Clean Air Causes Global Warming??? [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

boxcar

04-20-2010, 11:43 AM

Will this madness ever end???

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/18/opinion/la-oe-kintisch18-2010apr18

No, it won't because Man will keep insisting that he can unlock all the numerous mysteries to God's creation. This latest little revelation is a classic illustration of how when man thinks he has discovered a great scientific truth in one specific area, he comes to also discover at a later date how little he really understands about the intricate and complex relationships among all the various elements.

But...having said this...this is excellent news; for now I will feel even less guilty when later on this week I plan on destroying a bunch of old but confidential files by burning them in my 55 gal. drum. My smoke should help cool off the planet some -- although this may be bad news for some polar bear somewhere. :D

Boxcar

Tom

04-20-2010, 11:57 AM

They walk among us, they vote, the breed.......:eek:

boxcar

04-20-2010, 12:16 PM

From the linked article:

"Tackling another pollutant, soot, might buy Earth some time."

Might buy Earth some time? Holy hell. That kind of thinking pretty much stops me from taking anything that follows seriously. Pardon me genius, but what's the anticipated expiration date on this little commodity known as a planet. Can people be any more self-important?

Be of good cheer. I betcha Zilzil or Hcap will tell us what the shelf life of this planet is. Stay tuned...

Meanwhile...Eat, Drink and be Merry, for tomorrow we all die!

Boxcar

jballscalls

04-20-2010, 12:21 PM

Tom

04-20-2010, 12:43 PM

Uh oh.......

boxcar

04-20-2010, 01:00 PM

You know...you're a real kill joy, Tom! Now, I've lost desire to see 2012 which is in my Netflix queue. No sense in watching it, if I"m going to be living it. Why ruin the surprise!? :bang:

Boxcar

sandpit

04-20-2010, 04:58 PM

i think everything causes global warming. if it's hot, it's global warming, if it's cold, it's global warming. its ridiculous

On a side environmental note, the last 2 times i've been in LA i've hardly even noticed any smog. Anyone from down there notice a reduction in it as well?? seems things are improving as opposed to getting worse in that department, atleast in my couple of experiences there in the last year.

When I visited LA 30-40 years ago, the air was horrible...but in the last 7 years or so, it's gotten a lot better than in the past. I guess all that environmental control has had some impact in the so Cal. basin.

bigmack

04-20-2010, 05:13 PM

eKqdFdkUA5g

hcap

04-20-2010, 07:20 PM

Be of good cheer. I betcha Zilzil or Hcap will tell us what the shelf life of this planet is. Stay tuned...

Meanwhile...Eat, Drink and be Merry, for tomorrow we all die!

BoxcarSo simple, I am surprised you geniuses don't understand.
First of all at the very top it does say Opinion. So it may or not be a major issue, or necessarily accurate.

Sort of like the right posting garbage here expressing at root not much more than their disappointment with who won the 2008 election, and incessantly bitching about how their heads are now painfully exploding due to multiple imaginary maladies. ( Death of the Republic. Issue The won't Die, Obama's Hitler Youth Camps etc etc )

Why cleaner air could speed global warming

Aerosol pollution, which is now on the downswing, has helped keep the planet cool by blocking sunlight. Tackling another pollutant, soot, might buy Earth some time.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................

So maybe all of climate science and the overwhelming evidence for global warming is wrong because this guy posts a minor point?.

I will post this again

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/science/earth/15briefs-Britbrf.html

Britain: Inquiry Finds No Distortion of Climate Data
By REUTERS
Published: April 14, 2010

A second inquiry has cleared climate researchers at the University of East Anglia of allegations that they distorted the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming. “There was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda,” an independent panel of scientists said in a report submitted to the university on Monday. The investigations began after the unauthorized release last November of hundreds of private e-mail messages exchanged by scientists in the United States and the British university’s Climatic Research Unit. Last month, a British parliamentary committee cleared the research unit of manipulating the evidence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR2010041404001.html

delayjf

04-20-2010, 07:29 PM

A second inquiry has cleared climate researchers at the University of East Anglia of allegations that they distorted the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming

Wasn't the data destroyed??

In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space. The CRU data have been the basis for several of the major international studies that claim we face a global warming crisis. CRU’s destruction of data, however, severely undercuts the credibility of those studies.

bigmack

04-20-2010, 07:30 PM

Scatterbrained & sloppy :lol: :lol:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/4_20_10_16_29_12.png

hcap

04-20-2010, 07:36 PM

When you post images of articles without link sit does make responding more difficult.

bigmack

04-20-2010, 07:57 PM

It was set up to be a total whitewash, and the panel made no effort to investigate," said Steven Milloy, publisher of Junk Science, a Web site that casts doubt on global-warming research. "They didn't even interview the recipients of the e-mails. It is ridiculous,"

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/15/michael-mann-climategate-global-warming/

hcap

04-20-2010, 08:04 PM

Wasn't the data destroyed??NO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

The investigatory committee subsequently determined there was no credible evidence Mann suppressed or falsified data, destroyed emails, information and/or data related to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, or misused privileged or confidential information.

..Science Assessment Panel

The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030

Conservative media hype misleading report suggesting CRU destroyed raw climate data
December 01, 2009 2:50 pm ET — 46 Comments

Conservative media have recently suggested that scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia intentionally "threw out" or "destroyed" the raw temperature data "underpinning the man-made-warming theory," in the words of the New York Post, echoing a recent London Times article that said it is "now impossible" to examine how the CRU made its conclusions. In fact, according to the scientists, the raw data is still available at the meteorological services where they obtained it -- director Phil Jones said the CRU simply did not keep copies for "less than 5 percent of its original station data" in its database because those "stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends."

At issue is raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, including surface temperature averages from weather stations around the world. The data was used in assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reports that EPA has used in turn to formulate its climate policies.

Citing a statement on the research unit's Web site, CEI blasted the research unit for the "suspicious destruction of its original data." According to CRU's Web site, "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."

Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency.

The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.

"When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends," Jones said, "so we've taken them out." Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. "We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world."

Refuting CEI's claims of data-destruction, Jones said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."

Your info is from a rightwing org CEI that had posted this false info which rapidly spread thru the rightie ant-global warming echo chamber.

Scatterbrained & sloppy
Odd that the NYT or the Wash Post don't describe it this way Only Fox?

Be that as it may, there was no destruction of data and were cleared of scientific malpractice. And still only a small fraction of Climatologists who support GW. East Anglica could be as guilty as the right claims and would not significantly alter the consensus

bigmack

04-20-2010, 08:11 PM

Odd that the NYT or the Wash Post don't describe it this way Only Fox?
Odd? :lol: It's everyday.

Give me one of those 'faux' lines you have. They're so inventive. :sleeping:

NYT Tackles Damning Global Warming Emails, But Reveals Own Hypocrisy
http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/articles/2009/20091123105110.aspx

hcap

04-20-2010, 08:29 PM

Odd? :lol: It's everyday.

Give me one of those 'faux' lines you have. They're so inventive. :sleeping:

NYT Tackles Damning Global Warming Emails, But Reveals Own Hypocrisy
http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/articles/2009/20091123105110.aspx

So you contend Faux Noos :cool: and anti-global warming websites funded by energy companies representing 5+% of climatologists and other qualified scientists, more reliable than the NYT, Wash Post and a myriad of reputable news outlets?

Did you see my posting re: tin foil hats. Just saying.

skate

04-20-2010, 08:35 PM

When I visited LA 30-40 years ago, the air was horrible...but in the last 7 years or so, it's gotten a lot better than in the past. I guess all that environmental control has had some impact in the so Cal. basin.

yes sir, calif was the worst, still is really, even with the improements.

and hey, it's a good point to consider.

Figure, with ALL the pollutions they had (have), it did hurt the people, still does, but most likely it helps the Planet.

Everything comes from the earth, as we know it.

If we release the toxic (toxic to the people) slowly, much like an earth quake, a little at a time aint bad.

Because as we see from the Iceland volcano, such a big release at one time spells Problemo.

skate

04-20-2010, 08:44 PM

So you contend Faux Noos :cool: and anti-global warming websites funded by energy companies representing 5+% of climatologists and other qualified scientists, more reliable than the NYT, Wash Post and a myriad of reputable news outlets?

OK ok, now, sure is some funny stuff ya got here

bigmack

04-20-2010, 09:00 PM

Did you see my posting re: tin foil hats. Just saying.
Your material is stale - STALE!

You find RedEye flat and offer humor of that caliber? :sleeping:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/4_20_10_17_59_22.png

skate

04-20-2010, 09:04 PM

you're warming up mack, these neo-libs can't stand the heat.

delayjf

04-20-2010, 10:10 PM

The investigatory committee subsequently determined there was no credible evidence Mann suppressed or falsified data, destroyed emails, information and/or data related to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, or misused privileged or confidential information.
How does the above statement jive with the below

Britain's top statistician absolved U.K. scientists following the climate-data scandal -- and blasted U.S. researcher Michael Mann for exaggerating the size of global warming.

Tom

04-21-2010, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by hcap
So you contend Faux Noos images/UBGX/07.gif and anti-global warming websites funded by energy companies representing 5+% of climatologists and other qualified scientists, more reliable than the NYT, Wash Post and a myriad of reputable news outlets?

As opposed to your sites funded by people like Gore and Pelosi who are making money off the GW scam. Uh huh. I think you might new the heavy duty foil next hat.

hcap

04-21-2010, 08:10 AM

As opposed to your sites funded by people like Gore and Pelosi who are making money off the GW scam. Uh huh. I think you might new the heavy duty foil next hat.You are forgetting that what they report can be followed back to sources. And verified. For instance the facts behind whether or not there is a consensus. There is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[27] With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[28], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[29]

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the media in all countries but the United States often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls.[30][31][32]

A January 19, 2009 survery of over 10,000 scientists as listed by the American Geological Institute showed 90% agreed that global temperatures have risen in the last 200 years, and 82% agreed that human activity played a significant role. [39]

On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[33] distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents.[34] Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list. The institute refused these requests, stating that the scientists "have no right - legally or ethically - to demand that their names be removed."[35]

hcap

04-21-2010, 08:48 AM

A comprehensive examination of the very real consensus on global warming

http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

The Consensus on Global Warming:
From Science to Industry & Religion

If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences. For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science. The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide 1,2. An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify as climate scientists when these standards are applied. Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming "climate scientists" with dissenting opinions. It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics. If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have 400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money). If you have suggestions for the addition of other quotes please post them at our blog.

Index (Too much to list entirely Go to the site)

International Statements
Individual Societies and Organizations
Peer Review Scientific Journals
Individual Scientists (including a 11,885+ long petition) Industry
Military
Religion
Administrative Officials
Mainstream Media
Politicians

Below is a list of joint statements calling for action on mitigating climate change. The National Academies representing the 21 following countries and districts have signed joint statements:

Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Caribbean
Canada
China
France
Germany
India
Indonesia Ireland
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico
New Zealand
Russia
South Africa
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/4_20_10_17_59_22.png

Mack it is time to go back your blackboard.
Einstein would be ashamed of your ant-scientific bias

Tom, honestly, Gore put all these groups up to mass hysteria and mass lying?

Talk about tin foil hats

Tom

04-21-2010, 08:58 AM

We know Gore lied in his film, several times. We KNOW Gore does not live the GW lifestyle he wants to impose on us, in fat, he is a MAJOR contributor by his own definitions. We KNOW he he if profiting by GW and so are prominent members of congress, like Nazi Pelosi, and yet she, too refuse to life the
lifestype and is a major contibutor to GW.

When I see these people take their own cries of wolf seriousyl, I might be willing to listen to their argument, on a scinetific leverl, but right now, we hae snake oil salesmen, and the whol idea of the GW being a concern is ridiculous. The EARF has been colder and it has benn hotter and that's the way it is .
Maybe you can tell me the ideal temperature is for the planet and what criteria you used to arrive at it. No one else has been able to. If you do not have a standard, how an you say you have a problem?
Let's get past logical first.

46zilzal

04-21-2010, 09:41 AM

Ihoffe told Congress he is correct, do people need anything more?

We discussed this fouling of the environment in a class on ecology and population genetics in 1966....

delayjf

04-21-2010, 09:54 AM

You are forgetting that what they report can be followed back to sources. And verified. For instance the facts behind whether or not there is a consensus. There is.

Perhaps if you don't want to question the conclusions, but did all these scientific groups do their own peer review or just take their word on it. I can tell you the military or other religious organizations did not.

If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences
Yet the emails indicate that the peer review fix was in. AND the CRU still has not release the data for peer review despite the numerous FOIA request. Not to mention the record setting winters we've been experiencing.

Tom

04-21-2010, 11:09 AM

Ihoffe told Congress he is correct, do people need anything more?

We discussed this fouling of the environment in a class on ecology and population genetics in 1966....

Ihoffe....you mean IHOP?

mostpost

04-21-2010, 11:52 AM

I have to laugh when people like Tom talk about all the money Gore and Pelosi have made on Global Warming. Or when they claim scientists are "cooking the books" so they can get funding. Yet those same people can't figure out that the oil companies and other industries have an even bigger financial stake in discrediting global warming.
These entities through lobying groups like the CATO institute and the Competetive Enterprise Institute have spent millions trying to debunk GW. If they have spent millions one can only imagine how much money they might lose if they had to operate in an anti GW world.
Believe me they are not spending all that money in a search for scientific truth.

mostpost

04-21-2010, 11:54 AM

Ihoffe....you mean IHOP?
Inhoffe (Senator from Oklahoma) Here's an easy way to tell the difference. Administer an IQ test. The ones with the higher score are the pancakes from IHOP.

