PDA

View Full Version : Winter Storm Misinform



hazlnut
03-03-2009, 04:07 PM
As the U.S. experiences continued harsh winter weather, far too many people in the news media engage irresponsible commentary when they suggest that the vicissitudes of winter weather cast doubt on human caused climate change.

Derisive and sarcastic remarks about winter storms and global warming really only show a person’s ignorance with regard to the elementary distinction between climate and weather.

I find it appalling when media pundits dismiss decades of peer-reviewed research and consensus with misleading “talking points” from industry front groups and lobbyists. The opinions of the dominant majority of the world's scientific establishment are marginalized with straw man arguments.

FlaGator
03-03-2009, 04:20 PM
The history of the Earth casts doubt on human caused climate change. The evidence of a causal relationship between climate change and human behavior is sketchy to say the least. But never fear, there are one or two members of CU that agree with you.

Rebel Yell
03-03-2009, 04:45 PM
I noticed Saturday that the temperature here was 66 degrees, which was 4 degrees above normal. Not that big a deal, then I noticed the record high was 88 degrees in 1918. My wife, who never comments on things like that says, "Huh, Global Warming."



Look, hippy, if you want to stop pollution so we have clean drinking water, recycle to be a good steward of the Earth, drive a Hybrid vehicle to save on fuel mileage, I applaud you. Let's just stop pretending that we're saving mankind from bursting into flames.

If your global warming leaders are serious about what they preach, why would they say," What industries are doing will destroy the Earth, but for a fee we'll allow it."? If they really believed what you are buying into, why allow it to happen for a price?

Gingersnap
03-03-2009, 05:42 PM
I find it appalling when media pundits dismiss decades of peer-reviewed research and consensus with misleading “talking points” from industry front groups and lobbyists. The opinions of the dominant majority of the world's scientific establishment are marginalized with straw man arguments.


I take it that you are new to the whole "science" thingy. I'm a chemist in air quality analysis. If I had a buck for every crack pot idea that influenced public policy in air quality regulations, I'd could have retired years ago.

There is no consensus in science. Consensus is a social activity. Science is simply a suitable explanation for an observation. That explanation has to be verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Those aren't my personal rules, that's the way it's done outside of theoretical physics.

Global warming is largely a full-employment act for grant writers, bureaucrats, and academicians. There was virtually no reputable peer review on the seminal papers that launched the GW hype. This is why those data sets were subsequently withdrawn after the math was shown to be in error. But there's a lot of money in GW as well as some fame and glory and that's why it's still rolling along. This certainly isn't the first time that the media and governments have bequeathed "official" status on bad science. It happens more often than you think.

hazlnut
03-04-2009, 12:54 PM
There is no consensus in science. Consensus is a social activity. Science is simply a suitable explanation for an observation. That explanation has to be verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Those aren't my personal rules, that's the way it's done outside of theoretical physics.


Where do I start... I thought CU was a place conservative thinkers came to discuss how to become relevant and be taken seriously again... it's not about liberal or Al Gore, it's about fact vs. fiction...

You can not back up any of your statements with facts from any legitimate scientific publication. The current consensus is the result of years of rigorous peer-review among academics and researchers.

I guess you're new to the whole "logical" argument thingy... See, you can't just make stuff up when presenting your case. And you can't make your case by presenting a misconstrued version or misrepresentation of another position... That's called a Straw Man argument. (I'm not even sure what you said constitutes as much...)

The oil and energy industries have had a decade to diversify and invest in new technologies. They decided to invest in a PR campaign to prolong the inevitable and support fools like James Inhofe...

The "Green Economy" and related industries are relatively new--and, yes, they're going to take full advantage of the current situation. However, to imply that Global Warming has been a decade long conspiracy to cash in when Dems get control is really thin. (perhaps restarted)

If the fossil fuel industry had been more proactive about self-regulating, they could have protected themselves from government regulation, which, by its nature will be overzealous at first... Unfortunately, some companies will go under. Coal is really going to have a hard time. And sadly it's the workforce that will be hurt the most, not the execs that made bad R&D decisions.

If conservative thinkers want to be taken seriously, we need to be honest in our critical examination of a policy or idea and not just reject something simply because it's supported by Dems.

