Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Walter Hinteler wrote:

"Copyright applies to computing and the internet in the same way as material in other media. ... This is an automatic right ..."
"Published editions of literary works such as magazines, anthologies of poems and so on, where there may be more than one copyright owner, may afford copyright protection in their own right for the typographical arrangement of the edition. Copyright in your typographical edition lasts for 25 years." Source: UK Intellectual Property Office (= the operating name of the UK Patent Office)

Walter, can't you see the difference between content and layout?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Georgeob1 - Engineer or not, the burden is not on me to provide that anyone has not said anything. If okie wants to misquote the beliefs of those who believe man has a significant influence on the climate, then okie needs to back it up, or shut up. I think you can guess my preference.

Okie - Your brand of dishonesty is of pure annoyance. You quote "very alarming" as if I introduced the notion of alarm to the dialogue. Buy more marbles.

T
K
O

So now you claim you never mentioned the "notion of alarm?" Here is your quote, Diest:

"If 20,000yrs ago the Global average temp was only 9 degree lower, then that meant that prior to this century the global average has gone up on average 0.045 degrees per century.

If an increase of 1.3 degrees over the last century is not "alarming" then you've got a screw loose or you simply do not care. "

So who is being dishonest here? Read your own posts, Diest.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Georgeob1 - Engineer or not, the burden is not on me to provide that anyone has not said anything. If okie wants to misquote the beliefs of those who believe man has a significant influence on the climate, then okie needs to back it up, or shut up. I think you can guess my preference.

Okie - Your brand of dishonesty is of pure annoyance. You quote "very alarming" as if I introduced the notion of alarm to the dialogue. Buy more marbles.

T
K
O

So now you claim you never mentioned the "notion of alarm?" Here is your quote, Diest:

"If 20,000yrs ago the Global average temp was only 9 degree lower, then that meant that prior to this century the global average has gone up on average 0.045 degrees per century.

If an increase of 1.3 degrees over the last century is not "alarming" then you've got a screw loose or you simply do not care. "

So who is being dishonest here? Read your own posts, Diest.

You fool. You make me laugh. I never said that I haven't used that wording, only that it is funny how you act as if your antagonists have introduced the idea.

The truth is that I was commenting on Ican's post.

ican711nm wrote:

Why are all the CO2 emission alarmists alarmed?

That is why I put alarm or any form of the word in quotes. I nor anyone else is yelling bomb in theater. It's more like we are saying theres a hole in the hull, and we are speaking in conversational voices.

Your idea that because I believe in man's contribution to AGW/CC means that my statements are akin to panic. I think you are projecting your insecurities on others. I'm a rational and solution based person, not a emotional person with a particular nervosa to react without the facts. I think it is ignorant how you approach this topic. It seems you are more convinced about who you are arguing with rather than what you are advocating for.

Your propaganda is showing.

I don't contend that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth. We have to get our energy from somewhere. What I have a problem with is the notion that humankind has not effected the climate.

Consider a non-homogeneous mechanical system. SHM system with a mass hanging on a spring fixed to an oscillating bar. Let's say you want to track the motion of the mass.

Let's say you can change one of two factors.
A) The frequency of the oscillation of the bar. An external change.
B) The mass of the object being tracked. An internal change.

The system is started and the motion is tracked. Then the system is run with both changes made. Obviously the motion is different. At first inspection, the plot will appear to be more governed by the variation in the change of frequency. What you will not be able to say is that the change in mass had no effect.

I am not surprized by the plots of solar variation, but I am not impressed either. If you want to disprove that man has no effect or a negligable effect on the climate, you will need to make a better case.

I suggest you read the IPCC report, and not what other write about the report. Your claims of fraud are laughable at best, but otherwise embarrasingly pathetic.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Re: GLOBAL B.S.

ncoons22 wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Let's see...it is 8 degrees...just had 3 foot snow storm.

First, I have to agree. Its mid February we have 3 feet on the ground and another 1.5 comin this weekend, and its been 3 degrees for two weeks. My brand new truck even has a hard time crankin over. So how the hell can anyone say theres global warming? Secondly, the earth goes through natural climate change, and we're just caught up in a cycle to apparently too big for these dumb ass scientists to understand but yet simple enough for a country boy like me to comprehend. Third, Im not saying that we do not affect our environment. However, this little so called heat wave that we supposedly are having, did it ever occur to anyone that maybe its because of what they did 40 years ago (not that im complaining because i love my 71 nova ss and my 72 chevy pickup) and in now we've alredy cleaned up are act enough so that in forty years it'll we'll be feeling the effects of todays environmental impact which is far less and therefore any 'warming' you feel now will be reduced. Maybe then theyll think were going into a human induced ice age and blame my truck for creating a hole in the atmosphere that let all the heat out. And finally, dont youn realize that this is just more bullshit ramblings from the left (liberals) to make them sound halfway educated and intelligent so they can have half a chance at getting a vote or two and they can have something to argue over with us intelligent conservatives?

