Author
|
Topic: Hell Freezing Over----Global Warming Blamed
|
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 12, 2010 09:52 AM
Too hot? It's global warming. Too Cold? It's global warming. Just right? It's global warming. Too much rain? It's global warming. Drought? It's global warming. Normal rainfall? It's global warming. Hurricanes? It's global warming. No hurricanes? It's global warming. Blizzards? It's global warming. No snow? It's global warming. Normal snowfall? It's global warming. Irish Potato Famine? It was global warming.Another Blizzard: What Happened to Global Warming? http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1962294,00.html Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/science/earth/11climate.html EPW HEARINGS POSTPONED DUE TO WEATHER http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b3e826ad-802a-23ad-45b8-8fa00c661d62 OU Student Collecting Pictures of Snow in All 50 States http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=11973034 Hahaha , the federal government shut down for days in Washington with record snowfall, drifts up to 4 feet and snowplows unable to keep up with the snowfall; a government committee meeting on "global warming" canceled because of record snows in DC and.........it's still "global warming. When are these crackpot loony-tunes going to realize the Universe is sending them a message that man is not in charge of Earth's climate and isn't going to be? ![](http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/laugh.gif)
IP: Logged |
katatonic Knowflake Posts: 8660 From: Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 12, 2010 12:33 PM
are you absolutely sure man has not actually CREATED the freak weather we're having? i don't mean by gradual warming due to our domestic habits, i mean they have machinery that can truly **** with the weather in specific ways..and have you never heard that the earth's response to warming seas is more precipitation - in fact that is where your ICE age comes from? i'm with you on half the page here jwhop but snowy winters are actually considered to be a result of warming. or reaction to. it is the earth's way of reestablishing equilibrium... that said i still remember the winter of 63 and the snow our cars were buried in. freak winters happen, like any other kind of shite! IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 6549 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 12, 2010 01:46 PM
Global Warming aka Climate Change is still on, and Jwhop's friend at NASA is still confirming it based on publicly available data.
IP: Logged |
katatonic Knowflake Posts: 8660 From: Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 12, 2010 02:37 PM
yes AG but jwhop is right, it goes on all the time. the RECORD as you see started in 1880.the 14th c was a good deal warmer than we are now according to the scientists who have studied the remains of flourishing agricultural communities in greenland, winegrowing relics in england, etc...BUT IT IS NOT ON RECORD. the earth's natural response, as going on now, is more precipitation which in turn takes the edge of the heating trend...and if it does NOT, then a PRECIPITOUS ice age can be triggered as in the 14th century when the ice moved so fast people couldn't even get all their stuff away with them... and once again i am very skeptical of our ability to correct the workings of the universe or even earth without making something else worse in the process... but i still think the big problem is not the temperature but the GARBAGE that we create and can't destroy, and as we head out into space in search of a new virgin globe will probably strew in our path as always...
IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 13, 2010 11:12 AM
![](http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/laugh.gif) You reference an opinion from a source run by the thoroughly discredited Jim Hanson who routinely falsified data, made claims of calamity based on falsified data and then justified the falsification and false claims of calamity....because...false statements are necessary to scare the public into accepting the proposition that man is causing runaway temperature increases due to releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Earth's climate has been in a "cooling trend" since 1998 and no amount of blithering, blathering, bloviating and bullshiit by Jim Hanson and other crackpot so called scientists is going to change the temperature record. Hanson has even been caught attempting to substitute temperature data from the month of September to October in order to call October the hottest October on record. Easy to do when you simply carry over the temperature data from September and ignore the cooler temperatures from October....except that Jim Hanson has such a tarnished reputation for falsifying data that lots of people are watching him like a hawk...and he got caught and had to announce to the world...a revision of the temperature data...to his great embarrassment. Further, you should take a look at the graph contained within the report you referenced. In that graph you will see 2000 as the last year denoted by the graph. You also would see annual mean temperatures falling since about 1998 as shown by the black line and a green marker which represents the "range of recorded temperature uncertainty". The bottom of that green marker shows temperatures well below the 5 year mean temperature represented by the red line. Conclusions presented in that report that the decade beginning in 2000 is the hottest on record are fatally flawed, equally as flawed as the falsified data crackpot so called scientists used to create hysteria among the political and chattering classes....oh and also among the Kool-Aid drinkers of the left. Saturday, January 12, 2008 NASA: 1934 Hottest Year on Record NASA scientists this month corrected an error that resulted in 1934 replacing 1998 as the warmest year on record in the U.S. http://samanoontheissues.blogspot.com/2008/01/nasa-1934-hottest-year-on-record.html
IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 13, 2010 11:21 AM
