posted June 07, 2011 12:49 PM            

quote:

---

There are 31,000 American scientists, 9,000 who hold a Phd, backing up my point of view.

---

No there aren't. You've proven no such thing on any level.

Phil Jones misspoke. We've been over that.

quote:

---

You're outgunned as usual acoustic.

---

posted June 07, 2011 10:56 PM            

Now, where's your list of 31,000 American scientists who say humans are causing global warming?

posted June 08, 2011 09:36 AM            

Petition Signers All
31,487 Signers out of 31,487 Total in US
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php?run=all

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum26/HTML/000678-2.html

posted June 08, 2011 12:05 PM            

If this were a legitimate list of 31,000 actual climate scientists, I think they would easily outnumber those in the global warming camp. That's not the case, however. Amongst legitimate climate scientists there's virtually no doubt regarding the warming, and the only debate is regarding the cause.

There has never been any ducking, bobbing, or weaving as you so like to claim regarding this. I've been straightforward with you from the start. There's no reason for me to be any other way. If the tables were reversed, I don't think there's any way in hell you'd recognize a petition list put together by a non-scientific community, and put towards people not actually in the field of climate science. The number one error in believing this proves something is the fact that it's devoid scientific merit. It's a list of people with the same opinion. Not a polling of opinions within the science. Not a peer-reviewed scientific work with these people listed as authors. It's simply a meaningless list of people. The PROOF that global warming doesn't exist or isn't manmade isn't addressed by this list. Understand?

posted June 08, 2011 12:49 PM            

Surely, if there's the "consensus" you, Algore, Jones, Mann, Hansen and other bloviators claim, you should be able to come up with at least 31,000 American scientists who agree with that so called...consensus.

posted June 08, 2011 01:46 PM            

As I said, a list isn't proof of anything. It doesn't prove global warming to be an imagination. It doesn't prove that man hasn't caused the verifiable warming. You're sunk on this line of (and I use the term loosely) argument.

posted June 08, 2011 02:38 PM            

As a mainlander haole, I am also very concerned for the ocean’s coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent.

posted June 08, 2011 03:15 PM            

quote:

---

Whether humans and/or “global warming” caused these problems is not the issue; the issue is how are we as a people going to combat these problems so that our planet will continue to sustain us and those that come after us in the future?

---

posted June 08, 2011 03:27 PM            

That's the real issue.

To put this issue in it's proper perspective, there have been periods when the earth was locked into ice-ball like conditions.

On the other hand, there have been periods when there were no ice caps at either pole on this planet.

The warming and cooling of the earth are cyclic events having nothing to do with what humans do or don't do.

acoustic, all I see from you is stalling.

Perhaps you can't come up with that list because there are not sufficient numbers of credible American scientists who agree humans are causing global warming.

Yeah, yeah, I know the dunderheads SAY there's a consensus. Well ace, this is your big chance to prove that consensus.

posted June 08, 2011 03:40 PM            

Saying I'm stalling when we've been over this stuff ad nauseum is a bit retarded to put it lightly.

quote:

---

Perhaps you can't come up with that list because there are not sufficient numbers of credible American scientists who agree humans are causing global warming.

Yeah, yeah, I know the dunderheads SAY there's a consensus. Well ace, this is your big chance to prove that consensus.

---

First logical error: this isn't about the consensus which is well documented. This is about whether the scientists that actually study this stuff are correct.

posted June 08, 2011 03:46 PM            

As a newbie I guess I'm confused about all the inflammatory rhetoric, name-calling and emotional attachment to this issue, which is a bit surprising because this forum purports to be about astrology and appears to be moderated.

posted June 09, 2011 10:15 AM            

I still don't see any list of 31,000 American Scientists who say humans are causing global warming.

What's the matter acoustic? Can't you do something simple...like produce a list of those who agree with your crackpot scientific theory?

