I was reading a comment on one of these boards from a Brit who said that he "just doesn't understand the Americans' attitude toward global warming." Allowing me to explain it, then.
The vast majority of thinking people recognize "global warming" as but the latest in a long line of hyped up "threats" to humanities existence. There was, in no particular order, "global freezing," "global drying," "global wetting." There was going to be mass starvation by 1976, heterosexual AIDS, killer bees, swine flu and avian flu, just to mention a few during the past few years alone.
Further, we are not impressed either by the "players" who are swearing that, no, no THIS time the sky is REALLY falling, nor by their tactics. Their longstanding ideology -- anti-Americanism, socialism, communism and the like fosters no great confidence in their latest hysteria either.
Those of us who think rather than just dance to the tune of Al Gore, Hollywood insiders and their allies in the communist, Islamic and socialist worlds, recognize that far from an "Inconvenient Truth" being an honest attempt to accurately portray the information, it is a leftist funded, lie-filled propaganda movie from those with a vested interest. Even Al Gore's own advisors admit that the claims are "hysterical" and not scientific.
The lie that "every scientist agrees" that global warming a) exists, b) isn't just a normal phenomenon and c) is caused by evil, horrible America further undermines the thinking person's faith in the hysterics. Far from "every scientist agreeing," the leading scientists, from the father of modern climatology to the leading scientists at MIT all consider it nothing less than folly.
I am further unmoved by the plans to curb "global warming," plans that allow the biggest polluters -- China and India for example -- to continue to pollute unabated while American and Americans (of course) foot the bill.
If the threat was as dire and as imminent as the leftists and the Islamists declare, then the Kyoto Protocols would pull out all the stops, with every nation asked to make at least SOME sacrifice and not but another leftist social experiment, another "affirmative action" program where the evil, failed or wrong benefit and the good, right and successful are punished.
It might be helpful in moving me some (though not much) if the guru Al Gore wasn't such a clown. His buffoonish (and lie-filled) anti-American attacks at Bali, his pocketing of tens of millions of dollars in cold, hard cash, his continuing to spew pollution from his own home(s) at twenty times the rate of the middle class American he, as a leftist, is seeking to destroy, all don't argue for a man who is serious about a threat to the very existence of the earth. I know that if I thought the world was doomed, I would probably turn off the heater in my indoor pool from time to time. Not Gore.
I remember seeing a line somewhere that said "I'll take global warming seriously when Al Gore takes global warming seriously." I couldn't agree more.
For now, somehow I survived global freezing and global wetting, heterosexual AIDS and the swine flu, thus I'll throw my lot in with America and not with the communists, Islamists, socialists and genocidal dictatorships Al Gore turns to for his big payday and his sense of meaning and importance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
193 comments:
Why He Don't Care, Short Version:
Because I am a stupid robot for corporate sociopaths, and faxreezonsandevdunce don't effeck me none. D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-dat's it folks.
Yeah, igor ... anyone that agrees with the climatologists that say global warming is NOT caused by human activity is obviously a corporate shrew, and NOT someone that weighs the facts and listens to BOTH sides of the debate.
What's telling is that I listed reasons, from past hoaxes to who is getting rich to who the Democrats are allied with, to the fact that the Kyoto Protocols don't stop the biggest polluters.
The leftists' reply? Stupidity and name-calling. This is why he's a dupe for the communists/socialists and Islamists and I am not.
Evan,
first, yay! you're back
second, has a single leftist ever come here and laid out a well reasoned point-by-point rebuttal of anything you've said, or has it all been like Igor's drivel?
Keep up the great work
Anyone remember the Global 2000 Report to the President. All of our drinking water was supposed to be contaminated by now...
Oh, and weren't we supposed to run out of oil by 1980?
There are times when some leftists attempt to offer a line of reasoning. Invariably it ignores the points made, puts forth half-truths (at best) and a line of reasoning that is reminiscent of the five-year-old.
Even this is rare, however, with the vast majority merely thinking themselves wise by spelling America with three k's and others denouncing me as a "zionist" no matter what issue I may be discussing.
Liberals have been taught that rational thought is an evil act, therefore, by not accepting the irrational lies of the left -- by employing critical judgment -- it is I who must be a "dupe" and not them.
Duuuuh...uhhh, lissin boys...there are thousands ....THOUSANDS of scientists laying out the SCIENTIFIC case for warming...and almost NONE left now on the other side...and those are paid by Exxon and a few GOPIggy front groups. The debate is long over. Of course we're not going to lay out the case for simpletons who won't look at all the extant evidentiary material which is already out there. Your "case" is so silly and unworthy of response at this point that you're not anything but the legitimate targets of ridicule. We don't send data to cockroaches either. We just turn on the lights and watch them scurry under the rug. You're for sport.
LOL!
There are NO new scientists climbing aboard the Global Warming Express. It's the same bunch of self-agrandizing kooks who worked for the Club of Rome and drafted the Global 2000 Report for mr. peanut, Jimmah Cahrtah, thirty years ago
...anybody seen my little brother elitigal around here?
Or did someone turn the light on again?
#1 Great to see you blog'n again
#2 If a liberal/leftest wants to say they believe there's a problem, will work towards proving it and take immediate steps to personally mitigate it, I will always be ready willing and able to have an intelligent conversation about it with no need for name-calling.
#3 FYI, If you're constantly turning lights on just to make cockroaches scurry be sure to purchase the appropriate carbon offsets.
Evan, keep 'em coming ! :-D
mr. sayet - NEVER, under any circumstances, try to confound a moonbat with the truth! lest you end up with troll pudding at the end of a day!
Let's see if elitelib can follow the logic here. Remember the ice core samples that supposedly "prove" that CO2 *causes* global warming? The ice cores that supposedly showed that increases in CO2 were always followed by increases in temperature? They don't. In fact, they PROVE exactly the opposite hypothesis. When the final analysis was complete and these same researchers were able to analyze many, many samples from each core, what they discovered was that increases in temperature are followed by increases in CO2. See if you can follow this: First the temperature rose, THEN the CO2 increased. I know this will be a stretch for you, but there is one more point: The increases in CO2 were found to lag behind the increases in temperature by *hundreds* of years. This cycle has repeated many, many thousands of times. Therefore: the argument that man-made CO2 *causes* global warming is fallacious (BS). OK, you can remove your fingers from your ears now...
"Far from "every scientist agreeing," the leading scientists, from the father of modern climatology to the leading scientists at MIT all consider it nothing less than folly."
Classic weasel words. "The leading scientists" is a group encompassing a handful of dissenters to the majority opinion that global warming is caused, at least in part, by the actions of man. Take the bulk of the evidence, throw it out, find yourself a few people who disagree and pretend you've discovered some conspiracy to suppress the truth. Evidence is no longer necessary - as long as you can find a few people who agree with your crackpot view, you can continue to pass it off as fact to the people who actually take what you say seriously (which, I should admit, is almost certainly a vanishingly small number).
This is what the United States government has to say about the issue:
What's Very Likely?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" (IPCC, 2007). In short, a growing number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts). In the coming decades, scientists anticipate that as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise as a result and precipitation patterns will change.
Now, spin it Evan. Spin it like you spin everything.
Just some facts, No need for spin.
IPCC is a UN organization.
The IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President of the United States Al Gore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
:-D
To get a bead on this nutcase, just read the following insanity and blatant, undisguised lying. This guy is so sure of the ovine nature of his constituency (about three people, it appears) that he doesn't even bother to make his really stupid lying seem halfway believable...the warming debate has long been over...let's see this monkey provide us with some documentation...that should be amusing.
Sayanything bleats:
The lie that "every scientist agrees" that global warming a) exists, b) isn't just a normal phenomenon and c) is caused by evil, horrible America further undermines the thinking person's faith in the hysterics. Far from "every scientist agreeing," the leading scientists, from the father of modern climatology to the leading scientists at MIT all consider it nothing less than folly.
The icecaps of Mars are melting!
Damn Mars Rovers must have polluted the atmosphere!
LOL!
Fun place to visit, though...if you miss the old carny freak shows, eh, gal? We gotta get more slummers to stop here looking for FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEX.
This grotesque weirdo is really a kick...he wants to tell us he put forth "a line of reasoning..." hahaha, can anyone point it out to me? All I saw were some goofy straw men...hetero aids...of which there are endless cases, especially in Africa, and a lot of other silly nonsense; then he throws out a few lies about who says what and that's it!!! Not one word of reasoning or legitimate evidence in sight.
CorpWhore says: There are times when some leftists attempt to offer a line of reasoning. Invariably it ignores the points made, puts forth half-truths (at best) and a line of reasoning that is reminiscent of the five-year-old.
Yeah, I've been trying to figure out that "heterosexual AIDS" thing, and I can't make heads or tails of it.
1) Is he saying that AIDS can't be contracted through heterosexual contact, which would be crazy if it wasn't so funny?
2) Is he an idiot?
"IPCC is a UN organization."
That information that I posted comes from the EPA's website. Fortunately there are still some people at that agency that are able to look objectively at scientific findings, rather than simply dismissing them due to how they personally about the source. But I guess everything is relative in right-wing crazy land - science is only viable if it is done by someone with whom a person agrees with on, let's say, abortion. That's the classic MO of the right-wing nutjob, to view science, statistics and data as subordinate to whatever is politically convenient at the moment.
Sad axes is he a idjit...Yas, but not the regliar idjit who can be dumb but honest and respeckbul, but a crazy, sick kind of idjit...the more you read or watch his "act" the more you see there are some serious gaps in the sinaps...and the endless, strange repetition...wowzus!!!
"IPCC is a UN organization."
Is a fact, the original post stated that:
This is what the United States government has to say about the issue:
What's Very Likely?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" (IPCC, 2007).
I was trying to clarify who said what and found it interesting that the IPCC was closely associated (by the Nobel folks at least) with Mr Gore. I didn't know this until I looked them up. I thought other posters might find it interesting.
That's why I also included the link so everyone could decide for themselves.
No Spin, just facts and other than me finding the IPCC/Gore link interesting, no opinion.
Here's another opinion, I really liked the Rover comment!
The IPCC has absolutely nothing to do with Al Gore. They are a group of scientists tasked by the UN to analyze and disseminate information about climate change based on peer-reviewed sources. They happened to share the Nobel Prize this year because both they and Gore work on the same issue. That is the only connection.