February 10, 2010 The end of the IPCC By S. Fred SingerAlmost daily, we learn about new problems with the formerly respected UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): In their 2001 report, they claimed that the 20th century was "unusual" and blamed it on human-released greenhouse gases. Their infamous temperature graph shown there, shaped like a hockey stick, did away with the well-established Medieval Warm Period (around 1000AD, when Vikings were able to settle in Southern Greenland and grow crops there) and the following Little Ice Age (around 1400 to 1800AD). Two Canadians exposed the bad data used by the IPCC and the statistical errors in their analysis. The most recent IPCC report of 2007 predicted the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers within 25 years; the imminent death of nearly half the Amazon rain forest; and major damage from stronger hurricanes -- all in contradiction to expert opinions offered by its appointed reviewers, but ignored by IPCC editors for mostly ideological reasons. More scandalous even, the IPCC based their lurid predictions on anecdotal, non-peer-reviewed sources -- not at all in accord with its solemnly announced principles and scientific standards. These events showed not only a general sloppiness of IPCC procedures but also an extreme bias -- quite inappropriate to a supposedly impartial scientific survey. By themselves, they do not invalidate the basic IPCC conclusion -- that a warming in the latter half of the 20th century was human-caused, presumably by the rise of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Yet all of these missteps pale in comparison to ClimateGate, which calls into question the very temperature data used by the IPCC's main policy result. As the leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia (UK) reveal, this IPCC conclusion -- that Global Warming is anthropogenic -- is based on manipulated data and therefore flawed -- as are demands for the control of CO2 emissions, like the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accord. In my opinion, ClimateGate is a much more serious issue than simply sloppiness and ideological distortion; ClimateGate suggests conspiracy to commit fraud. Let us recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature. Woe to these dissenting scientists, however. The younger ones were denied an opportunity to advance or receive academic tenure -- or were simply fired. The independent ones were maligned as "deniers" and ostracized. In many instances, commercially operated 'smear blogs' invented slurs; the most common ones being "tool of the oil industry" or "paid by the tobacco lobby." In my own case, my Wiki bio also carried additional malicious accusations; the most bizarre one was that I believed in the existence of Martians. We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism. In this enterprise, the group was aided not only by environmental zealots, anti-technology Luddites, utopian one-worlders, and population-control fanatics, but also by bureaucrats, businesses, brokers and bankers, who had learned how to game the system and profit from government grants and subsidies for exotic schemes to produce "carbon-free" energy and from the trading of carbon permits. Hundreds of billions have already been wasted -- most of this in transfers of tax revenues to a favored few. These sums pale, however, in comparison to the trillions that would have been spent in future if some of the mitigation schemes had come to fruition -- such as an extension and major expansion of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to control greenhouse-gas emissions. Fortunately for the world economy and for taxpayers in industrialized nations, these schemes collapsed at the Copenhagen climate conference in Dec 2009. Clearly, developing nations did not want to take on the sacrifices and restrictions on growth. There was little concern expressed about climate; Copenhagen was mostly about transfer of money from rich to poor countries - or more precisely, from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor ones. Of course, this breakdown in negotiating global controls does not stop unilateral actions. Major developing nations, like India and China, have already refused to act. Australia's parliament has so far turned down attempts to impose limits on the emission of greenhouse gases, which many still believe to cause significant global warming -- in spite of contrary evidence. The European Union is likely to persist in its misguided efforts to continue and expand the Kyoto restrictions. In the US, the House has (barely) passed the calamitous Waxman-Markey "Cap & Trade" bill; the US Senate likely will not pass a similar bill in 2010, an election year. There is still the US-EPA's drive to extend the Clean Air Act to include carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as "pollutants." But with the evidence of ClimateGate in hand, EPA's attempt to provide the necessary scientific justification for its "Endangerment Finding" will surely fail. Whoever leaked the incriminating e-mails deserves a medal for saving the US economy from certain ruin. The writer, an atmospheric physicist, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service, is the organizer of NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) and coauthor of its reports "Nature, not human activity, rules the climate" [2008] and "Climate Change Reconsidered" [2009]. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_end_of_the_ipcc.html IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 6549 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 13, 2010 02:59 PM
quote: You reference an opinion from a source run by the thoroughly discredited Jim Hanson who routinely falsified data, made claims of calamity based on falsified data and then justified the falsification and false claims of calamity....because...false statements are necessary to scare the public into accepting the proposition that man is causing runaway temperature increases due to releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
So you're making the assertion that NASA holds on to it's scientists that have actually been thoroughly discredited? Yeah, I don't think so. He may err sometimes, but the errors don't add up to a discrediting of global warming. The scientific consensus remains the same. Pew, while maintaining a formidable credibility in it's scientific endeavors, continues to discredit your opinions on things.
