Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Rebel Yell View Post
    or Al Gore.
    or the MSM. :D
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member Rebel Yell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South GA
    Posts
    5,181
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    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
    I feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    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...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    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...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,302
    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 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

    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.

    Source is from GlobalWarmingHoax.com

    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

    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.
    Last edited by FlaGator; 03-05-2009 at 04:28 PM.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    HR Corporate Scum patriot45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Plant City, Florida
    Posts
    10,892
    Hey, make up my mind! It was chilly this morning and its hot right now C'mon, cooling or warming ! :D

    : “Grow your own dope. Plant a liberal.”
    ” Obummercare, 20 percent of the time it works everytime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    HR Corporate Scum patriot45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Plant City, Florida
    Posts
    10,892
    Did some digging and found proof of glowball warming! Its true!


    : “Grow your own dope. Plant a liberal.”
    ” Obummercare, 20 percent of the time it works everytime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,302
    Quote Originally Posted by patriot45 View Post
    Did some digging and found proof of glowball warming! Its true!

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

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    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 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
    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."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,015
    I think I'll go start a tire fire.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •