Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  Fraud, Hoax, Scam, Scandal and Conspiracy (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 5 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Fraud, Hoax, Scam, Scandal and Conspiracy
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 1874
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 24, 2009 01:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Of course, anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knew "Man Made Global Warming" was a gigantic hoax from almost the first moment it appeared on the radar screens.

Still, it's nice to see the lying crackpot..so called scientists...and Algore exposed for the lying piles of crap they really are.

Still, don't look for the mental midget O'Bomber and his so called "science adviser", Nancy Pee-Lousy and Harry Reid to back off the Crap and Tax bill currently stalled in Congress.

This was never about saving the planet, saving the Polar Bears or saving anything or anyone at all. Nor was it ever about "green jobs". It's always been about total control over energy and energy use which translates into total control over people.

It's just another wet dream of leftists everywhere and they're the group in the forefront of pushing the hoax.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
James Delingpole


If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 1874
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 24, 2009 01:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling
Junk science exposed among climate-change believers
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.

It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."

Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem 'and not something secret.' " Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming "to hide the decline." Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann's past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily.

There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"

In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.

Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.

We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.

Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 4096
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 24, 2009 02:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
i agree with you that global warming is a chicken little problem.

however i agree with those that believe we need a new approach to energy. also to garbage, consumption in general and pollution in general. unless you want to be wading through the debris of our dirty-energy society in a VERY few years time.

krikey, man, we are already littering space...how much more junk and coal and trash can we produce and call it "providing value"?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 1874
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 24, 2009 02:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
"Climate Gate" Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA
By Chris Horner on 11.24.09 @ 9:46AM

Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies' refusal - for nearly three years - to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding "ClimateGate" scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries' freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK's East Anglia University.

All of that material and that sought for years by CEI go to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, "cap-and-trade" legislation and the EPA's threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door.

CEI sought the following documents, among others, NASA's failure to provide which within thirty days will prompt CEI to file suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:

- internal discussions about NASA's quiet correction of its false historical U.S. temperature records after two Canadian researchers discovered a key statistical error, specifically discussion about whether and why to correct certain records, how to do so, the impact or wisdom or potential (or real) fallout therefrom or reaction to doing so (requested August 2007);

- internal discussions relating to the emails sent to James Hansen and/or Reto A. Ruedy from Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre calling their attention to the errors in NASA/GISS online temperature data (August 2007);

- those relating to the content, importance or propriety of workday-hour posts or entries by GISS/NASA employee Gavin A. Schmidt on the weblog or "blog" RealClimate, which is owned by the advocacy Environmental Media Services and was started as an effort to defend the debunked "Hockey Stick" that is so central to the CRU files. RealClimate.org is implicated in the leaked files, expressly offered as a tool to be used "in any way you think would be helpful" to a certain advocacy campaign, including an assertion of Schmidt's active involvement in, e.g., delaying and/or screening out unhelpful input by "skeptics" attempting to comment on claims made on the website.

This and the related political activism engaged in are inappropriate behavior for a taxpayer-funded employee, particularly on taxpayer time. These documents were requested in January 2007 and NASA/GISS have refused to date to comply with their legal obligation to produce responsive documents.
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/climate-gate-development-cei-f

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 1874
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 24, 2009 04:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Making war on oil and making war on free market principles in which consumers decide markets will do nothing to alter normal and usual climate cycles.

Further, climate, oil, gas and carbon energy have nothing to do with polluting space and little to do with pollution in general or creating garbage.

In case you don't know, the principal component of fertilizer is OIL.

This thread is about the hoax of man made global warming and those promoting the hoax by falsifying data, hiding data and lying through their teeth.


IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 4096
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 25, 2009 11:09 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
jwhop there is no oil in MY fertilizer! and there need NOT be in anyone's.

and ALL the things you mentioned have a great deal to do with pollution in general and by extension the garbage we have no room for. i take it you have heard of "oil spills"? the residue is visible at my local beach although the last spill that supposedly affected that area was in 2007...and on the other side of the bay there is a whole section of coastline closed for use because of the mess made by another spill in october.

so please spare me the ideal properties of oil as a fuel.

as to the hoax, well i think there have certainly been some dishonest contributors, though i believe a lot of the other contributors were just dupes...but as far as i'm concerned if it takes chicken little to scare people out of using dirty energy well, maybe that's not so bad. it's not like even reasonably intelligent folk like yourself give a rat's ass about what they can't see, ie the rapidly accumulating EFFECTS of our junk-consumer lifestyle.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 1874
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 28, 2009 09:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
quote:
but as far as i'm concerned if it takes chicken little to scare people out of using dirty energy well, maybe that's not so bad....katatonic

I've always particularly loathed "the ends justify the means crowd". It's always the same types making those arguments and usually from a position of "assumed", "self identified" superior intellectual, moral and spiritual development when in reality they don't measure up to even "ordinary" intelligence, morality or spirituality.