Tom

04-21-2010, 12:02 PM

bigmack

04-21-2010, 02:28 PM

If they have spent millions one can only imagine how much money they might lose if they had to operate in an anti GW world.
Behold, the twisted logic. Spending money to avoid forced, eco-fascist measures to 'operate in an anti-GW world'. Anti-GW world :lol: :lol:

The science is WEAK.

http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2010/03/08/15-25.Hayward.jpg

mostpost

04-21-2010, 02:40 PM

Ok, mostie, how about YOU take a crack my DIRECT question about the ideal temperature and why? I mean, you have nothing to do but laugh. I think of the disasterous effects on our economy and that of the world these moronic GW measures will extract, you guys damn well better have your acts together abou tit, and so far, your guys do not, and cannot even answer my simple, SCIENTIFIC question. Bad on you rubes. Do you have a CLUE what Crap and TAx will have on millions of people?
The ideal temperature is SURVIVAL. That is the standard we must adhere to. The fact that you would even ask such a question speaks to your lack of understanding. When dinosaurs roamed the earth the ideal temperature was much higher than it is today. It dropped. They died.
Previous fluctuations were caused by a natural cycle. This time we are influencing the cycle.
If we are wrong, it will cost some companies some money. If you are wrong, millions will die, cities will be under water and the survivors will wish they weren't.

mostpost

04-21-2010, 02:50 PM

Behold, the twisted logic. Spending money to avoid forced, eco-fascist measures to 'operate in an anti-GW world'. Anti-GW world :lol: :lol:

The science is WEAK.

http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2010/03/08/15-25.Hayward.jpg
eco-fascist measures? and you made fun of "Anti-GW world. :rolleyes:
Leaving aside the fact that there was little regulation of industry in Germany or Italy during the facsist regimes, no industry has ever policed itself. They need to be policed for the overall good. If that means more expense for them and only making $3B per year instead of $4B, too bad.

I will let Hcap argue the science part. He is much better at it . I will just say that I will always take the word of the 95% of scientists who work in the field over the word of the 5% who are lackeys of the entrenched oil interests

bigmack

04-21-2010, 02:51 PM

If you are wrong, millions will die, cities will be under water and the survivors will wish they weren't.
No - No - No - Nooooooooooo

http://sherunsbrooklyn.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/freakout.jpg

Tom

04-21-2010, 03:00 PM

The ideal temperature is SURVIVAL. That is the standard we must adhere to.
BS answer.

What temp is that and how did you arrive at it?
We have survived at warmer and colder. What criteria do you use to identify the set point temperature?

And as far as people drowning........mama mia! If you drown because the sea level rises, you are part of natural selection. Two words.....MOVE INLAND!

You are now telling me that we are going to try to control the planet and not just STOP affecting it?

:lol::lol::lol: You gonna use Bush's Hurricane Machine?

Tom

04-21-2010, 03:04 PM

You are forgetting that what they report can be followed back to sources. And verified. For instance the facts behind whether or not there is a consensus. There is.

Many others disagree with that conclusion. Science is fact, not consensus. The consensus was once that the world was flat.
Many of those who originally were part of the so-called consensus now disagree with it. Some of the date has been called into questions and no one on the fear mongering side has been able to produce the primary source data, only the scrubbed data.

bigmack

04-21-2010, 03:08 PM

What temp is that and how did you arrive at it?
Come on, everybody knows that, T, tree rings as postulated from one of their top clowns. Mikey Mann.

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/_res/CO2-Mann.jpg

Tom

04-21-2010, 03:57 PM

Did he direct Miami Vice?

Greyfox

04-21-2010, 04:15 PM

If we are wrong, it will cost some companies some money. If you are wrong, millions will die, cities will be under water and the survivors will wish they weren't.

Cap and trade will transfer America's wealth to third world nations.
If you can't see it is part and parcel of a socialistic agenda, you don't see it.
Jobs will be lost. It won't do one iota for the atmosphere.
I don't understand how it was warmer naturally before the dinosaurs died, but the most recent cycle, that doesn't exist by the way, is man-made.

http://jeffreyricker.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/bullshit.jpg.

bigmack

04-21-2010, 04:38 PM

As those scientists who claim this charade is junk-science continually ask for a debate on this subject i ask:

- Where are these scientists ready to back-up their claims in an open forum?
- Where is 'Fat Cat Al' lately?
- Why don't they want to debate this, they supposedly have 95/5 advantage?

You don't think there is any truth to this being a bunch of cloistered nerds not able to come out into the sunlight to firmly back-up their claims before we tax the bejesus out of businesses? Nah, that can't be it. :rolleyes:

hcap is mostposts' go-to-guy for science. :lol:

hcap

04-21-2010, 04:39 PM

BS answer.

What temp is that and how did you arrive at it?
We have survived at warmer and colder. What criteria do you use to identify the set point temperature?

And as far as people drowning........mama mia! If you drown because the sea level rises, you are part of natural selection. Two words.....MOVE INLAND!

You are now telling me that we are going to try to control the planet and not just STOP affecting it?

:lol::lol::lol: You gonna use Bush's Hurricane Machine?Before humans the ideal temperature was meaningless speculation. Now it is very significant. It took eons for humanity to adjust to a wide spectrum of temperatures. Societies and cultures adapted over hundreds and thousands of years. Generally a gradual acclimation.

The scope of humanity has changed. 6 1/2 billion. More than ever before. Cultural and population dislocation on a huge scale. Water supplies in chaos Abrupt global climate change with very little cushion time to adjust millions to the new conditions. Moving inland does nothing to help the crops and agricultural cycles people depend upon. Many will suffer and die until adaptation is possible.

Maybe those who starve or die from rampant disease or homelessness are not worthy of your concern. You are more concerned with "THE IDEAL"

After all they are nothing more than global warming lazy adapter anchors?

delayjf

04-21-2010, 07:31 PM

These entities through lobying groups like the CATO institute and the Competetive Enterprise Institute have spent millions trying to debunk GW.

It's not the oil companies fault that NASA has problems with their math or that Mann cannot graph correctly. Oil companies had nothing to do with the e-mails recently released either. The GW movement is doing a pretty good job of shooting themselves in the foot.

Tom

04-22-2010, 12:38 AM

hcap, now GW causes homelessness? :rolleyes:

Still, no reply to my simple question. You GW have it all figures out, so long as you refuse debate and don't have to answer questions.

You do realize that is India and China refuse to participate, nothing you propose we do will have any effect on the atmosphere, right.
Are you, in the name of humanity, prepared to go to war with both to force them to stop killing the planet, or are you just content to destroy our economy? Are you prepared to go to Africa and prevent them fromever acquiring modern energy sources?

Talk is cheap. Feel-good talk is cheaper.

hcap

04-22-2010, 05:49 AM

Tom

04-22-2010, 07:35 AM

Here's a clue for you...in the history of the planet, there has never been climatic security.

Still, you avoid the simple question....what is the ideal temperature and what criteria did you use to identify it? You cannot say we are in a bad situation until you define a good one.

Dislocation?
You are aware that the continents have been moving around for a long time (:rolleyes:) now, aren't you? :lol:

What great science you guys have....can't even get past the problem definition stage, and yet you are willing to destroy the economy and hold down Africa. Wow.

boxcar

04-22-2010, 10:36 AM

"The U.N. Panel on Climate Change has concluded that the energy balance of the atmosphere has been altered as a result of human activity. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the panel that the global environment is entering or has entered a period of climatic instability and warming likely to cause widespread economic, social, and environmental dislocation"

Did they say it was just merely their OPINION? What was it you were saying earlier about someone else's opinion? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Greyfox

04-22-2010, 10:50 AM

"The U.N. Panel on Climate Change has concluded that the energy balance of the atmosphere has been altered as a result of human activity. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the panel that the global environment is entering or has entered a period of climatic instability and warming likely to cause widespread economic, social, and environmental dislocation"

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Hcap - That conclusion has a beard on it. It was lifted directly from:

Global Warming: Public Health and the Debate about Science and Policy.
by Chris J. Wiant
It was written in 1998 ....1998......1998.

We're now living in 2010...2010.....2010!!

boxcar

04-22-2010, 10:59 AM

The ideal temperature is SURVIVAL. That is the standard we must adhere to. The fact that you would even ask such a question speaks to your lack of understanding. When dinosaurs roamed the earth the ideal temperature was much higher than it is today. It dropped. They died.
Previous fluctuations were caused by a natural cycle. This time we are influencing the cycle.
If we are wrong, it will cost some companies some money. If you are wrong, millions will die, cities will be under water and the survivors will wish they weren't.

Mosty, Mosty, Mosty....Once again, you have allowed your mouth to outrun your brain. That poor grey matter of yours just can't keep up with that swift-footed mouth of yours, can it? :rolleyes:

So...you say, "survival" is the name of this game, yes? Well, then, please consider this: According to evolutionists (which I'm sure you believe), Man has been on this earth for about 2 million years. And during this 2 million-year period, Man has adapted very well by SURVIVING a wide range of temperatures! Therefore, with this long, established historical track record of survival behind us, what compelling reason would any rational person have to believe that Man wouldn't be able to adapt and survive more temperature swings? Since the "ideal temperature" is SURVIVAL, then I have say the Climate has never been a match for Man during this long period of time!

Since this is Earth Day, if I were you, I'd celebrate Man's awesome and wondrous survival skills upon Earth!

Have a good one, Mosty,
Boxcar

Tom

04-22-2010, 11:58 AM

Hcap - That conclusion has a beard on it. It was lifted directly from:

Oh no, now Global Warming causes facial hair growth too??????? :eek:

hazzardm

04-22-2010, 12:29 PM

Global warming culprit identified.....

http://news.yahoo.com/video/environment-15749659/19271005

Greyfox

04-22-2010, 12:34 PM

Greyfox

04-22-2010, 12:39 PM

Global warming culprit identified.....

http://news.yahoo.com/video/environment-15749659/19271005

Excellent video. Thank you for posting.

Robert Goren

04-22-2010, 12:45 PM

Mosty, Mosty, Mosty....Once again, you have allowed your mouth to outrun your brain. That poor grey matter of yours just can't keep up with that swift-footed mouth of yours, can it? :rolleyes:

So...you say, "survival" is the name of this game, yes? Well, then, please consider this: According to evolutionists (which I'm sure you believe), Man has been on this earth for about 2 million years. And during this 2 million-year period, Man has adapted very well by SURVIVING a wide range of temperatures! Therefore, with this long, established historical track record of survival behind us, what compelling reason would any rational person have to believe that Man wouldn't be able to adapt and survive more temperature swings? Since the "ideal temperature" is SURVIVAL, then I have say the Climate has never been a match for Man during this long period of time!

Since this is Earth Day, if I were you, I'd celebrate Man's awesome and wondrous survival skills upon Earth!

Have a good one, Mosty,
Boxcar This is from someone who believes that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago.

Tom

04-22-2010, 12:48 PM

And Al Gore believes the center of the world is 2-3 million degrees!

ddog

04-22-2010, 02:39 PM

This is from someone who believes that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago.

naw, HIS GOD was just pulling HIS leg on the times or the timer was off , kind of like the times at GP, you just can't know now, can ya!

Of course a God that would attempt to keep "the truth" from HIS people would be ..........mmmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm ... I guess the famous rogue clocker at Pmm! :lol:

Boxcar are you sure of your own age, i guess 4 or 5 carbon dated , of course.

;)

46zilzal

04-22-2010, 02:42 PM

And Al Gore believes the center of the world is 2-3 million degrees!
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/PhillipChan.shtml

Tom

04-22-2010, 03:05 PM

Don't tell me...I know how hot it is there. Al Gore is the one who said that - and I heard it live - on TV. Isn't he your GW Lord and Saviour? :lol::lol::lol:

46zilzal

04-22-2010, 03:08 PM

hazzardm

04-22-2010, 04:02 PM

Excellent video. Thank you for posting.

It's cool stuff.
I thought this was good as well, underwater volcano.....
http://news.discovery.com/videos/earth-underwater-volcano-caught-on-video.html

hazzardm

04-22-2010, 04:04 PM

A new webstie funded by the coal industry is trying to sell the fact that C02 is a necessary thing and is GOOD for the plants.......Only thing they left out was worldwide deforestation... Called Plants Need C02.org

It is going to be an ironic day when the liberals start demanding more nuclear energy. :rolleyes:

RXB

04-22-2010, 05:32 PM

Far better than "Clean Air Causes Global Warming," here's "Breasts Cause Earthquakes."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2939431

hcap

04-22-2010, 05:58 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-could-force-1-billion-from-their-homes-by-2050-817223.html

Climate change could force 1 billion from their homes by 2050

By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent

Tuesday, 29 April 2008

As many as one billion people could lose their homes by 2050 because of the devastating impact of global warming, scientists and political leaders will be warned today.

They will hear that the steady rise in temperatures across the planet could trigger mass migration
on unprecedented levels.

Hundreds of millions could be forced to go on the move because of water shortages and crop failures in most of Africa, as well as in central and southern Asia and South America, the conference in London will be told. There could also be an effect on levels of starvation and on food prices as agriculture struggles to cope with growing demand in increasingly arid conditions.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47046

FLORENCE, May 31, 2009 (IPS) - Millions of people will soon have to leave their homeland as a result of global warming, says a report on environmental refugees by the Italian environmental association Legambiente. Half of them will move due to natural catastrophes, the rest will be hit by desertification and rising sea levels.

"For the first time, environmental refugees have outnumbered refugees escaping from war," Legambiente international coordinator Maurizio Gubbiotti tells IPS. "Environmental refugees are the real emergency of the future. And there is a devastating social emergency behind the environmental and climatic crisis we face today."

Gubbiotti spoke to IPS at the Terra Futura (Earth of the Future) meeting held in Florence this week on good practices in environmental and economic sustainability. Excerpts from the interview:

Greyfox

04-22-2010, 05:59 PM

Far better than "Clean Air Causes Global Warming," here's "Breasts Cause Earthquakes."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2939431

The Ayatollah is not titilated, but I'll bet he watches. Strictly for gathering research of course. Tehran sits on a major earthquake fault.
Hcap is already on to this and burning bras, without smoke of course.;)

Greyfox

04-22-2010, 06:03 PM

Climate change could force 1 billion from their homes by 2050

:

Don't sweat the threat.
The Mayan Calendar ends on Dec 21, 2012.
Nostrademus says Dec 2012 is it.
The Hopi Indians agree.
Web bot makes a similar prediction.

But I have a tin foil hat that is going to keep me safe so I'll be able to play Santa Anita Dec 26, 2012.

bigmack

04-22-2010, 06:29 PM

boxcar

04-22-2010, 11:20 PM

boxcar

04-22-2010, 11:24 PM

This is from someone who believes that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago.

