Global Warming Update
Tags: liberal lies, Science.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
I done told and I done told you:
Natural forces as opposed to human activity are largely responsible for temperature fluctuations, according to a new study the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released today as Congress prepares to vote on global warming legislation.
Internal email messages show the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suppressed the report and silenced the author because the scientific evidence did not square with the Obama administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide, CEI claims. The EPA has become overly reliant upon outdated information from the United Nations and has ignored major new scientific developments, the censored study concludes.
“While we hoped that the EPA would release the final report, we’re tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its administrator has been talking transparency, since she took office,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman.
New scientific data highlighted in the report shows that ocean cycles and solar cycles are probably the most important factors behind temperature fluctuations. Moreover, satellite information now indicates there is little chance of endangerment from greenhouse gases, according to the report.
Some of the major developments overlooked by EPA official include a continued decline in global temperatures, an emerging consensus that hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense and new studies that demonstrate water vapor will have a moderating influence on temperature.
Going forward, CEI has called upon the EPA to independently analyze the science and to become more transparent in its own reporting.
We can see why this was suppressed – the vote yesterday in the House would have swung overwhelmingly against if an official report came out last week or so showing that the whole concept of anthropogenic global warming is invalid. Al Gore is wrong, liberals – I know, I know; its hard to believe that a hack politician with no science training at all could be wrong on something like global warming, but there it is. I’m sure that Al Gore will get right on it and revise his “consensus”.
It is full steam ahead into liberal-land, boys and girls…and the fact that none of the problems liberalism proposes to fix actually exist doesn’t penetrate the liberal mind. They’re going to fix it, anyway. We’ll be many years undoing the damage Obama and his Democrats are creating.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
47 Responses to “Global Warming Update”
Caucus of Corruption
This again?
Besides that fact that the CEI lacks any authority over the issue at all, if you’re actually interested in what the “supressed” report says, you can read about it here.
winnow,
Your link begins by attacking the messenger – a clear indication that the message is 100% correct.
authority comes with the truth winnowhowho…you just dont get it…
congress has perpetrated a fraud upon america with its cap and trade legislation….it is nothing but another socialist democrat move to damage both the image of the USA (by making us look like fools in the eyes of the rest of the world) and disingeniously assail the free market system and discourage the public’s opinion of it…based on LIES about teddy bears and coastal flooding from some ducky running about crying that the sky is falling….
Wow,
Congress ramrods legislation through without the campaign promises of posting said legislation to allow public scrutiny, reading said legislation before debate, transparency, etc. etc. etc. etc.
A fraud heaped upon the American people just so the government can get their hands on more money and will have ZERO impact on stopping naturally occurring climate change.
Wow winnow, does any of the individuals in Congress have any authority over the issue? Is there a single climatologist in the Congress to be the absolute authority on the issue? It is a shame that the Democrat controlled Congress and Senate cherry picks their data and passes a bill that has not been read nor allowed ample time for debate. Why is that? Simple, they new that the American people would have eventually wised up and found the holes and real intentions of said legislation.
Pathetic.
It is a shame that the Democrat controlled Congress and Senate cherry picks their data and passes a bill that has not been read nor allowed ample time for debate.
Not to minnow, it ain’t. She doesn’t care about what happens to her country, just as long as it’s the Donks runnin’ it.
minnow, how’s DAV these days? You two still an item?
how can the congress keep ramming bills through they done even read?
it seems criminal.
done – dont
Obamateur ran as a new kind of politician, but in reality it’s business as usual with a hard left ideology.
But with this legislation, prices of everything will go up since all forms of energy will be taxed – food, fuel, power, etc. etc.
The largest tax increase in history perpetuated by the largest scam in history. The libs want electric cars but those cars will have to be charges with power generated by coal, fuel oil and natural gas burning power plants – so where are the CO2 savings?