In the case before us, that of man made global warming, the lying proponents are the usual suspects; members of the far left Marxist Socialist kook loony tunes club.

It simply won't do to excuse these liars and frauds on the basis "they have good intentions"...because they don't.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 1874
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 28, 2009 09:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Cleaning Out the Climate Science Cesspool
Saturday, November 28, 2009
by Paul Driessen

As legions of scientists, activists, journalists, bureaucrats and politicians prepare to embark for Copenhagen, a predictable barrage of climate horrors has been unleashed, to advance proposals to slash hydrocarbon use and carbon dioxide emissions, restrict economic growth, and implement global governance and taxation.

CO2 has reached a new high (0.0385% of the atmosphere)(that's three(3) one hundredths of one (1) percent and of that 0.0385% total, the man made component is about three percent and the rest is naturally occurring), we’re told, because of cars and “coal-fired factories of death.” Rising seas are forcing families to “flee their homes.” Oceans are becoming “toxic.” Climate change is driving Philippine women into prostitution. Higher temperatures will “increase the likelihood of civil war in Sub-Saharan Africa” and “bring human civilization to a screeching halt.” The Associated Press, BBC and other “mainstream” media dutifully regurgitate every press release.

However, the planet and science are not cooperating with the fear-mongering. There has been no statistically significant global warming for over a decade, despite steadily increasing CO2 levels – and for several years average annual global temperatures have actually declined.

Carbon dioxide plays only a minor role, many scientists now say, and our climate is still controlled by the same natural forces that caused previous climate changes: periodic shifts in ocean currents and jet streams, water vapor and cloud cover, evaporation and precipitation, planetary alignments and the *shape of the Earth’s orbit*, **the tilt and wobble of Earth’s axis**, cosmic ray levels and ***especially solar energy output***.

Far worse for the Climate Armageddon movement, newly released emails from its leading scientists reveal a cesspool of intimidation, duplicity and fraud that could rock Copenhagen and the alarmist agenda to their core. The emails cast deepening suspicion over global warming data, science and models.

They reveal an unprecedented, systematic conspiracy to stifle discussion and debate, conceal and manipulate data, revise temperature trends that contradict predictions of dangerous warming, skew the peer-review process, pressure scientific journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to publish alarmist studies and exclude dissenting analyses, and avoid compliance with Freedom of Information requests.

British Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones to Penn State climatologist Michael Mann, of Hockey Stick infamy: “Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report and Briffa’s suspect tree-ring data]. Keith will do likewise.”

Jones to Mann: “If they [Canadian researchers Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre] ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”

(These actions appear intended to avoid Freedom of Information inquiries. Jones had previously told a researcher, “Why should I make the data available, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Drs. J&M, that’s the scientific method – to ensure that research and experiments are honest, accurate and replicable. Deleting files and data also raises serious ethical, scientific and legal issues.)

Jones: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, lead author of two IPCC reports] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” (Thereby excluding non-alarmist peer-reviewed papers and skewing the IPCC process.)

Jones: “I’ve just completed Mike [Mann’s] trick of adding in the real temps to each series, to hide the decline [in average global temperatures] .…” (Maintain a warming trend, despite contrary evidence.)

Climate scientist Tom Wigley to Mann: “If you think [Yale Professor and Global Renewables editor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.” (Saiers was subsequently dismissed. The American Geophysical Union is a once professional society that has likewise gotten into the censorship, intimidation, climate alarm and money train business.)

These are the very tip of the melting iceberg. To gauge the scope, depth and depravity of the conspiracy, visit Bishop Hill, ClimateDepot.com and An Elegant Chaos on the web.

These supposed scientists built their careers and reputations on conjuring datasets, computer models, scenarios and reports – all claiming that modern civilization’s use of hydrocarbons is about to destroy the planet, and all financed by well over $100 billion in US, UK, EU and other taxpayer money.

Realist climate experts have long smelled a rat. The alarmists’ data didn’t match other data. Their models never worked. Their claims of “consensus” and “unprecedented” warming had no basis in fact. Too many grant and publication decisions were decided by which side of the issue someone was on.

Now, finally, the rat has been flushed from its sewer – by a hacker, whistle-blower or someone who carelessly left “secret” files where a website visitor could find them … and reveal them to the world. Now, finally, even the “mainstream” media can no longer ignore or whitewash the scandal.

