PDA

View Full Version : More proof that global warming is a farce...



stsinner
06-22-2009, 01:55 PM
Arizona is having its longest stretch of days below 100 degrees since 1913!!!! The global warming and climate change camp is just using this ruse as a money maker and a way to exert power over the people... Don't fall for it.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/19/20090619junelovely0619.html

PoliCon
06-22-2009, 01:58 PM
Wilbur will be here any second to give us the dogmatic explanation for how it's has nothing to do with any natural phenomenon and it 10,000% mans fault. SO SAYTH AL GORE!:rolleyes:

wilbur
06-22-2009, 02:05 PM
So you accept the voracity of temperature records of a small specific locale as an indicator for the soundness (or unsoundness) of the theory of man-made global climate change? Yes or no.

PoliCon
06-22-2009, 02:08 PM
Less than 10 minutes . . . lol

patriot45
06-22-2009, 02:08 PM
So you accept the voracity of temperature records of a small specific locale as an indicator for the soundness (or unsoundness) of the theory of man-made global climate change? Yes or no.

No! We outright object to the so called glowball warming, manmade or not! Oh yeah the PC term is climate change! :D
Winter
Spring
Summer and
Fall!

wilbur
06-22-2009, 02:09 PM
Less than 10 minutes . . . lol

I didnt give any dogmatic explanation, did I? I asked a question. Feel free to answer it as well.

PoliCon
06-22-2009, 02:11 PM
Your dogmatic explination is clear in your question. :) Doesn't take a genius to spot a loaded question.

wilbur
06-22-2009, 02:14 PM
Your dogmatic explination is clear in your question. :) Doesn't take a genius to spot a loaded question.

There shouldn't be any 'dogmatic explanation' apparent in the question, because I don't plan to use the question, nor the answers, to argue for or against global warming, nor any other "dogma". Quit being scared.

PoliCon
06-22-2009, 02:16 PM
There shouldn't be any 'dogmatic explanation' apparent in the question, because I don't plan to use the question, nor the answers, to argue for or against global warming, nor any other "dogma". Quit being scared.

:rolleyes:

Molon Labe
06-22-2009, 02:16 PM
So you accept the voracity of temperature records of a small specific locale as an indicator for the soundness (or unsoundness) of the theory of man-made global climate change? Yes or no.

I agree with this, however...it's troublesome that many discount the 71% of the earths surface covered by water in the very studies that try to prove man made GCC. Which has routinely been much of the global warming establishment.

Lager
06-22-2009, 02:18 PM
But of course man changes the climate. I've got the air conditioner in my hooch on right now, other wise it would be around 100 degrees in here. :D

Shannon
06-22-2009, 02:22 PM
I dunno. We're breaking records with the heat here. Maybe it is true.:p

Lager
06-22-2009, 02:25 PM
Isn't it somewhat arrogant that we humans believe that we can decide what the optimum temperature of the planet should be? How do we know the planet doesn't want to warm up?

Speedy
06-22-2009, 02:29 PM
Wilbur, I never once believed it for a second. Not once. All it takes is a bit of common sense. 71% percent of the surface of the Earth is completly uninhabited by man because it is ocean, rivers, lakes. How much of Anarartica is uninhabited? How much of the Earth above the Artic circle is uninhabited? How much of the Everglades? How much of the Sahara? How much of the American Southwest? How much of rural China and Russia? The Rockies? The Himalayas? Rural Austrailia?

Did you know that you could take every last scrap of waste created by man since his first civilization and every last person in the world and place them in the Grand Canyon and not come close to filling it up? Yet we are supposedly capeable of killing the whole earth you say.:rolleyes:

hazlnut
06-22-2009, 02:30 PM
No! We outright object to the so called glowball warming, manmade or not! Oh yeah the PC term is climate change! :D
Winter
Spring
Summer and
Fall!

Unfortunately, we're moving toward a two season year:

Winter & Summer

with periodic unpredictable weather patterns, extreme and mild.

BTW -- Climate Change was the 'softer' term suggested by a GOP pollster.