When we support bad judgment, incompetence, greed, PR spin, we gain only in the short run--in angry little sound bites at a Palin rally, however when the chickens finally come home, we look like fools standing around scratching our heads wondering where all the WMD's are...

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 12:57 PM
fact vs. fiction... Fact - man made global warming is fiction. Nuff said.

hazlnut
03-04-2009, 02:37 PM
Fact - man made global warming is fiction. Nuff said.

Thank you for illustrating (so very succinctly) my point about critical examination of a policy.

Also, nice use of the Nuff Said Fallacy or argumentum ad retardum

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 03:35 PM
Thank you for illustrating (so very succinctly) my point about critical examination of a policy.

Also, nice use of the Nuff Said Fallacy or argumentum ad retardum
the nuff said - or as you call it the arumentum ad retardum - argument is always the best approach when dealing with a global warming alarmist - AKA brainwashed retards. :rolleyes:

hazlnut
03-04-2009, 04:43 PM
the nuff said - or as you call it the arumentum ad retardum - argument is always the best approach when dealing with a global warming alarmist - AKA brainwashed retards. :rolleyes:

So, make one... an argument, that is. A logically sound argument. You stated a counter opinion to mine and supported it with "Nuff Said." -- Do you think that makes you sound credible?

That's how we practically gave the country back to the democrats!!!!

Sarah Palin is a brilliant, articulate woman. Nuff Said.
The levees will hold. Nuff Said.
The economy is sound. Nuff Said.
Mission Accomplished. Nuff Said.

When the best and brightest minds tell you that after studying something for 3 decades, they have some concerns--smart people listen and discuss and take action. Republicans could have been way out ahead on this if they weren't so beholden to big oil and energy. They could have been the innovators with incentives that moved energy corps toward self-regulation and visionary technological advancement. That's the greatness of true capitalism and the free-market... The prize goes to the builder of a better mousetrap.

Now we're stuck with the Dems version of the new "Green Economy" with layers upon layers of bureaucracy, government waste and inefficiency.

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 05:26 PM
So, make one... an argument, that is. I have no interest in arguing religion with anyone. It's a pointless and fruitless venture.



A logically sound argument. http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html


You stated a counter opinion to mine and supported it with "Nuff Said." -- Do you think that makes you sound credible? lol It was an utter dismissal of your argument.


That's how we practically gave the country back to the democrats!!!! No - spouting alarmism about the economy, global warming, and vilifying bush is how the democrats won. They didn't win on a single issue. They won on an image.


Sarah Palin is a brilliant, articulate woman. Nuff Said. yup. Very true.

The levees will hold. Nuff Said. They did.

The economy is sound. Nuff Said. It was at the time.

Mission Accomplished. Nuff Said. It was. :)


When the best and brightest minds tell you that after studying something for 3 decades, they have some concerns--smart people listen and discuss and take action. lol Unless of course the bright minds happen to have been working with money from an organization which the press demonizes as having a vested interest in skewing the science one way - the way counter to that of the presses expressed opinions - then they are hacks and frauds. :rolleyes:



Republicans could have been way out ahead on this if they weren't so beholden to big oil and energy. BULLSHIT. We'd have been way out in front if we actually had had a conservative for a candidate. The press and the lefties manipulated the early republican primaries which are either open primaries or ones without wait times after registering.



They could have been the innovators with incentives that moved energy corps toward self-regulation and visionary technological advancement. That's the greatness of true capitalism and the free-market... The prize goes to the builder of a better mousetrap. no - the prize goes to the person who finds the equlibrium between supply and demand. The better mousetrap will not win if the cost is too high. :rolleyes:


Now we're stuck with the Dems version of the new "Green Economy" with layers upon layers of bureaucracy, government waste and inefficiency. WE DON'T NEED A GREEN ECONOMY AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE!! lol Carbon is not a pollutant. It does not cause global warming. We are not all going to die in a massive flood caused by the polar icecaps melting. ALL of the climate models are abject failures. They cannot predict tomorrows temperatures when you plug in today's data let alone the temps 20 or 30 years from now.

hazlnut
03-04-2009, 08:10 PM
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html


you have got to be kidding...Micheal Crichton????

That's all you got? Why didn't you just say L. Ron Hubbard or Stephen King?

PoliCon
03-04-2009, 10:00 PM
you have got to be kidding...Micheal Crichton????