Wait Sad Person...Al Gore and the IPCC guys are ALL bipeds (except for a couple amputees) and unlike most bipeds, NONE of them have feathers...don't tell me they aren't "linked."
I'm glad you (Thissitemakesmesad) found the link informative.
You may want to double check your assertion that Gore and the IPCC have nothing to do with each other, Gore seems to associate himself with them by discussing their reports. He's hugging a guy from the IPCC in Bali a week ago.
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14575540
I didn't see a picture but they may both have been bipedal mammals. I'm sure they all rowed hand built wooden dugouts to get there.
I betting everyone else is getting bored with this.
Meanwhile on Mars, we have Rovers despoiling virgin soil and when they finally fail we will have littered. We should be sending biodegradable rovers. At least they're not emitting CO2, although Mars could use some warming. Let's send some Hummers!
By the end of 1999, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 751,965 people, living and dead, had contracted AIDS in the United States since the beginning of the epidemic.
About 50% were men who had sex with other men. 28% were IV drug users. 6% more were men who had sex with men AND injected drugs. 1% got HIV through a blood transfusion. Less than 1 percent were hemophiliacs.
That leaves about 13 or 14 percent - 99,483 cases - listed officially as 'heterosexual contact.' But not just any heterosexual contact.
Of those, about 35,000 got AIDS after having sex with an IV drug user, most of them women who got HIV from a man who injected drugs. Another 4,000 women got HIV and eventually AIDS from a bisexual male. Another 1,681 got AIDS after having sex with a hemophiliac or with someone who had had a blood transfusion that was infected with HIV.
That leaves about 7% of heterosexual sex with other heterosexuals. That's 58,571 cases. These cases were listed as "Sex with HIV-infected persons, risk not specified" which could mean any number of things (the least of which being good old fashioned husband and wife missionary).
So yes, widespread heterosexual AIDS in America was and is a hoax.
anon - pour the whine and cut the cheese! by george, i think you've got it. keep up the good work.
remember, do not try to confound the left with facts and figures...even after the fact - they just move on to another pet project.
Myth of Scientific Consensus on global warming debunked...
Funny, Fumento's book has been out for 14 years now and none of the liberal incognoti have heard of it.
Let this be a lesson to all the kiddies out there... Stay off the drugs!
The problem is that the leftists "think" in reverse. Since nothing is better than anything else, then how do you explain America (Israel, Wal-Mart, wealthy people, etc) success?
Thus they START with the conviction that the successful have cheated and the failed have been victimized, and then use their "intellect" to "prove" it. America is "imperialist" not because the facts lead to that conclusion (America's the LEAST imperialist major power in history) but because it MUST simply MUST be true.
Global warming MUST -- simply MUST -- be true because it turns the creative and the productive into the bad guys.
That's the WHOLE of their "thinking."
I just heard this site was a destination for smart people looking for laughs at the expense of the very few remaining wingbats...WOW...it exceeds expectations...Gee, is AL Gore "linked" because he quotes and confers with one of the main groups in the field...duh, what do you think the main PROPHET of warming would do, dumbass? Ignore the science like you do? hahahwow
Then their head peabrain sets up some ridiculous straw men, telling us what libs think...which of course has nothing to do with reality...and tilts with his tiny lance at his own dingbat creations...great stuff!! No wonder you're at 24%.
Lookatdat...all of a sudden it's not hetero aids ...it's aids in America...are they transparent or just translucent? Poor, squirmy creatures.
Oh, here's another lunatic right wing FAILURE, they seek out failure...Katrina, Iraq, No Child...,the economy, etcetcetc at every turn and try to undo successful policies:
'The mandatory sentencing craze that began in the 1970s was a public-policy disaster. It drove up inmate populations and corrections costs and forced the states to choose between building prisons and building schools or funding medical care for the indigent.'
"Global warming MUST -- simply MUST -- be true because it turns the creative and the productive into the bad guys."
Another ridiculous statement by the master of ridiculous statements. The number of people working on creative, productive and, yes, profitable solutions to global warming is very, very large. This is what smart people do - they recognize a problem and then they come up with ways to solve it. People like you, on the other hand, spend their time making silly political points and creating straw men in the attempt to convince people that there are no problems, that everything that any business has ever done is just hunky dory because, by golly, how could someone who was making so much money ever do something to harm anyone else? It always amazes me that right-wing nutjobs see paranoid conspiracies in every government nook and cranny, but think that big business is run by angels and beautiful beautiful unicorns.
for all global warming lunarticks - find a new cause!
Your right again, evan,
They do think in reverse. These morons think that both they AND Al Gore are the "smart" ones. And yet we've proven again and again that they can't do simple addition, subtraction or construct a logical argument supported with examples (they support them all with ridiculously generalized statements of "scientific consensus" and faux-majority opinion). Must be the result of all that self-esteem building the teachers learn them in schools these days. Pure amour propre and no amour de soi. LOL!
Oddly enough, I'm *still* waiting for a rational line of debate from anyone who disagrees with Evan. I've seen lots of name calling, lots of "joo use strawmen LOLZ", and lots of "you ignore science" without any actual posting of science. One thing I've noticed is how often conservatives (and some moderates) will post actual facts, and links to those facts while the liberals will hand-wave and make obscure references to information that supposedly exists.
*THAT* is what makes *ME* sad.
they will NOT accept ANY evidence presented to them~! i believe i've left two sources.
they need a new cause...wonder whatz next?
one thing for sure - it will be equally inane.
Allen Raymond's book, "How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative," offers a raw, inside glimpse of the illegal election-day scheme to jam the phone lines of New Hampshire Democrats during the state's tight 2002 U.S. Senate election.
WASHINGTON — A former GOP political operative who ran an illegal election-day scheme to jam the phone lines of New Hampshire Democrats during the state's tight 2002 U.S. Senate election said in a new book and an interview that he believes the scandal reaches higher into the Republican Party.
Allen Raymond of Bethesda, Md., whose book Simon & Schuster will publish next month, also accused the Republican Party of trying to hang all the blame for a scandal on him as part of an "old-school cover-up."
The 2002 New Hampshire Senate race, in which GOP Rep. John Sununu edged Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen by 19,000 votes, was among several targeted by Republicans seeking to win control of the U.S. Senate.
"Any tactic that didn't pass the smell test would never see the light of day without, — at the very least, the approval of an RNC attorney," he wrote.
Raymond said it was Tobin who first phoned him 2 1/2 weeks before the election and asked if he could jam Democrats' phone lines, connecting him with Charles McGee, the executive director of the New Hampshire GOP.
However, he said, when he phoned Tobin after Sununu's 19,000-vote election victory to tell him that a Manchester, N.H., police officer was looking into the scheme, Tobin responded, "I don't know what you're talking about."
In early 2003, Raymond recalled, the state GOP wrote to demand its money back.
"They were going to throw me under the bus," Raymond wrote, "but first they wanted to check my pockets to see if there was any cash there."
Raymond and McGee pleaded guilty to harassment charges. Their cooperation with investigators led to Tobin's conviction.
As for his three months in a Pennsylvania prison, he wrote: "After 10 full years inside the GOP, 90 days among honest criminals wasn't really any great ordeal."
haha...good one anon...angels and unicorn...that's where this pack of little closet fairies hang their panties alright...don't you love their endless lines about lines of rational thought and FACTS... I keep looking but there are never any to respond to...none...the more they hate fact and evidence the more they pretend to advocate them...weird goofballs...the world has left them behind and we're supposed to talk to them like adults. Literally thousands of the worlds scientists have put out the facts but if you refer to that brute reality, that's not legitimate in their twisted, little brain stems.
The Modern Liberal is incapable of rational thought for he believes it to be bigotry. Therefore he sides with ANYTHING that is anti-good, anti-right and anti-successful. Thus his blind hatred for America, Israel, Wal-Mart, etc. and his blind endorsement of anything that attacks it (Palestinian terrorists, Islamic fascists, the global warming con men.)
Because he is incapable of rational thought when the time comes to counter thoughtful and factual arguments he cannot. Instead he calls names, makes lunatic connections to create conspiracies (yeah, George Bush blew up the World Trade Center complex...)
The bottom line of ALL ML arguments is that good, right and successful are evil and evil, failed and wrong are "oppressed" victims.
mr. sayet - chances are that if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
you, nor i will ever make sense to them. even in the simplest of terms.
sure is fun trying though!
if you have a sitemeter, perhaps we could figure out just who this little troll is? just post their ip address - that usually does it.
Evan, you are the perfect example of the term psychological projection.
So let me see if I have this right. There are ruthless, power hungry people involved in politics? And these people do things to try and influence election results...why? To gain power and influence over their fellow citizens?
Thanks for mentioning the book but I suspect that if someone else had thought of the tactic first the story may have gone another way.
Dirty tricks are dirty tricks, neither side is squeeky clean and it's all besides the point. Which was.... oh yeah, that not everyone agrees with each other and that's OK. If thousands of people disagree with you it doesn't mean you're wrong or they're right.
Have principles and take principled positions, it's not a bad thing.
Checklist:
- Name calling (none)
- Mentioned Gore (no)
- Mentioned Global Warming (forgot)
- Rhetorical Questions (check)
- Mars Rover (forgot)
:-D
C-R-A-C-K-P-O-T ALERT...
The Modern Liberal is incapable of rational thought for he believes it to be bigotry. Therefore he sides with ANYTHING that is anti-good, anti-right and anti-successful. Thus his blind hatred for America, Israel, Wal-Mart, etc. and his blind endorsement of anything that attacks it (Palestinian terrorists, Islamic fascists, the global warming con men.)
hahahaha...you are one weird little parrot my friend...how do you get out of your cage? Some of the most insane, goofball statements you can imagine...even from a wingbat,and this is a "rational line" of "thought." hahawowwhackjob
skank says...you, nor i will ever make sense to them. even in the simplest of terms.
Give it up...she finally got one right...btw we all know about the hundred crackpot and slow learner letter to the IPCC...see, even among scientists, there are always a few wingbats and contrarians...a tiny number next to the vast smart wing warming conspiracy...isn't it an amazing "coincidence" that just reicho dingalings doubt gw? I think the term brainwashed corporatge toady might be explanatory. Oh, hey I liked that everybody does it "defense" duh...like somebody said earlier, it's about 20 to 1 GOP...go team...