And someone move this thread already...

wilbur
06-22-2009, 02:50 PM
I agree with this, however...it's troublesome that many discount the 71% of the earths surface covered by water in the very studies that try to prove man made GCC. Which has routinely been much of the global warming establishment.

There are substances, that if ingested in amounts barely visible to the naked eye (with mass that is insignificant when compared with the mass of the average human), can kill any of us dead, quite quickly. It really is counterintuitive to think such a little amount of anything could kill someone.

While it seems compelling at first to think that we are an insignificant spec in the ecosystem, and that such an insignificant spec couldn't possible cause drastic change quickly, its fallacious to think so, out of hand.

Global climate change theory cannot be denied by simplistic comparisons to our size compared to the rest of the ecosystem.

There could be a compelling argument from such a hypothesis if investigated properly... but I've never seen anyone present a good argument.. instead we are just supposed to be dazzled by the size of the earth or the ocean relative to our size. It doesnt fly.

stsinner
06-22-2009, 02:51 PM
So you accept the voracity of temperature records of a small specific locale as an indicator for the soundness (or unsoundness) of the theory of man-made global climate change? Yes or no.

Um... No, we're using core samples drilled into the Earth that go back 10,000 years or more that show the warming and cooling trends of the Earth.. The Socialists have just devised a cunning plan to extort more money out of us and exert more power over the ignorant by saying that the current warming trend, er.. forgot-it's not warming any more, so we have to call it climate change, is being caused by man.. It's sick, and people that fall for it are ignorant and ill-informed.

stsinner
06-22-2009, 02:52 PM
And someone move this thread already...

Why move it? It can easily be found under New Posts until its no longer relevant..

wilbur
06-22-2009, 02:56 PM
Um... No, we're using core samples drilled into the Earth that go back 10,000 years or more that show the warming and cooling trends of the Earth..


So then the article you posted can in no way be construed as evidence against AGW theory, and the claim in the thread title is a falsehood? Got it, thanks!

PoliCon
06-22-2009, 02:59 PM
Why move it? It can easily be found under New Posts until its no longer relevant..
He doesn't like the forum it's in. Having it in breaking news breaks his preferred narrative.

Molon Labe
06-22-2009, 03:55 PM
There are substances, that if ingested in amounts barely visible to the naked eye (with mass that is insignificant when compared with the mass of the average human), can kill any of us dead, quite quickly. It really is counterintuitive to think such a little amount of anything could kill someone.

While it seems compelling at first to think that we are an insignificant spec in the ecosystem, and that such an insignificant spec couldn't possible cause drastic change quickly, its fallacious to think so, out of hand.

Global climate change theory cannot be denied by simplistic comparisons to our size compared to the rest of the ecosystem.

There could be a compelling argument from such a hypothesis if investigated properly... but I've never seen anyone present a good argument.. instead we are just supposed to be dazzled by the size of the earth or the ocean relative to our size. It doesnt fly.


I don't mean to make our role in affairs seem insignificant because of the size of the earth. What I mean by that point is that the data is skewed and one of the main ways it is done so by the GCC is by selective scientific data.
There are plenty of very "good arguments" against man made GCC and plenty of good scientists with data to the contrary

Guys like Steve Macintyre run great resources for all the disinformation and have debunked the so called "experts" before. His blog and Ed Contoski's American Liberty blog are great for the distinguishing truth from the propaganda.

http://www.climateaudit.org/

http://www.amlibpub.com/liberty_blog/


Is global warming happening...Probably.
Is it man made?....The jury is way out. I happen to think not based on all the data I have gotten my hands on.
Based on my experiences....most everything that government tells us they have to "protect" me from is most often a lie. Be it guns, terrorists, or some Chlorofluorocarbons buggaboo.

On edit:
I almost forgot the entire scientific community that hasn't signed on to the hype.
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Odysseus
06-22-2009, 04:24 PM
Isn't it somewhat arrogant that we humans believe that we can decide what the optimum temperature of the planet should be? How do we know the planet doesn't want to warm up?
Al Gore has been in touch with Gaiea and says that she doesn't want to warm up, except in winter, when her feet get cold.