The stakes are incredibly high. This bogus, biased “science” is being used to justify expensive, intrusive, repressive, abusive treaties, laws and regulations. The new rules would undermine economies, destroy jobs, close down companies and entire industries, impoverish families and communities, roll back personal freedoms and civil rightsand enrich the lucky few whose lobbyists and connections enable them to corner markets for renewable energy technologies, carbon offsets and emissions trading.

For the most destitute people on the planet, the repercussions from this fraud are even higher. These people – 750 million in Africa alone – do not have electricity, cars, modern homes, jobs or hope for a better future. They die by the millions from malnutrition and lung, intestinal and insect-borne diseases that would be dramatically reduced with access to dependable, affordable energy.

But the alarmists’ bogus, biased “science” is being used to justify building a Climate Wall between these desperate people and the modern, energy-rich world. To justify perpetuating misery, disease and death.

Jones, Mann, Briffa, Trenberth, Wigley, IPCC chief Rajenda Pachauri, White House science advisor John Holdren, CRU scientist Tim Osborn, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researcher Ben Santer and others implicated in this growing scandal should do the honorable thing – and resign their posts. If they refuse, they should be put on paid administrative leave, until every aspect of this collusion and junk science scandal can be thoroughly investigated. Dismissal or other appropriate action should follow.

They should not be allowed to represent their governments or organizations in Copenhagen.

Institutions that received climate alarm grants should be disciplined and removed from future grant conduits, if they knew about these actions – or would have known, had they exercised due diligence.

The entire IPCC and peer review process needs to be repaired. The alarmists and self-appointed censors who have corrupted the system must be replaced with scientists who will ensure honest inquiry and a full airing of all data, hypotheses and perspectives on climate science, economics and policy.

Most importantly, the United States, Britain and all other responsible nations should slam the brakes on every proposed “climate crisis” treaty, agreement, bill, regulatory proposal and endangered species action – until we get to the bottom of this scandal, and determine which data and claims are honest and accurate, which are bogus and unfounded. President Obama should cancel his trip to Copenhagen, and his plans to lobby for a new climate treaty and commit the US to slash its carbon dioxide emissions to a job-killing 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.

It is time to clean out the climate cesspool, and bring integrity, transparency and accountability back to science, law and public policy.

http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulDriessen/2009/11/28/cleaning_out_the _climate_science_cesspool?page=1

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 4096
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 28, 2009 02:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
"I've always particularly loathed "the ends justify the means crowd..."

are you kidding? you believe that military might is necessary to frighten would-be attackers off....you believe not contributing to obama's (and the rest of ours) economy is worth it if it will bring him down...while others suffer the consequences meantime...you believe it was okay that the abortion doctor was murdered because he needed to be stopped...shall i go on?

you're all ABOUT the end justifies the means jwhop...

and global warming is the fantasy of a lot of people nowhere near the left.

dream on.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 4096
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 29, 2009 10:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
and then there's the filtering in of evidence that other planets are warming up, in fact the solar system itself is going through some changes...so manmade or not, we need to be ready for something...but what?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 1874
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 02, 2009 09:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
quote:
are you kidding? you believe that military might is necessary to frighten would-be attackers off....you believe not contributing to obama's (and the rest of ours) economy is worth it if it will bring him down...while others suffer the consequences meantime...you believe it was okay that the abortion doctor was murdered because he needed to be stopped...shall i go on?

you're all ABOUT the end justifies the means jwhop...

and global warming is the fantasy of a lot of people nowhere near the left.

dream on....katatonic


quote:
are you kidding? you believe that military might is necessary to frighten would-be attackers off....katatonic

In a word....YES.

It's far better for a potential attacker/enemy to know they will be destroyed in the attempt....than to have them proceed on the assumption they can succeed at little cost to themselves and kill thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions on both sides in a general war.

If you had bothered to inform yourself you would know Osama bin Laden proceeded with attacks on the United States all through the 1990s on the assumption the US "is a paper tiger". We know this because he released a statement saying so. And why not? Kommander Corruption didn't lift his little finger to defend the United States after the WTC attack in 1993 OR the attack on 2 US embassies in Africa OR the attack against the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia which killed hundreds of Marines OR the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. How encouraging he must have thought when he began planning the 9/11 attacks back in 1998. At no time during this period was the United States "at war" with anyone. The problem was that Osama bin Laden was "at war" with the United States; issued a "declaration of war" against the United States and Kommander Korruption's response was to cut overall US military forces about 40%....while we were being attacked here...in the United States and abroad.

