The View From Inside The Bubble
-
No, it didn't.
What's your answer, Steve?
-
Odd
It was on the Droid but not here on the computer.
Oh well.
I'll go read the question.
WSS
-
What I'd like from you is an acknowledgement that the "Climategate" scandal wasn't anything that tainted global warming science, and was completely misrepresented by the right for political reasons. You've read about the five investigations. So far we've had two people on the board take in this information and dismiss it immediately, and without understanding the issue, which is exactly the point of this post.
I've been pretty clear.
Yes I accept the idea that the planet is warming.
Yes I accept the theory that man plays a part in that.
Is it also caused by perfectly natural causes?
Probably.
Is it cheaper for some businesses to not pay big taxes for some kind of GW plan?
No doubt.
Will some other businesses make out like a bandit if we do install that tax hike?
You betcha.
Will all this green stuff develop on it's own thanks to promises of profit?
Yeah.
Do I doubt the US will do anything drastic enough to make a difference even if the alarmists are correct?
I sure do.
Do I think the alarmists are overplaying their hand? Is that "WOLF!!!!" I hear?
You call it cynical I call it realistic.
That's how I see it.
WSS
-
Oh sorry.
And no, Climategate doesn't disprove the premise.
Cold and snowy winters don't either.
Lots of "AH HA" stuff while fun isn't definitive.
And to my question.
You say greed right?
The Republicans actually realize we face a crisis and choose to let the planet die for a few bucks today.
Correct?
WSS
-
Thank you.
-
Heck,
It's ignorant for you to constantly pretend mmgw is an indisputable fact.
Truth is - it's a liberal, Democratic (which isn't the Democratic party anymore) party vote getter,
tax everything rally cry, share the wealth, make Al gorish mega rich... FREAKIN THEORY.
It's dimwitted for you to keep on pretending mmgw is absolute fact.
I was correct when I challenged you guys on it. It is no fact.
It's your silly, self-serving political wedge, and you won't give it up.
You're worse than Linus and his blanket.
At least Linus' blanket was real, and that is a fact.
Fact - is what you don't get, Heck.
-
Global Warming
The Washington Post
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
This report was from November 2, 1922. As reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 88 years ago!
-
Cal, I'll put the same question to you. After five separate investigations have now found that the "Climategate" scandal did not do anything to damage the scientific case for global warming, would you accept that the "climategate" scandal is not about what you've been alleging it was about for all of these months?
Let's see how this goes.
-
A cool animation.
-
Love the Armageddon soundtrack!!!
Somebody got one for world population?
WSS
-
LOL. Yes, that was cool. And yes, I am absolute correct, that cutting down rainforests, expanding city and town development around the world,
fewer and fewer natural areas of plains and forests, contribute to CO2 increase. That's pretty much fact.
However, by your graph, it should be about, oh... somewhere around 400 degrees F. today. It's 28. ROF,LMAO !!! You changed the subject that YOU started this time...
BTW, your "studies" are self-serving. There have been plenty of analysis that debunks your silly hockeystick, Edgar. I mean, when
ARE you going to start trying to have serious conversations? Let me know... @@
-
Although, I must admit - that you do have a lot of people on your mmgw side.
Seriously, I can't refute that. Including Sheply:
************************************************************************************
Who Support Al Gore (and his global warming)
Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Prince Charles of Whales, B.A. (no science degree)
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma ABC - Sam Champion, B.A. Broadcast News (no science degree, not a meteorologist)
CBS - Harry Smith, B.A. Communications and Theater (no science degree)
CBS - Katie Couric, B.A. English (no science degree)
CBS - Scott Pelley, College Dropout
NBC - Ann Curry, B.A. Journalism (no science degree)
NBC - Anne Thompson, B.A. American studies (no science degree)
NBC - Matt Lauer. B.A. Communications (no science degree)
NBC - Meredith Vieira, B.A. English (no science degree)
Al Sharpton, College Dropout
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Britney Spears, High School Dropout
Bruce Springsteen, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Cindy Crawford, College Dropout
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
Jennifer Connelly, College Dropout
Jessica Simpson, High School Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Kanye West, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Lindsay Lohan, High School Dropout
Ludacris (Christopher Bridges), College Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Matthew Modine, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Neve Campbell, High School Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Rosie O'Donnell, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Ted Turner, College Dropout
Tommy Lee (Thomas Lee Bass), High School Dropout
Uma Thurman, High School Dropout
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout
-
And it isn't just me, or several of us who have smarter, critical thinking kind of common sense, that disagree with your sill man made global warming cult, Heck.
***********************************
Global warming labeled a 'scam'
By Al Webb
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 6, 2007
LONDON -- With a packet of claims that are almost certain to defy conventional wisdom, a television documentary to be aired in Britain this week condemns man-made global warming as a myth that has become "the biggest scam of modern times."
The program titled "The Great Global Warming Scandal" and set for screening by TV Channel 4 on Thursday dismisses claims that high levels of greenhouse gases generated by human activity causes climate change. Instead, the program suggests that the sun itself is the real culprit.
The documentary, directed by filmmaker Martin Durkin, is at odds with scientific opinion as outlined in a United Nations report in February, which blames mankind for global warming.
In his program, Mr. Durkin rejects the concept of man-made climate change, calling it "a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times."
The truth, he says, is that global warming "is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists, supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding, and propped up by compliant politicians and the media."
Channel 4 says that the program features "an impressive roll-call of experts," including nine professors, who are experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, biogeography and paleoclimatology.
It also says the experts come from prestigious institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Pasteur Institute in Paris, the Danish National Space Center and universities and other schools in London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Alabama, Virginia and Winnipeg, Canada.
"It's very rare that a film changes history," says Martin Durkin, "but I think this is a turning point, and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bunk," he says.