Unfortunately, we're moving toward a two season year:
Winter & Summer
with periodic unpredictable weather patterns, extreme and mild.
BTW -- Climate Change was the 'softer' term suggested by a GOP pollster.
And someone move this thread already...
You're missing a much more imminent and cataclysmic cycle of change that has far greater implications for the planet. Since late December, the length of the daylight period in the northern hemisphere have been getting progressively longer, while the daylight time in the southern hemisphere has grown progressively shorter. If this trend continues, by next December, the northern hemisphere will be in permanent sunlight and the southern hemisphere will be in permanent darkness! However, if we act now, by approving a really big grant to me, I can impose a system involving consumption of really fine cigars and single malt scotch that will reverse the trend and begin returning the day/night cycle to equilibrium, but you have to get the money to me in the next week or so or it won't work. A couple of $ Billion ought to cover it. :p

hazlnut
06-22-2009, 04:38 PM
On edit:
I almost forgot the entire scientific community that hasn't signed on to the hype.
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Yikes! The Oregon Petition, really??:confused:


After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."[15] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[16]


In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," he said.

In 2001, Scientific American reported:
Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition - one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?



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

Molon Labe
06-22-2009, 04:47 PM
Yikes! The Oregon Petition, really??:confused:






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


If the site I linked has something to do with your link, I am ufamiliar. The two do not appear to have much akin to one another.

The petition project is legit. I've parused it many times and have not found any humorous false names listed. If you know of someone who has debunked it please list the link other than a wiki article about something that seems pretty unrelated.

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

wilbur
06-22-2009, 04:54 PM
I don't mean to make our role in affairs seem insignificant because of the size of the earth. What I mean by that point is that the data is skewed and one of the main ways it is done so by the GCC is by selective scientific data.
There are plenty of very "good arguments" against man made GCC and plenty of good scientists with data to the contrary

Guys like Steve Macintyre run great resources for all the disinformation and have debunked the so called "experts" before. His blog and Ed Contoski's American Liberty blog are great for the distinguishing truth from the propaganda.

http://www.climateaudit.org/


I think anyone who has any interest in climate change has run across climate audit... and while I won't go so far as to say you can't trust anything on that website, it should be noted that Steve Mcintyre actually works or has worked in oil. One thing to keep in mind when consuming information from there... its not an unbiased source.

There seems to be agreement on the fact that he is a good mathematician (ie he's not a climate scientist, but does have relevant field experience) and has pointed out some minor flaws in temperature measurements and such, but hasnt delt any significant blows to the theory of climate change.

I havent heard of the other site, but will have a look.



http://www.amlibpub.com/liberty_blog/


Is global warming happening...Probably.
Is it man made?....The jury is way out. I happen to think not based on all the data I have gotten my hands on.
Based on my experiences....most everything that government tells us they have to "protect" me from is most often a lie. Be it guns, terrorists, or some Chlorofluorocarbons buggaboo.


CFC's were a major problem... and the worldwide cooperation in eliminating CFC's is actually a great success story for international environmental regulation and cooperation... at the hands of government no less. But that was a much simpler problem than climate change. CFC's cause extensive damage to ozone... and a little bit goes a long way... it was easily observable and indisputable... and the solution was easily attainable at a fairly low cost.

I'm not an alarmist either.

The problem for those skeptics of global warming, is that all the known mechanisms (excluding human involvement) for the warming of the earth cannot account for all the warming that has occurred, be it from the sun or some other source. The theories of human causation has some pretty strong evidence. So its very reasonable to accept it as a valid theory and consider it a real possibility. One either has to deny the data, or come up with an alternate explanation.... neither task has been done successfully yet... not even by climate audit. Denying the data is the tac they have taken, but their disputes with data have been relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, even though accurate.