True, TOL, electric cars, as I said yesterday, don’t do anything until electricity comes from green sources. BUT, in the long run, electric cars are the way to go. Once we switch over to renewable sources, then we’ll reap the benefits. People also do have the option of buying green energy right now, and using that to charge their cars. Not that they do, necessarily, but the option’s there. Ethanol is only necessary for ships and planes– it’s too costly and takes too much work and time to convert enough plants into biofuels for all our cars– only planes, which can’t run on electricity, and ships, which probably could run on electricity, but very slowly, need actual combustion engines, IMO. But I’m no engineer, so…
So, if government does something you like, write a report you agree with, then its ok. But if it does something to suppress a poorly written “report” from someone who is unqualified to write that report then you object. I guess your call for better government only holds true if the net result is something you agree with.
Fun fact: CEI has a history of misrepresenting peer-reviewed data. Those emails that have been released suggest that this was the EPA’s biggest concern.
Here is a fun question about electric cars… where is a source for green batteries going to come from? How are the spent and used up battereis going to be disposed of and what will be the hazards of storying them? Even with recycling, you will not be able to have a 100% recovery. Right now there is onlyl one batter per car… add more electric cars and your looking at least 10 to 20 per car… sooner of later that is a lot of waste to deal with. To make a Prius, the shipping alone is amazing… how much waste is made from shipping parts from Canada to Europe to make the batteries then from the Europe to the US to make the Prius?
Sooner or later these electric cars are going to be involved in a crash… how many pounds of toxins are going to be released when 1000+ pounds of batteries go up in smoke? We are not just talking about CO2 here… there are a lot of toxic heavy metals in batteries that will not react very well to being on fire… (much less the people and animals that breath in the toxic fumes from the car fires)
Hybrids and Electric Cars are wonderful ideas but more research needs to be done before the US scraps a system that works for one that has not even been thought out much less set into place…
And now you’re quoting the CEI on global warming? The same outfit funded by ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Cigna Corporation, Dow Chemical, et al?
Remember a couple of years ago when CEI founder, Fred Smith, showed his profound ignorance of the issue when he stated:
CEI is a propaganda outlet, nothing more, nothing less. For it’s founder to display such profound ignorance should immediately dismiss them from the debate. No wonder their report was ’supressed’.
Go and read about CEI’s other campaigns and you’ll get a pretty clear idea of their laissez-faire, big corporate agenda.
What a moron!
dvindice,
liberals never think long term. They look for a quick band-aid. Here is another example, airbags. Airbags were going to save lives. With little testing and many warnings, Congress MANDATED their installation in cars. Well, the enevitable happened, airbags started killing people especially small adults, teens and children.
But they could feel good about themselves because they just regurgitated the line that they were saving lives. Airbags have come a long way, but this is just another example of Congressional reactionary politics that gets us into trouble. Another example is the new refrigerant in car A/C systems. The material used is corrosive and toxic. Liberal Congress and President ramrod it through without thinking long term and the full consequences, but they were allegedly saving the ozone layer and not passing said legislation for lobbyists of the company that makes the replacement refrigerant.
The same thing will happen with this energy tax, the long term and full consequences of this bill has not be thought out nor has it been debated nor has the full bill been read by the Congress and THE AMERICAN PEOPLE – that was promised by the Obamateur and the lib Democrats in Congress.
This is change the obamatons, useful idiots and lemmings wanted.
From 1990 to 2008, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration identified 175 fatalities as because of air bags. Most of these (104) have been children, while the rest are adults. About 3.3 million air bag deployments have occurred and the agency estimates more than 6,377 lives saved and countless injuries prevented.
froot,
I don’t know where you get your statistics from but this is also from the NHTSA: From 1996-2000, 191 people died from air bag-related injuries, including 116 children, according to government statistics.
Also remember, airbags are a substitute for the car’s structural ability to protect their passengers. Congress also mandated CAFE standards that could only be met by decreasing the weight of the vehicle. Safety had to be sacrificed in order to meet those arbitrary standards set by Congress. Cars now destroy themselves (impact and crumple zones – repair and replacement costs have offset the fuel savings) in order to protect its passengers.
