keep the issue of man made climate change/global warming in a state of confusion. Maybe this is how you get the masses to believe in it.
Last edited:
Do you question your oncologist as well? Point out flaws in your MRI to your radiologist? What makes you think you have the expertise to do so?
This fear is clearly an outsider one, from someone who doesn't quite know how scientific funding works. Publishing bad science will guarantee that you do not receive funding in the future. And let's not forget that being a GW skeptic pays much, much better than the alternative.
Please go into a high-profile, peer-reviewed journal like Nature and find evidence of this "debate." You might be surprised at the consensus you find. When you're getting second- and third-hand reinterpretations of original results from blogs, or pulling in senate hearings of oil company puppets, or looking at petitions full of economists and high-school dropouts, you're never seeing the actual data. You're seeing the ignorant bias of people who are not qualified to comment. Go to the source and read scientific review articles--everything else is distraction.
The media is hugely detrimental in this process. For instance, was the scientific consensus in the 70s that global cooling would occur? Goodness no. But that falsehood is what the newspapers were reporting, and still do. It's even all over this thread, despite various scientific review articles pointing out this lie. But most people don't read journals, they watch Fox News. For instance:
Peterson TC, Connolley WM & Fleck J. (2008). The Myth of the 1970s Gliobal Cooling Scientific Consensus. BAMS, 89(9):1325-1337.
The purported lack of consensus today is overblown in the media the very same way.
Yes I do. I have had both my father and my father in law die from mistakes made by their doctors. Mistakes admitted to buy both doctors. I have friends who have their own horror stories. My mother was misdiagnosed several times before her problem was found. I went through 5 different vets until one figured out my 1st lab had diabetes. I have doubted MRI data before and had 2nd opinions. So yes I do question and research on my own.
We can stop right there when you start referencing nature magazine. Why not reference Time, They have had Obama on their cover 13 times now. Hopefully you are joking about the funding statement you just made. If this is your way of thinking, then I am afraid that you will never understand or are unable to grasp the politics that are involved in scientific funding.
This argument is clearly going south when the the left start complaining about the media. This is clearly just a political issue for you. I am kinda getting that now. Untill the propaganda and politics are eliminated from this issue, It kinda looks like a bunch of blind men trying to describe an elephant.
Very good points. Reminds me of Al Gore grandstanding worldwide on his political crusades ranting about GW, but living in a home in Nashville with an average electric bill of $1,200 (per month). Something is wrong here; even I can see through it.
As we freeze our tails off nationwide, I find it interesting that we still have those wanting to make an issue of this GW thing. The earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling; it is perfectly normal.
As the earth progresses through it's cool down cycle, expect to see the politicians drop the GW tag, opting instead for the less critical title of "climate change".
Shamefully, we will waste billions on this and accomplish nothing. After all, our economy is in such great shape, I can't imagine a better use for taxpayer dollars.
The most recent bailout money includes 600 million dollars to purchase new government vehicles. I would love to know what the average MPG will be for all those vehicles. Does anybody reallly believe they will average 30 MPG? All I see around Washington is politicians tooling around in Tahoes and Suburbans.
I recognize some of the same nuances and share the same concerns. This issue has become too political.
DT_popc:I heard there was some interesting head-buttin' going on in this thread.
Sshhh....let's see how it ends.
So you think you are more qualified to diagnose illness than your doctors, then? My confusion is lifted.
This is the most ridiculous thing you've said in at least 12 hours.
lol... "still not getting it."
Trending content
Latest threads
-
-
ESPN: NCAA: Targeting penalties on decline since 2020- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
Stephen A. Smith - a "fair broker".......- Started by Bazza
- Replies: 1
-
ESPN: Sources: Trump, college leaders to meet March 6
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Best NFL combine workouts, draft risers: The top performances and prospects from Day 1
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