I'm not sure what you actually think with katatonic. But, whatever it is, it's not connected in any way with reality.

quote:
you believe not contributing to obama's (and the rest of ours) economy is worth it if it will bring him down...while others suffer the consequences meantime...katatonic

In a word...YES.

Why would I or any other American with 2 brain cells to rub together support the domestic economic policy or foreign policy of a Loony Tunes Marxist Socialist who is taking the exact opposite actions to those required to actually "do" what he says he is trying to do? It's obvious O'Bomber is an economic dunce who is doing what Marxist Socialists always do when they get control over any nation's government; they destroy the economy in short order and chaos ensures to the detriment of every citizen...execept for their favored few elitist insiders. The sooner O'Bomber is depowered and deterred from his attack on the United States economy and it's citizens, the sooner we can take the correct actions to right the economy. The soonest is November 2, 2010 when all the House of Representatives is up for reelection and 1/3 of the US Senate. In the meantime, I won't lift my little finger to help the Loony Tunes Marxist Socialist destroy the US economy.

quote:
you believe it was okay that the abortion doctor was murdered because he needed to be stopped..katatonic

I don't believe any such thing. He should have been prosecuted and put in jail where he belonged for violating the laws of the state which is exactly what he was doing in his so called "medical practice".

quote:
you're all ABOUT the end justifies the means jwhop... ..katatonic

Your thinking is so out of focus you would need to sharpen it several orders of magnitude to rise to the level of "fuzzy thinking".

The Taliban were attacked and removed for giving al-Qaeda a safe haven from which to plan, train and attack the United States....an attack which culminated on 9/11/01 with the attack on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a planned attack on either the White House or the US Capitol which went off the tracks when passengers on the aircraft attacked the terrorists and brought the plane down in Pennsylvania.

Saddam Hussein, the "Butcher of Baghdad" was removed for the belief he still had weapons of mass destruction...or the chemical components to make them. A belief shared by every intelligence agency in the world. This belief centered on the fact Saddam did not account for about 20,000 tons of chemical components used to make nice WMD like "chemical gas", a gas which is corrosive to human lungs and VX nerve agents, one drop on the exposed skin being a fatal dose and in it's aerosol form, if inhaled, a smaller amount is fatal.

In addition to those reasons, others were stated in the Joint Resolution of Congress...to remove Saddam for violating his Cease-Fire agreement AND 15 further UN Security Council Resolutions demanding he strictly observe the agreement he signed to end the 1991 Gulf War which ensued when Saddam attacked Kuwait.

Using your unfocused thinking, there is nothing which doesn't fall into the realm of "The ends justifying the means". Yet, here you are attempting to justify the pollution and corruption of hard science by a bunch of Loony Tunes leftists who are attempting to gain control of the worlds energy sources and rationed use which will destroy the economy of the United States and every other Western nation. You attempt to justify the lying, fraud, hoax and scandal of these Loony-Tunes leftists on the basis it will produce something good for the enviornment.

The reality is that these idiots will pollute every square inch of the available landscape with solar arrays the size of Texas and California combined and wind turbines mounted on 80 story tall towers as far as the eye can see...everywhere....and those still will not produce the energy required to maintain the manufacturing capacity of the United State...NOR will it heat and cool citizens homes AND there will still need to be coal, oil and natural gas powered electric plants because katatonic....THE SUN DOESN'T ALWAYS SHINE AND IT NEVER SHINES AT NIGHT AND THE WIND DOESN'T ALWAYS BLOW WITH ENOUGH VELOCITY TO TURN THOSE TURBINES FAST ENOUGH TO PRODUCE ELECTRIC POWER. In addition to all that, there's the nightmare of the maintenance on all those wind turbines, not to mention the fact they would kill millions of birds...and already are doing that AND katatonic, an army exceeding the size of the combined US military would be necessary to keep those solar arrays clean and dust free because energy production goes down rapidly and in proportion...when dust, dirt or debris collects on the surface of the solar collectors.

quote:
and global warming is the fantasy of a lot of people nowhere near the left.
dream on...katatonic

One last thing katatonic.

Don't even try out the lie that man made global warming isn't a gigantic hoax perpertrated by the Loony-Tunes left.


IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 1874
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 02, 2009 10:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
All the President's Climategate Deniers
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
by Michelle Malkin

"The science is settled," we've been told for decades by zealous proponents of manmade global warming hysteria. Thanks to an earth-shaking hacking scandal across the pond, we now have mountains of documents from the world's leading global warming advocacy center that show the science is about as settled as a southeast Asian tsunami. You won't be surprised by the Obama administration's response to Climategate.