As I said, when airbags first came out, they accounted for the majority of those deaths that you sighted. While they still have airbag related deaths, which are indeed fewer and far between, Congress mandated their use with little testing and debate. Another safety concern for airbags not looked at by Congress is the propellant used to inflate them. The chemical sodium azide (NaN3) which is toxic and causes chemical burns of the skin. At the time, it was the only propellant available. This chemical has been phased out. But, why would Congress mandate the use of such a toxic chemical?
More dangers of politicians not making use of TRUE scientific resources and instead relying on their own ideology and agenda.
OK, lol, I can’t believe we’re having this argument. Regarding weight: weight and size have less to do with survivability than good engineering. Moral? Buy a BMW.
True, airbags cause death, and originally used dangerous chemicals, but all in all, they were a good idea. If we’re afraid to pass any bill because of potential negative consequences, and are forever waiting for further research to come in, we get nowhere.
Although I don’t see how waiting another few days before passing the climate change bill could hurt. Unless Mr. Boehner puts in some sneakily worded earmarks.
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last century. Agencies such as the IPCC, Federal Climate Change Science Program (commissioned, by the way, by President Bush), Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, InterAcademy Council, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, Network of African Science Academies, Royal Society of New Zealand, Polish Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, European Science Foundation, National Research Council, American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, American Society for Microbiology, Australian Coral Reef Society, Institute of Biology (UK), Society of American Forecasters, The Wildlife Society, American Geophysical Union, European Federation of Geologists, European Geosciences Union, Geological Society of America, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, Stratigraphy Commision of the Geological Society of London, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Preventative Medicine, American Public Health Association, Australian Medical Association, European Center for Disease Prevention and Control, World Federation of Public Health Associations, WHO, American Meteorological Society, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, World Meteorological Organization, American Quaternary Association, International Union for Quaternary Research, American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, American Statistical Association, and Engineers Australia have all concluded that Global Warming is REAL AND MAN-MADE. But remember, there’s no scientific consensus on Global Warming.
Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
“It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords “global climate change”. Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be “remarkable”. According to the report, “authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.”
“As soon as the scientific community began to come together on the science of climate change, the pushback began,” according to University of California, San Diego historian Naomi Oreskes.
HAVE YOU REMOVED YOUR HEAD FROM THE SAND YET?
Individual companies and industry associations — representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, for instance — formed lobbying groups with names like the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment. ICE’s game plan called for enlisting greenhouse doubters to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact”.
Several journalists have argued that the strategy resembles the one adopted by tobacco lobbyists after being confronted with new data linking cigarettes to cancer — to shift public perception of the discoveries toward that of a myth, unwarranted claim, or exaggeration rather than mainstream scientific theory. In 2006, The Guardian reported:
There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip Morris’s consultants. “Junk science” meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. “Sound science” meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive. Both lobbies recognised that their best chance of avoiding regulation was to challenge the scientific consensus. As a memo from the tobacco company Brown and Williamson noted, “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”
HOW ABOUT NOW?
Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming, although there is less agreement on the specific consequences of this warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming “unproved,” dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of unsettled science.
On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as “coauthors” of the article, nor agreed with its contents. Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list.
fr00tn00b,
We’ve been reading your sort of comment for 25 years now…it hasn’t happened, it isn’t happening, it won’t happen…anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.
bongo,
Attacking the messenger just means you know the message is correct.
OK, so just because you think that AGW is a hoax, you ignore my post? As I’ve been saying all along, you are deliberately burying your head in the sand. I’d like to see a substantive response to my message. Otherwise, I’ll take it as a sign that you know we’re right, and are simply in denial.
“Attacking the messenger just means you know the message is correct.”
So does that mean that if I post something from Kos, and you attack Kos that I’m right?
“Attacking the messenger just means you know the message is correct.”