Notice acoustic, I said "Theory". Theory because the computer models produced by the crackpots do not conform to actual recorded temperatures.

That's not too surprising acoustic. The crackpot so called scientists you rely on for your opinion...falsified input data, hid the decline of earth's temperature, shredded temperature data they used in their models so no one could review their methods and data, produced fraudulant graphs...including Mann's infamous Hockey Stick graph which conveniently did away with the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age and attempted in every way to prevent those who disagree with them from having a professional forum in which to disagree.

The crackpot's professional reputations are kapoot in scientific circles.

No one...except the illogical, irrational bitter clingers to the man made global warming religion...believe a word they say.

You've lost every round of this discussion acoustic. There's nothing but hot air supporting your crackpot global warming theory.

The crackpots acknowledge that even if 10s of trillions of dollars were spent to abate "so called man made global warming", the result would be a reduction of temperature amounting to .015* by 2050.

Got it? Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees....and that's using the global warming religionists own data and conclusions.

You lose!

The industrialized nations and our citizens win!

posted June 09, 2011 11:03 AM            

Now you've come back to quoting a modest temperature, this time as the amount dropped. Once again, I'll remind you that we're talking degrees in Celcius. Not only so, but since you haven't provided a source for this claim I'm dubious as to whether you can prove this claim.

This report in Science Daily, a genuine scientific reference point, if we merely halved CO2 emissions global warming would be contained. They're talking about 2 degrees Celsius, which amounts to 3.6 degrees Farenheit.

So, yet again, you misquote and generally misrepresent science just as you always have on this matter.

posted June 09, 2011 12:34 PM            

Man made global warming has evaporated as an issue...except in the minds of bitter clingers to their crackpot religion.

You've been given more than ample opportunity to produce a credible list of those who agree with your religious views on man made global warming.

It would be an understatement to say you've dropped the ball acoustic. Surely, you should have produced that list since you say...and the icons of your crackpot religion say...a consensus exists on the subject.

Reasonable, logical, rational people must now say...What the hell consensus are you talking about?

What tripe your so called experts are spewing acoustic. Just halve CO2 output? You must be insane for quoting these hacks and they must be insane to suggest CO2 can be cut in half....since only about 2% of CO2 output has a human connection in the first place.

Turn out the lights; the man made global warming party is over.

posted June 09, 2011 12:55 PM            

quote:

---

Man made global warming has evaporated as an issue...except in the minds of bitter clingers to their crackpot religion.

---

Hmmm...and this is why you persist in attempting to disprove and otherwise discredit it?

For every new article you find that you mistakenly believe helps your cause, there's 10 that support the actual science.

quote:

---

You've been given more than ample opportunity to produce a credible list of those who agree with your religious views on man made global warming.

It would be an understatement to say you've dropped the ball acoustic. Surely, you should have produced that list since you say...and the icons of your crackpot religion say...a consensus exists on the subject.

---

This debate has never been about me producing a list to put up against a bogus list. The debate is about the legitimacy of global warming. Try as you might to divert the debate into something else, I have the focus you lack.

quote:

---

Reasonable, logical, rational people must now say...What the hell consensus are you talking about?

---

Reasonable, logical, and rational people don't typically question me. We see them here questioning you day in and day out. You should try being less delusional.

quote:

---

What tripe your so called experts are spewing acoustic.

---

posted June 09, 2011 11:42 PM            

Where's your list of scientists acoustic?

Can't find any credible scientists willing to sign a list attesting that humans cause global warming?

Oh, and Jones, Mann and Hansen are in no way credible...and even if they were, that would be 3.

So, where's the other 31,484 who are willing to back your crackpot man made global warming theory?

posted June 10, 2011 07:55 AM            

On the other hand, reasonable, logical, rational people, other climate scientists and I...have already impeached the professional credentials of Jones, Mann and Hansen. Indeed, their various cons, frauds and unscientific methods are self-disqualifying.