His program collides sharply with the premise outlined in former Vice President Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," which presents a bleak picture of how a buildup in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide affects the global climate, with potentially disastrous consequences.
"Al Gore might have won an Oscar," says Mr. Durkin, in a preview of the documentary, "but the film is very misleading, and he has got the relationship between [carbon dioxide] and climate change the wrong way around."
One of the filmmaker's experts, paleontologist professor Ian Clark of the University of Ottawa, says that global warming could be caused by increased activity on the sun, such as massive eruptions, and that ice-core samples from Antarctica show that, in fact, warmer periods in Earth's history have come about 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.
One of the filmmaker’s experts, paleontologist professor Ian Clark of the University of Ottawa, says that global warming could be caused by increased activity on the sun, such as massive eruptions, and that ice-core samples from Antarctica show that, in fact, warmer periods in Earth’s history have come about 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.
Mr. Clark’s findings appear to contradict the work of other scientists, who have used similar ice-core samples to illustrate that raised levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have accompanied the various global warming periods.
“The fact is that [carbon dioxide] has no proven link to global temperatures,” says Mr. Durkin. “Solar activity is far more likely to be the culprit.”
Scientists in the Channel 4 documentary cite what they claim is another discrepancy involving conventional research, saying that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, after which temperatures around the world fell for four decades.
Mr. Durkin’s skeptical specialists view this as a flaw in the official view, because the worldwide economic boom that followed the end of World War II produced more carbon dioxide, and therefore should have meant a rise in global temperatures — something he says did not happen.
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” also questions an assertion by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, published last month, that it was backed by some 2,500 of the world’s leading scientists.
Another of Mr. Durkin’s professors, Paul Reiter of Paris’ Pasteur Institute, an expert in malaria, calls the U.N. report a “sham” because, he says, it included the names of scientists — including his own — who disagreed with the report and who resigned from the panel.
“That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he says. “It’s not true.”
Mr. Reiter says his name was removed only after he threatened legal action against the panel. The report itself, he adds, was finalized by government appointees.
Yet another expert in the Durkin documentary, Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, is more circumspect.
“The [climate] system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on [carbon dioxide] production would be or, indeed, of continuing to produce [carbon dioxide].”
“The greenhouse effect theory worried me from the start,” Mr. Stott says, “because you can’t say that just one factor can have this effect.”
“At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion, and this is dangerous,” he says.
-
Love the Armageddon soundtrack!!!
Somebody got one for world population?
WSS
Love the Armageddon soundtrack!!!
Somebody got one for world population?
WSS
Ha. I was going to tell you to turn the sound off because I knew you'd write, "What a scary soundtrack!" I think it's the music to Inception, which I have yet to see.
But it's a nice visual way to see that this isn't natural.
-
Cal, what do you have to say about Climategate? Willing to retract?
-
NO, you goof. Your post does not detail the fact that "your" pro mmgw study guys, admitted they did NOT research,
or even look at, the emails, which are the crux of the whole scandal. That, and the bogus claims based on the
"hockey stick" self-fullfilling manufactured and intentionally configured "evidence".
Are you ready to finally admit, that mmgw is ONLY a freakin THEORY, and never has been a fact?
-
Of course. Any scientist will tell you that global warming is a theory. It's a theory with lots and lots of evidence to support it, including lots of facts. What's your point? That you don't understand what the word "theory" means, or how science works? I think we knew that already.
Now, nothing in your posts is true. Of course these investigations looked at the emails. They all did. And they all came to the conclusion that nobody manipulated the science, and that the "scandal" is anything but.
Of course you won't admit it. You're so invested in believing false information that you won't let in any new information. And that is the point of this post. While you're an extreme example, there are many others like you who exist in a closed information system. And many of you believe things like "the Climate-gate scandal ...shook climate science and wobbled the world's confidence in the theory that man's actions are causing the planet to rapidly warm."
Except that it didn't. That's just made up bullshit.
-
You didn't even read my posts, Heck.
You all never were in "theory" mode, until now, you have no freakin choice.
Why would you support global legislation, and taxation, etc etc etc etc etc.......
and changing our laws dramatically here, ... on a theory?
Lots of evidence to "support: it. More and more evidence that is is bogus.
Your best case scenario - is to admit that al gore and Obama's actions,
and all the actions taken on a THEORY, are completely off base in the real world
that needs to have actions based on fact.
So, Heck, are the concrete actions pro mmgw THEORY justified?
-
Yes, they are.
But let's continue with our experiment. You claim that the five investigations clearing the scientists in the "climategate" scandal aren't valid because they didn't look at the emails.
Here's you: "Your post does not detail the fact that "your" pro mmgw study guys, admitted they did NOT research, or even look at, the emails, which are the crux of the whole scandal."
Except that you're wrong. Here's the Inspector General's statement in his letter to James Inhofe: "In our review of the CRU emails we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data ... or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures."
Here's the Washington Post: "An independent review of thousands of emails stolen from climate researchers has found that scientists at the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration did not manipulate data or otherwise engage in wrongdoing. The report, issued by the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce, is at least the fifth report by various bodies in the United States and Britain to clear researchers at the heart of the so-called "Climategate" incident that galvanized vocal skeptics of the science of global warming."
So five separate investigations looking into the emails, the statements, the science behind them, have all ruled that the scientists did not manipulate their data and that their science is sound. Five.
What say you now? Are you willing to retract all those posts about Climategate now that you realize that it wasn't really a scandal?
-
No one can answer me? Any scientific research of any kind MUST be conducted without BIAS towards the hypothesis. The climate-gate emails show a clear and bias to support the hypothesis that world-wide climate change is caused by the activities of man. Can someone who purports that the climate-gate emails do not invalidate any research done by the responsible parties explain why it does not?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login