So let's imagine that it's proven that Global Warming is as significant a problem as a large number of people think it is. And that drastic changes need to be made immediately to help save the planet. What constructive actions are you personally going to take to do something about it? What have you done so far other than dump on other peoples opinions and use rude language?
I for one would see how I could make money while saving the planet. Capitalism seems to be a dirty word to some people but if done right it's the most efficient approach anyone's figured out so far.
Everyone ultimately acts in their own self interest so consider ways to make it easy for people in general to do the right thing.
When I say people, I mean everybody on the planet, not just us folks lucky enough to live in the USofA.
:-D
You want to write a best seller? Just tell the world how Global warming will kill us all and somehow blame it on the Jews.
It would sell a million copies in the UN alone.
we all know about the hundred ...always a few wingbats and contrarians...a tiny number it's about 20 to 1 GOP...
The link to the Senate Report names 400 dissenting scientists, many of them former IPCC members, and none of them slouches like Al Gore. How many scientists support the theory that global warming has a large man-made component?
Please, give us the names and the numbers, Count Unable...
btw - In real math, at 20 to 1, THAT means you should be able to name 8,000.
Get to work, slacker!
Have you actually read that report? Here's an example of one opinion in it:
South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa's Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: "The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming."
So, a nuclear physicist/mathematician, someone who doesn't study climate, gives an opinion (not research, but opinion) on climate change. He is part of the 400. Start winnowing the list down to people in the field, with actual evidence, and you are left with very little. Large scientific bodies, including not only the IPCC but the AMS, the AAAS, the National Academy of Science and dozens more have weighed in and all say yes, the Earth is getting warmer and yes, man has had an influence on that fact. These bodies represent thousands of scientists who work in this field. As I've already posted, the United States government, in the form of the EPA, has also come around to this point of view. So you people can dig in your heels and pretend that everything is still hunky-dory, but you'll excuse the rest of us when we follow the scientific evidence to its inescapable conclusion.
While you're still in the business of "credentialling" the "experts", take a look at the IPCC list of so-called "scientists" and you'll discover that the vast majority of THEM are much LESS QUALIFIED than any "atomic scientist"... especially one who has probably "computer modelled," funded and performed more "atmospheric nuclear fallout studies" than you can shake a stick at. Where do you think the "original" atmospheric science and computer modelling money came from, anyway... DOE, DOD or NWS/ NOAA?
And then go take a look at who's FUNDING the IPCC (UNEP/WMO), and you'll discover that a huge bunch of the money comes from environmental kooks like TED TURNER and their $1-3B donations to the UN. You think that $1B donations can't buy you the opinions of a gazillion 3rd world "scientists"??? What about the recent VOTE BUYING scandal of the WMO and the Iraq "Oil for Food" scandals?
Liberals have been dreaming of changing the world using the UN as their tool since before the League of Nations was even a glimmer in Woodrow Wilson's eye.
Follow the money. Al Gore is is being "bankrolled" by a bunch carbon-credit trading scam artists. They latched onto him the day in '94 when Clinton told him that his "BTU" tax scheme would never work...
btw - Check out the credentials of the dissenting scientists and they'll figure prominently in the AMS, the AAAS and the National Academy of Science as well... so "organizational name dropping" doesn't "cut-it" in this argument.
I'll bet you can buy a lot of "scary" climate stories with a $5B trust fund...
btw - I think I'll initiate a "call for papers" offering $50,000 IPCC grants to study the relationship between air pollution and global warming.
Think I'll get many takers? Think I can add up the number who conclude "yes" or "no" impact and be confident that I "know" the answer?
When it comes to science... the "truth" never yields to a plurality of "right" and "wrong" opinions.
At the end of the day, there is simply no reasoning with you people about what the science does or does not say. Evan obviously attracts the lunatic fringe, people who even the current administration, no friend to the environment themselves, consider hopelessly backwards.
The lesson - never get into a debate where science says one thing and politics says another, because there are too many people who like to use science to support politics, rather than simply following where the evidence takes them. It's why teachers are fired in this country for speaking out against creationism.
there is simply no reasoning with you people about what the science does or does not say.
Sure there is. Start talking science instead of talking polls.
Sigh....the IPCC report is science. You dismiss it. Whatever. Here's Nature's page on climate change:
http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html
Here's the Pew Center's:
http://www.pewclimate.org/
Here's what the EPA has to say:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
And I'm sure you can track down plenty of papers from peer-reviewed journals if you're so inclined.
What do they call this place...Crackpot Coven? The debate is OVER...you lost as usual. It DOESN'T MATTER what you think anymore. Even a lot of the large corporate leadership is coming over and asking how they can help. Why should anyone argue with silly asses who think thousands of scientists and world leaders are in a conspiracy to use climate change against them...woooowoooo...do you hear eerie music in your pinheads when you imagine that?
Try EMBEDDING links. I hate copy/pasting.
I say we first try "scoping" the issue and placing it in a larger context before jumping into any "specifics".
Like... if you want to talk "carbon dioxide", perhaps we should understand CO2's relationship to other atmospheric gasses...
...which is why Global Warming is all hot CO2... or as Shakespeare would say, "Much Ado about Nothing".
I guess the new story is that global warming is wrong because you're too lazy to copy and paste. At least go to the sites and read the information so you can be an informed person instead of a catchphrase-spewing parrot.
Hey, if you want to talk about science, then do it. Make a scientific point.
Don't point to the Encyclopedia Britannica and say "read it, QED".
How much does N2 contribute to global warming? How much does O2 contribute to global warming? And why am I worried about the contribution of CO2, which comprises less than 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere?
Climate genius says: "Like... if you want to talk "carbon dioxide", perhaps we should understand CO2's relationship to other atmospheric gasses..."
See, that's where this debate goes off the road...some guy who knows nothing except what some denier crackpot has written wants to tell us all about CO2's "relationships." This is a scientific question and the decisive weight of science says you're wrong...what point is there in listening to you on some point you have no qualifications to bloviate on?
What are YOUR qualification. Let's compare.
That's the problem with scientific issues that bleed over into the political arena - everyone becomes an expert. Rather than leaning on the weight of the scientific community, they simply seek out whatever people happen to agree with the point of view that they've already decided on.
When you talk about the contribution of gaseous nitrogen and O2 to global warming, you sound like an idiot. I think you should know that.
Really? Because YOU say so? LOL!
You show me your d*ck and I'll show you mine.
See, that's the point. None of us has the scientific qualifications to be experts in this arena. If some climatologist comes on here and says one thing or another, it is meaningless. He would simply be in one camp or the other. It all gets back to two things...are you going to believe the overwhelming weight of the evidence or not and 2, are you going to consider current events which show warming to be proceding even faster than the worst scenarios have shown? I choose to go with the really huge preponderance of the evidence. As someone earlier stated...it's no coincidence that the only deniers are part of an ideology which represents the worst, most short sighted aspects of corporate power. Time to quit the foot dragging and get on with saving what we can...ALL the things needed to help are things we should be doing anyway for other reasons.
Know anything about thermodynamics? Taken any courses in Fluid Dynamics? Combustion? Refrigeration? Physics? Calculus? Differential Equations?
Have you spent the past fifteen years working with the top scientists in the world on precisely these same problems?
When you say "none of us" speak ONLY for yourself.
Do you know what "enthalpy" is? Have you ever performed thermodynamic calculations?
Climate change is not my field, which is why I lean on those who study the issue. The fact that you question the impact of homonuclear diatomic molecules on global warming suggests to me that you don't have even the rudimentary grasp of chemistry needed to talk about this issue at anything but the most superficial level. You'll excuse me if I don't take you seriously after you said that.
Farmer John...well he's somebody's John...like most of the Re-pubics...just another pretentious dingbat exposing himself...isn't there a law against that? And he can't even grasp the simplest point...even if he wasn't a total phony, he'd just be one more of the small fraction of deniers...in other word's nada.
Why, how many Chemistry classes have you taken?
Do you know anything, anything at all about how heat (and other forms of energy) are transferred from one medium to another.
Again, it's clear to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm a scientist by trade, although that's (somewhat) irrelevant to the topic at hand since I don't study the climate. You obviously have no idea how the greenhouse effect works, so the fact that you try to come across as some sort of expert is a bit pathetic, but mostly just laughable You throw out a lot of "sciency" terms in the hopes of scaring people off, but it's obvious, to me at least, that your knowledge on the subject is effectively nothing.
I don't claim to be an expert in Greenhouse Gasses OR the Greenhouse Effect. I'm an engineer, not a climate scientist. But I do happen to know QUITE a bit about solar physics and magnetic reconnection... and I've done performed enough heat transfer equations to understand that I should never ignore a mass flow rate when I see one staring me in the face...
....and in a few years, I hope to be able to learn just how much trapped energy is getting blown away by CMEs.
...and getting rid of all that surplus heat can be a beautiful thing.
I'm not a climate scientist. You're not a climate scientist. And yet I rely on the community of climate scientists to inform me of climate change, and you rely on your own crackpot theories (oxygen and nitrogen gas and their contribution to global warming, I'm still laughing about that one). Somehow I feel on sturdier ground than you, I can't put my finger on why.
And I don't? LOL!
Sure, nitrogen and oxygen don't have much impact on the "greenhouse effect." But radiation is only one means of heat transfer (the one of primary interest to IPCC meteorologists) And as a fluid heat-transfer medium, N2/O2 contribute 99.97% of the mass through which the suns energy may flow.
And if I were interested in calculating heat transfer... I wouldn't choose to ignore 99.97 percent of my "heat conductor", would you?
Do you know what happens when you heat up a gas? It expands. Do you know what happens when you cool it? It condenses.
Now, does Mars have an atmosphere? How about a magnetic field? Think there's any correlation between the two? I do.
Most Global Climatlogists see the problem thusly...
Space is a vacuum; I think we can all agree on that. In a vacuum, only conduction and radiation are possible--there being no fluid to carry heat via convection. Since the planet isn't regularly in contact with other spatial object, we'll take a little leap here and say that only radiation can carry heat away in any significant quantities.
So let's do a little thought experiment: take a planet, any planet, and make it geologically dead and lifeless. Energy (in the form of radiation from the star it orbits) goes in, warming it. Energy goes out (thermal radiation from the planet), cooling it. What happens?
Thermal equilibrium, that's what happens. If energy in is more than energy out, the planet warms. The more it warms, the faster the rate of energy out. Eventually, energy in equals energy out, and the planet's temperature stabilizes.