How long have you been suffering with your reading disorder? It's not about what I believe, it's about what libs believe. :bang: :bang: All I did was rip their god Father Time a new one by throwing this idol back in libs' faces. Too bad the point to my post eluded you so badly. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage

04-23-2010, 04:19 AM

No, I am not making this up. You can't make this sort of crap up.
None other than Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi said yesterday that failure for Iranian women to cover up and extra-marital affairs cause
Earthquakes.Certainly the Global Warming Crowd will grab that star when all else fails.
http://www.payvand.com/news/09/oct/Kazem-Seddighi.jpg

C'mon hcap...you're just one step away from citing another bearded authority article.It's funny...the only kooky religious folk the left makes fun of is Pat Robertson. Guys like the ol' Ayatollah here...they're somehow immune from the left's wrath, even when they say crazy shit like this guy above...

boxcar

04-23-2010, 10:03 AM

That's 'cause Izzzlaaaaaam is the religion of peace. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

hazzardm

04-23-2010, 11:15 AM

It's funny...the only kooky religious folk the left makes fun of is Pat Robertson. Guys like the ol' Ayatollah here...they're somehow immune from the left's wrath, even when they say crazy shit like this guy above...

Can't recall the last time Ayatollah Krazzy was snake-oiling for our cash, molesting children, and doinking male hookers ...... In retrospect, he may be a step up.

Tom

04-23-2010, 11:34 AM

You have evidence that Pat Robertson has done that stuff?

hazzardm

04-23-2010, 11:57 AM

My bad. I was accidently crediting Roberston with all the heroic feats Swaggert/Bakker/Larson/Roberts ....

delayjf

04-23-2010, 06:01 PM

Can't recall the last time Ayatollah Krazzy was snake-oiling for our cash, molesting children, and doinking male hookers ...... In retrospect, he may be a step up.

Too busy chopping off heads, hands legs etc and throwing rocks at women who have been raped.

hazzardm

04-23-2010, 06:09 PM

Too busy chopping off heads, hands legs etc and throwing rocks at women who have been raped.

Good point.

boxcar

04-24-2010, 06:49 PM

Well...if clean air causes global warming, was the recent volcano in Iceland God's way of counteracting that? Won't all that ash in the atmosphere now cause global cooling because it will block out the sun's rays? I wonder if the arrogant pinheads at the EPA have fined God yet for this natural event? I wonder how much the fine was. (Anyone know?) Or maybe some of the socialist countries in Europe have already issued a big fat citation to that Big Man in the Sky.

The link below contains some phenomenal photos of this event, which many of you might have already seen. But if not...enjoy.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/04/more_from_eyjafjallajokull.html

Boxcar

hcap

04-24-2010, 07:14 PM

Maybe God should be fined for allowing any natural phenomena to kill and maim hundreds and thousands of innocents

Haiti?
Tsunamis?
Starving population in Africa caused by a monumental drought?

Actually it appears that the volcano slowed down GW by a minuscule.
But I suspect GOD is not responsible either way.

boxcar

04-24-2010, 07:28 PM

Maybe God should be fined for allowing any natural phenomena to kill and maim hundreds and thousands of innocents

Haiti? Caused by sin and required by Divine Justice.

Tsunamis? Caused by sin and required by Divine Justice.

Starving population in Africa caused by a monumental drought?

Caused by sin and required by Divine Justice.

Death is the wages of sin, Mr. 'cap. As the 'ol saying goes...we all gotta die someday, somehow.

Actually it appears that the volcano slowed down GW by a minuscule.

With no longer term effects expected, eh? Is this the consensus of the scientific community? :rolleyes:

But I suspect GOD is not responsible either way.

No surprises here.

Boxcar

Boris

04-24-2010, 09:53 PM

With no longer term effects expected, eh?

When necessary, effects will appear. That's the Global Warming way.

hcap

04-25-2010, 05:29 AM

Caused by sin and required by Divine Justice.

Caused by sin and required by Divine Justice.
Caused by sin and required by Divine Justice.
Death is the wages of sin, Mr. 'cap.
No surprises here.
Boxcar
I guess enduring this painful gar-bage is our divine retribution?
Boxcarian proclamations of fire and brimstone.

Riddle me this box, why did 6 million Jews die at the hands of the Nazi's?

How about The Black Death? Estimated to have killed 30% to 60% of Europe's population
between 1348 and 1350 European Christians hit as hard as Muslim nations.
I guess both were sinners equally

You can't seriously believe all those Haitians killed were all sinners?

Or that 9/11 was God's judgment against America? Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell said so. They blamed God's wrath on abortion and promiscuity.

So were Robertson and Falwell correct?

boxcar

04-25-2010, 12:44 PM

I guess enduring this painful gar-bage is our divine retribution?
Boxcarian proclamations of fire and brimstone.

Riddle me this box, why did 6 million Jews die at the hands of the Nazi's?

How about The Black Death? Estimated to have killed 30% to 60% of Europe's population
between 1348 and 1350 European Christians hit as hard as Muslim nations.
I guess both were sinners equally

You can't seriously believe all those Haitians killed were all sinners?

Or that 9/11 was God's judgment against America? Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell said so. They blamed God's wrath on abortion and promiscuity.

So were Robertson and Falwell correct?

Cap, Cap, Cap, how many times do you want me to get on your tired, wearisome, boring merry-go-round? How often have I addressed these topics with, including God's providences?

The answers are in numerous previous posts. Look them up.

Boxcar

Greyfox

04-25-2010, 03:50 PM

With all of the fertilizer flying around here the air won't stay clean very long.

But guess what? And no I'm not bright enough to make this stuff up.

Whale Poo Offers Solution to Global Warming:
Save the Wales??
"When whales (http://www.physorg.com/tags/whales/) consume the iron-rich krill, they excrete most of the iron back into the water, therefore fertilising the ocean and starting the whole food cycle again," scientist Steve Nicol said.

The research suggests that if whale numbers grow, their droppings could help marine plant life flourish, thereby improving the ocean's ability to absorb carbon dioxide blamed for global warming."

more at link http://www.physorg.com/news191218373.html

hazzardm

05-14-2010, 03:51 PM

No, I am not making this up. You can't make this sort of crap up.
None other than Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi said yesterday that failure for Iranian women to cover up and extra-marital affairs cause
Earthquakes.Certainly the Global Warming Crowd will grab that star when all else fails.
http://www.payvand.com/news/09/oct/Kazem-Seddighi.jpg

C'mon hcap...you're just one step away from citing another bearded authority article.

And in case you thought he was only joking ......

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9FMKGAO0&show_article=1

In a new sermon Friday, he has defended and elaborated on his claim.

Sedighi notes that some might ask why there aren't more earthquakes and storms striking Western nations that are "up to their necks" in immorality.

He says the answer is that God allows some of those who "provoke His wrath" to continue sinning "so that they (eventually) go to the bottom of Hell."

hcap

05-17-2010, 06:39 PM

bigmack

05-17-2010, 06:51 PM

Joey Romm is hack who needs this data to only show one thing so that he can profit like that other hack, A.Gore. What's your excuse for having a need to believe data that's flawed?

Romm is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he writes and maintains their climate blog, ClimateProgress.org. :lol: Time magazine named Romm's blog one of the "Top 15 Green Websites". Romm is also the executive director and founder of the non-profit Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, which helps businesses and U.S. States adopt high-leverage strategies for saving energy and cutting pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and is a principal of the Capital E Group, an energy technology consultant. Romm also writes regularly for several energy and news websites.

Tom

05-17-2010, 10:14 PM

One year in the scope of the world's lifetime is somehow significant?
Really, hcap, creative use of misleading scales to make a graph seem to back up your point.
Let's see that same period on a scale of ICE >>>>>>>LAVA

:lol:

hcap

05-18-2010, 03:54 AM

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/how-will-they-spin-this/

So, via Joe Romm, the NASA-GISS data show that the past 12 months were the hottest 12-month period on record. Here’s my plot of the temperature anomaly — the difference, in hundredths of a degree centigrade, from the average over 1951-80:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/12month.png
BM, the basis for this is recent NASA-GISS data
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Romm a hack? :D :D
(BTW, "The record temperatures we’re seeing now are especially impressive because we’ve been in the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.")

.................................................. .................................................. ....................

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/05/2010-is-warmest-year-on-record/1

2010: Warmest year on record

Two separate sources of temperature data – the National Climatic Data Center and NASA – report that, through April, 2010 is the warmest year ever recorded.

The climate center (NCDC) reports that the Earth's combined land and ocean average surface temperature from January-April was 56 degrees, which is 1.24 degrees above the 20th-century average.

.....NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies also reports that 2010, so far, is the warmest out of 131 years. Both NCDC and NASA use data that goes back to 1880.

Last month, NASA issued a report that predicted 2010 would likely end up as the warmest year on record, due to the combintation of global warming and El Nino. The report states that "a new record global temperature, for the period with instrumental measurements, should be set within the next few months as the effects of the recent and current moderate El Nino continue."

Tom

05-18-2010, 07:39 AM

Warm is good.
You leaker.

bigmack

05-18-2010, 07:44 AM

BM, the basis for this is recent NASA-GISS data
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Romm a hack?
Not only is Romm a hack Nasa-GISS data is a joke. That, according to (drum roll) them. :lol:

When will you open your mind?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/5_18_10_04_40_03.png
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/3251-senators-question-flawed-nasa-climate-data

Tom

05-18-2010, 09:05 AM

If you can't stand the heat, doctor the thermometer!

boxcar

05-18-2010, 11:41 AM

Not only is Romm a hack Nasa-GISS data is a joke. That, according to (drum roll) them. :lol:

When will you open your mind?

Wrong question. 'Cap's mind is so open, it can't help but suck up all the raw sewage in the world. Therefore, he needs neither an open or closed mind, but one that is capable of critical thought. (And in his case that would take a miracle.)

Boxcar

hcap

06-26-2010, 06:42 AM

http://www.salon.com/news/global_warming/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/06/25/climategate_retraction

Newspaper retracts "climategate" story, months too late

......Remember "climategate"? Someone hacked and distributed emails from climate scientists from the University of East Anglia. (It was kind of like Weigelgate except the entire Earth is going to die in a fire.) Some of the scientists used words like 'trick" and "hide." Instant scandal: Global warming is made up! A British newspaper has finally gotten around to correcting the record.

It was obvious to anyone who actually bothered to read the stolen "climategate" emails that they didn't actually contain anything particularly scandalous, and they certainly didn't contain anything at all that remotely called into the question the legitimacy of years of science demonstrating the effect of human activity on climate change.

delayjf

06-26-2010, 11:32 AM

It was obvious to anyone who actually bothered to read the stolen "climategate" emails that they didn't actually contain anything particularly scandalous, and they certainly didn't contain anything at all that remotely called into the question the legitimacy of years of science demonstrating the effect of human activity on climate change.

Funny, very intelligent people who did read the e-mails disagree. Just because this fellow now has a change of heart does not mitigate the e-mail content.

and they certainly didn't contain anything at all that remotely called into the question the legitimacy of years of science

Yes they did.

fast4522

06-26-2010, 04:52 PM

http://governmentmess.blogspot.com/2010/06/al-gores-sexual-assault-accuser-police.html

Guilty of GW

Tom

06-26-2010, 05:15 PM

newtothegame

07-03-2010, 05:02 AM

UN Report Fuels Criticism of Carbon-Cutting Scheme
Friday, July 02, 2010
By John Heilprin, Associated Press

United Nations (AP) - European and U.S. environmentalists demanded action Friday after an obscure U.N. advisory panel lent credence to their claims that industrialized nations are wasting billions of dollars on carbon-cutting projects.

The dispute revolves around the validity of some of the largest projects funded by the $2.7 billion U.N.-managed Clean Development Mechanism.

The "CDM" - a component of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for cutting heat-trapping greenhouse gases - essentially allows industrial nations that are required to cut their greenhouse gases to pay developing nations to cut theirs instead.

Governments purchase carbon offset credits generated by the CDM that are regulated mainly under the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme. The money goes to 22 chemical makers mostly in China and India to destroy a potent greenhouse gas, HFC-23, rather than let it vent into the atmosphere. Other plants are based in South Korea, Argentina and Mexico.

The credits, called Certified Emissions Reductions, can be worth as much as $100,000 or more for every ton of HFC-23 destroyed because it is based on how much more powerful the chemical is as a climate-warming gas than carbon dioxide - in this case, 11,700 times.

But HFC-23 is a byproduct of the refrigerant HCFC-22, a chemical the plants are paid to produce under the U.N.'s 1987 Montreal Protocol for fixing the Earth's ozone layer. HCFC-22 is used in home appliances, some refrigerators, hair sprays and air conditioners.

Environmentalists had asked the methodologies panel that advises the CDM executive board to investigate their claims that the chemical makers are exploiting an apparent conflict of interest between two U.N. treaties.

They say the plants make so much money destroying HFC-23, they're less inclined to phase out making HCFC-22 because that would lessen production of the byproduct HFC-23.

The CDM executive board must change the rules that allow for "phony carbon credits," the groups CDM Watch, Noe21, Environmental Investigation Agency and German NGO Forum on Environment and Development said Friday.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/68966

hcap

07-13-2010, 10:45 AM

Tom

07-13-2010, 01:20 PM

as a recent NASA paper notes.

How does this make muslims feel better about themselves?
Obviously, NASA is not a good source of information anymore - the guy in charge got his primary job function wrong TWICE so far, according to Gibbs. :lol:

delayjf

07-13-2010, 07:34 PM

Yet, they froze their asses off in Europe - go figure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_2009%E2%80%932010_in_Europe

hcap

07-13-2010, 07:56 PM

It's not JUST NASA. It's not JUST 1 part of the world
It's Global and the consensus is global as well. You guys are in denial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus

According to the results of a one-time online questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) (i.e. 75 of 77 individuals out of the 3146) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change. Overall, 82% reported agreeing with AGW.[1] According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points.[2][3][4][5]

Environmental organizations, many governmental reports, and most of the non-U.S. media[citation needed] agree with the scientific opinion on climate change, which substantiates human-caused global warming.

The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[2][3][4][5] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 75 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[13] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[14] the American Meteorological Society,[15] the International Union for Quaternary Research,[16] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[17][18] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.

.................................................. ...........

USGS, a legitimate and official scientific organization with top-notch geologists who base their findings on research and field study; not on government agenda. You can see the official report (not a media spin of it) here on the USGS website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i-2600-c/

The Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

This website was created by the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/global_warming_101/

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html (This one has pictures, so you can see, with your own eyes, the melting of the glaciers

..................................................

For some strange reason Fox news is not listed as one of the respected scientific organizations agreeing with the consensus

Go figure

hcap

07-13-2010, 08:01 PM

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2285

Global Warming Deniers and
Their Proven Strategy of Doubt
For years, free-market fundamentalists opposed to government regulation have sought to create doubt in the public’s mind about the dangers of smoking, acid rain, and ozone depletion. Now they have turned those same tactics on the issue of global warming and on climate scientists, with significant success.