With pursed lips and closed eyes and ears, the White House is clinging to the old eco-mantra: The science is settled.

Never mind all the devastating new information about data manipulation, intimidation and cult-like coverups to "hide the decline" in global temperatures over the last half-century, they say. The science is settled.

Never mind what The Atlantic's Clive Crook, after wading through the climate science e-mail files of the U.K.'s Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, called the overpowering "stink of intellectual corruption" -- combined with mafia-like suppression of dissent, suppression of evidence and methods, and "plain statistical incompetence" exposed by the document trove. The science is settled.

Never mind the expedient disappearance of mounds of raw weather station data that dissenting scientists were seeking through freedom of information requests from the Climatic Research Unit. The science is settled.

In March, President Obama made a grandiose show of putting "science" above "politics" when lifting the ban on government-funded human embryonic stem cell research. "Promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it's about protecting free and open inquiry," he said during the signing ceremony. "It's about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda -- and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

Yet, the pro-sound science president has surrounded himself with radical Climategate deniers who have spent their entire professional careers "settling" manmade global warming disaster science through fear mongering, intimidation and ridicule of opponents.

-- Science czar John Holdren, who will testify on Capitol Hill this week at a hearing on Climategate, infamously hyped weather catastrophes and demographic disasters in the 1970s with his population control freak pals Paul and Anne Ehrlich. He made a public bet against free-market economist Julian Simon, predicting dire shortages of five natural resources as a result of feared overconsumption. He lost on all counts. No matter.

Holdren's failure didn't stop him from writing forcefully about mass sterilization and forced abortion "solutions" to a fizzling, sizzling, overpopulated planet. And it didn't stop him from earning a living making more dire predictions.

In 1986, Ehrlich credited Holdren with forecasting that "carbon-dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020." He went on to Harvard and the White House. On the "Late Show with David Letterman" earlier this year, Holdren fretted that his son "might not see snow!"

Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist and Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball notes that Holdren turned up in the Climategate files belittling the work of astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division. Holdren put "Harvard" in sneer quotes when mocking a research paper Baliunas and Soon published in 2003 showing that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium." First, deny. Next, deride.

-- Energy Secretary Steven Chu picked derision as his weapon earlier this year when peddling the Obama administration's greenhouse-gas emission policy. "The American public … just like your teenage kids, aren't acting in a way that they should act," The Wall Street Journal quoted Chu. He dismissed dissent by asserting that "there's very little debate" about the impact of "green energy" policy on the economy.

There's "very little debate," of course, because dissenters get crushed.

-- The Obama team's chief eco-dissent crusher is climate czar Carol Browner. She oversaw the destruction of Environmental Protection Agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judge's order during the Clinton years requiring the agency to preserve its records.

Over the past year, the EPA has stifled the dissent of Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the agency who questioned the administration's reliance on outdated research on the health effects of greenhouse gases. Recently, they sought to yank a YouTube video created by EPA lawyers Allan Zabel and Laurie Williams that is critical of cap-and-trade. Browner reportedly threatened auto execs in July by telling them to "put nothing in writing … ever" about their negotiations with her.

And she is now leading the "science is settled" stonewalling in the wake of Climategate. "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists," she said. "These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real." Book-cookers are good at making it seem so.

In any case, last year, more than 31,000 scientists -- including 9,021 Ph.D.s -- signed a petition sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine rejecting claims of human-caused global warming.

But hey, who's counting? The science is settled.

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/12/02/all_the_presidents_climategate_deniers?page=1

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 1874
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 02, 2009 10:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
November 25, 2009
Climate Fraud and the Environmental Agenda
By J.R. Dunn

The debate on environmentalism -- specifically as regards the environmental movement itself -- has been marked by confusion since the beginning. Criticism of environmentalist thinking tends to confuse means with goals. Environmentalist reforms, however they are presented and whatever they may involve, are simply means of pushing forward the Green agenda. As for the goals inherent in that agenda...they are something else entirely.

We see this misapprehension at work today in the debate concerning renewable power sources. Critics continually object that renewables such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power simply can't provide enough energy to run a modern industrial society. While figures differ, all forms of renewable energy put together don't break into the double digits of what is required to support an advanced economy like that of the U.S. The general consensus lies at around 3% to 5%. It currently stands at roughly two-thirds of 1% -- yes, you read that right. Much time is spent pointing this out, as if the Greens don't realize it. But of course they do -- in fact, that's the entire point.