Highlighting the broad mix of approaches required to tackle the climate challenge, the Pew Center has produced nearly 100 peer-reviewed reports and a broad collection of white papers and briefs by noted climate experts covering a range of critical topics including economics, environmental impacts, policy, science, business, technology and solutions. The Pew Center regularly testifies before Congress and meets with other key stakeholders to share innovative ideas for addressing climate change. The Pew Center also is actively engaged with governments and business in exploring options for a post-2012 international climate agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Center_on_Global_Climate_Change
http://www.pewclimate.org/ No blogs were used in the creation of this post. IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 13, 2010 03:24 PM
Jim Hansen has so thoroughly tarnished his own scientific reputation that NASA is about the only place he could continue to work. Surely not in private industry which frowns on fraud. But, in civil service one can get away with almost anything at all and still retain their position.Well, we now know all about those scientific peer review institutions and all about how they cut out any who disagree with their faulty conclusions. We know all about them from the exposure of their fraud by emails circulated among British and American crackpot so called scientists and the means and methods they employed to perpetrate, perpetuate and hide their frauds in regard to global warming. Therefore, Pew has nothing and should rename their organization to Phew...which indicates the stench associated with the man made global warming hoax.
IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 6549 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 13, 2010 10:37 PM
The supposed email scandal didn't disprove global warming, nor did it give evidence to the idea that the data was tampered with.What we "know" about peer-reviewed scientific papers is that if peers DISAGREE, then the idea can be further vetted. Putting up papers for peer review in the scientific community would certainly NOT be a means of weeding out and marginalizing those that disagree. A concensus still remains on this particular idea. Pew has everything, you mean. They've got the science, the data, and the ears of people looking for credible information. The people who have nothing are those that rely on blogs for information, and try to call climate change fraud. Tell me... what's wrong with the weather at the olympics? IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 14, 2010 12:01 AM
Yes, using "tricks" to hide the DECLINE in global temperatures...is perfectly acceptable...to Kool-Aid drinking leftists.Yes, getting control of peer review institutions to stuff any unfavorable reviews of faulty data and faulty process... is perfectly acceptable...to Kool-Aid drinking leftists. The proof man made global warming due to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations is a hoax is found in declining global temperatures while at the very same time atmospheric CO2 concentrations are INCREASING. Further proof of the hoax is found in ice core samples going back 650,000 years which show cycle after cycle where temperatures rise first and CO2 concentrations rise later...averaging 800 years later. The last warm cycle...known as the Medieval Warm Period lasted from about year 1000 to year 1300 where temperatures were about 2 degrees warmer than the warmest years of the 20th Century. If you can do the math....you will find year 2000-800 years = year 1200..right in the middle of the Medieval warm Period. ![](http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/biggrin.gif) The American people have caught on that man made global warming is a hoax and the so called global climate change baloney is right at the bottom of the list of things Americans want action on. ![](http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/laugh.gif)
IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 14, 2010 12:21 AM
These IPCC clowns...which includes the clown Jim Hansen of NASA can't seem to get anything right AND...events are proving they use faulty reports...not scientific peer reviewed papers in publishing their reports. U.N. climate panel admits Dutch sea level flaw http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61C1V420100213 UN IPCC in Shambles as it Admits to Flawed Global Warming Reports http://thenationalscene.com/ipcc-shambles-admits-flawed-global-warming-reports/ IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 6549 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 14, 2010 04:01 AM
I love how you report things incompletely. You posted an actual newspaper's article this time, and stuck to the headline only. quote: The United Nations has said errors in the 2007 report of about 3,000 pages do not affect the core conclusions that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are warming the globe. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61C1V420100213
You're trying to claim that because errors are made that the science is wrong. The science is right. It's merely stated or related incorrectly. The global warming remains despite how anyone talks about it. Just because someone conveys information wrong, or gives the wrong impression doesn't mean the facts that they're trying to convey are wrong. (It's interesting to know that the Bush Administration was in office during the review period for the 2007 report, and had not one, but two chances at using any experts it could find to dispute what was included within it. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm) You can view how the IPCC solicits for its experts: http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.htm http://tiny.cc/C3hZK quote: The Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors are responsible for drafting the chapters and revising them taking into account comments submitted by reviewers during the two IPCC-mandated reviews, namely the expert review and the second review by governments and experts.