In recent months, a group called the Cooler Heads Coalition — a creation of the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) — has fostered a public image of climate science as a criminal conspiracy. The CEI itself has accused NASA, the largest funder of climate science, of faking important climate data sets. In February, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, whose positions are frequently cited and promoted by CEI, called for a criminal investigation of 17 climate scientists from a variety of institutions for allegedly falsifying or distorting data used in taxpayer-funded research.

bigmack

07-13-2010, 08:49 PM

Global Warming Deniers and
Their Proven Strategy of Doubt
Post 25 more like that and see what happens. :rolleyes:

I can't figure out if you're more like a Jehovah's Witness knocking on our door to spread the word or the gays that stand outside my grocery store insisting that I sign their petition. When I point out their cause has been voted down in over 30 states they're unwilling to accept it.

Dig, Chief. You believe in GW, we don't. Do you want to beat us over the head 'til we believe?

Give it a rest.

hcap

07-13-2010, 08:57 PM

bigmack

07-13-2010, 09:00 PM

Dig you are arguing "fair and balanced" when it is clear there is only ONE side that is scientifically supported.

Maybe we can have a "fair and balanced" discussion of whether or not the earth is flat.

I guess I know which view the majority here will chose
I know, I know, we're so ignorant and unschooled. You're our hero. :rolleyes:

It's just the idiots here that don't believe: :lol:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/7_13_10_18_01_47.png
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx

hcap

07-13-2010, 09:12 PM

Something like 20% also believe in the Birther nonsense. How many believe in other non scientific bull?

Look I pointed out the overwhelming scientific consensus. As I have a number of times before.

I am not a climatologist. Either are you or as far as I know anyone posting on off topic.

Ordinarily I don't jump on a minority view simply because it is a minority. Scientifically or poliricaly. However it is really becoming a flat earth debate.
Your facts are not there and your position is is totally blown away by the huge majority of qualified scientists in the field

Tom

07-13-2010, 09:14 PM

I can see where hcap gets confused.........

hcap

07-13-2010, 09:19 PM

I can see where hcap gets confused.........Hey Tom you dropped a few pounds. Weight watchers again?

BTW, drawing sloppy peace symbols with lipstick on your face is not your forte.

As also arguing intelligently is not

bigmack

07-13-2010, 09:24 PM

However it is really becoming a flat earth debate.
With this I agree. When will you learn that the earth is not flat but a bumpy spheroid.

Pop some corn, sit back and drink this in. Complete with Power Point for ya:

stij8sUybx0

Tom

07-13-2010, 09:28 PM

As also arguing intelligently is not

Consensus is not science. Never has been.

hcap

07-13-2010, 09:43 PM

Tom for your info established scientific theory is built on peer rewired analysis the creates a consensus. The scientific method depends on many scientists testing other scientists work and weeding out poor theories that are not supported by observable facts

That is how the consensus that the earth is round was developed

hcap

07-13-2010, 09:53 PM

Monckton??

He has zero credentials as a commentator on climate change Monckton has no training whatsoever in science. Does not qualify at all

Valuist

07-13-2010, 10:00 PM

Wouldn't it make sense for the liberals to sell the idea of generic pollution? Nobody cares if a couple more polar bears allegedly die because a quarter inch of Greenlands glacier may or may not be melting due to the supposed effects of global warming.

rastajenk

07-13-2010, 10:01 PM

How is he much different than our legislators that would enact punitive caps and trades based on ... what, their own scientific training and expertise? Or should we just cede policy making over to the scientists? And when did Al Gore become such a scientific expert? Hell, he's the Patron Saint of Climate Change; why should we have ever listened to him?

hcap

07-13-2010, 10:05 PM

Gore invented the internet, he must be a genius :cool:

bigmack

07-13-2010, 10:07 PM

Monckton??

He has zero credentials as a commentator on climate change Monckton has no training whatsoever in science. Does not qualify at all
Next to Big Al G, HE'S BRILLIANT!

Why does 48% of the public believe GW claims are exaggerated? Are they all morons like us who roll here? :lol:

You're such an elitist snob.

Tom

07-13-2010, 10:14 PM

Gore invented the internet, he must be a genius :cool:

That's not all he is......

PaceAdvantage

07-14-2010, 02:35 AM

http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/10/nasa-hottest-year-solar-minimum/

Following fast on the heels of the hottest Jan-May — and spring — in the temperature record, it’s also the hottest Jan-June on record in the NASA dataset [click on figure to enlarge].

It’s all the more powerful evidence of human-caused warming “because it occurs when the recent minimum of solar irradiance is having its maximum cooling effect,” as a recent NASA paper notes.Where were you and "climateprogress" LAST YEAR when we had one of the coolest summers on record? Here in NY, I believe during the summer of 2009, it was a damn rarity to see the thermometer even approach 90.

As if there are never again going to be hot summers in the world... :rolleyes:

rastajenk

07-14-2010, 06:57 AM

Well, you know what they say: Weather isn't climate. At least not when it suits them. When it does, its called proof.

hcap

07-18-2010, 06:54 AM

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.html

Too bad you gentlemen are getting annoyed that we are pounding you relentlessly.
Grow up boys

First NASA now..........

NOAA: June, April to June, and Year-to-Date Global Temperatures are Warmest on Record

Last month’s combined global land and ocean surface temperature made it the warmest June on record and the warmest on record averaged for any April-June and January-June periods, according to NOAA. Worldwide average land surface temperature was the warmest on record for June and the April-June period, and the second warmest on record for the year-to-date (January-June) period, behind 2007.

The monthly analysis from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, which is based on records going back to 1880, is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides government, business and community leaders so they can make informed decisions.

Tom

07-18-2010, 10:46 AM

What is the ideal target temperature, and what criteria was used to define it?

boxcar

07-18-2010, 11:36 AM

What is the ideal target temperature, and what criteria was used to define it?

Oh...here we go again. :rolleyes: These tree huggers can never tell us what Mudder Earth's ideal thermostat setting is. But of course....they will try to dictate to everyone else where our home thermostats should be set. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage

07-19-2010, 01:01 AM

bigmack

07-19-2010, 01:22 AM

A giant in the world of Excel: I'm Just Wild About Harrrrrriieeee.

What a shell of his former self. An occasional lunge with an errant gw finding is all in the tank these days.

Put...put. Almost outta gas... Running on life support...

Won't be long now. :sleeping:

hcap

07-19-2010, 04:51 AM

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/lfo/lowres/lfon268l.jpg

Everything is just dandy in the world of PA OT

PaceAdvantage

07-19-2010, 05:18 PM

Everything is just dandy in the world of PA OTWhy do you only acknowledge temperature extremes on the hot side?

What did last summer being one of the coldest on record mean to you?

Talk about burying your head in the sand...you'll have no answer for me...you'll either ignore my question or twist it in some perverse manner.

Tom

07-19-2010, 10:00 PM

What is the ideal target temperature, and what criteria was used to define it?

bump.

hcap?

boxcar

07-19-2010, 10:14 PM

bump.

hcap?

Yeah, 'cap, come up for an answer for us, will ya? The Moron-in-Chief wants to dictate to us what to set our home thermostats at, so why can't we know beforehand what the ideal temp for the Earth's thermostat would be? Or is this another BO top secret kept under lock and key along with all his other papers?

Boxcar

hcap

07-20-2010, 08:41 AM

Why do you only acknowledge temperature extremes on the hot side?

What did last summer being one of the coldest on record mean to you?

Talk about burying your head in the sand...you'll have no answer for me...you'll either ignore my question or twist it in some perverse manner.Obviously you gentlemen did not read the article.

"The figures released last night by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) suggest that 2010 is now on course to be the warmest year since records began in 1880.

The trend to a warmer world is now incontrovertible. According to NOAA, June was the 304th consecutive month with a combined global land and surface temperature above the 20th-century average. The last month with below-average temperatures was February 1985. Each of the 10 warmest average global temperatures recorded since 1880 have occurred in the last 15 years with the previous warmest first half of a year in 1998.......

Separate satellite data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado shows that the extent of sea ice in the Arctic was at its lowest for any June since satellite records started in 1979. The icy skin over the Arctic Ocean grows each winter and shrinks in summer, reaching its annual low point in September. The monthly average for June 2010 was 10.87 km sq. The ice was declining an average of 88,000 sq km per day in June.

In a further possible sign of a warming world, the Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier, one of the largest in Greenland, lost a 2.7-square mile chunk of ice and retreated one mile between 6-7 July – one of the largest single losses to a glacier ever recorded.

Tom

07-20-2010, 08:46 AM

304 months is what percentage of the time the earth has been around?
Didn't YOU argue that is has been here for, like ages and ages? Would 304 months be a long or short term in terms of the age of the planet, which was once both frozen and molten at various times?

hcap

07-20-2010, 09:11 AM

We are talking about a definite trend that will disrupt our civilization enormously. What happened a few millenia ago was not human induced, but the quickly accelerating climate change currently is.

bigmack

07-20-2010, 09:39 AM

We are talking about a definite trend that will disrupt our civilization enormously. What happened a few millenia ago was not human induced, but the quickly accelerating climate change currently is.
Definite trend? Incontrovertible? Quickly accelerating?

Why do the majority of people find it all hogwash?

Such a perfect subject for you. You're able to 'fight the power' and ridicule people who 'just don't get it' all at the same time. :D

Mike at A+

07-20-2010, 09:57 AM

I personally have solved the issue of global warming. I posted my solution on several message boards but apparently the problem still exists. My solution is very simple and is guaranteed to work. Here are the details. First, we must examine the number (or percent) of people who actually believe in man made global warming. For argument's sake, let's put that at about 50%. Of those people, how many are actually willing to do something about it? Again, for argument's sake we'll say 50%. So basically we have 25% of the world's population willing to fix the problem. If THAT 25% would actually stop using the substances they believe to harm the environment, it would have a HUGE EFFECT on improving air quality and overall climate conditions. But these chicken little's aren't interested in making sacrifices themselves as evidenced by their use of private jets, big SUV's and electric bills such as Al Gore's which is estimated to be SIX times the normal family of four and the "First Dog" flying separately to Maine. They are much more interested in CONTROL and TAXING. If all the zealots would simply curb THEIR OWN use of harmful materials VOLUNTARILY, the effect would be IMMENSE. Then they could tell the rest of us that the sacrifices they've made have improved the quality of life on earth making it much easier to convince more people to join the movement. But it seems that the "Lear Jet Liberals" and "Limousine Liberals" want to be exempt from the very same restrictions they would impose on the rest of us. This concept of "carbon credits" is a big freaking joke. It's like saying "I have more money than you so I can purchase a pass to violate my own principles". As with any other government scheme, money talks, lack of it gets no say.

delayjf

07-20-2010, 09:57 AM

how its done.

To cook temperature data and warm the earth artificially, NASA and NOAA have whipped up a nifty recipe. Here are the not-so-secret ingredients for global warming:

1) Reduce temperature reporting stations across the globe from nearly 6,000 in 1970 to 1,500 or less today.

2) Drop out reporting stations in higher latitudes (colder), higher elevations (colder) and mainly rural locations (colder).

3) Cool early temperature records through data "adjustments" to create the impression of a current warming trend.

4) Fail to compensate or under-compensate for urban growth and land-use changes that can produce localized warming known as the urban heat island (UHI) effect.

5) Cherry-pick thermometers from reporting stations sited at busy airports and other warm locales (e.g. near the coast or at lower elevations).

6) Fill gaps in the shrunk-down thermometer network by estimating temperatures using a system of global grid boxes. Then "populate" the grids with thermometers stationed at lower latitudes and altitudes, or near the coast and in other warm spots.

7) If there are no temperature stations inside the grid box, use the closest station in a nearby box (for example, at the bottom of a mountain plateau or on the coast).

8) Adjust the final temperature dataset using "homogenization," a blending process that effectively spreads a warm bias to all surrounding stations.

9) Voila, global warming made easy!

Tom

07-20-2010, 10:11 AM

We are talking about a definite trend that will disrupt our civilization enormously. What happened a few millenia ago was not human induced, but the quickly accelerating climate change currently is.

Then.......

Originally Posted by Tom
What is the ideal target temperature, and what criteria was used to define it?

hcap

07-20-2010, 10:21 AM

Tom, you have asked this dumb downed question before.

If you were smacked upside your head by a schoolmate 30 years ago and knocked on your butt through no fault of your own, but now are constantly smackin your head with a hammer and constantly falling down, what difference doe it make what happened 30 years ago when it wasn't your fault???

bigmack

07-20-2010, 10:35 AM

At best, the green movement might be compared to an alarm clock: jangling shrilly to wake up the world. That is fair enough; they have turned our attention to a problem that needs to be carefully examined and dealt with. But the first thing you do when you wake up is to turn the alarm clock off; otherwise that shrill beeping noise will distract you from the problems of the day.

The alarm clock will never understand this; making shrill and irrational noise is what alarm clocks do and is all they understand. But sensible and thoughtful people who want humanity to live fuller, richer lives in a cleaner and more sustainable world need to get past the naive and crude policy ideas that currently dominate green thinking and start giving these questions the serious attention and careful thought they deserve.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/07/12/the-big-green-lie-exposed/

hcap, like a never ending alarm clock.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/clock_011_animado.gif

hcap

07-21-2010, 04:52 AM

But the first thing you do when you wake up is to turn the alarm clock off; otherwise that shrill beeping noise will distract you from the problems of the day.You are STILL sleeping. If you were awake you would recognize that in fact the earth is warming and humans are a major contributing factor.

Sometimes shrillness is in the eye of the beholder.

bigmack

07-21-2010, 05:22 AM

You are STILL sleeping. If you were awake you would recognize that in fact the earth is warming and humans are a major contributing factor.
As the greens struggle to figure out how a cause so righteous, so necessary has gone so far off course, the Kool-Aide drinkers among them have frenetically concocted and endlessly repeated a narrative that casts all blame on the vileness and the stupidity of their opponents.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/07/12/the-big-green-lie-exposed/

fast4522

07-21-2010, 05:49 AM

There is no good reason to redistribute the wealth for greenhouse gases or anything else for that matter. The main reason is that agenda is about taking money from the middle class because it is where the money is. The old tax the rich and feed the poor has always been a farce because its the super rich that always will pay less. The middle class have always been the target and always will because they are the cash cow. A regular millionaire like the previous President and wife paid over 30% while Mr Kerry and his wife paid just 14 %, even if you enable carbon taxes the people who will pay are the middle class. Consumption taxes are disguised to be carbon taxes and the filth moves on. Those who push this filth will face unemployment this November in large numbers and the White House, The Senate and House leaders know it right now. It is too bad the electorate have to be reminded every few years that the socialists are deadly close to our balls and its time to fire a sufficient number in order to keep them at bay.