That's all you got? Why didn't you just say L. Ron Hubbard or Stephen King?I notice that you have attacked the messenger and ignored the substance of a well reasoned argument - my chief reason for picking Mr. Crichton's essay. It's okay. You're cover's been blown. You can admit that you are a sycophantic leftie who worships at Al Gores altar of global warming . . . . :rolleyes:

FlaGator
03-04-2009, 10:53 PM
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b26/flagator/climate-chart.jpg
Global Temperature Since 900 AD
Source: UN Panel on Climate Change, 1995

Even more important, the earth is not "the warmest it has ever been." In fact, the earth was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period when human agriculture flourished!

As this graph shows, our climate is in fact continually changing, and the cause is not and could not be CO2. CO2 accounts for less than 3% of all greenhouse gases, and only 6% of atmospheric CO2 is produced by human activity.

That means that less than 2/1,000 of all CO2 is produced by human activity. So even if we wiped out every car, power plant, jet liner, and human being from the face of the earth, there would be no noticeable effect on global CO2 levels.

The most important greenhouse gas by far is water vapor, which evaporates from oceans, lakes and rivers. Water vapor accounts for up to 90% of the earth's greenhouse effect. Atmospheric water vapor levels – like natural CO2 emissions from volcanoes and animals – rises and falls with changes in solar activity.

To put it another way, the amout of CO2 in our atmosphere is the result of changes in solar activity, not the cause of it.

Climate change is natural, continuous, and caused by changes in solar emissions. Over hundreds of thousands of years, the earth's average surface temperature has varied within a narrow 4-degree temperature range. That variation causes both "warm periods," like we are now living in, and "cold periods" accompanied by ice ages, which periodically destroy most life on earth.

More CO2 actually has a beneficent effect on the environment. As the March 2007 issue of Civil Defense Perspectives explains, "Largely because of increased CO2, the U.S. had nearly 200 billion cubic feet more standing timber in 1990 than in 1950."

While the earth's current, natural warming will have some negative effects on some groups (such as island dwellers), it will also have lots of positive effects on many more groups, including the expansion of the growing season. Besides, there is nothing we can do to control the solar cycle which causes global warming. Remember: Our sun gives off more radiation in one second than all human activity produces in 1,000 years!

Quoted from the International Society for Individual Liberty (http://www.isil.org/resources/fnn/2007june/global-warming-hoax.html)



"The believers [in man-made global warming] are not only intolerant of dissent – they are convinced that all skeptics must be motivated by greed or other evil forces."

Owen McShane, director, Centre for
Resource Management Studies and co-founder of
the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.


Skeptics include some of the world's foremost scientists: 85 climate experts who signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration . . . 4,000 scientists from around the world (including 70 Nobel laureates) who signed the Heidelberg Appeal . . . and the 17,000 American scientists who signed the Oregon Petition denying that human activity was the cause of global warming.

Previous Quotes from the Science and Environmental Policy Project (http://www.sepp.org/)

Here is the text of The Leipzip Declaration (http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/leipzig.html)

Here is The Signatories of the Leipzip Declaration (http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDsigs.html)


Have a globally warm day :D

Gingersnap
03-04-2009, 11:07 PM
Where do I start... I thought CU was a place conservative thinkers came to discuss how to become relevant and be taken seriously again... it's not about liberal or Al Gore, it's about fact vs. fiction...

You can not back up any of your statements with facts from any legitimate scientific publication. The current consensus is the result of years of rigorous peer-review among academics and researchers.


Yeah, I noticed the rigorous citations and references in your original post. :rolleyes:

Again, science is not about "consensus". On the contrary, widely held views have repeatedly proven to be false through testing and observation. This isn't to say that science is immune from popular thought - far from it. Popular thought often has led scientific inquiry; sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad.

Why don't you start a new thread in GD and posit your position (with appropriate citations and references, if you want to do it that way). Pick one aspect of your overall viewpoint to discuss.

FlaGator
03-04-2009, 11:24 PM
Yeah, I noticed the rigorous citations and references in your original post. :rolleyes:

Again, science is not about "consensus". On the contrary, widely held views have repeatedly proven to be false through testing and observation. This isn't to say that science is immune from popular thought - far from it. Popular thought often has led scientific inquiry; sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad.