Now let's add an internal source of energy; say, by making the planet geologically active due to internally generated heat from radioactive decay at the planet's core. What happens? This internal heat energy adds to the energy in side of the equation. The planet warms until a new equilibrium point is reached, which is higher than the previous point. Why? More energy in, that's why.
Now let's take the last step: Add life to our little planet. A life that has a penchant for taking the complex chemicals that are found on or near the surface and releasing the stored chemical energy to do work. What happens?
Eventually this energy ends up as heat. Heat that adds to the energy in side of the equation. The planet warms until a new equilibrium point is reached, which is higher than the previous point. Bingo. Human-caused global warming.
Now, I realize that this is an overly-simplistic example. It ignores niceties like living organisms turning solar radiation into chemical potential energy. It ignores the exact rates, and the complexities of an active atmosphere. It also ignores the complexities of how atmospheric composition changes the rate of energy out (i.e., greenhouse gases alone change the thermal equilibrium point by reducing the effectiveness of thermal radiation, resulting in a lower energy out and a higher thermal equilibrium even with no additional energy in; or greater cloud cover reducing the energy in by reflecting solar radiation back into space).
But the basic fact is true: energy in > energy out => increasing temperature.
...but only, there is a fluid AND a transfer due to convection. Space is NOT a complete vacuum. There is solar wind AND cosmic radiation... and the solar wind is not constant... for every eleven years the sun's activities increase and decrease.
Now, remember that radioactive decay happening in the planet's core? It's adding heat and keeping the earth's iron core "fluid". This not only permits heat "convection" within the confines of the planet, but it also generates a tremendous electromagentic field that creates an electric "current" that extends far into space.
And the solar wind "flows" through this field, and occassionally "rips" off a few electrons (which is really "energy" in it's raw state) creating a beautiful light display we call the aurora borealis.
And as time goes on, the earth's core loses heat... and as it loses heat it loses magnetic field... and as it loses magnetic field it loses atmosphere... until you end up with a planet like Mars with a very weak magnetic field and very little atmosphere.
Now... sometimes the solar wind blows fast (during a CME event) and sometimes slowly (during solar minimum)... but all the time it's blowing.
And if the earth happens to be a little "hotter" than normal, the atmosphere (being a gas) extends a little farther out into space than normal. And if the earth happens to be a little cooler, the atmosphere doesn't quite go out as far (the molecules being more densly packed). But regardless, the earth's magentic field keeps it from "immediately" being blown away. But it also serves as the earth's "thermostate"... keeping a wonderfully comfortable state of "equillibrium" that doesn't care diddly about how much CO2 is in the atmosphere except to the extent it generates greenhouse gasses that create heat which then get blown off into space.
God you must be the boringest person in the universe.
The thing I find most telling (and most predictable) is the hurled abuse. Now and again, someone hurls the IPCC onto the table - an organ that is being increasingly discredited as we discover how much they have spun and exaggerated the truth - but only now and again. For the most part, however, it's simply 'shut up, shut up, shut up'.
Why? Why do they care what you say, Evan? What is your opinion to them, when they have the IPCC and all the scientists ever born (apparently) to wave at you?
Yeah, what is so tellingly telling is how much the Farmer knows about gas and this Ozark hick knows about hurling.
No wonder...anyone hanging out on this site is bound to learn a lot about both. Telling for damn sure.
Are you stealink my schtick...I find dat is weeeery tellink about you...such cheeks.
Four out of Five expert theologians of various religions believe there is a G_d.
It must be settled. Theology is a settled question. There is a G_d.
If people want to believe that the global warming question has been "answered", fine. Let them have their "faith". They "trust" that the scientists "know".
Only I've worked with the scientists. There's much more that they don't know and/or understand then what they do know.
The question is still FAR from being settled. There's still tons of physics that is little understood and in a state of flux. Magnetic reconnection is currently THE top space physics question being asked. And NO, they don't have enough data to answer the questions. Heck, they still don't even know the right questions to ask.
But if you need "believe" in the "global warming apocalypse" to make a buck or two (like Al Gore) or to get someone to fund your science projects... well forgive me if I question the nature of your "faith".
There's nothing more boring than an ignorant troll.
Farmer says:
Four out of Five expert theologians of various religions believe there is a G_d.
It must be settled. Theology is a settled question. There is a G_d.
No wonder you're such a lousy scientist...don't you even understand the difference between a theologian and a scientist...one deals in fact, reason and evidence; the other does not. The analogy is brain numbingly stupid. Obviously, you must go with the great preponderance of the evidence and expert opinion when it come to evidence,facts and reason...all things the wingbat instinctively hates.
How come you lefties are such snide assholes? All you do is snivel, sneer, snicker, and snarl. You're like Tolkein's orcs and trolls (with plenty of Gollums here and there, too).
Anyway, trying to rationalizing this away should keep you busy (thanks Nanc):
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
sp. rationalize
larry,
Kant wrote critiques of both "pure" and "practical" reason. Who do you think the "purists" were? I'll give you a hint... it was the G_d crowd. And who do you think the "practical" reasoners were? Another hint, it was the scientists. NEITHER group has any "higher" ground when it comes to the application of facts, reason OR evidence.
And scientists who LACK EVIDENCE should be smart enough to state that they are practicing THEOLOGY and NOT SCIENCE.
Human activity being a significant contributer to the "causes" of global warming is a "theory". And distinguishing anthropogenic from natural sources requires a "complete" understanding of the thermodynamic process at work.
So STOP trying to tell us that the science is "complete" and/or "conclusive", for it is FAR from EITHER!
I hear a lot of people saying, "see, these experts say it's true, so it must be."
Wouldn't you say that intelligence officials are the premier experts at finding out the secrets of other governments? The experts that told us that there were WMDs in Iraq? So where are they? They're the experts, right? We should believe them because they're supposed to know what they're talking about, right? They wouldn't lie to us, would they?
The fact of the matter is that if somebody, anybody, in the intelligence community had the forethought to be, god forbid, skeptical about the "consensus" we might not be fighting such an unpopular polarizing war.
Just because someone is a scientist, doesn't make him/her infallible. The IPCC is not a body of omniscient, omnipotent beings who can never, ever be wrong about anything.
Skepticism is good and healthy to scientific debate. Without it, we would still think that the sun revolves around the earth and maggots magically appear on rotting meat.
Leftists wonder why there's not a lot of enthusiasm for belief in Global Warming amongst a wider range of people, besides themselves. That's easy to answer...
Firstly, because the face of the movement is that fat-faced crybaby, Al Gore, who after his loss in 2000, went off to some island somewhere, bloated out to his current ridiculous size and planned his comeback, which we see to be sounding...strangely familiar. There's nothing more to Global Warming than what we see disguised behind standard Leftist Boilerplate, communist-leftist-socialist attacks on capitalism and the free market. And on the Rich, Who Don't Pay their Fair Share of Taxes. Just the same moonbattism, only the cause is changed.
Secondly, the attack on scientists who only want to do what they do best...challenge other scientist's research, to inspire further research. Science works best when there's back-and-forth. There is no stinkin' consensus in science! When someone says 'the debate is over' that person is a fool. Anathema to science.
Global Warming is presented as Al Gore's movement, for better or worse. He's BACK, and he's NOT going to be beaten AGAIN. That's the attitude he presents, that's his motivation (along with the offset cash he's pocketing).
The best thing that could happen for the Global Warmalists would be for Al Gore to disassociate himself from them. He's done more damage than good, by making this debate his own personal vendetta against those who whipped him in 2000.
Maybe a retirement to Bali, with plenty of food? And a nice new muumuu?
Here's the Al Gore I see...
Republican Approval of Bush’s Handling of the Economy Plummets
Jon Ponder | Dec. 22, 2007
Republicans’ approval of Pres. Bush’s handling of the economy dropped 20 percentage points in the last month, according to American Research Group:
It suggests a wave of financial insecurity among Republican voters and could be a portentous sign of weakness inside Bush’s base.
45 percent of Republicans disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the economy. In November, 25 percent of Republicans disapproved of Bush’s handling of the economy.
That’s quite a drop in a key indicator. It suggests a wave of financial insecurity among Republican voters and could be a portentous sign of weakness inside Bush’s base.
Republican Approval of Bush’s Handling of the Economy Plummets
Jon Ponder | Dec. 22, 2007
Republicans’ approval of Pres. Bush’s handling of the economy dropped 20 percentage points in the last month, according to American Research Group:
If you like that you'll love this:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_acknowledges_existence_of
Which is a LOT more "on topic"
So are we all on the same page now? :-)
"Leftists wonder why there's not a lot of enthusiasm for belief in Global Warming amongst a wider range of people, besides themselves. That's easy to answer..."
Who wonders? The whole world has bought into it...except for little islands of ignorance and foolishness like this place where losers plug their ears and lie to each other. Gore is seen as a prophet thoughout the world...we have the Goracle and you've got the debacle.
DShea points out GW's bold new revelation...now, science can move forward and perhaps invent, uh...oh I don't know...maybe like a bottle rocket or something during the remainder of his term...a legacy for the decider guy after all.
l'oeil said...
DShea points out GW's bold new revelation...now, science can move forward and perhaps invent, uh...oh I don't know...maybe like a bottle rocket or something during the remainder of his term...a legacy for the decider guy after all.
Bush has invented a lot of novelties (I think he used bottle rockets a long time ago on frogs): WMDs in Iraq (and now he's trying to do the same in Iran); a world that increasingly hates and isolates the U.S.; a language that no one can understand with the possible exception of Barney; the worst defecit in U.S. history; the obliteration of the dollar; and immense trade deficit.... Oh, this boy's gonna have a legacy awrite.
You guys gotta keep in mind that you are dealing with a bunch of idiots who will lean on a crutch daddy but are baffled by scientific evidence.
12/21/2007
F*cked New Orleans (Demolition Edition of a Never-Ending Series):
Truly, the best and worst you could say about the four public housing projects approved for demolition by the New Orleans City Council yesterday is that they were sh*tholes people called "home." If you ever happened to go into the Lafitte projects (that's them in the picture there in 2006), pre-Katrina, you saw a community; yes, you might even think, "In the realm of the sh*t-strewn poverty dumps we call 'public housing' in the country, there are kinda quaint." And you might even enter an apartment or two that was nicely decorated, cozy, and welcoming. But, yes, truly, that was merely painted gloss on a turd. For nobody gave a f*ck about doing much about Lafitte until after Hurricane Katrina. They were built in the 1940s and were models for what projects could be, and then, through cruel neglect and outright animosity, they were left to rot for a generation, with residents in them. Like the St. Bernard, Cooper, and Peete projects also scheduled to be demolished, they were, indeed, sh*tholes.