Welcome to A2K and the thread ncoons22. Those who see the current conditions as due to normal climate fluctuations far more than any effect humankind may be having on climate do seem to have the best and most plausible science backing them up.

It is not those who are truly concerned about the climate who bother me, however. I do think this is a debate we need to have if for no other reason than to be prepared for what could be coming and do what we can to enable humankind to be ready to adapt to it.

Those who demand radical policy changes when they don't have a clue about the science involved; and/or who ignore--or worse denigrate--any science that doesn't fit with the politically correct concern for AGW are the ones that frustrate me.

I would like to see all this energy put into encouraging people to throw off the mantle of oppression and poverty and join the free world that demands clean water, clean air, and clean soil. And if the world is actually warming to any alarming extent, we need to do whatever is necessary to adapt to that.

I think for humankind to attempt to alter natural climate shifts is a huge waste of resources and counterproductive to alleviate crushing poverty for hundreds of millions, maybe billions of people.

If we are actually harming our environment then we should know that and take measures to stop doing that. The research itself is good but it needs to be honest and not politically driven research. To try to change natural climate shifts is really dumb and probably causes much more harm than it helps. We might as well try to rearrange the stars.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I don't contend that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth. ....

T
K
O

I hope you made an error there, diest, as that shows you are really confused, more than I ever imagined.

Look, you have bought into the global warming / CO2 scare while some of us look at all of this a bit more objectively and cautiously. I have seen too many theories come and go, just in my working career of geology, so I approach alot of these things very skeptically. I do believe there is such a thing as junk science, and sadly many so-called scientists tend to jump on and off of bandwagons for various reasons, some include grant funding and so forth for their pet projects and papers that they might want published.

I think there are too many factors that are simply not understood, and too many factors for which we have not enough data to come up with the grandiose models that have been proposed. In other words, people like Al Gore are full of it. Further, climate has always changed and always will change, without man. The solar link is the link that fits the closest to the effects so far observed, although I am sure there are many factors that we cannot even begin to understand right now. And man caused CO2 is so small in comparison to everything else, I find it utterly preposterous for us to claim it to be the main driving force behind climate change. And besides that, the climate change is not very much, it is really insignificant, and even if it continues to warm, there is no evidence that it will be catastrophic, and it could even be beneficial. All of this panic is totally unwarranted.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

I don't contend that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth. ....

T
K
O

I hope you made an error there, diest, as that shows you are really confused, more than I ever imagined.
...

What do you mean confused? Please reread.

"I don't contend..." meaning I wont argue with the following statement
"... the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth."

In short: Yeah, the sun provides energy to the earth. I know that, and I'm not going to argue against that idea.

You still need to retract your statements.

T
K
O

0 Replies

ncoons wrote (to foxfire's applause) :

Quote:

And finally, dont youn realize that this is just more bullshit ramblings from the left (liberals) to make them sound halfway educated and intelligent so they can have half a chance at getting a vote or two and they can have something to argue over with us intelligent conservatives?

PRESIDENT BUSH SAID :

Quote:

Bush: Climate change is 'serious problem'

Jun 26 02:50 PM US/Eastern

US President George W. Bush said it was time to move past a debate over whether human activity is a significant factor behind global warming and into a discussion of possible remedies.
"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused," Bush told reporters.

"We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives: One, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, for economic reasons as for national security reasons," he said.

Bush cited "clean-coal technology," efforts to develop automobiles powered by hydrogen or ethanol, and his push for the United States to develop significant new nuclear energy capabilities.

"The truth of the matter is, if this country wants to get rid of its greenhouse gases, we've got to have the nuclear power industry be vibrant and viable," he said.

ANY APPLAUSE FROM ANYONE ?

source :
PRESIDENT BUSH

0 Replies

George Bush is not a competent climatologist, scientist, engineer, or otherwise knowledgeable about what are the primary causes of climate change. He's just a politician with a masters degree in business administration.

0 Replies

Honestly, I'm stunned. GWB has been anything but unimpressive, and I had pretty much assumed he would just coast for his last year as the politics stopped circulating around him and more around the future candidates.

This is the last thing I would have ever guessed to come out of his mouth.

This is a joke right?
K
O

0 Replies

Hamburger, the valid scientific graphs I posted, but did not myself generate, refute the claim that humans are the primary cause of climate change. If you think otherwise, tell us why you think otherwise.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

okie wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:

I don't contend that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth. ....

T
K
O

I hope you made an error there, diest, as that shows you are really confused, more than I ever imagined.
...

What do you mean confused? Please reread.

"I don't contend..." meaning I wont argue with the following statement
"... the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth."

In short: Yeah, the sun provides energy to the earth. I know that, and I'm not going to argue against that idea.