-Mark
Bongo was not attacking the person, he was attacking his credentials and motivations. Anyone funded by the very industry that creates greenhouse gases in question should be called into question. It is called conflict of interest. Its like assigning the investigation of the causes of the financial collapse to AIG. Sure, they may be able to be objective, but not likely.
Further, the person who had authored the report being suppressed by the EPA was someone who did not have a background in the field on which he was writing. As it has been pointed out, that does not automatically disqualify a writer but it does require a higher level of scrutiny to accept that person’s conclusions. I would like you to show where the individual in question has proven himself on this topic.
If you are building a steel framed building the welders are required to be certified. While one who has never been certified but has done a lot of welding may indeed be able to produce safe welds, it would be foolish to allow him to try without some vetting.
Mark,
No matter how many climatologist and scientists dispute man made global warming, our institutional liberals will ignore it, and continue full steam ahead in pushing the agenda their leaders demand of them.
They are complete rubes for the rhetoric.
cluster,
The number of climatologists and scientists that dispute AGW does matter. It looks like froot has provided plenty of data in that regard and it looks like somewhere over 90% see a connection between human activity and climate change. Perhaps it is you who have preconceived conclusions.
By the way, just for your information, I have not lapped up the “wisdom” of the position held by a vast majority of climatologists. I don’t feel I am qualified to be certain on this issue. I have done some reading on it and have found the discussions would require me to do much more in depth research. And even then, I am not sure that would be enough. I would suspect that you too do not have the background to make a determination.
What does seem clear to me is that conservatives who oppose this theory have too often cited short term weather patterns as proof that climate change is not happening. Such citations do nothing but prove one his hell bent to come to some preconceived conclusion rather than taking the time to actually speak intelligently on the matter.
cam,
How do we know the “vast majority” of climatologists agree with AGW? Because people with a vested interest in massive government intervention have told us so…you go get me a secret ballot of everyone with a degree in climatology and then tell me that the “vast majority” agree with AGW…until then, you’re just repeating stuff which has a high probability of just being made up.
The facts are these – the world has not suffered massive catastrophe, and we should have by 2004 if the AGW theory was correct. Ergo, AGW isn’t happening. Q.E.D.
“How do we know the “vast majority” of climatologists agree with AGW?”
-Mark
Because, as froot noted above, this is the case as found by a poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago. If you want to read about it you can look at this Wiki article here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
By the way degrees in climatology are relatively new. Many climatologists are from the fields of math, physics, chemistry, and the earth sciences.
What prediction has it that we should have suffered a massive catastrophe by 2004?
cam,
Its always best not to try and refute me on AGW – a look at the facts always confirms my view. Example: your link to the supposed study which showed “The number of climatologists and scientists that dispute AGW does matter. It looks like froot has provided plenty of data in that regard and it looks like somewhere over 90% see a connection between human activity and climate change” seems to be based upon this:
A response rate of 31% to the query…at best, you’ve got a large majority of a small minority agreeing with the concepts that global mean temperatures have risen and that human beings have played a significant role in such increase…which then immediately begs the question, “what percentage of these self-selected respondents believe that something like Kyoto or the current Pelosi-Waxman bill are effective in dealing with the problem?”.
It should also be noted that the phrasing is odd: what does “earth scientists” really mean? What were the criteria for including someone in a list of 10,000 “earth scientists”? Of the respondents, how many of them are dependent upon government “global warming” grants to keep going? How many have published in the past definitive defenses of the theory of AGW and thus have an incentive to maintain the theory, come what may? Can we get a list of those who didn’t respond so that we may query them to determine why they didn’t feel the need to deal with what the Powerful consider such a burning issue of the day? On and on it goes, each question putting the credibility of the assertion in doubt.
Do you begin to see how utterly flimsy your views here are? How they are based on nothing? Its a hoax, cam.
Those who haven’t read fr00tn00b’s comment (e.g. Mark) should. I myself was inclined to skip it, but fortunately did not.