That would be IPCC scientists in addition to ALL the member nation's scientists. That's a lot of concensus. quote: The role of the IPCC is to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information, based on peer reviewed and internationally available literature. Therefore, the IPCC requires that the nominee(s) have appropriate expertise.
This must be one hell of a conspiracy for all of these peer-reviewed scientific papers from around the world to be informing the IPCC incorrectly. Occam's Razor: the simplist answer is usually the correct one. quote: To facilitate the selection of suitable candidates and to respond to the guidance provided by the Panel on the selection of authors, in particular the need for openness and transparency, and to aim for geographical balance, involvement of new authors and expanding the range of disciplines, a standardised nomination form has been prepared.
Not exactly the terminology I'd expect from a group attempting a political scam that holds only one opinion on global warming as correct. It's simply science versus conspiracy theory. If real experts that disagree with the science that proves global warming/climate change sought the most effective means of conveying their message they'd seek employment with the IPCC. Why wouldn't they want to put their voices in the most effective arena? Any real scientist would. The only rational reason to stay out is the knowledge that your hypothesis is wrong. If any of us were a scientist who believed we could prove something unequivocally we'd seek the best venue to pass the information. We'd seek the detractors who'd debate us. Why not? If we're right, why would we be afraid of peer review? It's the same with the IPCC. If there are no global warming skeptics in the IPCC it's only because the global warming skeptics aren't really confident in their position/competency. What makes sense is that no matter what argument exists against global warming, the bulk of evidence available makes the argument against global warming moot. Frankly, I don't believe there will come a time when global warming skeptics have more of a scientific basis for their beliefs than the concensus of experts that collect and process data regarding the climate [that believe in global warming]. So again...what's the issue with the weather during these olympics? IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 14, 2010 06:45 AM
Of course the IPCC and UN SAY none of their obvious errors, deliberately deleted and falsified data effect the results of CO2 warming the earth. Exactly what did you expect these clowns to say? Did you actually expect these crackpots and power grabbers to admit the plans they've been pushing for at least 15 years are a total hoax. Move along, nothing to see here!! 31,000 real scientists most of whom work in the various fields of climate science and more than 9,000 of whom are Ph.D.s refute the block head Algore and the crackpot scientists of the IPCC. 31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming Monday, 19 May 2008 04:24 PM http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/al-gore-global-warming/2008/05/19/id/323712 Hello, hello... Earth to fantasyland. ![](http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/laugh.gif)
IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 6549 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 14, 2010 06:57 PM
Earth to Fantasyland says the guy posting the NewsMax article. ![](http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif) Like I said, if any scientist were truly interested in disputing the global warming that's happening they'd seek employment with the IPCC, and duke it out scientifically. If they're not, the most likely reason is THEY CAN'T. The OISM study hasn't been verified by anyone, though critiques of it have emerged. No signatories give their professional affiliation. There are repeats. There are dead people. There are people who signed after just a cursory look at the bologne the OISM gave them (which was designed to appear as if it was from the National Academy of Science, though the NAS denies that the OISM materials were ever a part of an NAS scientific paper). It's ridiculous. Here's Scientific American's 2006 take on the petition: http://tinyurl.com/57j32t quote: Arthur Robinson, a physical chemist from Cave Junction, Ore., who circulated the petition by mail among scientists, said questionable names were added to the petition by pranksters.The petition urges rejection of the accord signed last year in Kyoto, Japan, which sets procedures for dramatically lowering carbon dioxide emissions - the principal greenhouse gas. The petition maintains the growth of carbon-dioxide emissions, in fact, may be beneficial to plants and humans. While the petition has been portrayed by global-warming skeptics as authoritative evidence that many scientists reject the catastrophic scenario of global climate change, Robinson acknowledged that little attempt was done to verify credentials of those who responded. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308
Earth to Fantasyland indeed. The statement from the National Academy of Sciences regarding the bogus petition: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998 I've noticed a repeated hesitance regarding my question about what's going on in Vancouver. You feel great about reporting the cold weather in our country, but you're not willing to tackle the unseasonably warm weather of our typically colder neighbor. Doesn't exactly lend any credence to your position, does it? IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 14, 2010 09:04 PM
Hahaha, scientists don't work FOR the IPCC. They work for various organizations and universities around the world.Something else you know nothing about. From the tone of your response, you seem to be denying that 31,000+ real scientists 9000+ who are Ph.D.s signed a petition basically saying man made global warming is a crock of crap. So acoustic are you denying it? IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 14, 2010 11:09 PM
![](http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/laugh.gif) Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 By Jonathan Petre Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010 http://www.dailymail.co.uk /news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html IP: Logged |
katatonic Knowflake Posts: 8660 From: Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 15, 2010 12:28 AM
jwhop i have warned you about the daily mail. makes great toilet paper tho!IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 6549 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 15, 2010 04:38 AM
quote: From the tone of your response, you seem to be denying that 31,000+ real scientists 9000+ who are Ph.D.s signed a petition basically saying man made global warming is a crock of crap. So acoustic are you denying it?
