Page 109 of 111 FirstFirst ... 95999104105106107108109110111 LastLast
Results 2,161 to 2,180 of 2209
  1. #2161  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello Michael and Clemgrad,

    Thank you. I've been busy, and to be honest with you--I grew very tired of the often fruitless interaction here with people dedicated to NOT having honest discussion. It just wasn't/isn't worth it.

    I check in occasionally (to check on WebOS/Pre news). Not much seems to have changed here...

    I don't think I will be "back" in any significant way, but I hope you are both well.

    KAM
    Anyone have a "bring back KAM" petition lying around here, i'll sign it.
  2. #2162  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    It's also a FACT that temperatures have fluctuated widely since the earth was formed and before man had the ability to do anything. Just saying....
    ummm damn there ya go again.. AGREED... hehehehhe
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2163  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    ummm damn there ya go again.. AGREED... hehehehhe
    Get a room you two!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #2164  
    Have you even taken the time to read the emails? Regardless of their findings, the words speak for themselves.
  5. #2165  
    I blame that big hot yellow ball in the sky, myself. Anyway, this place is what, 4-1/2 billion years old? It'll be around long after we and our insignificant impacts on it are gone. Only about 15 million years to go until the next mass extinction. A few centuries of human industrialization is, well, insignificant.
    : (){:|:&};:
  6. #2166  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    Yet another Republican disaster blows up in their face. The partisan wrecking crew who tried in vain to make hay of this email (non)scandal have been mysteriously dead silent since 3 independent investigations have each concluded that there was no manipulation of data nor professional misconduct of researchers.

    statesman.com/news/world/british-investigation-exonerates-climate-scientists-791293.html
    First off have you really taken the time to read the article closely? "nor professional misconduct of researchers." Then why where they told that there was evidence of emails being deleted, a graph being misleading, and unwilling to open up their research and data.

    Second be careful about using a link of a story from a newspaper that is "reporting" on scientific research. Much information will be left out. When you look to the "independent" nature of the investigators it does not translate to neutral. It just means they did not do the initial research. All 3 committees may have been stacked with people that believe in man made global warming. There are also other "independent" research going on that still contradicts what these studies show and there is a question of how different weather stations were chosen for data collection.
  7. #2167  
    Quote Originally Posted by RPFTW View Post
    Statement before the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2009

    Madam Speaker, before voting on the "cap-and-trade'' legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:....
    Here is the organization
  8. #2168  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    Those with sand up to their necks will always magnify the smallest concern into a proverbial mountain. Others? Not so much.
    I see we agree about the global warming alarmist making a mountain out of something small.
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2169  
    Hello Everyone,

    Pat Michaels: The Climategate Whitewash Continues: Don't Believe the 'Independent Reviews' About Goings on at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - WSJ.com

    Excerpt: Readers of both earlier reports need to know that both institutions receive tens of millions in federal global warming research funding (which can be confirmed by perusing the grant histories of Messrs. Jones or Mann, compiled from public sources, that are available online at freerepublic.com). Any admission of substantial scientific misbehavior would likely result in a significant loss of funding.

    What a surprise--the "independent" review finds no problems. Don't believe the wizard demanding you ignore the man behind the curtain. Of course, it will come as no surprise to see some (here and elsewhere) trying to convince you of exactly that. Treat these people as the dishonest shills they are.

    The self-deluded will of course use any justification to return to their same politically based conclusion, where science is used as a ploy--contrary to the basic premise of science.

    Thinking people should understand that this is little more than people that have financial and other stakes in this simply returning to the same propaganda based conclusions, following an unexpected spike being driven into their campaign. They've simply let a bit of time pass, and resumed the same propaganda they had relied on previously. Does this surprise ANYONE? Do we expect that professional liars and people with demonstrable lack of ethics (professional and otherwise) to suddenly become ethical?

    Also--people who don't live their lives in a world of propaganda, should realize that the e-mail scandal wasn't the issue--it was just the sign-post that gave the uninformed (or wrongly informed) people a peek into the massive fraud that has been perpetrated by a relatively small cabal claiming to represent "consensus" (very inbred "science"), into buying their conclusions.

    Make no mistake--all sorts of manipulation took place, the "climategate" scandal was just a peek inside. Don't let any shill tell you that these people engaged in objective science, because nothing could be further from the truth.

    That being said...Climate change is very real, and it has been going on longer than humanity has been around, and certainly longer than our ability to affect it. It will continue to change with or without us.

    If someone wants to START to understand this issue--start looking into solar activity.