Mark,
Which one is it? Do you disagree with the conclusions on climate change or do you disagree with the legislative actions being used as a partial solution to it?
You need to chose. If you are fully convinced that climate change is not happening based on human activity then there is no need for a solution and therefore no need to argue effectiveness.
If you have so many questions, read the entire report put out by Doran and Zimmerman.
Mark: Its always best not to try and refute me on AGW – a look at the facts always confirms my view.
Too funny. Mark’s on a roll. I also thought this one was a real gem: Attacking the messenger just means you know the message is correct.
What we know about AGW –
The computer models – WRONG! Have been proven so. Have “predicted” problems in the next 50 years or so, but failed to predict the latest cooling trend which started in 1998. Models are only as good as the programming that has gone into them and are subject to human error.
Temperature gathering devices were installed incorrectly. Too many of these data collectors were installed too close to artificial heat sources (A/C units, burn barrels, heat retaining surfaces, etc. etc). The data used for measuring warming and used in the inaccurate models have been proven faulty.
Al Gore’s “hockey stick” graph shows that INCREASE in CO2 FOLLOWS INCREASE in TEMPERATURE, and not the other way around. It took 800 years for CO2 to track temperature. This is in no way accounts for CO2 to be the cause of temperature increases.
More intense hurricane activity was predicted in the wake of Katrina by the alarmists. The following years proved otherwise.
Ice thickness is on the increase and has been for several years. Another computer model failed to predict this increased activity.
There are so many holes in their theories based on faulty data and models that the alarmists fall back on the argument “Can we take the chance?”
This little gem was too hard to pass up: “If we’re afraid to pass any bill because of potential negative consequences, and are forever waiting for further research to come in, we get nowhere.” – froot
You fell for it! Wow, liberal politicians never passed up the tactic of giving us the worst case scenario as if it happened regularly when it comes to offshore drilling, or drilling in the desolate tundra area in ANWR. Again, they used the “Can we take that chance?” line.
Unbelievable.
Ice thickness is on the increase?
Oh, really?
So tiredoflibs knows more about polar ice than thousands of scientists on the case?
bongo, really! Thousands of scientists? Hardly. Now would these be true scientists or those looking for free government handouts called research grants? But that is another topic….
Global sea ice levels are now equal to those recorded 29 years ago. This is according to the University of Illinois’s Arctic Climate Research Center. Why only since 1979? Because that was the first year we started recording this data. But for you people out there howling over the melting sea ice and the endangered polar bears .. now what? Sea ice is at the same level as almost 30 years ago.
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
But hey don’t take my word on computer models try:
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen:
Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.
As I said, the models failed to predict this. While you moonbats scream about what the models do “predict”, you conveniently ignore what has taken place that the models have not predicted. They are faulty as are the arguments for this legislation on a man-made disaster. By man-made, I mean fraud, hoax, etc. etc.
We have had SEVERAL ice ages/warmings/meltings on this planet long before man existed, long before the industrial revolution and long before the automobile and do cherry pick information, massage data to fit models to support a political agenda is not science.
But if you want to count yourself among the “sky is falling” moonbats, be my guest.
The following is an interesting read.
Carlin and Davidson go on to recite the scientific work that shows rather clearly that human activity is a minor factor, at most, in climate change–which has, of course, been occurring from the beginning of Earth’s history to the present. Their report is a useful summary of the evidence for those who are not familiar with it.
If the Obama administration gets its way, Americans will not become aware of the scientific evidence:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023915.php
lol, and if you get your way–which you have–you will continue to ignore that all the scientific evidence and scientists point to AGW. Read my previous post. Yes, I know it’s long and tedious, but if you want to be educated, you should read it.
You know, I really wish I could be a global warming denier. It’s so much easier to sit around thinking that my lifestyle is not going to do irreparable harm to the environment than actually trying to change my way of life. I suspect that’s why many of you are still in denial. I really wish I could be too. But I woke up to reality long long ago, and realize that reality isn’t always what you want it to be.