Considering that the group is completely unvetted, and includes "scientists" like veternarians...of course I'm denying the viability of the petition. Who wouldn't? It's really quite absurd to believe that petition or its signatories means anything. I couldn't dream of a more flimsy way of attempting to discredit global warming. Now if you had 31,000 scientists from around the world who'd authored papers that were peer-reviewed and found valid, well, then you'd have something. quote: Hahaha, scientists don't work FOR the IPCC. They work for various organizations and universities around the world.
The scientists that produce the reports the IPCC put out are under the IPCC's employ, yes. Considering that I linked to their announcement for these positions it's quite ludicrous to believe the IPCC doesn't employ them. I would expect that their writers do have additional employment elsewhere in the field as well, which is what they would need in order to qualify for the position with the IPCC. Perhaps you're thinking that they're merely data analysts [or something] that collect the data to make the reports, but what's logical is that the IPCC would be after the people most familiar with where those reports might be found having had written some of those reports themselves. IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 15, 2010 10:09 AM
Turn out the lights, the man made global warming party is over!Moonbat Lunacy, like the heartbreak of psoriasis is so debilitating. In most cases sufferers of Moonbat Lunacy remain unaware they are suffering from a mental illness. Perhaps one day medical science will discover a cure. ![](http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/laugh.gif) "Considering that the group is completely unvetted, and includes "scientists" like veternarians...of course I'm denying the viability of the petition. Who wouldn't? It's really quite absurd to believe that petition or its signatories means anything. I couldn't dream of a more flimsy way of attempting to discredit global warming. Now if you had 31,000 scientists from around the world who'd authored papers that were peer-reviewed and found valid, well, then you'd have something." katatonic, do you actually believe the "Daily Mail" would dare publish a lying article using "phony" direct quotes from a prominent individual and risk being denounced by that individual the next day in every other newspaper in Britain and the United States...most of which are in the bag for the crackpot science of man made global warming? AND katatonic, did you not notice that it was not the Daily Mail which conducted the interview with Phil Jones but rather the BBC itself? Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website.... Such belief would be irrational.
IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 15, 2010 10:17 AM
From The Sunday Times February 14, 2010 World may not be warming, say scientists Jonathan Leake The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution. In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”. It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all. “The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece IP: Logged |
listenstotrees Knowflake Posts: 2005 From: out there Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 15, 2010 11:20 AM
![](http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/ballface.gif) IP: Logged |
katatonic Knowflake Posts: 8660 From: Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 15, 2010 01:10 PM
have you seen the stories complete with pictures of the 78 pound cats on the cover of the enquirer? do you think they care if they are sued when they can quote verbatim but leave out parts that change the whole meaning of what is said? didn't i demonstrate by example to you how words can be twisted by editing? IP: Logged |
cpn_edgar_winner unregistered
|
posted February 17, 2010 05:05 PM
climate change...oh yes...i suppose...i may have caused it myself...when i walk outside my hot hot sun melts the coldest of places iceburgs turn to puddles of water that evaporate and humidify the spaces sparks with the electricity my being creates undeniable searing heat of the sun must impact the environment surely clearly we undersestimate the power of one add to this the fact that my dog expels gas that actually makes paint run down the walls in fear and fumage, then you know my dog created global warming and should have come with warning labels, febreez and tunage (?)... i conclude that my hotness could have been a factor, although it was stronger in the 90's..... and my dogs ass does more damage to the environment than 10 diesel trucks and could probobly by herslf heat a small home with her natural gas. i am sun. IP: Logged |
cpn_edgar_winner unregistered
|
posted February 17, 2010 07:42 PM
man made global warming is as rediculous as the program life after people on the history channel.who is going to be around to say...yeah they were right.. or boy were they wrong.. the poles may shift and cause climate change, but man made, its a hard sell. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 6549 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted February 18, 2010 12:29 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/science/earth/19climate.html __________________________ It's not that hard a sell. Clearly many people have bought it. The tough part is the myriad of factors involved. It's difficult to synthesize every possible factor into one cohesive idea. Lots of caveats and possibilities. IP: Logged | |