But, as Greg Palast and others have documented, Lafitte's sh*tholes were not flooded out by Katrina. And the Housing Authority of New Orleans shut them up and refused to let residents back in, citing mold, asbestos and other "safety" concerns that you can sure as hell bet were there before the hurricane. Think about it for just a sec here: you shutter up the doors and windows and cut the electricity to a home in New Orleans, where most of the year it feels like you're living in Satan's sweaty taint, and you might just get some pretty damn bad mold, floods or no. And it's a testament to either human resilience or stupidity that residents want to come back. Because, at the end of the day, a sh*thole to call home is better than no home at all.
See, yesterday's near riot at the City Council meeting where the plan to demolish over 4500 units of public housing was approved unanimously was not just about that plan; it was also about seeing a chance disappear to actually improve the projects rather than just wreck them and start from scratch. It was also about, once again, the poor in the city being told to go fuck themselves while the grown-ups do what they think is best for them. Like a World's Fair. Or a casino. Yeah, all those other things that worked out so well.
It was about a barrage of broken promises, like what happened when the St. Thomas housing development was leveled to make room for the much-vaunted "mixed-income" housing, where the wretched and downtrodden could learn to live with their financial betters. River Garden, as it was called, took the homes of 800 families and turned them into a space with "25 percent affordable units versus 75 percent market-rate." So seventy of those 800 families were able to return. See, for the poor in New Orleans, "progress" means "destruction." Or "progress for everyone else."
There is no will in the state, in the nation, to do something about entrenched poverty, the intractable disease that plagues so much of urban America. Hell, John Edwards is called "angry" for merely suggesting that the poor be considered in the upcoming presidential race.
And if none of that warms your heart for this holiday season, there's an article in the Guardian about the destruction wrought by the illegal drug epidemic in New Orleans. It's got this wonderful list from hell: "white crystal meth cookers instructing black crack dealers on how to cook up the drug on their kitchen stoves; an explosion in heroin use and availability that has resulted in the drug being consumed in all manner of strange and fascinating ways from heroin-laced gumbo sold for $10 a cup, to tightly-rolled marijuana blunts packed with the drug; dealers from storm-wracked neighborhoods moving into surrounding areas and clashing with established dealers (this may go far in explaining the current murder epidemic in New Orleans); and, perhaps most disturbingly, thousands of 'emancipated youths' (teenagers returning to New Orleans to live on their own, with absolutely no parental supervision) entering into the drug game in order to support themselves financially."
"F*cked" doesn't even do it justice.
See here's the thing, the point that's been made here a couple times. If you think Global Warming is a big problem that's fine, then you should work towards doing something about it. Something other than calling people names and such. Get over the fact not everyone is as worried about it.
I think they used to call it Civil Discourse. You can say, "Evan, I don't think you understand such and such and here's why....." or "if you want to know why Evan is wrong you should read about..."
What I see here is a lot of unproductive name calling. I think if someone thinks Al Gore is an idiot or in it for the money that's fine, it's an opinion, fine. Same for Bush.
On the science, I think it's incomplete, if it were complete then scientists would stop researching. Have you heard the expression "why manage when you can overreact?" Do you know about signal vs. noise in data? Do you know about problems with historical data? There's a lot that needs to be understood better, especially before I'm comfortable that drastic changes are needed. But if they are needed then #1 problem is having a leader in place to make it happen.
I'd like to think that over time the picture will be clearer and there will be a true consensus (NOT the the crammed down your throat variety) So in the meanwhile some of you may agree with Gore or whole heartedly disagree but don't blindly follow anything and everything anyone says, don't stop thinking for yourself.
Anyone who willingly stops thinking effectively lets someone else do their thinking for them. I guess you have the right to do that but I would request that you refrain from blogging as well.
:-D
Oh, that "minority report" with the 400 scientists has been debunked long ago... one of Inhofe's (R - Sheephump) phony ploys. They managed to scrape up 700 similar "scientists" for ID. One of the guys on there was a retired architect.
Dshay says "On the science, I think it's incomplete, if it were complete then scientists would stop researching. There's a lot that needs to be understood better, especially before I'm comfortable that drastic changes are needed."
Sounds reasonable but is utterly insidious...it is already probably too late and he wants to wait. Jesus, we all know it's a theory and that perfection is a long ways away. But it is a theory with massive evidence and support behind it and not to act immediately probably means - literally the end of civilization as we know it. You guys are like the idiots who kept smoking because there were still missing elements in the science...alright if you want cancer but this time you deadbeats are going to bring your disaster down on everyone else.
When you say it's probably already too late should we just give up? Should I start smoking? Honestly nobody knows if it's too late, or if we're 6 months from the critical tipping point or if we're 50 years from it. There are some reasonable things that many people will agree on that could make a difference. Clean air and clean water. How about using energy more efficiently? Most people agree there's a finite supply.
We should be working on those problems that help people all over the world today (and at the same time perhaps reduce the impact to our climate)
Want to change the world?, figure out how to keep Billions of Chinese and Indian's productive, fed and warm at night without spewing noxious chemicals into the air. Solve todays problems with the long term in mind. Don't wait, start tomorrow. The data should get better over time and we'll then know if we're going to be OK or if in December 2007 we missed the chance to save the planet.
"Be the change you want to see in the world" - M.Ghandi
:-D SHEA
The fact that you say it's "already probably too late" or "probably the end of civilization as we now it" is a confession of reality...
You probably don't know shit!
And maybe you should know before you start crying wolf AGAIN.
Crap Farmer says: The fact that you say it's "already probably too late" or "probably the end of civilization as we now it" is a confession of reality...
You probably don't know shit!
And maybe you should know before you start crying wolf AGAIN.
Does that gibberish mean anything...confession of reality? You said it wasn't real...now it's a "confession". Do you birdbrains have any idea what climate change will do...any understanding of the projections...massive starvation, displacement, unliveable areas, inundation of coastal cities, resource wars, food system collapses...that's the end, simpleton. It's your characteristic oblivion of any reality but the silly ideology driven fantasies in your tiny heads that makes you a wingbat.
Nearly five thousand of the top climate scientists in the world -- including the father of modern climatology and the leading expert, a professor at MIT, say it's UTTER BS.
The fact that the leftists -- with everything to gain for their ideology (punishing America, helping the communists in China to be on the rise, etc) -- are lying and saying "every scientist agrees" should be enough to prove to anyone who cares about truth that the leftists are lying.
The fact that Al Gore's being funded by the Hollywood leftists, that he's personally pocketing tens of millions of dollars, and meanwhile, he doesn't even care enough about the environment to turn off the heater in his indoor swimming pool, spewing pollution at TWENTY TIMES the amount of the average family who isn't pocketing all that money and, in fact, might well be put out of business by the government controls and regulations should be a pretty good hint that Global Warming is a farce.
But, alas, the Democrat doesn't care about these facts. They are sheep. It's way people like Al Gore and Al Sharpton are so powerful as their leaders. Any conman will do so long as they hate America.
OOOOOOooooohhhhhhhh. The Apocalypse.
...Is "An Inconvenient Truth" a book of Revelations?
Sounds like a death cult, if you ask me.
The Left is attempting to start a new religion... stretching facts about natural global processes into man-made apocalyptic fantasies.
...and Al Gore is selling "indulgences" repackaged as "carbon credits".
Go forth and sin no more! Buy your indulgences from Pope Al Gore, himself!
Evan, Gore can sin by wasting energy in his ridiculously energy inefficient home because he's bought "indulgences". They don't call indulgences a "papal bull" for nothing.
I'll bet factguy drives a Hummer... but has pledged to buy some of Pope Al's indulgences in the near future.
The sooner you "repent" the cheaper your indulgences will be!
This sums up the value of this deadend site...this guy doesn't even try anymore. He just makes ludicrous claims that even he knows are blatant lies...5000 scientists!!! ...even the bogus Inhofe report could only come up with 400 and they had to scrape the bottom of the barrel. This guy is strictly for laughs ...or students of abnormal psychology.
"Nearly five thousand of the top climate scientists in the world -- including the father of modern climatology and the leading expert, a professor at MIT, say it's UTTER BS."
He is a funny guy...here's a chance for some real humor...let's have him provide some DOCUMENTATION for that claim.
If I said five thousand it was a typo, I meant five hundred.
But the hate of the leftist, the inability to see anything but conspiracies against them is evident in how a mere typo -- and extra "0" -- can't be the obvious, a mistake, it must be people out to get them, you know, "lying liars" in the words of Al Franken. Because the left is so filled with hate (not for terrorists, not for rapists, not for murderers) but for their fellow Americans.
It's not that it's a death cult, it's people who have NOTHING in their lives. They can't believe in God because that would mean there's right and wrong, they can't believe in country because that's xenophobic, so they have to have SOME issue. So they've invented "global warming" because that way they have a cause that isn't bigoted. It's the WHOLE earth they love.
Always remember John Lennon's Modern Liberal anthem...Imagine there's no countries, no religions, too...
So global warming BECOMES their global cause and Al Gore becomes their god. Challenge Gore with science and facts and you've committed blasphemy, you become an infidel who, like the teacher who named the teddy bear Muhammad, someone to be viciously attacked and hated.
I think you're right about that, Evan. Their lives lack "meaning" and "increasing awareness" about social issues, real or imagined, fills a void.
Everyone's a Cassandra...
Tennyson, "Tiresias"
The power of prophesying but to me
No power so chain'd and coupled with the curse
Of blindness and their unbelief who heard
And heard not, when I spake of famine, plague
Shrine-shattering earthquake, fire, flood, thunderbolt,
And angers of the Gods for evil done
And expiation lack'd no power on Fate
Theirs, or mine own! for when the crowd would roar
For blood, for war, whose issue was their doom,
To cast wise words among the multitude
Was fiinging fruit to lions; nor, in hours
Of civil outbreak, when I knew the twain
Would each waste each, and bring on both the yoke
Of stronger states, was mine the voice to curb
The madness of our cities and their kings.
Who ever turn'd upon his heel to hear
My warning that the tyranny of one
Was prelude to the tyranny of all?