Isn’t it also odd that no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change, but climate change denier scientists are generally isolated individuals?
froot, you already ignore the scientific evidence that disputes AGW!
“Isn’t it also odd that no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change, but climate change denier scientists are generally isolated individuals?”
Isolated? Hardly. Isn’t it amazing that the UN banned these organized individuals from presenting their evidence and cases before the IPCC? Isn’t it also amazing that these people are always labeled as “being in the pocket of big oil” rather than dispute their claims?
Froot, REAL SCIENCE takes in all data and does not cherry-pick the data to support their findings like the “scientists” who support AGW! Your long and tedious post is wrought with those individuals who use only the data that supports their THEORY and purposefully ignore all the others. Educated? More like indoctrinated! Too bad, they are not real scientists who use the true scientific approach in explaining their theories.
But to them and their lemming followers – “The science is in and the debate is over.” – The Nobel Prize “Winner” said so.
You know, TOL, I’d like you to debunk every single one of my cited organizations with evidence for why they’re bogus. It’s easy to make blanket claims like “Your long and tedious post is wrought with those individuals who use only the data that supports their THEORY and purposefully ignore all the others” without finding hard data to back it up.
Good luck debunking them all. And as I said above, I wish you were right…
Simple, froot, the erroneous data and faulty computer models which are the basis for the conclusions offered by the sky is falling crowd are all the evidence that is needed to be skeptical of the whole idea.
Also, the IPCC intentionally banned and ignored data offered by dissenters. Another reason to accept conclusions offered by a highly politically charged agenda oriented group.
These scientists are relying on a snapshot of data (<100 years) to determine the computer models for climate on a planet that 4.2 billion years old. Those models are faulty and have been admitted to being so, but their conclusions BASED ON THOSE MODELS remain unchanged. Why is that?
Again, if their data is so sound, then why to they intentionally ignore opposing data, ban scientists who use the true scientific method to support their findings and dismiss those same scientists with “in the pockets of big oil” rather than dispute their claims.
Face it, When considering ALL climate data, it does not support their claims. Any true scientists can see that. The problem is agenda politics is steering the argument and not true scientific data.
its fraud…its a crime…and over half of congress is guilty of it in thier never ending lust to figure out new ways to generate more taxes for them to waste
been taxed enough already?
go to a TEA party!!
comming soon to a demonstration near you
fr00tn00b says: June 29th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
first, I believe that good stewardship of God’s creation IS a true conservative value.
and, as u may know, I feel many of these wingnuts are PROVEN to not be true conservatives.
but I also feel that hindsight may well prove that AGW is mostly about the money.
if climate change is man influenced, then what to make of the many times the earth cooled (ice ages) & recovered BEFORE man?
TOL: you only attacked the IPCC. I see at least fifty other organizations I mentioned. Get busy convincing me. Also, interesting that you say Earth is 4 billion + years old. I thought y’all believed it was five thousand years old, and created by God.
Remember back when we relied on whale oil for fuel? Like for lamps and stuff? (OK, coal powered trains, but whatever). The problem was that whales weren’t reproducing fast enough. So, we switched over to petroleum. Yes, people made boatloads of money; Rockefeller is the most famous example. If the whale-oil industry then had had as much influence as the petroleum industry today, we’d STILL be trying to get those whales to reproduce faster. In this way, the oil industry is holding back our development.
I don’t think that anybody disagrees with the assertion that eventually, we’ll have to get off fossil fuels. So, WHY NOT NOW???
tiredoflibbs: These scientists are relying on a snapshot of data (<100 years) to determine the computer models for climate on a planet that 4.2 billion years old. Those models are faulty and have been admitted to being so, but their conclusions BASED ON THOSE MODELS remain unchanged. Why is that?
Actually, not a word of that is true. “These scientists” don’t only rely on recent data. There’s an important difference between faulty and incomplete models. And the conclusions are always adjusted as more data come in. To think otherwise is simply wrong, and belies a profound ignorance of how climate models work.