Why don't you start a new thread in GD and posit your position (with appropriate citations and references, if you want to do it that way). Pick one aspect of your overall viewpoint to discuss.

The disciples of the Church of Global Warming allow me a luxury I rarely indulge in... I get to point and laugh.

hazlnut
03-05-2009, 12:40 AM
Here is the text of The Leipzip Declaration (http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/leipzig.html)

Here is The Signatories of the Leipzip Declaration (http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDsigs.html)




Leipzig, oh stop waisting my time... Leipzig is a joke. It's easier to debunk than a Micheal Moore movie...

Most of its signers have not dealt with climate issues at all and none of them is an acknowledged leading expert. Twenty-five of the signers were TV weathermen - a profession that requires no in-depth knowledge of climate research. Other signers included a dentist, a medical laboratory researcher, a civil engineer, and an amateur meteorologist. Some were not even found to reside at the addresses they had given.

A journalist with the Danish Broadcasting Company attempted to contact the declaration's 33 European signers and found that four of them could not be located, 12 denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who did admit signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an expert on flying insects.

After discounting the signers whose credentials were inflated, irrelevant, false, or unverifiable, it turned out that only 20 of the names on the list had any scientific connection with the study of climate change, and some of those names were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal industry and the government of Kuwait (a major oil exporter)

Better luck next time...

PoliCon
03-05-2009, 12:44 AM
some of those names were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry which of course makes them discountable unlike those that take money from those that profit from the "green economy" whose findings MUST MUST MUST be taken as infallible. :rolleyes:

It amazes me that Gorites demand evidence and/or arguments against their theology and when you give them - they attack the funding or the researcher or anything they can to discount the messenger so they can ignore the message.

hazlnut
03-05-2009, 02:04 PM
It amazes me that Gorites demand evidence and/or arguments against their theology and when you give them - they attack the funding or the researcher or anything they can to discount the messenger so they can ignore the message.

It's an aspect of critical thinking called considering the source. I don't ignore the message, but when an expert takes the stand, it's fair to review his credentials and consider his motivation for giving testimony. If I dismissed Michael Crichton and Liepzig abruptly, it's because they represent (to me) the tired and weak arguments that only serve to make the overall conservative ideas in which I believe less credible to the general public.

I see conservative leaning friends cling to talking points about climate issues without regard for the validity of the source. It works in a discussion with laymen who don't understand the process of scientific research, but you hand Crichton to someone in aerospace, (many in my area), Raytheon, Boeing, and they do a spit take--they spot unscientific analysis of science (spin) a mile away. Embracing and supporting something without logic and thought for its credibility has got to stop if we're going to regain any ground.

Putting government in charge of policing and regulating energy companies is (in my mind) the worst possible scenario. But they (energy, coal, oil) had plenty of time and (god knows) the capital to reign themselves in. Same with the banks BTW, you think I want Barney Frank in charge of anything??!!! Of course not. But when an industry doesn't police themselves, it's only a matter of time before Gov steps in and, like a 3rd rate doctor in a backwater town, they misdiagnose the problem, then empty your wallet to (not)fix it.

Rupert Murdock and Newscorp seem to be moving in a smart direction (see link)

http://gei.newscorp.com/


It's not about bending over or giving into the Dems, it's about fixing a problem before it gets so out of control that government steps in with its overreaching inefficiency.

PoliCon
03-05-2009, 03:13 PM
It's an aspect of critical thinking called considering the source. lol And when we do it and point out the obvious bias of your chosen sources you say it's wrong. You can't have it both ways. :p That's a common LEFTIST argument technique. Would you like to come out of the political closet?

Rebel Yell
03-05-2009, 03:14 PM
you have got to be kidding...Micheal Crichton????

That's all you got? Why didn't you just say L. Ron Hubbard or Stephen King?

or Al Gore.:rolleyes:

PoliCon
03-05-2009, 03:15 PM
or Al Gore.:rolleyes:
or the MSM. :D

Rebel Yell
03-05-2009, 03:21 PM
or the MSM. :D

or.......