My counsel that the tyranny of all
Led backward to the tyranny of one?
This power hath work'd no good to aught that lives
And these blind hands were useless in their wars.
O. therefore, that the unfulfill'd desire,
The grief for ever born from griefs to be
The boundless yearning of the prophet's heart‹
Could that stand forth, and like a statue, rear'd
To some great citizen, wim all praise from all
Who past it, saying, "That was he!"
In vain!
Virtue must shape itself im deed, and those
Whom weakness or necessity have cramp'd
Withm themselves, immerging, each, his urn
In his own well, draws solace as he may.
And this thread looks like more of the Evan and Farmer strutting contest...who has the most grotesque display of dead right wing plumage? One guy demonstrates how weird you have to be to still be a conservative and the other tries to compensate for being a wingbat with a lot of pretentious cutting and pasting from really cool philosophers which he couldn't possibly understand and which the two other people on here never read.
Are the two other people jackie and eikcaj?
Let fact guy tell you how many prominent scientists support the concept of man-made global warming?
the IPCC has 2000+ scientists.
at the 1997 Kyoto Climate Summit, the Call for Action was signed by more than 1,500 scientists from 63 countries, including 110 Nobel laureates and 60 US National Medal of Science winners.
http://www.eolss.net/worldscientist.aspx
Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992.
http://deoxy.org/sciwarn.htm
last year 10,000 EPA scientists, engineers and other technical specialists called for immediate action against global warming.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2006/2006-11-29-09.asp
Meanwhile the desperate corporate slime bags were doing this...yeah we just hate them because they're successful...not because they're lying slimebags...
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
The rightist cannot tolerate facts ...unless he can make them up.
Factguy,
So are you saying there's over 15,000 scientists or is it possible you're double, triple or quadruple counting? There's got to be some overlap right? Maybe?
Are all 15,000 scientists (assuming that's the right number) doing their work pro-bono and are completely uninfluenced by $ or anyones agenda?
Just trying to clarify since source of funding seems to be a concern.
So let's say I'm a scientist that thinks global warming is a HUGE problem. Would I take $10,000 from anyone to write against it? Probably not, since scientists are supposed to write about what they believe to be "true".
What if I was on the fence or even a "disbeliever" would I take $10,000 to take a critical look at existing papers? Why not, I'm a scientist right? isn't getting paid to be a scientist the whole idea?
Let's flip it around. Al Gore or someone similar offers you $ to pick apart papers that they disagree with. If you are one of the 15,000 or so you've mentioned you would probably jump at the chance.
So scientist get paid, all around, either in salary or by incentives. They also have biases (everybody does at some level) but let's just say that they have ethics to only write what they believe.
I think maybe because the 15,000 are international experts or associated with government agencies, that must make them smarter?
So since they're smarter they should welcome the review of their work since it's refutable and that will only prove how smart they are.
So if a business wants to waste its $ on "pointless" research why should you care?
Let's see if the response to this can refrain from name calling or changing the subject.
:-D
(FYI: not a scientist or pretending to be)
Sorry, intended to say "irrefutable"
:-D
"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today."
Facts? You offer statements, not facts.
But let's assume it is true. Are we to take it that payments offered to scientists (via the standard grant system's ideological grab bag) in support of AGW (and its raft of West-destroying measures) are not equally tainted? Coin is coin.
It is precisely the politicisation of the entire IPCC 'process' - and the AGW bandwagon - that galvanises the opposition you see here.
Your agendas are showing.
And I use the word 'tainted' here in the sense that the various leftist commenters would use it.
That said, given the ongoing approbrium these people will suffer at the hands of their various 'right-on' AGW-supporting colleagues, I sincerely doubt $10,000 is nearly enough by way of inducement.
I tend to call this claim hokey, as a direct result.
Don't give me your selective nonsense...much more than IPCC there...how about the other groups? I hear heavy breathing...is the rationalizing getting harder?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechangeSpecifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
The following entities subscribe to the following proposition:
1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
These organizations also agree with the consensus:
The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Northwestern University
University of Akureyri
University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey
National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK
Climate Group
Climate Institute
Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society
Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House
US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality
National Economic Council
Office of Management and Budget
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Engineers Australia
American Chemical Society
American Association of Blacks in Energy
World Petroleum Council
The Weather Channel
National Geographic
The following companiesagree with the consensus:
ABB
Air France
Alcan
Alcoa
Allian
American Electric Power
Aristeia Capital
BASF
Bayer
BP America Inc.
Calvert Group
Canadian Electricity Association
Caterpilliar Inc.
Centrica
Ceres
Chevron
China Renewable
Citigroup
ConocoPhillips
Covanta Holding Corporation
Deutsche Telekom
Doosan Babcock Energy Limited
Duke Energy
DuPont
EcoSecurities
Electricity de France North America
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
Endesa
Energettech Austraila Pty Ltd
Energy East Corporation
Energy Holding Romania
Energy Industry Association
Eni
Eskorn
ETG International
Exelon Corporation
ExxonMobil
F&C Asset Management
FPL Group
General Electric
German Electricity Association
Glitnir Bank
Global Energy Network Institute, Iberdrola
ING Group
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Interface Inc.
International Gas Union
International Paper
International Power
Marsh & McLennan Companies
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company
MEDIAS-France
MissionPoint Capital Partners
Munich Re
National Grid
National Power Company of Iceland
NGEN mgt II, LLC
NiSource
NRG Energy
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Reykjavik Energy
Ricoh
Rio Tinto Energy Services
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rolls-Royce
Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS Group)
Stora Enso North America
Stratus Consulting
Sun Management Institute
Swiss Re
UCG Partnership
US Geothermal
Verde Venture Partners
Volvo
In addition, the scientific consensus is also endorsed by the CEO's of the following companies:
A. O. Smith Corporation
Abbott Laboratories
Accenture Ltd.
ACE Limited
ADP
Aetna Inc.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
AK Steel Corporation
Alcatel-Lucent
Allstate Insurance Company
ALLTEL Corporation
Altec Industries, Inc.
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
American Express Company
American International Group, Inc.
Ameriprise Financial
AMR Corporation/American Airlines
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Apache Corporation
Applera Corporation
Arch Coal, Inc.
Archer Daniels Midland Company
ArvinMeritor, Inc.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Avery Dennison Corporation
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
Bechtel Group, Inc.
BNSF Railway
Boeing Company
Brink's Company
CA
Carlson Companies, Inc.
Case New Holland Inc.
Ceridian Corporation
Chemtura Corporation
Chubb Corporation
CIGNA Corporation
Coca-Cola Company
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
Convergys Corporation
Con-way Incorporated
Corning Incorporated
Crane Co.
CSX Corporation
Cummins Inc.
Deere & Company
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Delphi Corporation
Dow Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical Company
Eastman Kodak Company
Eaton Corporation
EDS
Eli Lilly and Company
EMC Corporation
Ernst & Young, L.L.P.
Fannie Mae
FedEx Corporation
Fluor Corporation
FMC Corporation
Freddie Mac
General Mills, Inc.
General Motors Corporation
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
Harman International Industries, Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Group
Home Depot, Inc., The
Honeywell International, Inc.
HSBC - North America
Humana Inc.
IBM Corporation
Ingersoll-Rand Company
International Textile Group
ITT Corporation
Johnson Controls, Inc.
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
KPMG LLP
Liberty Mutual Group
MassMutual
MasterCard Incorporated
McGraw-Hill Companies
McKesson Corporation
MeadWestvaco Corporation
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc.
Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
MetLife, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Motorola, Inc.
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
National Gypsum Company
Nationwide
Navistar International Corporation
New York Life Insurance Company
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Nucor Corporation
NYSE Group, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.
Pactiv Corporation
Peabody Energy Corporation
Pfizer Inc
PPG Industries, Inc.
Praxair, Inc.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Principal Financial Group
Procter & Gamble Company
Prudential Financial
Realogy Corporation
Rockwell Automation, Inc.
Ryder System, Inc.
SAP America, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
SAS Institute Inc.
Schering-Plough Corporation
Schneider National, Inc.
ServiceMaster Company
Siemens Corporation
Southern Company
Springs Global US, Inc.
Sprint Nextel
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
State Farm Insurance Companies
Tenneco
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Textron Incorporated
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
TIAA-CREF
Tyco Electronics
Tyco International Ltd.
Union Pacific Corporation
Unisys Corporation
United Technologies Corporation
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
USG Corporation
Verizon Communications
W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Western & Southern Financial Group
Weyerhaeuser Company
Whirlpool Corporation
Williams Companies, Inc.
Xerox Corporation
YRC Worldwide Inc
I'll take this "consensus" over the 400 "scientists" handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.
Where does factguys faux-scientific consensus come from? Follow his numbers links and see that they're all self-avowed greenies from the "non-political" (LOL!) Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)...
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization with more than 100,000 members. Seeing its mission as building a "cleaner, healthier environment and a safer world," UCS takes public stands, purportedly based on scientific research, regarding a variety of political and health-related issues. It opposes genetically engineered foods, condemns SUV vehicles, and proposes measures aimed at combating what it deems the imminent dangers of global warming. It also opposes the vast majority of American foreign policy decisions, and calls for a unilateral reduction in U.S. nuclear weapons stockpiles. UCS disseminates to lawmakers and news outlets its opinions about each of these matters, with the intent of ultimately influencing public policy. (how non-political of them)
Students and faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology founded UCS in 1969. "Through its actions in Vietnam, our government has shaken our confidence in its ability to make wise and humane decisions," reads the UCS founding document. That sentiment continues to this day, with UCS condemning American efforts in the War on Terror and the 2003 War in Iraq.
UCS typically minimizes threats posed by foreign rogue regimes, and challenges U.S. assertions about the intentions and military capacities of those governments. In 1998, for instance, UCS assured the public that American analysts had exaggerated North Korea's ability to produce nuclear weapons, and that the Pyongyang regime was still many years away from being able to develop such an arsenal.
UCS vigorously opposes America's development of a missile defense system. It also calls for the "adoption of a U.S. nuclear no-first-use policy"; "a U.S. rejection of rapid-launch options, and a change in deployment practices to provide for the launch of U.S. nuclear forces in hours or days rather than minutes"; "the elimination of all U.S. 'tactical' nuclear weapons, intended for use on the battlefield"; "verified unilateral reductions to a total of 1,000 strategic warheads (including deployed and stored), accompanied by warhead dismantlement"; and "a commitment to further reductions in the number of nuclear weapons, on a negotiated and verified multilateral basis."