Tom

07-21-2010, 07:28 AM

Tom, you have asked this dumb downed question before.

Simple question - can't you answer it?
You claim a problem exists. I ask you to define the problem.
And you cannot.
Tells me something.........:rolleyes:

hcap

07-21-2010, 07:42 AM

Answered it many times
Told you the problem exists many times
Defined it many times

Obviously....

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/lfo/lowres/lfon268l.jpg

You are the one on the right.

Tom

07-21-2010, 09:54 AM

Answered it many times
Told you the problem exists many times
Defined it many times

Obviously....

Then answer my questions - if you do not know what the target temperature is, how can you say we have a problem and how will you know when it is fixed?

You need specific metrics to solve problems.

PaceAdvantage

07-21-2010, 07:10 PM

If you were awake you would recognize that in fact the earth is warming and humans are a major contributing factor.You see, you do not and absolutely CAN NOT KNOW THIS for a fact.

It's simply impossible. And that's where the problem lies.

thaskalos

07-21-2010, 07:36 PM

I know, I know, we're so ignorant and unschooled. You're our hero. :rolleyes:

It's just the idiots here that don't believe: :lol:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/7_13_10_18_01_47.png
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx Public polls have little to do with reality. It has also been documented that 51% of Americans believe in ghosts...

fast4522

07-21-2010, 08:20 PM

Just cut a big old fart, dedicating it to Hcap for his global warming.

bigmack

07-21-2010, 08:35 PM

Public polls have little to do with reality. It has also been documented that 51% of Americans believe in ghosts...
Good point. 44% believe BO is doing an OK job. Clearly it should be more like 2%.

hcap

07-24-2010, 06:35 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/business/economy/21leonhardt.html

According to NASA, 2010 is on course to be the planet’s hottest year since records started in 1880. The current top 10, in descending order, are: 2005, 2007, 2009, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2004, 2001 and 2008.

Himalayan glaciers are melting. In the American West, pine beetles (which struggle to survive the cold) are multiplying and killing trees.

fast4522

07-24-2010, 09:17 AM

Any relation?

Tom

07-24-2010, 09:45 AM

Himalayan glaciers are melting.

Gee, glaciers melting is unprecedented? :lol:

Mike at A+

07-24-2010, 10:27 AM

Himalayan glaciers are melting.
Sounds like a great opportunity for a new bottled water company.

boxcar

07-24-2010, 10:59 AM

46zilzal

07-24-2010, 12:18 PM

bigmack

07-24-2010, 12:27 PM

If you go inland in British Columbia about 40% of all the trees are brown due to this beetle and all the scientists agree the cause: temperature rise
That's odd. According to the Natural Resources Canada website the #1 cause for the outbreak is a landscape with an abundance of susceptible trees.

delayjf

07-28-2010, 04:17 PM

Apparently the integrity of the investigation into the climategate schancel has been called into question. Some excerpts and the full article.

I wonder how long it will be before NASA has to recalculate it's temperature data.....yet again.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/-259100--.html

Five allegedly independent investigations claim to have cleared U.S. and British climate scientists of chicanery in their global warming research. It's more likely the investigations will be among the final nails in the coffin for the global warming alarmist movement. That's a position shared not only among respected skeptics in the scientific community, but increasingly in the mainstream press and even by some global warming believers.

In part, this is because the relationship of investigators to those they investigated was eyebrow raising, casting doubt on their conclusions. From the beginning, neither global warming skeptics nor true believers expected investigators to find anything amiss. As many have noted, the institutions paid for and/or commissioned the investigations of themselves by cadres of friendly faces. A pervasive sense of glossing over also exists because many of the most obvious questions weren't even asked, or asked of the right people.

BenDiesel26

07-28-2010, 11:19 PM

Apparently the integrity of the investigation into the climategate schancel has been called into question. Some excerpts and the full article.

I wonder how long it will be before NASA has to recalculate it's temperature data.....yet again.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/-259100--.html

It actually gets even worse than that. On the latest panel led by Muir-Russell, the panel chose 11 papers that were representative of the work done by Jones at the CRU. Well guess who selected the papers? JONES! In addition, a stated goal at the beginning was to "look at the science." After it was done, it was stated "the science was not part of the investigation." Finally, the emails (which clearly show wrongdoing and "prima facie evidence" of criminal behavior, only the most naive disagree) were not even reviewed for context as originally set out to do.

The stuff gets a lot more coverage in Britain. Basically, the CRU rep was laughed at and booed at the most recent Guardian debate and apparently looked like a total ass. The CRU data is more or less total crap. And its not clear whether the data sets used by NASA here are independent of the CRU data or not. NASA is looking into it now.

hcap

07-29-2010, 05:14 AM

The OC Register vs the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/opinion/11sun2.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1280394270-hNrCYCV6+JUBt5wU3SH8Vg

A Climate Change Corrective
Published: July 9, 2010

Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us and turn to the task of actually doing something about global warming. On Wednesday, a panel in Britain concluded that scientists whose e-mail had been hacked late last year had not, as critics alleged, distorted scientific evidence to prove that global warming was occurring and that human beings were primarily responsible.
Editorial Series

It was the fifth such review of hundreds of e-mail exchanges among some of the world’s most prominent climatologists. Some of the e-mail messages, purloined last November, were mean-spirited, others were dismissive of contrarian views, and others revealed a timid reluctance to share data. Climate skeptics pounced on them as evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate research to support predetermined ideas about global warming.

The panel found no such conspiracy.

I might add "while climate scientists have been thoroughly investigated recently and had their scientific findings confirmed independently under intense scrutiny, the same cannot be said for the skeptics who loudly proclaimed that Climategate proved global warming is a myth.

Where are the investigations into the broad network of polluter-funded skeptic groups who make these outlandish claims about climate science without any proof? Where are the corrections and retractions from those media outlets that promoted their false Climategate allegations? "

fast4522

07-29-2010, 05:36 AM

No climate change is not a myth its real. The earth will do what it wants when it wants without mans influence. There is no tax to stop it, so why pay taxes to a bunch of egg sucking ferret low life's? Its just more Marxist left wing rubbish being pushed here.

hcap

07-29-2010, 06:33 AM

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0728/Vital-ocean-phytoplankton-a-casualty-of-global-warming

Vital ocean phytoplankton a casualty of global warming?

A new study suggests that a global rise in ocean temperatures has cut the number of phytoplankton, which are the bedrock of the food chain, by 40 percent since 1950. Other scientists link the rise in ocean temperatures to global warming.

The foundation of the ocean food chain is eroding, and global warming is partly to blame.

That's the broad conclusion from a newly released study of a century's worth of measurements of the abundance of phytoplankton in the world's oceans.

Between 1899 and 2008, phytoplankton – microscopic, plant-like organisms in ocean surface waters – declined by roughly 1 percent of the global average per year, the study estimates. That works out to a 40 percent drop in amount of phytoplankton between 1950 and 2008, according to the study, which appears in tomorrow's issue of the journal Nature.

Beyond disruptions to the ocean food chain, such a decline would undercut the ocean's ability to take up the carbon dioxide humans have pumped into the atmosphere through increased burning of coal, oil, and gas, as well as through land-use changes, say scientists.

BenDiesel26

07-29-2010, 07:33 AM

Hey hcap,

The NY Times Article you posted is wrong, assuming it is referring to the Muir-Russell Panel. As I posted, they did not investigate the emails (this is their own statement). They are under major fire in Britain right now.

Is the earth warming? Most likely. Is it exaggerated? Absolutely. Contrary to what you have posted, the so-called actual scientist "skeptics" have not actually used the emails to prove global warming is a myth. They have used them to show proof of wrongdoing (which the first panel did find) and exaggeration, what they have been saying all along.

If it weren't for these auditors, more people might actually believe that global warming is causing the world to end and will cause world-wide famine (sorry, I know you believe it is going to rain meteor showers if we keep driving SUVs). They might believe that it is increasing the cost and frequency of natural disasters due to the IPCC citation of Roger Pielke, Jr. Fortunately, Pielke, Jr. is around to correct the issue himself.

I recommend that you educate yourself by reading as much from actual scientists as you can. The people over at the censored RealClimate are scrambling right now to defend a hockeystick that has been thoroughly discredited, instead of admitting their own mistakes. Until they admit their mistakes and the exaggeration by use of murky statistics, and are willing to turn over their raw data and source code requested in FOIA requests like most other fields, their discipline is dead. It's time that they let the big boy statisticians look at their work. But why do they hesitate at such a thought?

Happy reading. You might actually learn something.

bigmack

07-29-2010, 09:53 AM

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/7_29_10_06_45_01.jpg

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25124

hcap

07-30-2010, 09:22 PM

Hey hcap,

The NY Times Article you posted is wrong, assuming it is referring to the Muir-Russell Panel. As I posted, they did not investigate the emails (this is their own statement). They are under major fire in Britain right now.

Is the earth warming? Most likely. Is it exaggerated? Absolutely
You guys used to argue that only mankinds' role was exaggerated. I thought you accepted that the earth was definitely warming.

Assuming you don't think this part of Al Gore's clandestine conspiracy. Or maybe these hundreds of climate scientists were also in on the climategate email conspiracy?

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html

NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

Tom

07-30-2010, 11:45 PM

You guys used to argue that only mankinds' role was exaggerated. I thought you accepted that the earth was definitely warming.

The earth warms up,
The earth cools down,
All the time, spinning round and round.
Sometimes it's hot,
Sometimes it's not,
From ice to lava, to big sun spots.

Mars is warming up, too. Exhaust from the Rover?

BenDiesel26

07-30-2010, 11:48 PM

Actually, I still argue that mankind's role is exaggerated, as it has never even been close to proven. As long as Gavin and his boys try to defend the indefensible that was used to create this hysteria, they look more and more like they have ZERO credibility. Read actual papers from scientists hcap, not mediamatters. Look up the word "negative feedbacks." Then try to figure out how they are being handled in current climate models. Read papers by Roger Pielke, Sr. please. Happy reading hcap. I hope that you don't continue your "current war on science" that you choose to wage. Read a scientific paper, please! Happy reading hcap. You might learn something about science.

Edit: I must add, according to the latest temperature proxy just recently published, it is cooler now than it was from 1935 to 1950. Read a real paper hcap. Thanks! PM me if you would like the abstract and link.

You guys used to argue that only mankinds' role was exaggerated. I thought you accepted that the earth was definitely warming.

Assuming you don't think this part of Al Gore's clandestine conspiracy. Or maybe these hundreds of climate scientists were also in on the climategate email conspiracy?

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html

NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

hcap

07-31-2010, 07:19 AM

Hey Ben I appreciate that you are reading real papers. But what exactly is your background and do you have any credentials as a climate scientist.?

I adnit my opinion is based on secondhand peer reviewed papers. But isn't that the way theory becomes ACCEPTED theory in the scientific process? And I have to point out, as an unqualified layman, even if you are a qualified climate scientist, among those in the field, you remain a very small minority.

Should I believe you or NOOA
"The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable"

bigmack

07-31-2010, 09:04 AM

Should I believe you or NOOA
I'd go with him if I were you.

Then again, you remain single-minded, in a goofy, delusional sort of way.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/7_31_10_05_55_30.jpg

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/7_31_10_05_55_52.jpg

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/7_31_10_05_59_32.jpg

http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/25654/Nearly_90_of_Temperature_Stations_Show_Extreme_Hea t_Bias_Study_Says.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/photos-noaas-carefree-climate-station/

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/noaa-admits-temperature-error-and-faulty-equipment-but-they-are-still-going-to-keep-the-flawed-temperature-record-and-%E2%80%9Cnew-highs%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-2/

fast4522

07-31-2010, 09:21 AM

It does not matter, the important thing is to not let these low life's get one more red penny.

hcap

07-31-2010, 09:33 AM

1-The Heartland Institute's Environmental "expert," James Taylor, is a lawyer based in Florida. Despite presenting a veneer of scientific expertise in their Environmental advocacy, the Heartland lacks any scientists trained to understand climate iss

2-Anthony Watts became a television weather presenter in 1987 when he joined WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana, and KHSL-TV, a CBS affiliate based in Chico, California.[3] After working at KHSL for 17 years, he left in 2004 to become the radio weather presenter for KPAY-AM, a Fox News affiliate also based in Chico, California. Watts also operates several companies that make weather graphics systems for use on television broadcasts.[4]

3-Your third link just repeats the others. And who the hell wrote it? Av sophiaalbertina?

Where are any credentials more than lawyer or TV weatherman?

Why should I believe amateurs, and not NOAA and 95% of the worlds climatologists??
Real scientific papers are peer reviewed.

Who are Taylors' and Watts' peers? Mickey the Mouse, Donald the Duck?

bigmack

07-31-2010, 10:16 AM

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/7_31_10_07_11_32.jpg

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/7_31_10_07_10_58.jpg

http://www.surfacestations.org/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/4171-alarmist-state-of-the-climate-report-draws-fire

delayjf

07-31-2010, 11:03 AM

I wonder how long it will be before NASA has to recalculate it's temperature data.....yet again.

WOW - only took one week.

hcap

07-31-2010, 07:15 PM

http://www.surfacestations.org/

I find it unbelievable that urban sites have skewed the data to such an extent that ALL data from all sites-most of which are non-urban-and rural become invalid. In fact with some digging found a sensible strategy that accounts for this objection from your link.....
Published works by Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, Dev Nyogi of Purdue University, and Georg Taylor of Oregon State University have demonstrated that a significant number of USHCN and other weather stations used in the climate record have some significant, and in some cases severe measurement biases near the thermometers in these climate stations of record. There have been instances recorded of air conditioners being located directly adjacent to the thermometer, vehicles parked next to thermometers head-in, heat generating electronics and electrical components being placed in the thermometer shelters

The strategy to compensate.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

Urbanization Effects

In the original HCN, the regression-based approach of Karl et al. (1988) was employed to account for urban heat islands. In contrast, no specific urban correction is applied in HCN version 2 because the change-point detection algorithm effectively accounts for any "local" trend at any individual station. In other words, the impact of urbanization and other changes in land use is likely small in HCN version 2. Figure 2 - the minimum temperature time series for Reno, Nevada - provides anecdotal evidence in this regard. In brief, the black line represents the unadjusted data, and the blue line represents fully adjusted data. The unadjusted data clearly indicate that the station at Reno experienced both major step changes (e.g., a move from the city to the airport during the 1930s) and trend changes (e.g., a possible growing urban heat island beginning in the 1970s). In contrast, the fully adjusted (homogenized) data indicate that both the step-type changes and the trend changes have been effectively addressed through the change-point detection process used in HCN version 2.