    KAM
  10. #2170  
    I hope those who have fallen for that Global Warming Petition group realize that only .1% of those that signed the petition actually have any type of background in climatology. Even the Natioanl Academy of Science released a statement saying "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

    I'm not saying there aren't valid questions on the causes of global warming but this Exxon backed petition is not a great place to point to for skepticism.
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2171  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    Make no mistake. This Op-Ed is nothing but failed innuendo based on pure speculation and fear, and you know it. Where's the beef?! A CATO Institute member Op-Ed author who references FreeRepublic?
    I'll leave now marveling at the rich hypocrisy of a wannabe shill, accusing someone questioning global warming hysteria (which is fear mongering of the highest order) of using "fear."

    Take care everyone,
    KAM
  12. #2172  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello Everyone,

    If someone wants to START to understand this issue--start looking into solar activity.

    KAM
    A good start. Then get a Ph.D in Climatology and you might have some sense of what's going on.
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2173  
    Quote Originally Posted by Austintwilliams View Post
    A good start. Then get a Ph.D in Climatology and you might have some sense of what's going on.
    I'm not sure what your goal is with that statement.

    Does this apply to people who advocate global warming hysteria or just those who oppose it (btw, I do not deny the existence of global climate change). Because, there are plenty of people out there shouting from the rooftops about global warming, who haven't any qualifications whatsoever. Is it ok that they do this, if they have "no sense of what's going on" due to their lack of a PhD? Perhaps your answer is no, and your position is entirely consistent (I can't tell from your statement alone).

    What percentage of people attending Copenhagen had PhDs in Climatology? Does Al Gore have one? Do ANY of the people working to push Cap and Trade have a degree such as this, or in any scientific field (perhaps a handful might)? I'm sure most do not, yet, their voices and demands are being listened to.

    While I am an advocate of legitimate experts working ethically to study things in their field, I think it is easy to put "experts" on some pedestal as well, as if having a scientific degree makes you an ethical person, or means that you do not have politically motivated desires, or financial needs. I think that's exactly what has happened with Global Warming. People have been actively bombarded with global warming hysteria for years and years--and not by legitimate experts, but by people like Al Gore and others with clear political (and financial) motivations.

    What I'd like is that people spend a little time following the money, and the various organizations that are set up to trade carbon credits, and realize exactly how much money they are set to make if they are able to pass something like Cap and Trade. It would be extremely naive to assume that these people are altruists trying to save the world. Maybe they are, but it bears thinking about.

    Further, one does not need to be a PhD in a particular field to understand many things about it, so again--let's avoid creating an authoritarian system where "experts" proclaim their findings and the non-experts say "yes, whatever you say." I think this is doubly important, where there is direct evidence indicating active efforts to quash opposition.

    KAM
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2174  
    Quote Originally Posted by Superjudge View Post
    I hope those who have fallen for that Global Warming Petition group realize that only .1% of those that signed the petition actually have any type of background in climatology. Even the Natioanl Academy of Science released a statement saying "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

    I'm not saying there aren't valid questions on the causes of global warming but this Exxon backed petition is not a great place to point to for skepticism.
    I think an important point to consider is exactly how one goes about reviewing the science behind various claims, when data is destroyed, withheld, and ethical scientific procedures are blocked by one side.

    I'm not familiar with that particular petition, but legitimate scientists DO disagree. That's the problem--a cabal of people who have benefited financially (perhaps otherwise) have actively sought to AVOID scientific scrutiny of their work. The so-called "climate gate" scandal is one example of this sort of anti-scientific maneuvering.

    KAM
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2175  
    The science isn't there. It never was. Trying to rebuild credibility now is just silly and futile.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  16. #2176  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I think an important point to consider is exactly how one goes about reviewing the science behind various claims, when data is destroyed, withheld, and ethical scientific procedures are blocked by one side.

    I'm not familiar with that particular petition, but legitimate scientists DO disagree. That's the problem--a cabal of people who have benefited financially (perhaps otherwise) have actively sought to AVOID scientific scrutiny of their work. The so-called "climate gate" scandal is one example of this sort of anti-scientific maneuvering.

    KAM
    I know that the biggest and most important complaint in the independent studies done on the CRU was that they were not forthcoming with sharing some data with outside scientists but not with manipulating or falsifying the data. That is an important point. Its not data that is the real issue, its the control of the data which is more of a human issue and not reflective of the data itself. That is the problem with the whole debate. Since scientists got caught caught acting like idiots and now the credibility of years of studies is questioned because some emails were destroyed, some opposing scientists were kept out of the loop, and some scientists expressed their displeasure with a magazine.

    Yes there are scientists that doubt human's involvement in global warning. According to the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, they comprise 2.5% of the top 200 researches in the field. That means in a room of 200 scientists, 4 or 5 of the people do not hold the same interpretation of data as the other 195 do. So yes legitimate scientists do hold that viewpoint that global warming is not related to human activity but it is also fair to say that an overwhelming majority of legitimate scientists do not agree with them when presented with the same data.