Logical, rational and reasonable people have come to the conclusion you cannot produce a list of scientists who agree with you because...there is no such list, never was a list and that the "consensus" about which the crackpots bloviate never existed either.

posted June 10, 2011 11:28 AM            

Here's a reminder from just up the page a little ways:

Jwhop has a long and strange history on this topic. At times he's accepted that there's warming, and only disputed its cause. Other times he's thought that a long, localized winter was evidence that the entire world wasn't warming. He's still here recently talking about the Medieval Warm Period, which was also a localized weather event in Europe. This list of 31,000 names used to be a list of 14,000 names of people that were given intentionally incorrect data to come to a conclusion on global warming, and of course this wasn't a poll by a well known scientific entity, but rather the obscure Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. It's fairly decently and reasonably scrutinized here.

Top amongst the criticisms is the question of whether these people are "scientists." The vast majority of them aren't scientists, and certainly not scientists in the field of climate.

Interestingly, it also contains this paragraph:

A more recent survey of earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". 97.5% of climatologists who were actively publishing papers on climate change responded yes.(Doran 2009). What is most interesting about this study was that as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

quote:

---

On the other hand, reasonable, logical, rational people, other climate scientists and I...have already impeached the professional credentials of Jones, Mann and Hansen. Indeed, their various cons, frauds and unscientific methods are self-disqualifying.

---

No, you haven't. You give yourself far too much credit. It would be fascinating to see you convince anyone here of anything. Science isn't your strong suit, though. It requires an understanding of language and logic neither of which is possessed by you.

quote:

---

Logical, rational and reasonable people have come to the conclusion you cannot produce a list of scientists who agree with you because...there is no such list, never was a list and that the "consensus" about which the crackpots bloviate never existed either.

---

You keep throwing around the terms "logical, rational, and reasonable," as if you have a means of recognizing these things in people. Your love of Sarah Palin disproves any such notion.

With regard to the consensus, as I said previously, one need only consult an actual scientist in this field, or any reputable scientific entity's website to confirm the consensus. Little is more reported than the fact that the real scientific community that studies the climate is in agreement. Your list, whose only legitimacy is the claim of the body that created it, doesn't disprove this consensus. Real scientists working in the field don't match up with unverified people that might be educated in some tangential expertise.

The only imagined consensus is yours, dear Jwhop. Not even real sceptical scientists reference that list. That's pretty bad.

posted June 19, 2011 11:48 AM            

Oh, and your guys continue to scam, con and commit fraud to push their crackpot religion. These hucksters are so stupid they haven't figured out yet that others..who are real scientists are watching them...very closely. In fact, these frauds are way too stupid to believe...about anything dealing with science.

Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data
By Maxim Lott
Published June 17, 2011

Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued -- or are climate scientists doctoring the data?

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold. **Note*** How that for speculation?

Taylor calls it tomfoolery...........
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adju sted-sea-level-data/

posted July 16, 2011 07:10 AM            

2011
The Global Warming Hoax: How Soon We Forget
By F. Swemson

Nobody has ever offered a more succinct indictment of the global warming hoax than H. L. Mencken, who said: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

While Americans are rightfully focused on the unemployment situation and the debt limit negotiations, we've pretty much forgotten about global warming as an issue ever since Obama failed to pass his Cap & Trade bill. As a result, we're becoming complacent once again about the huge threat we face from the progressives' attempts to control the world's energy industry based on the greatest scientific hoax in human history. In reality, however, nothing's changed, as Obama is still imposing his will on us through the EPA's regulation of CO2.

This hoax still threatens our economy, while advancing the UN's "Agenda 21" in more ways than one. It's also the foundation of Obama's "green jobs" approach to the unemployment issue, since the very concept of "green jobs" is just as bogus as the idea of a "carbon footprint."

With Fox anchors and conservative bloggers arguing that those "green" jobs are simply far too few to fuel a strong recovery, the fact that they're based on junk science, and aren't economically viable on their own, gets little if any mention.