Furthermore poor siting issues have already been addressed by the USHCN organization..
Station siting and U.S. surface temperature trends

Recent photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at stations in the USHCN has led to questions regarding the reliability of surface temperature trends over the conterminous U.S. (CONUS). To evaluate the potential impact of poor siting/instrument exposure on CONUS temperatures, Menne et al. (2010) compared trends derived from poor and well-sited USHCN stations using both unadjusted and bias-adjusted data. Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites in the unadjusted USHCN version 2 data; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years (see e.g., Menne et al. 2009). Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures.
More here

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

And here

http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=3857

http://www.climateshifts.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/20091216_TemperatureOfScience1.jpg

GISS data updates: Each month we receive, electronically, data from three sources: weather data for several thousand meteorological stations, satellite observations of sea surface temperature, and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are the input for a program that produces a global map of temperature anomalies relative to the mean for that month during the period of climatology, 1951-1980.

.......................................

So here data is collected from 3 sources. 2 of which do not draw on the possible erroneous USHCN sites All 3 sources are in agreement. Not too many car exhausts or A/C outlets to screw up things out in the ocean or the Antarctic

hcap

07-31-2010, 07:41 PM

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282003%29016%3C2941%3AAOUVRI%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found

Abstract

All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by differences in elevation, latitude, time of observation, instrumentation, and nonstandard siting, a variety of adjustments were applied to the data. The resultant data were the most thoroughly homogenized and the homogeneity adjustments were the most rigorously evaluated and thoroughly documented of any large-scale UHI analysis to date. Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures.

bigmack

07-31-2010, 07:47 PM

The strategy to compensate? :lol:

An then, get a gander at this mumbo jumbo:

Recent photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at stations in the USHCN has led to questions regarding the reliability of surface temperature trends over the conterminous U.S. (CONUS). To evaluate the potential impact of poor siting/instrument exposure on CONUS temperatures, Menne et al. (2010) compared trends derived from poor and well-sited USHCN stations using both unadjusted and bias-adjusted data. Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites :D in the unadjusted USHCN version 2 data; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years (see e.g., Menne et al. 2009). Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures. :lol:

Now THAT'S science at its finest! :p

Look. My little point here is that anyone can find and post oodles of articles to contradict your heavily biased sources. If you don't think your sources are biased you're beyond help.

Again, if I were you I'd go ahead and believe in anything you wish, including this silliness. But you're wasting your time trying to convince others by posting another article every few days.

Give it a rest.

hcap

07-31-2010, 07:59 PM

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100517_globalstats.html

NOAA: Warmest April Global Temperature on Record
Also Warmest January-April

May 17, 2010

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for both April and for the period from January-April, according to NOAA. Additionally, last month’s average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for any April, and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record.''

So as I said ocean temps which are not subject to poor siting and urban sprawl-your objection show the same trend.

Sorry you don't follow the strategy to compensate
The other paper explains something of that strategy and supports my contention. Not yours.

fast4522

07-31-2010, 08:08 PM

Sure, and it does not matter whatsoever, what track records got broke this week? The honest answer is nobody or few to none cares at all.

hcap

08-01-2010, 07:44 AM

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html

Temperature studies done by NOAA include Land Based, Marine, Upper Air, Satellite data, and Paleoclimatology.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/mainlores.jpg

All point to global warming. Are you going to cite criticisms denying the accuracy of all? By generally minor league players, few having proper credentials in the field?

BTW, here are the subcategories just in Paleoclimatology.alone

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/image/collage/paleoproxycollage.jpg

hcap

08-01-2010, 08:23 AM

Sure, and it does not matter whatsoever, what track records got broke this week? The honest answer is nobody or few to none cares at all.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/effects-consequences-global-warming.html

The Effects and Consequences of Global Warming

There are also a number of effects to the nature and atmosphere.One of the most serious effects of Global Warming that humans have to think about are the effects on the health of individuals, nations and therefore civilizations. The rise in temperature due to Global Warming is known to be supportive to various viral diseases like the west nile virus and malaria. This will result in economic as well as health effects on human beings. For example, Global Warming will increase the incidence of such diseases in poorer countries where these diseases exist. Global Warming will also cause countries who have eradicated these diseases to spend more on vaccinations and other ways of eradication like pesticides, etc.

Other than these effects, Global Warming has other effects on the health of human beings. Global Warming results in a drastic rise in temperature. This rise in temperature will finally result in an increase in the mortality rate of people. A higher temperature causes problems to people with cardiovascular problems. In extreme cases, people are known to have died of heatstroke. People may also have heat exhaustion problems. Respiratory problems are also known to arise out of a high temperature.

High temperature also causes the concentration of ozone in the lower atmosphere.Ozone is a harmful pollutant and causes respiratory problems Ozone is also known to damage lung tissues and therefore cause more complications for people with asthma. These are some of the health effects of Global Warming.

Global Warming has many other effects other than the health of individuals. Global Warming may also cause a decline in agriculture due to the rise in temperature. The agriculture will also decline due to the role of carbon dioxide in photosynthesis. Carbon Dioxide prevents photorespiration and therefore is the cause of the damage of many crops. Global Warmingalso results in increased number and longer droughts. This will result in a increase in the ozone gas at the ground level. The increase of the ozone at the ground level will result in a substantial depletion of crops.

bigmack

08-01-2010, 11:19 AM

The Effects and Consequences of Global Warming
Holy crap, you've made a believer out of me. What can we do (specifically you) rather than posting articles to help out Mama Earth with this pending calamity?

I say we start a Cork a Cow Campaign. What do ya say?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/8_1_10_08_09_56.jpg

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/CowFart.gif

boxcar

08-01-2010, 11:30 AM

hcap

08-01-2010, 07:15 PM

Holy crap, you've made a believer out of me. What can we do (specifically you) rather than posting articles to help out Mama Earth with this pending calamity?

I say we start a Cork a Cow Campaign. What do ya say?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/8_1_10_08_09_56.jpg

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/CowFart.gif

Gentlemen, Gentlemen, I see that you have finally come around to the PROPER Liberal mindset. That man and his 20th-21st century cultural/technological changes DO affect the environment! Very astute Mack and box.

If you guys would have read the article you pasted-other than just the headline, (posted to devalue sarcastically the truth about GW) you snickering boobs would have realized tht indeed just like man's intervention in introducing LARGE amounts of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, man has drastically changed how agriculture/beef/chicken/pork products are done.No longer does the world farm the way it did for milena-small individual farms part of mostly an agrarian lifestyle. Now corporate monstrosities and vast agri business have totally changed how it HAD been done in pre-industrial times.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming
, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.

Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.

Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow their feed overnourish water, causing weeds to choke all other life. And the pesticides, antibiotics and hormones used to treat them get into drinking water and endanger human health.

The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral reefs and creating "dead zones" devoid of life. One is up to 21,000sqkm, in the Gulf of Mexico, where much of the waste from US beef production is carried down the Mississippi.

The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are made, the massive damage done by livestock will more than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases.

No boxhead, it is not hot air from libs, it looks like it means all you red-blooded meat eaters have got to adopt a more vegetarian Kumbaya lifestyle. Peace and love, and thanks for proving that mans' rapidly growing industrial overgrowth a major cause of GW.

After all the articles and links I have posted over the years, you gentlemen have PROVEN my point.

Thanks guys. Great job ' :lol:

bigmack

08-01-2010, 08:04 PM

Paradoxically, I find it a hoot you being servile for this scam and insisting people believe. Particularly in light of you being of the ilk to deride, mock & ridicule people of religious faith who insist that others believe.

Your church is comprised of a congregation of nerds and whack-job scientists with their hands stretched out wanting more funding. Not to mention the Third Worlds at the ready to scoop up some of them carbon offset dollars.

The most questionable story for me as a kid in Lutheran Bible School was Noah, an ark and two of everything. This scam you're part of is exponentially less believable than Noah and one of everything given the hacks, manipulated data and thermometers atop roofs with HVAC systems blowing aplenty.

Face it, you're a die hard believer in a scam.

hcap

08-01-2010, 08:56 PM

bigmack

08-01-2010, 09:24 PM

When you are short on facts you resort to nonsense.

How do you respond to all the data from non land based stations where urbanization and questionable siting is not an issue?

How can you deny that the advent of huge industrialization of agri business is man once again affecting the planet?
You'd like nothing more than to get into a cut & paste war. Your sourced data is weak at best. The 'stew' that makes-up all your dopey articles have ingredients that are fouling-up the taste. The integrity of the data has to be exact throughout or it's a waste of time/effort.

Continue to flimflam your way towards forcing people to buy into a swindle of epic proportions while you ridicule any opposition to your little fraud.

Post one more article and you're officially a devout lackey. Did you once sell flowers at the airport as well?

Tom

08-01-2010, 10:22 PM

How can you deny that the advent of huge industrialization of agri business is man once again affecting the planet?

I prefer to think of it as the planet still supporting mankind, as it was meant to do. We are part of nature, our development is natural.
The planet will survive us.

hcap

08-02-2010, 06:07 AM

You'd like nothing more than to get into a cut & paste war. That is rich. You post images of articles from dubious sources Your sourced data is weak at best. The 'stew' that makes-up all your dopey articles have ingredients that are fouling-up the taste. The integrity of the data has to be exact throughout or it's a waste of time/effort My stuff is from qualified climatologists. Experts. Peer reviewed conclusions.

Continue to flimflam your way towards forcing people to buy into a swindle of epic proportions while you ridicule any opposition to your little fraud.

Post one more article and you're officially a devout lackey. Did you once sell flowers at the airport as well?This is what the world says in response to your assertion of fraud.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

The Consensus on Global Warming:
From Science to Industry & Religion

Climate change critics like Richard Lindzen try to say "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places. This argument has also been made repeatedly on Fox News.1,2 Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to do with reality".1,2,3 The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the "most reliable" or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change. As you will notice, the evidence against the consensus critics like Lindzen and pundits on Fox News is overwhelming. If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences. For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science. The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide 1,2. An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify as climate scientists when these standards are applied. Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming "climate scientists" with dissenting opinions. It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics. If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have 400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money). If you have suggestions for the addition of other quotes please post them at our blog.

rastajenk

08-02-2010, 10:00 AM

I still haven't seen how cap-and-steal or any other legislative procedure spares us from this inevitable doom. I'm less concerned about the science than the politics. It's just a prop for another huge transfer of resources from the have-a-littles to the have-a-lots. Instead of bludgeoning us with more peer-reviewed studies by dubious peers, tell us how China and India are going to buy into it, and tell us how the poorest of nations will ever rise from their lowly status, and tell us how my tiny footprint makes a bit of difference worldwide. Why is this science so clearly split along existing political divides? Here's why: it's not about the science, it's about the bureaucratic might of the state imposing a new tax on the many for the benefit of a few.

hcap

08-02-2010, 06:27 PM

First you have to acknowledge there is a problem.

I have stayed away from discussing solutions mostly because you gentlemen refuse to move past rhe first stage. Almost like a drug addicted denier of his addiction.

Tom

08-02-2010, 10:26 PM

First you have to acknowledge there is a problem.

Then, you have to DEFINE the problem.
I have asked you repeatedly to do this and you avoid doing it.

boxcar

08-02-2010, 11:10 PM

Then, you have to DEFINE the problem.
I have asked you repeatedly to do this and you avoid doing it.

And not only this, but many of us need to know just what is the goal and how do we know if we reach the goal, since we've never been told what the ideal setting on the Earth's thermostat needs to be.

In short...your pseudo-science begs many questions.

Boxcar

hcap

08-03-2010, 05:25 AM

Then, you have to DEFINE the problem.
I have asked you repeatedly to do this and you avoid doing it.we've never been told what the ideal setting on the Earth's thermostat needs to be.
In short...your pseudo-science begs many questions.
1-Tom, have you been watching Howdy Dowdy while this debate has been going on? Maybe Fantasy Island? The problem has been defined. The planet is getting hotter faster than humans will be able to adapt to without drastic consequences because humans have been shitting where they sleep and eat and raise their children.

2-Ideal settings? How about just not monkeying :D with the average global temperature to the point where sea levels will inundate many coastal regions-like Florida?

3- pseudo-science?

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences. For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science. The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide
Are all these "Pseudo?" In on the Al Gore conspiracy? You guys must believe in fairy tales

1. National Academy of Science
2. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
3. Royal Society, United Kingdom
4. Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
5. Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
6. Royal Society of Canada, Canada
7. Academié des Sciences, France
8. Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
9. Indian National Science Academy, India
10. Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
11. Science Council of Japan, Japan

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

National Research Council

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

Federal Climate Change Science Program

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

UN Project on Climate Variability and Predictability

American Geophysical Union

Geological Society of America

American Association of State ClimatologistsUS Geological Survey (USGS)National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)

World Meteorological Organization

International Council on Science

American Institute of Physics

Tom

08-03-2010, 07:22 AM

2-Ideal settings? How about just not monkeying images/UBGX/E9.gif with the average global temperature to the point where sea levels will inundate many coastal regions-like Florida?
As a starting point, why is this a problem? We know that the continents have been moving around forever, and man did not cause it. We know the earth is dynamic and always has been. What rational do we use to suddenly decide to freezes everything? Seriously, you take eat too much pablum.

hcap

08-03-2010, 07:46 AM

Tom, if you know a volcano is about to erupt, a "natural" phenomena, do you warn those nearby or do you say hey shit happens? Shit has always been happening.

If the Acme Construction Company has been tunneling under a river and screwed up a NATURAL fault, do you let the river get diverted and flood the countryside.because the river has always been there as well as the fault?