Prince Albert of Monaco
Sir David Attenborough
Ed Begley Jnr
Sir Richard Branson
Pierce Brosnan
Louise Burfitt-Dons
David Cameron
Rachel Carson
Prince Charles
Bill Clinton
George Clooney
Sheryl Crow
Ted Danson
Laurie David
Cameron Diaz
Leonardo diCapricio
Morgan Freeman
Zac Goldsmith
Al Gore
Tom Hanks
Jim Hensen
Scarlett Johanssen
Diane Keaton
Jude Law
Jared Leto
Sir David King
James Lovelock
Mark Lynas
Sienna Miller
Barack Obama
Brad Pitt
Jonathan Porritt
Natalie Portman
Robert Redford
Julia Roberts
Susan Sarandon
Sting
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Trudie Styler
Margaret Thatcher
Charlize Theron

hazlnut
03-05-2009, 03:53 PM
lol And when we do it and point out the obvious bias of your chosen sources you say it's wrong. You can't have it both ways. :p That's a common LEFTIST argument technique. Would you like to come out of the political closet?

First of all, what obvious bias have you pointed out? I wouldn't want to have it both ways. So, tell me how are the WMO and IPCC bias??

They're a bunch of liberals from Europe who want to bring down the U.S. Really, how do you know this? Cause they're from Europe. All of them? Even the one's from CalTech, NASA, MIT, and all the other top American Universities? They're all liberals, too. And the decades of rigorous peer-reviewed research, that's liberal, too? Their research is all liberal junk science.

Wow, I see you're point. How could I have missed it. The demanding and strict disciplines of scientific research, publishing, and peer-review is really a liberal conspiracy to bring down the U.S. Let me humble myself and now that I'm an expert, let me sign that Oregon Petition thingy...

hazlnut
03-05-2009, 03:57 PM
lol And when we do it and point out the obvious bias of your chosen sources you say it's wrong. You can't have it both ways. :p That's a common LEFTIST argument technique. Would you like to come out of the political closet?

Question: Why did you ignore the Newscorp link? They're bias, too?

And... do you ever bother to read the entire post? Out of the closet? I thought I was pretty clear on my position regarding the Dems and government control and regulation...

FlaGator
03-05-2009, 04:23 PM
These man made global warming parishioners amuse me to no end. Produce a source they claim it is bunk but any source they produce is unimpeachable:rolleyes: Armies of climatologist could claim that man made global warming is fiction and yet they'll cling to the one geology graduate student who says he has evidence.


February 13, 2009
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Testimony
Filed under: Climate Models, Climate Politics —
On Thursday, February 12, 2009, Dr. Patrick J. Michaels provided testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Environment during their hearing “The Climate Crisis: National Security, Public Health, and Economic Threats.”

Dr. MIchaels’ general message was that the recent behavior of global temperatures is starting to push the (lower) bounds of climate models’ expectations of such behavior and that if the current slowdown in the rate of global warming continues for much longer, we must start to question the reliability of climate projections of the future state of our climate.



Some specific quotes from Dr. Michaels

The primary drivers of the impact models are therefore the models for climate change itself. I must report that our models are in the process of failing. When I say that, I mean the ensemble of 21 models used in the midrange projection for climate change by the IPCC. I am an active participant on this Panel, providing extensive reviews and comment on several iterations of their scientific summaries, as well as invited text for their Second Assessment.

If it is demonstrable that these models have failed, then there is no real scientific basis for any estimates of the costs of inaction. I will now perform that demonstration.

Remember this: a climate model is really nothing more than a scientific hypothesis. If a hypothesis is consistent with observations, then it is standard scientific practice to say that such a hypothesis can continue to be entertained. In this case, that hypothesis can then serve as a basis for other subsidiary models or, in reality, subsidiary hypotheses.


One implicit assumption in calculating the “costs of inaction” is that we know with reasonable confidence indeed what climatic changes will ensue as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase. With regard to climate, we often assume a common Washington mantra: with regard to global warming, “the science is settled”.

This demonstration shows how far from the truth this oft-repeated sentence actually is. One can say this. “The science is settled” inasmuch as surface temperatures have increased from the late 1970s. That this is shown in the surface record has not been in dispute, so claiming some finality for such a truism is hardly noteworthy. What is true, however, is that the rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the midrange suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled. In fact, judging from these results, it’s time for climate scientists to get back to work and generate models which will be able to estimate the recent past and present within their normal confidence ranges.

The above references can be found here at World Climate Report (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/02/13/committee-on-energy-and-environment-testimony/)

What about the all too familiar cry of the melting of Antartica and how we're all going to have to move to the Rockies or drown?