The truth is that CO2 is a beneficial trace gas that exists in such small quantities in our atmosphere, that the idea of it playing any significant role in determining our climate is simply silly. CO2 comprises less than half of 1% of our atmosphere, and only 4% of it comes from human activity. That's 16ppm, or 1 part in every 62,500 parts of our atmosphere. CO2 is plant food, and a key component in all life on earth. Plants need CO2 to grow and produce oxygen. They feed animals (including ourselves). Animals in turn consume oxygen and plant-based foods, and exhale CO2. Without CO2, nothing could be green! This brief video showing the effect on plants of increasing atmospheric CO2 is quite striking.

Ironically, the audacity of their lies about CO2 are overshadowed by the most obvious part of the Hoax. The fact is that warming is good! Throughout history, man, as well as all other living creatures, has thrived during the earth's warm periods, and suffered and starved during the cold ones, a lesson that we're about to be reminded of in the coming years.

The Roman civilization arose when the earth was much warmer than it's been recently. And it's no coincidence that just as the earth was entering the 400-year-long "Little Ice Age," the Roman Empire was overrun by the Huns. The Egyptians also built the pyramids when it was much warmer than today, and the beginning of the industrial revolution coincided with the end of the Little Ice Age. If global warming is such a problem, doesn't it seem odd that mankind has always flourished during the earth's warmest periods?

And if increases in atmospheric CO2 are the primary cause of warming, why, from the 1940's through the mid 1970's, was the earth cooling when increases in our use of fossil fuels were at their greatest?

And why is it that Mars and Jupiter, and Neptune's moon Titan, have all followed the exact same warming and cooling cycles as the earth during the 20th century? Does anyone think that our SUVs and power plants are causing the same climate change on other planets and moons in our solar system, or is it more likely that the changes there were caused by the fact that we're all in the same solar system? I.e., "It's the sun, stupid!"

To me, the most worrisome aspect of this problem is that we simply aren't debating this issue properly.

In 1974, in an article in Time Magazine entitled "Another Ice Age?," the same alarmists suggested that the (then-)coming ice age was being caused in part by the same vehicular emissions that they're now blaming for global warming.

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

But then it stopped cooling and started warming again. This has been happening throughout history (see Global Warming: Exposing the Far Left's Lies).

Now, since the warming stopped 12 years ago, the alarmists are finally beginning to admit that the earth has started cooling again. And what are they telling us is the reason why? In what's got to be one of the most mind-boggling displays of chutzpah ever seen, they're actually saying that the reason that it hasn't been warming for the last 12 years is that China and India are now burning such a massive amount of coal, that it blocks the sun's rays from reaching the earth and warming it. That's right! Our use of fossil fuels is warming the earth, while China's is cooling it?

How stupid and gullible do they think we are? Australia just announced that they're going ahead with a carbon tax on their power companies, rather than a Cap & Trade system. But no matter what they call it, they're still fleecing the same victims, the people, who'll be paying this new tax in the form of higher utility bills, and higher prices on everything they buy. And while this insanity unfolds, we're still paying lip service to this absurd lie by continuing to make reference to the virtues of reducing our "carbon footprint." Every time we hear that preposterous phrase, we should laugh at it, and then explain why we find it so funny if anyone asks. Years of constant repetition is what sold the lie in the first place. It may take years of constant repetition of the truth to counter it.

Our primary argument against Cap & Trade and the EPA's CO2 regulations has been that they would be bad for the economy. Of course they would be, but by attacking them on those grounds, we're granting our sanction to the underlying premise -- that CO2 is dangerous. But it's not. And there never were any benefits to be had from Cap & Trade, regardless of its cost.

There are millions of smart people out there who have been bombarded with this global warming nonsense for so long that they've actually come to believe it. The old adage that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth happens to be true, especially when the people don't get to hear other points of view, something our mainstream media has made sure of over the last few decades.