Obviously, there are practical reasons to do something if you know what what is about to happen whether natural or man made

BTW, are all the organizations in the above post I listed in on the conspiracy? All wrong? All lying?
On Gore's payroll?

Tom

08-03-2010, 09:20 AM

Tom, if you know a volcano is about to erupt, a "natural" phenomena, do you warn those nearby or do you say hey shit happens? Shit has always been happening.

I would not try to stop the volcano from existing. Would you somehow try to douse the volcano? I would warn the people to move out of the way, though, just like I would warn those living on the coast that they might want to consider a move inland in the future, or not to build a new mall on the coastline.

I'm really trying to be serious, here, and not political.

delayjf

08-03-2010, 09:42 AM

BTW, are all the organizations in the above post I listed in on the conspiracy? All wrong? All lying? On Gore's payroll?

Did all those organizations conduct their own indendant research - or are they just rubber stamping what the IPCC has produced? Do they stand to gain financial support from their endorsement?

rastajenk

08-03-2010, 09:48 AM

What is the problem? What are the goals? What is the game plan, and how will it be executed? Is there an "exit strategy" or is it open ended?

If cap-and-steal is passed, will the Dems celebrate a "Mission Accomplished" moment?

Sound familiar?

boxcar

08-03-2010, 10:48 AM

Tom, if you know a volcano is about to erupt, a "natural" phenomena, do you warn those nearby or do you say hey shit happens? Shit has always been happening.

KNOW is the operative term here. The fact is that scientists have a really tough time predicting the weather accurately, yet we're supposed to hang on their every word when they make their long term doom and gloom forecasts -- most especially when the assumptions of those forecasts rest upon very shaky ground (forgive my pad pun).

And if these scientists are so sure of themselves, if they really believe they have all the facts in their corner, then why not parade them out FOR DEBATE with other scientists who think they, too, have lots of facts to back up their opposing position? Bring the debate out into the light for all the world to see and, listen to or read so that we dumb little peons can make up our own minds, too. But the fact that the left in this country doesn't want to publicly debate this issue tells me that their position really rests on piles of that cow manure. They don't want to debate publicly because they don't want to be exposed for their frauds they are, and for the taxation scam man-made global warming is. But when these arrogant, self-righteous, condescending elitists tell us that it's all a "settled issue", I can only conclude that they have lots to conceal.

Boxcar

boxcar

08-03-2010, 10:49 AM

dartman51

08-03-2010, 11:25 AM

Far better than "Clean Air Causes Global Warming," here's "Breasts Cause Earthquakes."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2939431

I can believe that. I remember when I was a young man, dating this young lady that had huge breasts. At one point while we were enjoying each other, I could swear I felt the EARTH MOVE. In retrospect, though, it might not have been her breasts that caused it. I have no real scientific proof. :rolleyes:

hcap

08-03-2010, 03:01 PM

Tom, the volcano was a natural disaster to avoid.
Acme Construction is an elaboration on man screwing up natural conditions. Simple analogy you can handle.

delayjf
Did all those organizations conduct their own indendant research - or are they just rubber stamping what the IPCC has produced? Do they stand to gain financial support from their endorsement?Do you know what peer review means? All of the research conducted is examined independently. Data verified. Methodology gone over with a fine tooth comb

So all the national institutions in this country and abroad gain financially?? You tell me how these organizations would get get payola.
Does Al Gore mmail them a check

National Academy of Science
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
National Research Council
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)ederal Climate Change Science Program
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
UN Project on Climate Variability and Predictability
American Geophysical Union
Geological Society of America
American Association of State ClimatologistsUS Geological Survey (USGS)National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)
World Meteorological Organization
International Council on Science
American Institute of Physics
Royal Society of Canada, Canada

Start with the American Institute of Physics
Then the World Meteorological Organization

hcap

08-03-2010, 03:44 PM

KNOW is the operative term here. The fact is that scientists have a really tough time predicting the weather accurately, yet we're supposed to hang on their every word when they make their long term doom and gloom forecasts -- most especially when the assumptions of those forecasts rest upon very shaky ground The science of meteorology has came a long way. Short term forecasts have a decent record
Britain’s Meteorlogical Office claims an 86 % accuracy for it’s 24 hour forecasts. 5 day forecasts are at 80 % accuracy. Why aren’t they more accurate? Well, weather systems are extremely complex. It is simply not possible to take into account all of the factors necessary to provide a foolproof forecast. And scientists still don’t fully understand all of the forces of nature that shape the weather. Despite this, however, modern weather forecasting gets it right most of the time.

Supercomputers, Crays and better are used. DOPPLER RADAR, all did not exist 100 years ago. Maybe you would be more comfortable with dowsing rods and soothsayers. Astrology or phrenology. Or I suppose we can always go back to bloodletting.
And if these scientists are so sure of themselves, if they really believe they have all the facts in their corner, then why not parade them out FOR DEBATE with other scientists who think they, too, have lots of facts to back up their opposing position? Bring the debate out into the light for all the world to see and, listen to or read so that we dumb little peons can make up our own minds, too. But the fact that the left in this country doesn't want to publicly debate this issue tells me that their position really rests on piles of that cow manure. They don't want to debate publicly because they don't want to be exposed for their frauds they are, and for the taxation scam man-made global warming is. But when these arrogant, self-righteous, condescending elitists tell us that it's all a "settled issue", I can only conclude that they have lots to conceal.You really believe this? More delusional than the birth certificate crap.

1-All of it is "paraded". Internationally out there among all climatologists and underlying disciplines. Physicists, Chemists, Geologists, Paleontologists to name a few. Actually, you could get any data you wanted.

We all await your peer review synopsis.

2-You are not qualified however. You confuse 'conceal" with your own lack of scientific training and what is concealed is much like a blind man thinking the case is non existent because his sensory apparatus is on the blink.

Next time Nasa needs an advanced rocket you can design it. Or how about a magnetic containment bottle for 10 million degree deuterium plasma nuclear fusion? Feel up to it? Maybe you can debate it with those awful Los Alamos National Laboratory concealing physicists refusing to talk to internet preacher types who thing fridge magnets are somewhat beyond modern science.

Seriously all of us must rely on expert opinions. Few of us are trained in any of this.

Tom

08-03-2010, 04:04 PM

Do you know what peer review means? All of the research conducted is examined independently. Data verified. Methodology gone over with a fine tooth comb

And yet, still no problem definition. Curious.
Still being serious here. Problem solving is my profession.
So far, no one is using it.

hcap

08-03-2010, 04:59 PM

And yet, still no problem definition. Curious.
Still being serious here. Problem solving is my profession.
So far, no one is using it.No problem definition!!!!!

Please. To solve a problem one has to listen to what others tell you IS the problem. Ok one more time..
The planet is getting hotter faster than humans will be able to adapt to without drastic consequences because humans have been shitting where they sleep and eat and raise their children.

bigmack

08-03-2010, 08:01 PM

The planet is getting hotter faster than humans will be able to adapt to without drastic consequences because humans have been shitting where they sleep and eat and raise their children.

Why so desperate to INSIST people believe? And what are we to believe, that arctic ice is growing? No wait, it's shrinking. Damn, which is it?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/8_3_10_16_57_09.jpg
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/10/inconvenient-truth-ice-cap-growing/

Word to the pseudowise/confused: Post some pictures of stranded polar bears. Approach it from a more emotional level. I think you have some confused with sci-babble. :eek:

Tom

08-03-2010, 11:44 PM

Only problem definition I have seen in this thread is too much pablum.
Sorry hcap, what you post is not adequate.

delayjf

08-03-2010, 11:49 PM

Do you know what peer review means? All of the research conducted is examined independently. Data verified. Methodology gone over with a fine tooth comb
How about the data that NASA had to redo four times after a Canadian discovered errors in their calculations - was that peer reviewed. How about the Mann hockey stick graph that has now been debunked-was that peer reviewed. Has the IPCC ever responded to FOIA requests for the data they based their climate models on? I don't think so. Climategate exposed the "peer review" process. And speaking of computer models, whatever happened to all those cat 5 hurricanes that were supposed to ravage the east coast the past three summers.

So all the national institutions in this country and abroad gain financially?? You tell me how these organizations would get get payola.
Does Al Gore mmail them a check

The only check Gore will be writing will be to Tipper. But do these institutions recieve grants from the Gov. Is it possible that the individuals and the coporations that stand to profit from GW MIGHT purchase their endorsement. Maybe your buddy Soro's or your friends at GE are willing to foot the bill.

As its been pointed out before in this thread. For all the doom and gloom about the effects of Global warming - Cap and trade will not do a thing to reduce carbon emissions - it will only make it more expensive.

rastajenk

08-03-2010, 11:50 PM

"The planet is getting hotter faster than humans will be able to adapt to without drastic consequences because humans have been shitting where they sleep and eat and raise their children."

So, are all those climatologists, meteorologists, geophysical scientists, et al experts on human adaptation as well, or are we just supposed to believe this on blind faith alone? Cause that seems to me to be outside the realm of reading thermometers.

hcap

08-04-2010, 04:44 AM

Why so desperate to INSIST people believe? And what are we to believe, that arctic ice is growing? No wait, it's shrinking. Damn, which is it?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/8_3_10_16_57_09.jpg
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/10/inconvenient-truth-ice-cap-growing/
m

Word to the pseudowise/confused: Post some pictures of stranded polar bears. Approach it from a more emotional level. I think you have some confused with sci-babble. :eek:

You didn't post the 2 comments from your article.

Those are some pretty harsh words, Mr. Robbins. Did you even read the report? The press release you are referring to: "Arctic sea ice extent remains low; 2009 sees third-lowest mark," October 6, 2009, clearly shows that Arctic sea ice is DECLINING! It should be noted that at the end of summer 2009, the amount of Arctic sea ice that was three-year and older was only 19 percent of the total ice cover, the lowest in the satellite record! You should post a link so your readers can see for themselves: http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html

don't be silly. of course the sea ice AREA will fluctuate. but you leave out the critical thinness of the ice which is far more important. the ice has never been so thin. it will naturally increase over a wider area when winter temperatures go as low as they did this past winter. but because the arctic ocean itself is warmer, it doesnt extend as deep and is very thin. try to look at the whole picture instead of taking small details out of context in order to make some sort of selfish point.(you must be a republican)
odd, mentioning 'fanatics'. it's greedy 'fanatics' who, in search of larger profits, managed to bring environmental disaster to our planet. this 'article' makes you out to truly be an 'ignorant denier' to the worst degree.

hcap

08-04-2010, 04:49 AM

Only problem definition I have seen in this thread is too much pablum.
Sorry hcap, what you post is not adequate.
You are like a little kid huffing and puffing with his fingers stuck in his ears.What is wrong with my definition? It is a clear definition of the problem.The fact that you disagree with the premise does not make ir pablum.

hcap

08-04-2010, 04:54 AM

How about the data that NASA had to redo four times after a Canadian discovered errors in their calculations - was that peer reviewed.

Please provide a link

How about the Mann hockey stick graph that has now been debunked-was that peer reviewed.

Please provide a link

Has the IPCC ever responded to FOIA requests for the data they based their climate models on? I don't think so.

Please provide a link

Climategate exposed the "peer review" process.

Please provide a link

And speaking of computer models, whatever happened to all those cat 5 hurricanes that were supposed to ravage the east coast the past three summers.

same

The only check Gore will be writing will be to Tipper. But do these institutions recieve grants from the Gov. Is it possible that the individuals and the coporations that stand to profit from GW MIGHT purchase their endorsement. Maybe your buddy Soro's or your friends at GE are willing to foot the bill.

Not worth responding

As its been pointed out before in this thread. For all the doom and gloom about the effects of Global warming - Cap and trade will not do a thing to reduce carbon emissions - it will only make it more expensive.A lot of unverified assertions

Tom

08-04-2010, 07:41 AM

You are like a little kid huffing and puffing with his fingers stuck in his ears.What is wrong with my definition? It is a clear definition of the problem.The fact that you disagree with the premise does not make ir pablum.

Can't answer a simple question so you resort to insults?
I rest my case. You can't define the problem.

hcap

08-04-2010, 07:49 AM

Why don't you simply tell me what is wrong with my definition of the problem instead of repeating over and over the same?

The planet is getting hotter faster than humans will be able to adapt to without drastic consequences because humans have been shitting where they sleep and eat and raise their children.

hcap

08-07-2010, 06:19 AM

Well, here's another shady org FAKING. Obviously WE tree huggers hypnotized these weak minded investigators. Long live the GW conspiracy......

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phytoplankton-population

Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950
Researchers find trouble among phytoplankton, the base of the food chain, which has implications for the marine food web and the world's carbon cycle

By Lauren Morello and ClimateWire

The microscopic plants that form the foundation of the ocean's food web are declining, reports a study published July 29 in Nature.

The tiny organisms, known as phytoplankton, also gobble up carbon dioxide to produce half the world's oxygen output—equaling that of trees and plants on land.

But their numbers have dwindled since the dawn of the 20th century, with unknown consequences for ocean ecosystems and the planet's carbon cycle.

Researchers at Canada's Dalhousie University say the global population of phytoplankton has fallen about 40 percent since 1950. That translates to an annual drop of about 1 percent of the average plankton population between 1899 and 2008.

delayjf

08-07-2010, 11:16 AM

Apparently Agentina didn't get the memo - coldest winter in 40 years.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-03/argentina-colder-than-antarctica-spurs-record-power-imports-shuts-plants.html

PaceAdvantage

08-08-2010, 03:01 AM

Apparently Agentina didn't get the memo - coldest winter in 40 years.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-03/argentina-colder-than-antarctica-spurs-record-power-imports-shuts-plants.htmlIn a radical climate change, isn't it theorized that formerly warm areas will grow colder, while formerly colder areas will grow hotter?

Thus, this actually supports climate change theorists.

But then again, i don't think anyone is actually arguing that GLOBAL WARMING is FALSE. All you need is a THERMOMETER to prove whether there is GLOBAL WARMING.

What the argument centers around is if the actions of MANKIND are to BLAME and if so, can he do anything about it?

hcap

08-08-2010, 04:51 AM

But then again, i don't think anyone is actually arguing that GLOBAL WARMING is FALSE. All you need is a THERMOMETER to prove whether there is GLOBAL WARMING.Read this thread again. Almost everyone is !

bigmack

08-08-2010, 01:45 PM

But then again, i don't think anyone is actually arguing that GLOBAL WARMING is FALSE. All you need is a THERMOMETER to prove whether there is GLOBAL WARMING.
Actually, you need a boatload of thermometers, and then it depends on where you place them, and then you need data that is not flawed, and then you need nerds that aren't biased, and then you need to ask yourself if there is a 'warming' if it's a natural flux or caused by (as said in every nature program for the last 50 years) the disgusting habits of man.