Antarctic sea ice extent and concentration for January 2009 were up significantly over 1997, 34.8% for ice extent & 22% for ice concentration. Jan 2009 sea ice was also up 23% over 1980.

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_images/newspost_images/January_1979-2009_antarctic_ice_concentration_extent.jpg


Source is from GlobalWarmingHoax.com (http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.104)

And yet more commentary

While many planets in our solar system are warming without any human intervention, the Earth has been experiencing dramatic cooling. Last year, dramatic global cooling was measured by all four agencies that track the Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California). It is now estimated that the Earth cooled by about 0.7C in 2007 which is the fastest temperature change on record. In addition, the global cooling trend has continued into the first five months of 2008.

The preceeding was from www.versusview.com (http://www.versusview.com/globalWarmingMyth.html)

I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who said: " 'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak in favor of man made global warming and remove all doubt."

OK, it might have been Hugh Lincoln that said it but it realyl doesn't matter. It's the truth.

patriot45
03-05-2009, 04:39 PM
Hey, make up my mind! It was chilly this morning and its hot right now:confused: C'mon, cooling or warming ! :D

patriot45
03-05-2009, 04:46 PM
Did some digging and found proof of glowball warming! Its true!

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/globalwarming.jpg

FlaGator
03-05-2009, 04:54 PM
Did some digging and found proof of glowball warming! Its true!

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/globalwarming.jpg

Or it could signify the direction of the country's morality...

hazlnut
03-05-2009, 05:44 PM
These man made global warming parishioners amuse me to no end. Produce a source they claim it is bunk but any source they produce is unimpeachable:rolleyes: Armies of climatologist could claim that man made global warming is fiction and yet they'll cling to the one geology graduate student who says he has evidence.

The above references can be found here at World Climate Report (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/02/13/committee-on-energy-and-environment-testimony/)

Okay, you want to talk about that hearing, let's talking about it. I suppose if you presented your evidence to someone who didn't watch the hearing or wasn't willing to go to Committee on Energy and Commerce website and review the hearing, your points might seem pretty valid. And, if the person wasn't already familiar with Dr. Michaels and the Cato Institute, they might be convinced that you know what you're talking about. Case closed. The thing is, I'm not that person.

Did you even bother to review the hearing? Or just copy/paste something from some blog...Stop doing that.

Six other people gave testimony. Here some highlights:

1- Gen. Gordon Sullivan (Ret.), President and Chief Operating Officer, Association of the United States Army

First, climate change is a serious threat to our national security. Second, climate change will be what we called a “threat multiplier”. Many areas of the world that will be the hardest hit by climate change impacts are already being stressed by lack of water, lack of food, and political and social unrest.
Adding climate change to this mix will only serve to exacerbate the existing
instabilities. Third, projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the
world. And fourth, that climate change, national security and energy dependence are a
related set of global challenges.

In the two years since I appeared before the Committee, we’ve seen no evidence to
contradict those findings. In fact, we’ve only seen them reinforced.


Dr. Kristie Ebi, Lead Author, Public Health Chapter of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

Climate change poses health risks for U.S. populations, both direct impacts on health as
well as through altering the systems on which human health and well-being depend.
Although data in the U.S. are limited, health impacts due to climate change may already
by occurring, with the magnitude and extent of impacts expected to increase with
increasing climate change. The health risks of current and future climate change in the
U.S. include greater numbers of illnesses and deaths due to (Ebi et al. 2008):
• Increases in the frequency, intensity, and length of heatwaves, with the highest
risks among older adults, those with chronic medical conditions, infants and
children, pregnant women, urban and rural poor, and outdoor workers. With
limited mitigation or adaptation, heat-related mortality is projected to increase
several-fold.
• Increases in the frequency and intensity of other extreme weather events,
including floods, droughts, wildfires, and windstorms, with the risks highest
among the poor, pregnant women, those with chronic medical conditions, and
those with mobility and cognitive constraints. Projecting additional health
burdens is difficult because these events are, by definition, rare. However, the
impacts can be large for single events.