On edit:
I almost forgot the entire scientific community that hasn't signed on to the hype.
http://www.petitionproject.org/

The petition project is another well known, but long ago debunked anti-AGW staple and fraud.... I urge you to dig deeper into the actual qualifications of those on the list... most of whom have nothing more than BS degrees in scientific disciplines which may or may not even overlap with earth and climate sciences. As one with a BS in computer science, I could sign the list should I choose.

PoliCon
06-22-2009, 05:07 PM
If you worked in oil - you are an evil biased source. If you take tax money and waste it - you're to be believed no matter what!! :rolleyes:

BadCat
06-22-2009, 05:10 PM
I'm all for this "climate change" thing. If it melts the polar ice caps, Hazlebutt will drown and I'll be closer to the beach.

wilbur
06-22-2009, 05:13 PM
I usually don't do the 'there, fixed' post... but this one deserves it.


If you take tax money to fund research - you are an evil biased source. If you work for oil - you're to be believed no matter what!! :rolleyes:

There, fixed!


And of course, as per usual, you completely ignore what I write, and just read it as you want to read it... I merely said one should consider the possible bias (proper practice when consuming information from anyone who clearly a vested interest in a particular outcome)... I did not say to discount everything he says.

If people are going to hold him up as a trustworthy authority, its proper to question their judgment and his credibility.

Teetop
06-22-2009, 05:24 PM
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_hadcrut.jpg

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
....

Lots of embedded URL's at this URL. (http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm)

stsinner
06-22-2009, 05:29 PM
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_hadcrut.jpg

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming



And so the NATURAL cycle goes..... What's next-extorting money out of us to stop Global Cooling??

hazlnut
06-22-2009, 05:34 PM
If the site I linked has something to do with your link, I am ufamiliar. The two do not appear to have much akin to one another.

The petition project is legit. I've parused it many times and have not found any humorous false names listed. If you know of someone who has debunked it please list the link other than a wiki article about something that seems pretty unrelated.

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

Click on the 'Home' button for your page, read the petition.

Now click on the wiki article about the Oregon Petition. Read the text of the Oregon Petition. Fred Seitz, Oregon Institute... Google 'Oregon Petition' if you don't believe me. You're site comes up 4th, right above the Sourcewatch article which you should read if you want more info.

After being vetted, Seitz probably changed the name--or moved the site. It's always been known as the Oregon Petition--which was preceded by the Liepzig Declaration.

Teetop
06-22-2009, 05:35 PM
And so the NATURAL cycle goes..... What's next-extorting money out of us to stop Global Cooling??

BINGO! :rolleyes:

The Earth has warmed and cooled for millions of years, something Al Whore and the moonbats don't get.

wilbur
06-22-2009, 05:51 PM
BINGO! :rolleyes:

The Earth has warmed and cooled for millions of years, something Al Whore and the moonbats don't get.

Find me a respectable climate scientists who says otherwise or has said otherwise (ie that the earth hasnt undergone warming and cooling cycles in the past)...

Everyone understand this concept quite lucidly, actually... even those who recognize that AGW is a valid scientific theory and a very real possibility, and even those who don't.

C'mon... the BS around here is incredible.

BadCat
06-22-2009, 05:58 PM
Considering that Arizona and New Mexico have been underwater many, many times in the past, I'd say that climate does indeed change naturally.

Teetop
06-22-2009, 06:20 PM
Find me a respectable climate scientists who says otherwise or has said otherwise (ie that the earth hasnt undergone warming and cooling cycles in the past)...

Everyone understand this concept quite lucidly, actually... even those who recognize that AGW is a valid scientific theory and a very real possibility, and even those who don't.

C'mon... the BS around here is incredible.

I will post #29 again, for the dense as depleted uranium crowd;


Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
....

Lots of embedded URL's at this URL.

patriot45
06-22-2009, 07:54 PM
Find me a respectable climate scientists who says otherwise or has said otherwise (ie that the earth hasnt undergone warming and cooling cycles in the past)...

Everyone understand this concept quite lucidly, actually... even those who recognize that AGW is a valid scientific theory and a very real possibility, and even those who don't.