UCS admonishes American corporations such as McDonald's and Burger King, asserting that the presence of antibiotics in meat used by fast-food companies contributes to large-scale antibiotic resistance. In 2003, bills based on UCS research aimed at prohibiting the use of eight classes of antibiotics in livestock used by fast-food producers were introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate. Soon after, UCS admitted that the majority of its claims were speculative. UCS has also warned of the alleged dangers of genetically modified food.
Another issue of concern to UCS is that of global warming. The organization circulated a petition that drew the signatures of some 1,600 scientific experts demanding that the United States ratify the Kyoto Protocol. (Gee, talk about a self-selected "scientific consensus")
A Union of Concerned Scientists declaration, entitled "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making," charges that the Bush administration "has continued to distort and suppress science in pursuit of its political goals — despite a plea from top U.S. scientists to restore scientific integrity to the policy-making process." According to UCS President Kevin Knobloch, "We found a serious pattern of undermining science by the Bush administration, and it crosses disciplines, whether it's global climate change or reproductive health or mercury in the food chain or forestry -- the list goes on and on." The signers of this document portrayed themselves as objective scientists with no political agenda. But in truth, over half of them were financial contributors to the Democratic Party, Democratic candidates, or a variety of leftist causes. The UCS website offers visitors an online opportunity to register to vote; this service is sponsored by Working Assets.
UCS is a member of the Save Our Environment Action Center, a leftist coalition that describes itself as "a collaborative effort of the nation's most influential environmental advocacy organizations harnessing the power of the internet to increase public awareness and activism on today's most important environmental issues."
UCS has received funding from the Beldon Fund, the Compton Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the J.M. Kaplan Fund, the Scherman Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Energy Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Turner Foundation, and Pew Charitable Trusts.
Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992.
Gee, their conclusions haven't changed in fifteen years... they even STILL recommend equality for women, too and list a whole barrel full of other fears about population, water quality, running out of oil, etc., etc., etc. Hmmm I wonder how much "science" was performed in coming to THAT conclusion?
I guess that even "scientists" have "political" opinions... think?
I guess that even "scientists" have "political" opinions... think?
The 17 that support your side do...like the man said, that list -- all independently verifiable -- proves it...this is over but it's fun kicking your ass while your head is in the sandbox.
Skorch said - what?
Hmmmmm. Interesting.
Factguy said this:
"The following companies agree with the consensus:
.
.
.
ExxonMobil
. . ."
Just prior to that, however, Factguy said this:
"Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
So - does ExxonMobil agree or doesn't it?
Or doesn't it matter?
I think Factguy needs to have a closer look at some of his facts.
Very simple, Okie...even Exxon has officially admitted it after doing everything it could to deny...and then there's a bit of the old one 'and doing wot the other 'and don't know about. Not something for naifs like yourself to worry their empty little 'eads about.
Oh dear, anonymous - tricky for a poor okie like myself, but I guess even a dullard such as moi must conclude that it tends to undermine the argument about the 'deniers' being funded by these characters, given they've now jumped on board. . .doesn't it.
Sorry - I know I'm slow (or is it you?).
Oh - and your abuse is such a (tediously) persuasive accompaniment to your argument.
Keep it up.
"Man-bear-pig is real, I'm cereal!"
I bet I know what's tedious for anon...explaining the obvious to MORONS. A does B. A is exposed. Quits doing B. You really didn't know about Exxon? Why are you in this discussion?
The world will be happy to know that Exxon-Mobile no longer sells hydro-carbon emitting petroleum products.....
They've repented. Either that or Algore gave them a new pile of new "carbon credits" to sell. After all, if you polluted big time in the past, the carbon credits are yours to sell...
Sounds like "justice" to me. Reward the guilty! Evan was right again! The Left does sniff upsidasium. LOL!
After all...
I don't care about pollution
I'm an air-conditioned gypsy
That's my solution
Watch the police and the taxman miss me!
I'm mobile!
Mobile, mobile, mobile, yeah!
Like the man said...explaining the obvious to right wing morons is synonymous with ass kicking.
I guess if your handicap prevents you from expressing yourself normally, then ya duz what ya feel yuz gots to duz!
Oh dear – more dimbulbs jumping into the fray.
Okay - let's try again:
Stop claiming that the 'deniers' are being funded by big oil, while simultaneously claiming that big oil is on your side, as 'factguy's' list asserts.
Alternatively, trash your list (because its credibility is shot).
Is this simple enough for you?
You people really do lack the ability to reason.
Where's the holocaust deniers thread??? same pack of morons there? I like the way they talk about reason...that's my favorite.
Sorry, but the holocaust deniers argue against direct evidence and the apocalypse now proponents argue in the absence of direct evidence. Those are two completely different reasoning positions. But if you weren't a libtard, you know that...
Gee, I wonder why can't we take algore's Chicken Little's seriously...
Say what you will about the looming catastrophe facing the world as the pace of global heating and polar melting accelerates. There is a silver lining.
Look at a map of the US.
The area that will by completely inundated by the rising ocean—and not in a century but in the lifetime of my two cats—are the American southeast, including the most populated area of Texas, almost all of Florida, most of Louisiana, and half of Alabama and Mississippi, as well as goodly portions of eastern Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. While the northeast will also see some coastal flooding, its geography is such that that aside from a few projecting sandbars like Long Island and Cape Cod, the land rises fairly quickly to well above sea level. Sure, Boston, New York and Philadelphia will be threatened, but these are geographically confined areas that could lend themselves to protection by Dutch-style dikes. The West Coast too tends to rise rapidly to well above sea level in most places. Only down in Southern California towards the San Diego area is the ground closer to sea level.
...so begins another libtards lefty essay on the benefits of global warming (in this case, red-state flooding).
Talk about looney tunes...
Check out this pwn'd guy...he's Sayet's butt boy and actually brags about it...appears from a cursory look that there are about three of them on here...and they all sound underage...that could explain a lot about this weird site. Most amusing...like the old barrel of monkeys thing...haha
What does this guy do...recycle his libs are evil...they embrace failure routine in every statement?Weirdest stuff I've ever seen...think that guy who wondered about satire might be right...but this one note thing is lamer than hell if that's it.
Al Gore's case for global warming is weaker than Mary's case to Joseph concerning her pregnancy.
Even if the scientists were 100% right about global warming...
All their prescriptions about what to do about it are nonsense. For just about every solution they offer creates 10 WORSE problems.
"I find it curious that they gave the Nobel Prize to both the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], which says sea levels are going to rise between 18 and 59 centimetres, and Al Gore, who tells us it might rise six metres. The difference is one between a problem and a catastrophe."
Lomborg believes climate change is just the latest example of how extreme environmentalism has filled the moral vacuum in the West left by the decline of Christianity and, to a lesser extent, of traditional left-wing concerns such as labour issues. "In the 1970s we all worried we were going to run out of everything," he recalls. "In the 1980s in Europe we thought all our forests were going to be gone in a decade or two because of acid rain. And now we're worried about climate change."
So what should we be focusing on? He nominates as the most important, urgent and solvable problem facing the world: "Air pollution in the Third World. More than 1 billion people don't have access to electricity and many use really poor fuels, such as wood and dung, that pollute the air."
That almost sounds like Evan's essay.
Check this out for unintended comedy:
"That almost sounds like Evan's essay."
Hahaha...too funny...it IS Evan's essay...Lomborg has been known as the biggest crackpot prostitute in the field forever...your leader is just one of his silly, gullible mouthpieces...you guys are great...too much, and you're gaining new fans like me everyday
Lomborg was a political scientist who put together a group to look at ALL the crises facing humanity in the world and attempted to rank and prioritize them based upon their "solvability".Global Warming ended up at the bottom of the list... because even though its' enviro-religious fanatics dreamt up the scariest possible scenarios... MOST were gross exaggerations AND there wasn't SQUAT that could effectively be done by anybody about any of it.
Lomborg talks @ TED
Pretty good. :-D
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8730688320934276492&q=Lomborg&pr=goog-sl
I'm afraid we know all about that group.
Please don't be afraid, there's something there for everyone.
Here's AL G
http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/view/id/2
It's ideas, discussion, thoughtful and respectful. If that scares you then you should definitely avoid it.
:-D
What percent of qualified scientists believe humans are contributing to global warming?
This is - given the spin - a very fair question, unfortunately I cannot give you an exact number, there were various efforts when it was clear this was going to become a political football issue to "drum up support" , so for instance there are "petitions" with thousands of signatures on them, but these are largely not qualified, where skeptical or advocate pollsters would go to conventions for the American Medical Association or American Dental Association and ask for signatures in return for some parting gift only then later claiming that 4000 out of 5000 "Scientists" support or are skeptical about global warming. As nice as it sounds, this is largely a red-herring.
There is a very large majority of scientists whom support the idea of global warming and anthropogenic climate change in general. hundreds of surveys and studies and meta-surveys have long since confirmed that this is occurring and that mankind has and is contributed to the concern.
However, there is a minority viewpoint held by several dozen climate scientists who feel - for various reasons - that the climate is not changing or that the change is not primarily human-caused, however, personally speaking , I find that alot of the scientists - appear to have been "compromised" at some point.
Dr. Sallie Baliunas is often cited by anti-global warming advocates, and while has done valuable work in her field (solar variation), that work does not indicate any rise or fall in solar output which can be correlated to terrestrial temperature variation.
It seems clear (in my opinion) that Dr. Baliunas is fairly compromised due to her previous involvements as she was also closely involved with Exxon/Mobile in the late 1980's with spearheading and debunking the "junk science" and myth that CFC gasses were causing the ozone hole. Well, legislation was still passed and what do you know , CFC gasses have started to reduce out of the atmosphere and the ozone hole damage has peaked and started to repair itself.
Regarding this particular theme of inquiry regarding global warming, this line of inquiry also leads to a favorite red-herring that "other planets" are warming, this is also not completely accurate, there are other planets experiencing temperature variation, but the quality of the data supporting that assertion (in one case two single temperature readings over 25 years), is less than could be hoped for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Bali...