If you need validation on the credibility of data, just ask hcap. He has a pile of agencies with some of them fancy acronyms. :rolleyes:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/8_8_10_10_42_03.jpg

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/8_8_10_10_42_24.jpg

http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2010/07/shouldnt-we-be-worried-about-global-cooling.html

bigmack

08-08-2010, 02:21 PM

6TqqWJugXzs
Watch all 9

TJDave

08-08-2010, 03:36 PM

What the argument centers around is if the actions of MANKIND are to BLAME and if so, can he do anything about it?

And, if there's the need for urgency.

I prefer to err on the side of caution. IMO, there would be nothing worse than 30 years from now, looking my grandchildren in the eyes knowing I was part of the problem.

bigmack

08-08-2010, 04:02 PM

I prefer to err on the side of caution. IMO, there would be nothing worse than 30 years from now, looking my grandchildren in the eyes knowing I was part of the problem.
Watch the documentary above in its entirety and see the absurdity of you thinking anything you will ever do making a hill o' beans difference to temperatures.

It's laughable, but dramatic. What about the kids? :lol:

hcap

01-13-2011, 04:32 AM

Please disregard the following if Exxon/Mobil /bigmack says it's all a worldwide conspiracy organized by Al Gore and perpetrated by the media, liberals and stinkin' commies :bang:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13

Global Highlights

* For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average.

* The 2010 Northern Hemisphere combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest year on record, at 0.73°C (1.31°F) above the 20th century average. The 2010 Southern Hemisphere combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the sixth warmest year on record, at 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average.

* The global land surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the second warmest on record, at 0.96°C (1.73°F) above the 20th century average. The warmest such period on record occurred in 2007, at 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average.

* The global ocean surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third warmest on record, at 0.49°C (0.88°F) above the 20th century average.

* In 2010 there was a dramatic shift in the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, which influences temperature and precipitation patterns around the world. A moderate-to-strong El Niño at the beginning of the year transitioned to La Niña conditions by July. At the end of November, La Niña was moderate-to-strong.

Global Temperatures

The year 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average. The range associated with this value is plus or minus 0.07°C (0.13°F). The 2010 combined land and ocean surface temperature in the Northern Hemisphere was also the warmest on record, while the combined land and ocean surface temperature in the Southern Hemisphere was the sixth warmest such period on record. The annual globally averaged land temperature was 0.96°C (1.73°F) above average, which tied with 2005 as the second warmest year record. The range associated with this value is plus or minus 0.11°C (0.20°F). The warmest year was 2007, at 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average. The decadal global land and ocean average temperature anomaly for 2001–2010 was the warmest decade on record for the globe, with a surface global temperature of 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the 20th century average. This surpassed the previous decadal record (1991–2000) value of 0.36°C (0.65°F).

bigmack

01-13-2011, 05:16 AM

Please disregard the following if Exxon/Mobil /bigmack says it's all a worldwide conspiracy organized by Al Gore and perpetrated by the media, liberals and stinkin' commies
You're acting as dense as ever. No one questions the earth fluctuates in temperature. Where's the evidence man has anything to do with it?

Just ONCE answer the question.

hcap

01-13-2011, 06:26 AM

You insisted that NOAH's' temperature probes were situated next to urban hot spots and therefore we cannot accept the Earth is in fact heating.

What made you come around to the dark side? Could it have been my point that ocean temperatures and satellite imaging readings agree with the land based temps? And therefore do not suffer from your alleged urban hot spot bamboozle?

bigmack

01-13-2011, 07:03 AM

You insisted that NOAH's' temperature probes were situated next to urban hot spots and therefore we cannot accept the Earth is in fact heating.

Answer the question for the 100th time.

hcap

01-13-2011, 07:34 AM

Answer the question for the 100th time.I have maybe a hundred times. When a theory has overwhelming evidence and support from qualified experts in the field, and other pathetic competing speculations have only bupkis, the overwhelmingly backed theory is sufficient to be called settled.

rastajenk

01-13-2011, 07:46 AM

That's exactly what the Pope said several centuries ago. :cool:

Tom

01-13-2011, 07:52 AM

I have maybe a hundred times. When a theory has overwhelming evidence and support from qualified experts in the field, and other pathetic competing speculations have only bupkis, the overwhelmingly backed theory is sufficient to be called settled.

You left out doctored data.

hcap

02-27-2011, 07:01 AM

Ok about those so-called leaked emails that "proved all the lies" about GW

Previously, British House of Commons, Pennsylvania State University, the InterAcademy Council and the National Research Council inquiries into the leaked e-mails that have exonerated the scientists involved of scientific wrongdoing.

Now...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/science/earth/25noaa.html?_r=3

"Scientists Are Cleared of Misuse of Data
By LESLIE KAUFMAN
Published: February 24, 2011

An inquiry by a federal watchdog agency found no evidence that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration manipulated climate data to buttress the evidence in support of global warming, officials said on Thursday."

.................................................. ...............

Of course Senator James M. Inhofe must be bitching no end. He is the one that commissioned the report. :lol:

Speaking of bitching, BM? Looks like
another of your long line of conspiracy theories bites the dust.

Along with Tom who thinks my statement about evidence supporting the role of man in GW, and in fact that GW is in fact happening......

I have maybe a hundred times. When a theory has overwhelming evidence and support from qualified experts in the field, and other pathetic competing speculations have only bupkis, the overwhelmingly backed theory is sufficient to be called settled.
.....is all "doctored data"

bigmack

02-27-2011, 08:29 AM

delayjf

02-27-2011, 11:10 AM

House votes to cut funding to IPCC.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/21/republicans-funding-climate-ipcc

hcap

02-27-2011, 03:29 PM

Haven't you been paying attention? The subject is on its last leg.

Only Neanderthals believe man causes climate change. You'd have to be a complete fool to believe that crap anymore.

Big Al is in hiding for a reason. Climate summits are joke. The charade is over. Except for a few holdouts, like you. You're like one of the Japanese soldiers on a Pacific island that thought the war was still going long after it ended.Your Japanese soldier remark is quite colorful. I am beginning to suspect that most of PA off topic is a remote desert isle inhabited by octogenarian Japanese still fighting the advent of the 21st century. Say hello to Hirohito for me.

Bonsai !

fast4522

02-27-2011, 04:32 PM

House votes to cut funding to IPCC.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/21/republicans-funding-climate-ipcc

Nothing but filthy socialist propaganda anyway, good cut and move!

FantasticDan

02-27-2011, 06:08 PM

Only Neanderthals believe man causes climate change. You'd have to be a complete fool to believe that crap anymore.

Wait a sec.. don't you fit that criteria? But you don't believe in it? Confusing logic..

Crank it up!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-hertsgaard/climate-cranks-gin-up-the_b_825995.html

hcap

02-27-2011, 07:01 PM

Nothing but filthy socialist propaganda anyway, good cut and move!Hey FILTH, Marx sends his regards.

boxcar

02-27-2011, 07:17 PM

Wait a sec.. don't you fit that criteria? But you don't believe in it? Confusing logic..

Crank it up!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-hertsgaard/climate-cranks-gin-up-the_b_825995.html

You have it wrong. 'cap is the caveman 'cause back in those good ol' days those little hairy men believed the world was flat. The poor uneducated/undereducated didn't know any better. Likewise, 'cap doesn't either with respect to this man-made global warming scam, which is nothing more than wealth redistribution scheme.

It's all 'bout the money, honey; it ain't about the weather. :p

Boxcar

Tom

02-27-2011, 07:31 PM

I shoveled two feet of Global Warming Friday night after work.
I shoveled 3 more inches last night.

I hear we are going hit 50 Tuesday.

Bring it on......about time this damn globe warmed up a bit.

hcap

02-27-2011, 07:49 PM

You have it wrong. 'cap is the caveman 'cause back in those good ol' days those little hairy men believed the world was flat. The poor uneducated/undereducated didn't know any better. Likewise, 'cap doesn't either with respect to this man-made global warming scam, which is nothing more than wealth redistribution scheme.I seem to recall it was always the church that was the slow adopter of scientific truths. Usually stood in the way of scientific and technological advancement. Remind us again about Galileo or Copernicus and their friendly Church fathers.

Most superstitions were a province of religions.
The Dark Ages ruled over by the Church was not called the "Bright" ages because of the triumph of enlightened scientific knowledge.

boxcar

02-27-2011, 08:05 PM

I seem to recall it was always the church that was the slow adopter of scientific truths. Usually stood in the way of scientific and technological advancement. Remind us again about Galileo or Copernicus and their friendly Church fathers.

Most superstitions were a province of religions.
The Dark Ages ruled over by the Church was not called the "Bright" ages because of the triumph of enlightened scientific knowledge.

The church, yes. But that was no fault of the bible. As the scripture touches on scientific matters, it's is dead on target! There are numerous accurate scientific statements in the bible.

Boxcar

hcap

02-28-2011, 06:12 AM

Please, no literal interpretation of the bible can be scientific.

I will give the modern day church credit though. Unlike literal minded fundies they have realized modern day science does not have to be in conflict with their spiritual teachings. There is no mainstream religious teaching today that thinks:

1-evolution is false,

2-the age of the universe is measured in thousands of years instead of billions,

3-refrigerator magnets are magical.

All your above ridiculous talking points are no longer accepted as they were around 800 AD (circa THE DARK AGES)

boxcar

02-28-2011, 11:16 AM

Please, no literal interpretation of the bible can be scientific.

Well, would you accept allegorical interpretations as being scientific? I could provide those for you, too. I mean...I never believed for a moment that the earth has "four corners" (as one example), have you?

I will give the modern day church credit though. Unlike literal minded fundies they have realized modern day science does not have to be in conflict with their spiritual teachings. There is no mainstream religious teaching today that thinks:

All fallen mankind is in conflict with God and his Word. It cannot be any other way. This mainstream church that you''re so fond of and and to which you love to appeal, as if she had any authority, worships her idols in the Synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:9; 3:9). This is the same [spiritual] Harlot of Babylon -- "the mother of all harlots and of the abominations of the earth" (Rev 17:5). It's no wonder at all you're attracted to this "modern day church". This is the same religious harlot that has been in a state of apostasy and whose cup of abominations and blasphemies will overflow before the Messiah's second coming. Just as the nation of Israel played the the harlot under the Old Covenant and broke God's covenant so, too, the "mainstream" Church, under this New Covenant, will follow in Israel's path.

Job 26:10
"He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters,
At the boundary of light and darkness.
NASB

Prov 8:27
27 "When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
NASB

Job 26:7
"He stretches out the north over empty space,
And hangs the earth on nothing.
NASB

Job 28:25
"When He imparted weight to the wind,
And meted out the waters by measure,
NASB

And don't forget, 'cap, Job is the oldest book in the bible! ;)

Boxcar

hcap

02-28-2011, 11:33 AM

SPARE ME THE BIBLICAL QUOTES.

Synagogue of Satan ? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Circular arguments is about all you can do. You refuse to discuss science and matters of proof or facts that compromise your rigid dogma. Need I remind you that you did tell me refrigerator magnets are magical. Sounds pretty "Dark Ages" to me. (Feel the same way about gravity? Or the telephone?)

Mainstream religions make much more sense than your fundy lunacy.

boxcar

02-28-2011, 12:04 PM

SPARE ME THE BIBLICAL QUOTES.

Synagogue of Satan ? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oops, did I offend your sensibilities? But it really is a biblical phrase, ya know?

Circular arguments is about all you can do. You refuse to discuss science and matters of proof or facts that compromise your rigid dogma.

Ah..."matter of proof or facts" like those that go into the man-made global warming junk science?

Need I remind you that you did tell me refrigerator magnets are magical.

I never said that.

Sounds pretty "Dark Ages" to me. (Feel the same way about gravity? Or the telephone?)

There are numerous things scientists don't fully understand. Science books will always be written to make revisions of their earlier interpretations of those "facts and proofs". It works kinda like updates for your 'puter. You get them often. :rolleyes:

Mainstream religions make much more sense than your fundy lunacy.

Actually, I think Job's take on the universe puts him light years ahead of both your precious scientists and "mainstream religions". ;)

Boxcar

hcap

02-28-2011, 12:09 PM

I've debated all of this with you a hundreds times. Later.

boxcar

02-28-2011, 12:34 PM

I've debated all of this with you a hundreds times. Later.

Yeah, and you ran up the track every time; for I left you in my dust. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

hcap

03-11-2011, 01:33 AM

The very accurate scientific numbers of
Faux Noos and GW skeptics.

Adds up just right.

http://www.bartcop.com/fox-math.jpg

bigmack

03-11-2011, 01:41 AM

The very accurate scientific numbers of
Faux Noos and GW skeptics.
"Faux Noos"? Ain't that a tad 1996?

Would you like for me to start a MM/GW thread to quickly drain all the cred you never had on the sub?

hcap

03-11-2011, 02:00 AM

"Faux Noos"? Ain't that a tad 1996?

Would you like for me to start a MM/GW thread to quickly drain all the cred you never had on the sub?
1996? :bang:
Subtract 100 and we have the era you and cohorts believe the height of western civilization. Politically, scientifically, and child labor wise.

At least compared to boxcar, you are a modern man.

bigmack

03-11-2011, 02:05 AM

1996?
Faux? It's middle school material at this point.

Are you ready to show how man causes global warming? :lol:

hcap

03-11-2011, 02:08 AM

Faux? It's middle school material at this point.

Are you ready to show how man causes global warming?
Middle school? Your science is about at that level

I forgot. Remind me again
Is your disbelief in GW limited to anthropogenic global warming, or do you accept the Earth is getting warmer but due to other/natural causes?

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/10/jpl-greenland-antarctica-ice-sheet-mass-loss-accelerating-sea-level-rise-1-foot-by-2050/

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerating pace, according to a new NASA-funded satellite study. The findings of the study — the longest to date of changes in polar ice sheet mass — suggest these ice sheets are overtaking ice loss from Earth’s mountain glaciers and ice caps to become the dominant contributor to global sea level rise, much sooner than model forecasts have predicted.

The study, led by the U.S. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, was just published in Geophysical Research Letters here (subs. req’d).