C'mon... the BS around here is incredible.

This is funny, back in the 70s globall cooling was the rage, then globall warming and now its just plain old climate change! How about we don't bankrupt the economy, place draconian laws on businesses, get off the high horse and see what the horror story du jour will be in ten years! Maybe it will be the ozone layer going by-by. Oh wait we did that one too!

wilbur
06-22-2009, 08:17 PM
This is funny, back in the 70s globall cooling was the rage, then globall warming and now its just plain old climate change!


No, it really wasn't, despite the incessant repetition of said myth by ignoramuses and dishonest agenda peddlers. Global cooling was not EVER an established or well supported scientific theory.. either by fact, or by significant consensus among scientists.

Gotta love it when AGW skeptics accuse others of being suckers or dupes when even a cursory glance at the history of the alleged "global cooling" theory will prove them the biggest suckers of all... Read up and learn a hard lesson about how the rewriting of history is done. Its on the back of folks like yourself, I'm sorry to say.



How about we don't bankrupt the economy, place draconian laws on businesses, get off the high horse and see what the horror story du jour will be in ten years!


Ok, no argument there... but that has little to do with whether global warming is true or false. People can misrepresent and misuse truth to their own ends, and that doesn't affect the status of that truth.


Maybe it will be the ozone layer going by-by. Oh wait we did that one too!

That problem was largely solved by the banning of CFC's, as I already mentioned... but that was an obvious and simple cause effect scenario with little to argue about.

Rockntractor
06-22-2009, 08:21 PM
No, it really wasn't, despite the incessant repetition of said myth by ignoramuses and dishonest agenda peddlers. Global cooling was not EVER an established or well supported scientific theory.. either by fact, or by significant consensus among scientists.

Gotta love it when AGW skeptics accuse others of being suckers or dupes when even a cursory glance at the history of the alleged "global cooling" theory will prove them the biggest suckers of all... Read up and learn a hard lesson about rewriting history.



Ok, no argument there... but that has little to do with whether global warming is true or false. People can misrepresent and misuse truth to their own ends, and that doesn't affect the status of that truth.



That problem was largely solved by the banning of CFC's, as I already mentioned... but that was an obvious and simple cause effect scenario with little to argue about.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/bovine_excrement_01.gif?t=1245716425

wilbur
06-22-2009, 08:26 PM
Ahh yes, another animated gif to help express some wit which you do not possess!

Rockntractor
06-22-2009, 08:31 PM
Ahh yes, another animated gif to help express some wit which you do not possess!
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/thfunny_facescalvinanhobbsanimateda.gif?t=12457170 34

wilbur
06-22-2009, 09:01 PM
I will post #29 again, for the dense as depleted uranium crowd;

Actually, I responded to your daft statement that Al Gore and scientists just don't get the fact that the Earth goes through climate cycles.... apparently this fact simply escaped scientists all these years... but thankfully you were clever enough to pick up on it! Sadly though, support for such a statement was not included in your article... (it had nothing to do with your article, actually).

But here I was thinking that scientists actually know a little something about global climate cycles... and that knowledge of those cycles was, in part, the reason that they could recognize unusual anomalies in those cycles.. and perhaps they could even try to formulate theories to explain the causes of those anomalies! That would be pretty amazing!

We should tell those scientists (and Al Gore) about these climate cycles! I bet that would change everything!

Rockntractor
06-22-2009, 09:25 PM
Actually, I responded to your daft statement that Al Gore and scientists just don't get the fact that the Earth goes through climate cycles.... apparently this fact simply escaped scientists all these years... but thankfully you were clever enough to pick up on it! Sadly though, support for such a statement was not included in your article... (it had nothing to do with your article, actually).

But here I was thinking that scientists actually know a little something about global climate cycles... and that knowledge of those cycles was, in part, the reason that they could recognize unusual anomalies in those cycles.. and perhaps they could even try to formulate theories to explain the causes of those anomalies! That would be pretty amazing!