Not that they'll ever admit it. The Green argument concerning renewable energy is that it can easily provide adequate power with the added benefit of creating a "sustainable" economy. The most recent example appeared in the October edition of Scientific American in a piece by Mark Z. Jacobsen and Mark A. Delucchi titled "A Plan for a Sustainable Future: How to get all energy from wind, water and solar power by 2030." (A PDF version is available here.) The authors make the claim that America's energy needs can be provided for by:

490,000 I megawatt tidal turbines
5,350 100 megawatt geothermal plants
900 1300 megawatt hydroelectric dams
3,800,000 5 megawatt windmills
720,000 .75 megawatt wave converters
1,700,000,000 rooftop solar voltaic systems, 0.003 MW
49,000 300 megawatt solar thermal plants
40,000 300 megawatt photovoltaic power plants

This makes for an impressive picture. Unfortunately, it's almost completely empty. Writing in The American Spectator, William Tucker completely demolishes the argument in his customary thoroughgoing fashion. (Anyone dealing with detailed tech policy questions would do well to study how Tucker handles them.) Tucker points at that the amount of space required for the solar plants alone would be in excess of 450,000 square miles, "the size of Texas and California combined." As for rooftop systems, there very likely aren't 1.7 billion roofs on earth to set them up on...at least, not enough rooftops sturdy enough, large enough, and oriented to the south enough. Similarly, "We would live in a forest of 80-story windmills interrupted by rolling prairies of solar collectors. Every inch of coastline would be girdled with tidal generators while every square mile of ocean was dotted with wind and wave collectors. There would be no place on the planet not dedicated to gathering energy."

Clearly, "A Plan for a Sustainable Future" is by no means a serious proposal, but instead a PR effort intended to sell the Green agenda. And what is that agenda?

The goal of environmentalism is not to provide power or maintain the current level of industrial activity. If anything, it's the exact opposite. Since conservation was twisted into an ideology in the late 1960s, it has pursued the explicit goal of remaking society on the basis of a fantasy notion of natural living, in which human beings are little more that another unit of the ecology, no more important and requiring only slightly more in the way of resources than a snail darter or a spotted owl. While not trumpeting this aim, Greens make no secret of it.

Environmentalism is a revolutionary ideology, deriving much of its thinking, rhetoric, and practice from the left. Like other left-wing cults, it is explicitly anti-capitalist. But environmentalism goes one step further -- while the left wishes to remake industrial society according to the Marxist model, the Greens wish to simply abolish it and return to a mythical "natural" state. What easier way to accomplish that then to cut the West's energy lifeline?

Nuclear power has already been made anathema. Coal and oil, as CO2 releasers, are next on the agenda. In the end, this leaves only renewables. What this means is more than conservation, more than recycling, more than the Green gestures to which many Americans have become reconciled. It means a complete collapse of industrial society. Not mere cuts, but effective eradication of home heating, electricity, and transportation. It means shutting down virtually all heavy industry. The limited industry that will remain - electronics, computers, some forms of biotechnology -- will be light enough to leave a small ecological "footprint." It will also be controlled by government, or rather the Green bureaucracy.

Of course, such a system cannot conceivably support 300 million Americans or 6 billion people worldwide. But as they say, that's not a flaw, but a feature.

Mass murder has always been inherent to socialism. The first recorded mention of genocide occurred in a February 1848 edition of the socialist paper Neue Rheinische Zeitung, edited by none other than Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Twenty years later, the Nihilists amused themselves by trying to calculate how many people would have to be killed once they took over. The generally accepted figure was 10%. As many will recall, William Ayers easily doubled this figure in similar discussions with his Weather Underground comrades.

Nor was this limited to cocky pseudo-revos. Whenever the left has achieved power, mass murder -- democide, in the term coined by Dr. R.J. Rummel -- has been the result. Stalin accounted for his 40 million. Mao may have exceeded this. As far as percentages of population go, the Khmer Rouge are the undisputed champs, having slaughtered at least a third of their Cambodian countrymen.

The Greens like to reverse the formula, speaking instead of what the optimal human population of earth might be. The numbers vary -- a billion, half a billion, a hundred million, or a little over 1% of the current world population. There's even a Voluntary Human Extinction movement, which holds that the human race is an evolutionary failure that would be better off extinct.

But the impulse is the same. The question remains on how to reach the goal. In the past, Greens have spoken of outside forces doing the job for them, of population crashes caused by overpopulation, pollution, resource depletion, or lately, by global warming. But there has always been a more typical leftist undercurrent as well, common among Earth First! and eco-fascist groups, that if nature fails, the Greens should step in. Such concepts as tailored viruses designed to cut the population through sterilization or more final effects have been discussed in Green circles with considerable seriousness.

