Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,335
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    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

    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

    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
    Last edited by FlaGator; 03-06-2009 at 12:45 AM.

    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  
     

  2. #32  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    I think I'll go start a tire fire.
    COUNT ME IN!!:D
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,335
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    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.

    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  
     

  5. #35  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02...t_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!
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,335
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Voodoo climatology.

    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  
     

  7. #37  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,072
    One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology.
    LMAO.

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

  8. #38  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    Yeah, I noticed the rigorous citations and references in your original post.

    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?
    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
  •