We should tell those scientists (and Al Gore) about these climate cycles! I bet that would change everything!
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/piggy.gif?t=1245720242

Teetop
06-22-2009, 10:40 PM
Actually, I responded to your daft statement that Al Gore and scientists just don't get the fact that the Earth goes through climate cycles.... apparently this fact simply escaped scientists all these years... but thankfully you were clever enough to pick up on it! Sadly though, support for such a statement was not included in your article... (it had nothing to do with your article, actually).

But here I was thinking that scientists actually know a little something about global climate cycles... and that knowledge of those cycles was, in part, the reason that they could recognize unusual anomalies in those cycles.. and perhaps they could even try to formulate theories to explain the causes of those anomalies! That would be pretty amazing!

We should tell those scientists (and Al Gore) about these climate cycles! I bet that would change everything!

Maybe, just maybe..... if Al Whore and his ilk would quit pushing this scam on people, the worrld could get to more pressing issues?

There is no such thing as "man-made global warming/cooling".

End of story.

Molon Labe
06-23-2009, 09:40 AM
Click on the 'Home' button for your page, read the petition.

Now click on the wiki article about the Oregon Petition. Read the text of the Oregon Petition. Fred Seitz, Oregon Institute... Google 'Oregon Petition' if you don't believe me. You're site comes up 4th, right above the Sourcewatch article which you should read if you want more info.

After being vetted, Seitz probably changed the name--or moved the site. It's always been known as the Oregon Petition--which was preceded by the Liepzig Declaration.

I'm willing to look into if it's a scam or not. So far, I don't see any evidence that it's illegitimate. "Probably" changing the name and being similar isn't much to go on for disregarding it IMO. But I'm not closed to the possibility that it's a farce. It doesn't seem too likely.

The real farce is when the federal government tries to sell bills like HR 146 as "conservation", when in reality it's simply a federal land grab of about 2 mill acres. They use the U.N. Agenda 21 garbage to implement these laws on American citizens in the name of global security.

Or when people like David De Rothschild are treated as "experts" and get to preach to me about nature and conservation on Eco Trip..... and propaganda TV such as the Sundance channel that pushes this B.S as if there's no debate.

I have never heard much of a convincing arguement that GCC is man made. There is too little research into plausible causes such as solar cycles....and too much emphasis on 20th century warming trends and CO2 levels.
Hint: CO2 is good...without it plants die.

One of the best quotes I've read recently came from a Japanese study that compared the modern day computer climate modeling to a new form of ancient astrology. That about sums it up for me.

Here's some more resources for you guys that think the GCC is on the up and up.

The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870&ei=ytdASpOmM4nKqgLZ8PDkCw&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle

CBC Global Warming Doomsday Called Off
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295

http://www.icecap.us/

http://climatedebatedaily.com/

http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/show/2008/04/29/global-warming/

Lager
06-23-2009, 10:39 AM
Here's an issue to think about. Who are we to decide what the optimal temperature is for the planet? What records do we go back to? The early 1800's? 1920? 1980's? Yes it is true that compared to ____________ (insert your reference of choice) we are warmer, but compared to _____________ , we are cooler. But if we just all reduce our carbon footprint, and retool our entire economy, we can restore, or maintain that "optimum" condition.
If it's caution preached by conservatives, it's caution because of the known tendency for the left to want to use this issue as a way to further their environmental agendas. Nothing more sinister. The inference I've heard thrown around a time or two, that those who deny man made climate change are equivalent to holocaust deniers is ridiculous.

wilbur
06-23-2009, 12:22 PM
Here's an issue to think about. Who are we to decide what the optimal temperature is for the planet? What records do we go back to? The early 1800's? 1920? 1980's? Yes it is true that compared to ____________ (insert your reference of choice) we are warmer, but compared to _____________ , we are cooler. But if we just all reduce our carbon footprint, and retool our entire economy, we can restore, or maintain that "optimum" condition.
If it's caution preached by conservatives, it's caution because of the known tendency for the left to want to use this issue as a way to further their environmental agendas.