Professor Daniel Schrag, Harvard University

Humans are changing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, mostly
from burning of coal, oil and gas, with deforestation also playing a significant role.
The current level, in excess of 380 parts per million (ppm), is higher than it has
been for at least the last 650,000 years, and perhaps for tens of millions of years.
To put it differently, we are experiencing higher CO2 levels now than any human
being has ever seen in the history of the earth

Dr. Frank Ackerman, Stockholm Environment Institute U.S. Center, Tufts University

Damages that will result from inaction include (but are not limited to):
• the impacts of increasingly severe hurricanes
• more coastal property at risk from rising sea levels and storm surges
• increased energy costs for air conditioning as temperatures rise
• growing scarcity and rising costs for water
• losses in agriculture due to hotter and drier conditions
• losses of tourism revenue as weather conditions worsen

And, yes, of course, the good Dr. Michaels made an appearance....You've already quoted what he said in his sworn statement, so let's just get some more background on this man of science, shall we...

Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels. A furor was raised when it was revealed in 2006 that, at customer expense, Patrick Michaels was quietly paid $100,000 by an electric utility, Intermountain Rural Electric Association.

Michaels was previously a Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virgina. While Michaels referred to himself as the State Climatologist for Virginia, in August 2006 the Governor clarified that the appointment was one by the University for its accredited climatology office but not an appointment by the state administration.

And what does the scientific community think of Michaels??

Peter Gleick, president of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security:
"Pat Michaels is not one of the nation's leading researchers on climate change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence."

Dr. John Holdren of Harvard University:
"Michaels is another of the handful of US climate-change contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."

Dr. Tom Wigley, lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's leading climate scientists:
"Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading."

And an article in the journal Social Epistemology concluded
"...the observations upon which Patrick Michaels draws his case are not good enough to bear the weight of the argument he wishes to make."

JB
03-05-2009, 10:55 PM
I think I'll go start a tire fire.

FlaGator
03-05-2009, 11:31 PM
Okay, you want to talk about that hearing, let's talking about it. I suppose if you presented your evidence to someone who didn't watch the hearing or wasn't willing to go to Committee on Energy and Commerce website and review the hearing, your points might seem pretty valid. And, if the person wasn't already familiar with Dr. Michaels and the Cato Institute, they might be convinced that you know what you're talking about. Case closed. The thing is, I'm not that person.

<snip>


You come here as a noob and start posting this "evidence" like no one has done it before and you have new, fresh material. It been done by a lot of people who have offered much better arguments than you and still no one's mind has been changed. Since you have nothing new in the way of "proof" why do you even bother? You insult long time posters who question the theory of Global Warming and you take it personal and then make it personal with attacks on intelligence and comprehension. The bottom line is that for every bit of evidence you offer I or someone else will counter it with refuting evidence. If you want to believe in your myths and junk science, fine... go right ahead. But don't expect others to be as gullible as you are and as easily swayed by chicken little faith. If the sky is falling it's doing it on its own with little to no help from mankind.

The simple fact that reputable scientist disagree with the conclusions of other scientist means that the issue is not settled and no amount of shoe pounding and self-righteous indignation changes that fact.

But if it make you feel good, preach on brother.:)


Sunday, November 11, 2007
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
Update by Joe D’Aleo, Icecap
Thursday, November 15, John Coleman, the founder of the cable TV Weather Channel and currently TV meteorologist in San Diego at KUSI began a series of short briefs trying to explain in simplified terms for the layman why he does not believe in global greenhouse warming on his KUSI climate blog.

Below was his original statement that got much national attention. KUSI and Icecap received hundreds of emails, better than 90% favorable, thanking John for his courage in speaking out on this issue and thanking KUSI and Icecap for covering the news the networks won’t cover. There were of course some negative responses mostly ad hominem attacks questioning motivation as is typical in this issue. Some requested John follow up with some concrete facts in understandable terms and he will begin to do that. The first brief on that link will address the ‘hockey stick”.


The above excerpt was taken from ICECAP (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/)


During the 20th century, the earth warmed 0.6 degree Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit), but that warming has been wiped out in a single year with a drop of 0.63 degree C. (1.13 F.) in 2007. A single year does not constitute a trend reversal, but the magnitude of that temperature drop — equal to 100 years of warming — is noteworthy. Of course, it can also be argued that a mere 0.6 degree warming in a century is so tiny it should never have been considered a cause for alarm in the first place. But then how could the idea of global warming be sold to the public? In any case, global cooling has been evident for more than a single year. Global temperature has declined since 1998. Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon dioxide has gone in the other direction, increasing 15–20%. This divergence casts doubt on the validity of the greenhouse hypothesis, but that hasn't discouraged the global warming advocates. They have long been ignoring far greater evidence that the basic assumption of greenhouse warming from increases in carbon dioxide is false.



The above excerpt was taken from Liberty Unbound (http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_09/contoski-warming.html)



Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that “ increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena ”. Allegre said, “There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled." He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the ‘great dangers’ that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, “ Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.” And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, “Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice”. Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, “When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.” He further stated that, “Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis”. And in reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, “they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies”, which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research. He also wrote, “Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages”. v


The above excerpt was taken from Global Warming Hyperbole (http://www.globalwarminghype.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry070319-111739)

PoliCon
03-06-2009, 12:25 AM
I think I'll go start a tire fire.

COUNT ME IN!!:D

hazlnut
03-06-2009, 10:38 AM
You come here as a noob and start posting this "evidence" like no one has done it before and you have new, fresh material. It been done by a lot of people who have offered much better arguments than you and still no one's mind has been changed.

The EVIDENCE was YOUR'S, you nitwit!!! You brought up Pat Michaels and the statements he made at the hearing. I just pointed out the fact that you (deliberately) left something out. The FIVE OTHER PEOPLE who testified at the same hearing. That's what's killing us. The IDIOCY of people thinking they can fool everyone forever. You can't just deal with the opinions and stats that suit you, you need to look at them all. Have you done that? Have you ever reviewed the IPCC reports/data, OBJECTIVELY, INTELLIGENTLY??? Or do you just cling to PR spin websites that confirm what you want to believe?


Since you have nothing new in the way of "proof" why do you even bother? You insult long time posters who question the theory of Global Warming and you take it personal and then make it personal with attacks on intelligence and comprehension. The bottom line is that for every bit of evidence you offer I or someone else will counter it with refuting evidence. If you want to believe in your myths and junk science, fine... go right ahead. But don't expect others to be as gullible as you are and as easily swayed by chicken little faith. If the sky is falling it's doing it on its own with little to no help from mankind.

You want proof?? Read the statements of ALL the people who testified with Micheals. YOU PUT IT OUT THERE. Make a bloody effort, why don't you... READ and THINK before you copy/paste from fringe PR spin websites.

FlaGator
03-06-2009, 11:59 AM
The EVIDENCE was YOUR'S, you nitwit!!! You brought up Pat Michaels and the statements he made at the hearing. I just pointed out the fact that you (deliberately) left something out. The FIVE OTHER PEOPLE who testified at the same hearing. That's what's killing us. The IDIOCY of people thinking they can fool everyone forever. You can't just deal with the opinions and stats that suit you, you need to look at them all. Have you done that? Have you ever reviewed the IPCC reports/data, OBJECTIVELY, INTELLIGENTLY??? Or do you just cling to PR spin websites that confirm what you want to believe?



You want proof?? Read the statements of ALL the people who testified with Micheals. YOU PUT IT OUT THERE. Make a bloody effort, why don't you... READ and THINK before you copy/paste from fringe PR spin websites.

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Since you are completely unable to understand the point of my post you can talk to yourself. If you can't discuss something without name calling then you are to small minded to understand the topic (any topic) on which you speak.

PoliCon
03-06-2009, 01:33 PM
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/


Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.

One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology.HAH!

FlaGator
03-06-2009, 07:46 PM
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/

HAH!

Voodoo climatology.

JB
03-06-2009, 09:46 PM
One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology.LMAO.

Why not just compare it to present astrology also. :D

Elspeth
03-07-2009, 01:07 PM
Yeah, I noticed the rigorous citations and references in your original post. :rolleyes:

Again, science is not about "consensus". On the contrary, widely held views have repeatedly proven to be false through testing and observation. This isn't to say that science is immune from popular thought - far from it. Popular thought often has led scientific inquiry; sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad.

Why don't you start a new thread in GD and posit your position (with appropriate citations and references, if you want to do it that way). Pick one aspect of your overall viewpoint to discuss.

I notice that hazlnut has not responded to this. I am actually quite curious on how the global warming theory/panic got started. Is there a good concise history of the theory?