Exxon recently decided - with the new Democratic congress and the anticipation of further Republican losses in 2008 that they prefered to have a "seat at the table" regarding the discussion of future US policy regarding climate change, and have therefore done two things, one, they eliminated - or significantly reduced funding for the "Competetive Enterprise Institute" which largely supported skeptical viewpoints on climate change.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606
It is largely already the case that the minority viewpoint is falling away, given that the overwhelming amount and quality of data supporting human affected climate change is as compelling as it is.
For those in this debate, we should keep in mind that it doesn't matter which side is right at the moment because time will certainly reveal the truth. However, I remember my father taking me to the Arctic Circle (I was 7) and he asked me "Do you know why there is oil up here? Because there were once forests." They've just found a dinosaur in the Antarctic. When we were in the Middle East in 1954, my father pointed to the desert and asked me "Do you know why there is oil here?" and this time I replied "because there were forests?"
What discussion?
Simes is a troll's sock puppet that is here SOLEY to generate noise and impede discussion. You think what he posted was his opinion? He's living proof that not everyone can be smart, but ANYONE can be an asshole.
btw - Nobody out-assholes me.
Well I don't know about simes but I haven't seen any discussion here at all...just a bunch of toady naifs gushing over whatever truly insane stuff this blogger writes...the only comments or evidence I've seen presented is by liberals.
A classical liberal says thanks.
Thanks.
I'm afraid that the minds of the progressive liberals have escaped their limits. They no longer know the difference between what can, and what cannot, be known. They lack both an epistemology AND an ontology, and have opted for "critical theory". C'est la vie.
btw - Evan, I watched the Youtube video again. If you liked Bloom's "Closing" you'll LOVE his less well known "Giants and Dwarfs". I know I did.
Big story in the WaPo about how far GW has come over to the climate change position...don't you love it when their puppet masters leave them behind chattering the same outdated nonsense long after they've moved away from the position themselves...looking like total parrot fools?
W throws the apocalyptos a bone and the local troll turns into a Bush supporter. Follow der "leader" he says. Be a parrot and worry about what the Prophet Algore's followers think.
If you ever had your own thought, your brain's single remaining neuron would probably have a hemorrhage.
Haha that Twisted Thinking Person is a hoot...I hardly think anyone became "a GW supporter." He's merely pointing out that you parrots have been left behind squawking the wrong tune. When big oil finally came over, you know GW would have to jump that way...now you have to follow him. Giddyup now...
Sorry. It's only jackasses like you that play follow der leader.
Is that why you're reading this shill?
Dan Bartlett, on the White House's use of right wing blogs:
I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.
seeya parrot boy...
Der leader's talking points memo got ya fired up again, eh? Go join the circle-jerk @ Huffington Post where you belong, jackass.
btw - Get an original thought. Dan Bartlett is soooo yesterday's news... just like everything else YOU post. In fact, I'm sure you've already regurgitated that little tidbit a couple times already. Awww. Doesn't poor little cookie have any fans? LOL!
I'll bet posting here is the only way you can get anybody to even READ what you have to post. And given the cut-and-paste nature of your opinions, who could blame them for ignoring you.
"Polly wanna cracker?"
btw - Changing alias' every five minutes is probably the only thing that allows you from being banned everywhere... even Huffingtonland.
Evan, did you know that you had fans in Huffingtonland?
Dan Bartlett, on the White House's use of right wing blogs:
I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.
seeya parrot boy...
Squawk!
Cleanup on Aisle 3!
Exxon finally came over, then GW followed the oil and joined up, too.
Oh, and the big oil lie. I almost forgot that one.
Expert: Global warming fueling 'mega-fires'David Edwards and Jason Rhyne
Global warming is partly to blame for the increasing intensity and frequency of massive wildfires in the American West, according to one expert, who says more than half of the region's forests could be claimed by fire in the next century.
Tom Swetnam, a leading fire ecologist at the University of Arizona, told CBS's 60 Minutes that a temperature increase in the West of just one degree had contributed to a four-fold increase in fires in the area.
"The fire season in the last 15 years or so has increased more than two months over the whole Western US," Swetnam said. "So actually 78 days of average longer fire season in the last 15 years compared to the previous 15 or 20 years."
"As the spring is arriving earlier because of warming conditions, the snow on these high mountain areas is melting and running off," he said. "So the logs and the branches and the tree needles all can dry out more quickly and have a longer time period to be dry. And so there's a longer time period and opportunity for fires to start."
Tom Boatner, the federal government's chief of fire operations -- who has fought fires in the region for 30 years -- told the program that he was seeing the effects of global warming first-hand.
"This kind of low brush would normally be really moist and actually be a fairly good barrier to fire," Boatner told 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley. "But as I look at this I just see wilted leaves everywhere. There's no moisture left in them. They're dead."
Asked about skeptics who question the existence of climate change, Boatner said they didn't include his colleagues.
"You won't find them on the fire line in the American West anymore," he said. "Because we've had climate change beat into us over the last ten or fifteen years. We know what we’re seeing."
"We're seeing century-old forests that had never sustained these kinds of fires before, being razed to the ground," he said. "As fires continue to burn, these mega-fires continue to burn, we may see ultimately a majority, maybe more than half of the forest land converting to other forest, other types of ecosystems."
lissin to em cry about cut and paste...it's known as posting EVIDENCE and FACTS...we know you don't want any of that REALITY based material on her polluting your bootiful "minds." hahahahawhat dimwits
This was gooooooood...
Asked about skeptics who question the existence of climate change, Boatner said they didn't include his colleagues.
"You won't find them on the fire line in the American West anymore," he said. "Because we've had climate change beat into us over the last ten or fifteen years. We know what we’re seeing."
What about Hurricane FACTS. Global warming caused KATRINA!!!!!!! This year the hurricanes are going to be the most numerous and dangerous on record!!!!!!
Oh yeah, that one was scientific BUNK, a greenie search for "Ancient Astronauts" in "the facts" that none of the so-called hurricane experts can stomach looking at today.
Kind of like your "Only Republicans are corrupt" postings.
YOU cherry-picked YOUR global warming facts more than Bush-Cheney cherry-picked the NIE. Which only goes to show that you and yours still don't understand the natural and anthropogenic interrelationships sufficiently to make ANY global-warming predictions, let alone prescribe remedies.
Yet you ARROGANTLY proclaim to "know" and that the "discussion" is closed. What hubris. Pathetic.
Manure Farmer sez...Yet you ARROGANTLY proclaim to "know" and that the "discussion" is closed. What hubris. Pathetic.
When it's 99 to 1, we go with the odds. Even BIG OIL, your personal God has come around...feeling lonely? When you're the last fool on earth saying everyone else is wrong, that's what we call hubris...unlike Greek Tragedy, however, it's the hubris of dwarves rather than that of giants.
Gee, what happened to 20:1 odds you quoted just a couple of days ago? Now it's 99 to 1. Hyperbole, thy name is DEMOCRAT!
(& you sneaky rat, simes... you HAVE read Allan Bloom's "Giants & Dwarfs"). I don't suppose you've read Swift's "Battle of the Books". Naaah. If it wasn't written in the past ten minutes, I'm SURE you've already forgotten it.
Does the shit farmer want to show everyone where I said 20 to 1? At this point more like 99.9 to .1.
Why bother, slimes? You just re-upped the hyperbole an order of magnitude from your last post. Point-set-match, farmer.
reicho goofball refuses to answer the challenge, hides in his spider hole and declares victory...what a carnival...my friend, Dollie is going to love this place.
I can hardly wait to meet her.
Here I am...little twerps like you used to hang out on MTV...now it's Utoob.
So that's where I know you from!
This is sooooo OVER.
NOT!
"Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!" advises Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and senior scientist at Moscow's Shirshov Institute of Oceanography. "The latest data . . . say that earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012."
Sorokhtin dismisses the conventional global warming theory that greenhouse gases, especially human-emitted carbon dioxide, is causing the earth to grow hotter. Like a number of other scientists, he points to solar activity - sunspots and solar flares, which wax and wane over time - as having the greatest effect on climate.
"Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change," Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. "Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind." In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: "The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change," they write.
Has cool guy managed to suck up one more crackpot denier with the bilge pump?
Smart investors are moving their money to fur coats and space heaters.
wow....these idiots are still claiming that there is no global warming....when does the denial of evolution--their other fav topic-- rant begin?
boring fools......
Dear Evan,
Carbon emissions have no discernable effect on climate, but our gullibility nets promoters of this “crisis” billions per year. Meanwhile they change nothing of their own lifestyles, though they also live on the planet they claim we are destroying. Claiming to want to save us from our folly, they seek to strip away our freedoms while destroying our economy. While the climate itself mocks their so-called linkages, and our economy is already on the edge of collapse, a Democratic Congress is still pushing for carbon cap legislation. What will it take to bring this farce to an end?
Your website leads me to believe we share the concerns about this attempt to sell out our country for profit and power. Would you help me promote a book I have written examining this hoax? It is intended to make readers angry over being played for patsies. If enough people read it, it would create a public backlash against that legislation, but through my own efforts, I have been unable to sufficiently publicize this work. Would you also pass this e-mail on to all your peers you think might agree and help?
The book is entitled “A Climate Crisis a la Gore” and is organized as follows:
• Introduction – the motivation behind the assembly of this information for public use.
• Part 1 – Excerpted ideas from Mr. Gore’s book, The Assault on Reason. I use Mr. Gore’s own claims regarding the proper and reasonable way to enter an argument or evidence into the marketplace of ideas, the forum of reason, the real power behind democracy.
• Part 2 – A claim by claim analysis of Mr. Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. These are evaluated with simple logic, claims elsewhere in the documentary, Mr. Gore’s excerpted written principles of reasoning, and scientific research and findings regarding the subjects of his claims.
• Part 3 – Discussion and disclosure of players and special interest groups creating the perception of a global climate crisis. The history of the movement is examined, motives behind involvement, dollar amounts of profit already being reaped by promoters, and what they stand to gain if America enacts carbon legislation.
• Conclusion – The coming economic storm resulting from enacting this legislation and a plea to readers to contact legislators demanding such laws be reconsidered.
Excerpts can be reviewed and the book ordered at Amazon.com by entering the title, ISBN# (978-1-4196-8684-9) or by following the link http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Crisis-Gore-perception-warming/dp/1419686844/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202424474&sr=8-1 If you are willing to inform your readers of its contents and availability, an informed (and angry) population of voters might be a real, and maybe the only, check and balance system capable of stopping Congress.
Sincerely,
Paul Spite
Post a Comment