Separate the science and the politics... accepting or rejecting a scientific theory does not dictate what your political agenda must be. Some conservatives are so desperate not to lend any credibility to those on the other side that they are willing to deny scientific fact or even well established scientific theories at all costs, in order to keep pretending the left is 100% unanimously wrong on everything (pundits, and talk radio hosts especially)... that a couple ideas traditionally supported by the left might just be accurate seems to be too much to bear for some.. its a concession that, for whatever reason, cannot be tolerated. If you think AGW is a real possibility, that doesn't mean you have to sign on for carbon credits and the like... choices about the role of government will still be guided by your conservative worldview.

But for many, the greater evil is that the left might be perceived to be more credible on an issue than the right... even when they might be, in reality.

As far as the optimum, well.... we don't know.. that would depend on our specific aims... but we do know that even natural rapid changes in climate have led to dramatic changes in ecosystems.. including mass extinctions and the like... things that could most certainly pose difficulties for us. The concern isnt so much about what the a new global average might be, but over the rate of change.


Nothing more sinister. The inference I've heard thrown around a time or two, that those who deny man made climate change are equivalent to holocaust deniers is ridiculous.

Its not when you see the level of the discourse, as illustrated in the OP.. which sadly seems to dominate the landscape... can you look at the OP and some of the following posts and really say they arent as ridiculous as holocaust deniers? They most certainly are. Who can look at the nonsense in the OP and walk away claiming there is a clear thinking, rational adult with good methodologies in his decision making process on this issue? I wish I could say these types were the exception to the rule, but they arent, in my experience.

Lager
06-23-2009, 01:06 PM
And can you not say that there are those on the left, who embrace the idea with an almost cult like following, happy to believe that man is responsible for changing the climate drastically because it meshes so well with their anti-fossil fuel obsession? Even though they haven't got a clue about the science behind it, both the empirically proven, and the theoretical? They've even found a Jim Jones in the form of St. Al Gore, who is using exaggeration, hypebole and evangelical style sermons to rouse his flock and is actually discouraging any scientific questioning about what he's already decided is unassailable and beyond reproach.

wilbur
06-23-2009, 02:27 PM
And can you not say that there are those on the left, who embrace the idea with an almost cult like following, happy to believe that man is responsible for changing the climate drastically because it meshes so well with their anti-fossil fuel obsession? Even though they haven't got a clue about the science behind it, both the empirically proven, and the theoretical? They've even found a Jim Jones in the form of St. Al Gore, who is using exaggeration, hypebole and evangelical style sermons to rouse his flock and is actually discouraging any scientific questioning about what he's already decided is unassailable and beyond reproach.

Sure... but the predominant posture I see seems to be "they do it, we don't"... all while fallacies that easily match the absurdity of the worst of the left-wing hysteria are spewed forth all over the place (see the OP). The entire anti-agw movement seems powered by such obvious fallacies, accompanied by the delusion that they are somehow fighting the good fight from some intellectual high ground when compared with the left.

Molon Labe
06-23-2009, 03:43 PM
Its not when you see the level of the discourse, as illustrated in the OP.. which sadly seems to dominate the landscape... can you look at the OP and some of the following posts and really say they arent as ridiculous as holocaust deniers? They most certainly are. Who can look at the nonsense in the OP and walk away claiming there is a clear thinking, rational adult with good methodologies in his decision making process on this issue? I wish I could say these types were the exception to the rule, but they arent, in my experience.

I can't speak for those who simply deny because they see it as a partisan issue...that's their misfortune and lack of critical thinking ability. I didn't come to my conclusions lightly and have tried reading about this since college. The first books I ever read on the subject were the ones written by Dr. Dixie Lee Ray...and are still two of the best for looking at this with a calm approach and not the fearmongering that has been the norm for so long.

I personally believe that it's the lack of Pirates that caused global warming. I base this on the current research finding a correlation between the two.

http://neveryetmelted.com/wp-images/PirateGraph.jpg

Clearly Pirates cause global warming.