You still need to retract your statements.

T
K
O

The word contend suggests advocacy for, or to argue against an opposing point of view. To say that you don't contend that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth means that you do not argue that that sun contributes to the temperature of the earth.

The word you may have intended was 'contest'; i.e. you do not contest that the sun. . . . .

0 Replies

I double checked because you seed of doubted me.

Sorry Fox, but I used the word properly.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contend

Contend does not imply advocacy or agreement, quite oppositely it implies conflict or arguement. One definition even listed "agree" as an antonym. Certainly "contest" would have also been correct though.

There isn't anything wrong with my phrasing.
K
O

0 Replies

That you don't contend that the sun. . . . which is how you used it clearly states that you don't agree, don't support, don't argue that the sun warms the Earth. So if you are going to maintain that you used the word correctly, you are clearly stating that your opinion is that the sun is not a significant source of global warming and you owe Okie an apology.

If you want to agree that the sun warms the Earth then you contend.....i.e. it is your contention that.......

I don't care what dictionary you use - to contend is to agree or express advocacy for your position against an opposing point of view or position.

0 Replies

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=contend&x=27&y=5
Main Entry: con·tend Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: kntend
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ed/-ing/-s
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French contendre, from Latin contendere to stretch vigorously, to strive, contend, from com- + tendere to stretch -- more at TEND
intransitive verb
1 : to strive or vie especially with determination and exertion in contest or rivalry or against difficulties, exigencies, or failings <the> <the>
2 : to strive in debate : engage in discussion : ARGUE <stubbornly>
transitive verb
1 : MAINTAIN, ASSERT, ARGUE <contending>
2 : to struggle for : CONTEST <she>
synonyms COPE, FIGHT, BATTLE, WAR: contend is a general term indicating endeavoring or striving to vanquish an opponent or to overcome difficulties or adversities <the> <ladies> <since> COPE may imply contending with an adversary on even or better than even terms and defeating or parrying his efforts, or facing adversity, difficulty, exigency and finding expedients <a> <the> <the> FIGHT is likely to involve notions of more strenuous activity or even violence than CONTEND or COPE; it suggests constant vigorous effort <while> <the> <he> BATTLE and WAR are more figurative; the first suggests contending as under battle conditions, with fierce fighting, resolute attack and defense, and changing fortunes <grimy> <thou>; the second suggests sustained struggle as under war conditions <to> <spent> <housewife> synonym see in addition COMPETE

Diest TKO wrote:

I don't contend that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth. We have to get our energy from somewhere. What I have a problem with is the notion that humankind has not effected the climate.

0 Replies

Quote:

Bush: Climate change is 'serious problem'

Lol, as it comes from Bush, it might help convince the AGW believers (that is 99% liberals and 100% environmentalists) CC is a bogus problem Laughing

(I know, just a wild dream...).

0 Replies

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]

Scientists from Around the World Dissent

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC's view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, Argentina, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were "futile." (LINK)

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."

This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only "about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to "flat Earth society members" and similar in number to those who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (LINK) & (LINK)

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped "consensus" that the debate is "settled."

A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [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 - (LINK) - In addition, an August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. (LINK)

...

Examples of "consensus" claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:

...

Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:

...

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

...

LINKS TO COMPLETE U.S. SENATE REPORT: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

...

0 Replies

Who shall we believe? Bush or 400 scientists?

0 Replies

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
FULL SENATE REPORT: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

December 20, 2007

This report is in the spirit of enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot who reportedly said, "Skepticism is the first step towards truth."

[Disclaimer: The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. As in all science, there is no lock step single view.]

...

0 Replies

ican wrote :

Quote:

George Bush is not a competent climatologist, scientist, engineer, or otherwise knowledgeable about what are the primary causes of climate change. He's just a politician with a masters degree in business administration.

perhaps you'd like to let us know what issues THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STAES is permitted to address a/t your opinion ? :wink:

the president might be surprised to learn that you call him "just a politician with a masters degree in business administration."

GREAT STUFF , ican !
you made my day ! Very Happy

hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

ican wrote :

Quote:
George Bush is not a competent climatologist, scientist, engineer, or otherwise knowledgeable about what are the primary causes of climate change. He's just a politician with a masters degree in business administration.

perhaps you'd like to let us know what issues THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STAES is permitted to address a/t your opinion ? :wink:

the president might be surprised to learn that you call him "just a politician with a masters degree in business administration."

GREAT STUFF , ican !
you made my day !
hbg

Ican didn't suggest that the President shouldn't address this or any other issue. He only commented that the President has no scientific credentials or expertise despite those gleefully posting his opinion as if it was scientifically important.

Those same people go the second and third mile to find or make up something/anything to discredit truly well credentialed scientists who hold different opinions.

The President does walk the walk however. You can't take that away from him.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know