The revelations of fraud concerning the East Anglia Climate Research Unit e-mails will go a long way toward transforming the debate on environmentalist policy. But such a transformation should not be limited to the topic of global warming. The public image of environmentalism as a warm, sentimental, animal- and tree-loving movement is no more than a mask. In truth, it is steel-hard and anti-human, yet another example of the sickness within the soul of modernism. The center-right must discover a method of getting this truth across. But first, this truth must be adequately understood.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/climate_fraud_and_the_environm.html

IP: Logged

carl
Knowflake

Posts: 281
From: China
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 03, 2009 05:09 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for carl     Edit/Delete Message
Global warming is a hoax, but it isn't perpetuated by the left (or right), that is too easy. Look behind the scenes at the puppeteers pulling the strings. The Rothscilds especially, garbage people with way to much power and no allegiance to either side of this false paradigm. Look at the globalists who want to tax the middle class out of existence with insane energy and pollution, etc. policies.

The left is the scape goat ready to take the tomatoes.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 4096
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 03, 2009 06:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
so it looks like we WILL have jobs for the military when we bring them all home! whew, i thought that might be a problem - what do you do with an idle military...now we can just get on with pulling out of everyone else's backyard!

but seriously jwhop it sounds like you really aren't up on modern technology. i hear you with the miles and miles of solar cells but by the time things are in place THAT will be old hat. or hadn't you heard about how fast our knowledge is expanding and making obsolete what we use for power now?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 1874
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 03, 2009 06:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
I am very much up on modern technology and...
there's no existing technology or technology on the horizon which will replace carbon based fuels.

Further, there's no need to replace carbon based fuels because man made global warming from release of CO2 into the atmosphere is a total hoax, con and fraud.

There are more proven energy reserves in the United States than exist under the sands of the middle east...and most of the rest of the world combined.

You leftists are not going to be permitted to shut down the United States. Europe can swallow the hoax whole and go their own way.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 4096
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 03, 2009 10:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message
and as for your views on "leftists" and genocide, the catholic church has been eliminating the opposition for a couple thousand years. are they leftists too?

things are getting warm all around the solar system. this is not man's fault. but the fossil fuel argument and the need to find some way of really DISPOSING of our trash, be it slag, oil, plastic or the medications in your sh1t, is a real problem.

if we brought those soldiers home things would be even more crowded here, but think of the TRILLIONS we would have to buck up our "way of life"! people quake at paying taxes to improve healthcare for all but they don't mind forking over for the deaths of iraqis, afghanis, and anyone else we think we can plow over...

and nuclear weapons contribute more to the destruction of the climate, atmosphere, earth, air and water than all the energy we use domestically put together.

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 06, 2009 02:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message
Thank you for posting this jwhop. I am glad that I am not the only one that has felt Global warming was a big lie. Sadly, as you said, the mental midget Obomber and his little followers are still denying the hoax.

I am for being environmentally minded to a point. Germany has very strict rules, albeit not as absurd as the UK, but out here we are not allowed to let our cars idle for more than 3 minutes, even in the dead of winter while we are trying to warm them up. The German's did a study and found that the car idling restrictions did NOTHING to counter the carbon emissions over time. Wow, really? Who knew?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 1874
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 15, 2010 11:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
You know Pid, I'm all for real science, all for real solutions to problems. But, the man made global warming crowd offers no solutions to the energy needs of America and threaten to take America back to an 18th century existence or worse.

There are many who think this is their goal and that would mean the destruction of the US as a superpower on the world scene.

When O'Bomber says his intent is to bankrupt the coal industry and electric utilities which produces 49% of the electricity Americans use AND skyrocket energy prices, Americans should believe him.

Notice how the demoscat "Cap and Trade" bill has morphed into the American Power Act.

They keep changing the language hoping no one will notice and get caught up in the American pride aspect of the language.

But, it's the very same bullshiiit which is designed to reduce the United States to the status of a banana republic.

One would think Joe Lieberman would at the very least be grateful for the intervention of Republicans in his recent reelection when the Socialist Ned Lamont and his Socialist pals at Moveon attempted to oust him from the Senate. Alas, leftists have an agenda and they'll use anyone to achieve their goals.

Joe Lieberman and the American Traitor John Kerry are the authors of the so called "American Power Act". So called because it's an elimination of American power as an industrial power in the world.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 3294
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 16, 2010 12:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message
quote:
You know Pid, I'm all for real science, all for real solutions to problems.

Hyperbole? Someone who's "all for science" would be able to post peer-reviewed papers disproving global warming.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 1874
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 16, 2010 01:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Why should I post papers you couldn't understand acoustic.

You can't even understand the clear science behind what I've said here about the composition of CO2 in the atmosphere...and where it comes from.

You couldn't even draw correct conclusions from the fact man made CO2 represents only 0.12% of atmosphereic greenhouse gasses....that's only 12/100ths of ONE PERCENT.

You couldn't even draw correct conclusions from the fact Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and even Pluto are showing a rising trend in temperatures from increased radiation from the sun. Oh, but the rising temperature on earth...up until 1998 were caused by CO2 released by humans by burning gasoline and diesel in our SUVs.

You're like the Stone Age guy demanding a peer reviewed paper proving 1+1=2.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 3294
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 16, 2010 08:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message
The only thing I can't understand is why you can't find any bona fide climate scientists to back your position.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 1874
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 17, 2010 11:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
Where's your list of scientists who support man made global warming theory acoustic.

I've posted a list of 31,000 US scientists who say man made global warming is a crock of crap.

Now acoustic, if you can wade through mathematical formulas which disprove CO2 as the forcing agent in climate change...then you can start here.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Then acoustic, you can go here and find a slew of peer reviewed articles referenced on this site...as well as a summary of what their findings are.

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Climate fears reduced to ‘children’s games’

Overturning IPCC consensus ‘in one fell swoop’

UK officially admits: Global warming has stopped!

Southern Hemisphere is COOLING

Climate models made by unlicensed 'software engineers'

Sampling of very recent inconvenient scientific developments for proponents of catastrophic man-made global warming:

1) New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes

2) Belgian weather institute’s (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming

3) Updated: September 27, 2007: New peer-reviewed study counters global warming theory, finds carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age

4) New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming

5) New peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate

7) Update - August 29, 2007: SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY - Excerpt: "Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus.

8) Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian’s 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, noted that CO2’s impact on warming may be “excessively exaggerated.”

9) Updated: October 2, 2007: Danish National Space Center Study concludes: “The Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.” The report was authored by Physicist Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen

10) A June 29, 2007 critique by Gerd Burger of Berlin’s Institute of Meteorology in the peer-reviewed Science Magazine challenged a previously touted study claiming the 20th century had been unusually warm

11) An April 2007 study revealed the Earth’s climate “seesawing” during the last 10,000 years, according to Swedish researchers Svante Björck, Karl Ljung and Dan Hammarlund of Lund University

12) An August 2007 NASA temperature data error discovery has lead to 1934 -- not the previously hyped 1998 -- being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records began

13) Numerous U.S. temperature collection data errors exposed by team of researchers led by Meteorologist Anthony Watts in 2007

14) Team of Scientists Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'

15) Updated: September 26, 2007: New Report from the international group Institute of Physics’ finds no “consensus” on global warming

16) A July 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks fears of Greenland and the Arctic melting and predictions of a frightening sea level rise

17) Update - September 11, 2007: Antarctic ice GROWS to record levels.

A February 2007 study reveals Antarctica is not following predicted global warming models

18) Update - September 14, 2007: A soon to be released survey finds Polar Bear population rising in warmer part of the Arctic

19) Even the alarmist UN has cut sea level rise estimates dramatically since 2001 and has reduced man’s estimated impact on the climate by 25%

20) Update - September 10, 2007: New study claims UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion."

21) A May 2007 Senate Environment & Public Works report detailed a sampling of scientists who were once believers in man-made global warming and who now are skeptical. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

Prominent scientists speak out to calm CO2 emission fears

Spitting outside has ‘same effect’ as doubling CO2

‘Temperature drives CO2’

Man-made CO2 equivalent to linoleum on first floor of 100 story building
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minori ty.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 3294
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 17, 2010 05:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message
quote:
I've posted a list of 31,000 US scientists who say man made global warming is a crock of crap.

And not a single one of them has produced a single scientific, peer-reviewed paper stating or proving as much. I ALREADY told you that the list is MOOT. The list is not an argument. The list is not proof.

quote:
Now acoustic, if you can wade through mathematical formulas which disprove CO2 as the forcing agent in climate change...then you can start here. http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Sorry to inform you, but it didn't disprove CO2 as a forcing agent. His peers:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/ http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/09/comment-on-schwartz.html

Also strange that it's author shows up on a site called ExxonSecrets that wishes to expose Exxon's funding of global warming scepticism.

I'm also quite fascinated that these things you've posted were funded and published while Bush was in office. Coincidence?

Next?

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 3294
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 17, 2010 05:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message
I suppose I should applaud you for actually finding a scientist and a paper. Good work there. Unfortunately, it's not enough.

IP: Logged


This topic is 5 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2010

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a