Now, that is not to say that climate models are completely accurate in every detail, and perhaps not even reasonably accurate on some. On the other hand, it should go without saying that not being 100% right doesn’t necessarily mean being 100% wrong. That only happens in cartoons.
Ohioorrin mentioned “that hindsight may well prove that AGW is mostly about the money”. In a way I’m inclined to agree — most analyses from disparate sources suggest that a reasonably aggressive pursuit of improved energy efficiency and renewable energy sources will almost certainly be less costly than trying to maintain the status quo.
rico, they have admitted their models are wrong. The “predictions” based on those models are unchanged! They are still preaching the the same lies.
They are still preaching the 0.7C increase in 100 years is a result of AGW. STILL! So do not tell me that they amend their statements as “new data comes in”. You admit the models are both faulty and wrong but still endorse the conclusions based on those models. Also, temperature collection data has been proven faulty as well, but changes to conclusions are between few and non-existent. The UN and IPCC still has not changed their tune despite the evidence contrary.
It is about money. But it is not about money from renewable energies, it is about wealth redistribution from countries that “rich” to the poor developing countries (and who controls that money) who are the worst polluters in the world.
If renewable energy and other alteratives (wind, water solar, etc. etc.) were the answer, then why are NIMBY crowds who demand this legislation have been fighting efforts to construct solar and wind farms?
The UN and IPCC are just so confident in their data….
OR (more realistically)
If you do not believe in global warming…..
… your views are not welcome. That is the way that the global warming crowd likes to play the game: simply do not invite “deniers” to the ballpark.
Next December the UN is going to have a major climate change conference in Copenhagen. So leading up to the event, a host of smaller events are going to take place around the world. One of those events is a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group. The purpose is to scare the tar out of the world into believing that the polar bears are dying off at alarming rates due to man-made global warming. We know this to be entirely untrue … but that is beside the point for the purposes of this UN meeting.
So naturally, if you are a scientist who does not believe in man-made global warming, you are not going to be invited to this little polar bear conference … even if you are a world-renown specialist on polar bears. Dr. Mitchell Taylor has been researching polar bears in Canada and the Arctic Circle for 30 years. But there’s one problem, Dr. Taylor insists that polar bear populations are actually higher than they were 30 years ago. He also does not buy into this man-made global warming scam.
So Dr. Taylor obtained funding to attend the Polar Bear Specialist Group meeting. Then his funding was taken away by members of the group because his views on global warming don’t fit into the rest grand global warming scheme.
The chairman, Dr. Andy Derocher, explained in an email that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears but “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition.” Dr. Taylor was also told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful.” Unhelpful? Yeah .. unhelpful to those who seek to destroy free markets with global warming scares. Are we going to wake up to this nonsense before its too late?
On a similar note, Alan Carlin – the EPA scientist whose study critical of global warming was silenced – has finally spoken up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Suppressed-EPA-scientist-breaks-silence-speaks-on-Fox-News-49513762.html
They are just so confident in their data. The debate is over (before it began). Silence of the truth is always correct (in only the liberal wold). Any opposition is ignored.
This is the modern dark ages.
They are just so confident of their data……
Global warming is finally coming under the scrutiny it deserves. Not only are NASA satellites showing a cooling trend (http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm), but 700 scientists-to the UN’s 50-have come out in opposition to the patently false claims of the global warming lobby (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9FAF4DCDB7).
Most damning, Harvard meteorologists have been unable to replicate the findings of the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) without the use of a technique called “data-padding.”[1] The IPCC actually admitted to engaging in this deceptive practice. Without this padding, the infamous warming trend falls by several degrees. In essence, the IPCC and its primary source manipulated data (dare we say “lied”?) to produce a desired result.
[1] Willie H. Soon, David R. Legates, and Sallie L. Baliunas, “Estimation and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 31, 14 February 2004, 2.
The dark ages continues……