    Is there a definitive answer? No. Is there a definitive consensus? Yes.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2177  
    Quote Originally Posted by Superjudge View Post
    I know that the biggest and most important complaint in the independent studies done on the CRU was that they were not forthcoming with sharing some data with outside scientists but not with manipulating or falsifying the data. That is an important point. Its not data that is the real issue, its the control of the data which is more of a human issue and not reflective of the data itself. That is the problem with the whole debate. Since scientists got caught caught acting like idiots and now the credibility of years of studies is questioned because some emails were destroyed, some opposing scientists were kept out of the loop, and some scientists expressed their displeasure with a magazine.

    Yes there are scientists that doubt human's involvement in global warning. According to the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, they comprise 2.5% of the top 200 researches in the field. That means in a room of 200 scientists, 4 or 5 of the people do not hold the same interpretation of data as the other 195 do. So yes legitimate scientists do hold that viewpoint that global warming is not related to human activity but it is also fair to say that an overwhelming majority of legitimate scientists do not agree with them when presented with the same data.

    Is there a definitive answer? No. Is their a definitive consensus? Yes.
    This simply isn't true. Maybe 'manipulated' isn't the right word in some circles, but omission of data that changes the context is the same as manipulation, to me.... its the manipulation of perception. Of this, at the very least, those "scientists" are guilty as charged.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2178  
    The global warming swindle has imploded

    By DOMENICK MAGLIO

    Neo Traditionalist

    Published: February 19, 2010

    Global warming has moved from a previously held theory now to a scientific fact. Osama Bin Laden has proclaimed that the United States with other industrial nations are the cause of climate change. He advised to boycott American goods and stop using the U.S. dollar.

    All the "scientific experts" including Bin Laden have formed a consensus with an airtight argument proving global warming. The consensus is called climate change. When it is unusually warm or even frigidly cold, like this winter, the "experts" proclaim it is indisputable proof of global warming and they are not joking.

    The only thing American skeptics must do is ignore the "climategate," Himalayagate, Amazongate debacles and the fact that climate has been changing long before man walked the Earth to be converted to true believers. This will be tricky since 57 percent of the American public — and more every day — believes there is no solid evidence for global warming.

    Climategate was the suppressing and manipulation of data that was disclosed in thousands of e-mails going back 13 years. Phil Jones, the head of the British Research Center, had to step down after it was found he used "tricks" to "hide" the decline in recent global temperatures. The correspondence also demonstrated how he and others kept critical articles out of peer review journals, an essential element of the scientific process. This maneuver demonstrated how they kept any dissenters out of the scientific discourse.

    On Feb. 14, the same Phil Jones produced a new chapter of climategate. He said he could not produce data for the hockey stick graph that was the pivotal evidence of global warming. He related that the world was possibly warmer in medieval times than now and said that there has not been statistically significant warming since 1995. Amazingly he said that global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

    The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Global Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report has been factually discredited by the Himalayan and Amazon debacles. Indian glacier expert, Syed Hasnain, said he was misquoted about the Himalayan ice cap melting by 2035. He reluctantly admitted it was included in the IPCC report to put pressure on world leaders.

    "Amazongate" relied on a World Wildlife Fund, an environmental advocacy group, report rather than on a scientific study. The IPCC used this political environmental group to make the assertion that global warming could reduce 40 percent of the rainforest. This was an anecdotal observation, not in any way scientific.

    Dr. Rajendra Pichauri, the chairman of the IPCC is not the world's top climate scientist— he is not even a scientist. He is a railroad engineer and has a PhD. in economics. It was discovered he knew about the misinformation of "Amazongate" two months before the Copenhagen conference and chose to withhold it until after the conference. When you follow the money, it is obvious he would profit immensely from the global warming hoax.

    These three strikes and you're out should end the fiasco of global warming. Add the additional fourth, fifth and sixth strikes and it becomes a joke. These consensus people were yelling about global cooling in 1974 in Time magazine. India outright quit and China does not accept any of the regulations that would limit their economic growth.

    Yet our executive branch does not listen or hear the people's voice concerning the overwhelming evidence smacking them in the face of the fraud of global warming. They cannot make a rational decision; instead, these progressive politicians with all the damning revelations will stay this ridiculous course. The motivation of these self-serving people is redistributing money nationally and internationally as well as political power and socialism through any means possible.

    The Cap-and-Trade bill is supposed to be dead. Our executive branch is making an end run on science and the American people. On Dec. 9, 2009, before the Copenhagen conference, the EPA concluded greenhouse gasses are endangering American's health and must be regulated. This was a signal to the leaders of the climate change industry that we were going to be serious about Cap-and-Trade.

    The New York Times reported on Jan. 5 that the CIA will now use spy satellites and other sensors to document global warming instead of doing their job of protecting our country through gaining intelligence. They are diverting valuable resources by this ridiculous new executive order.

    On Jan. 29, Mary Schapiro, head of the Securities Exchange Commission, made a veiled threat to intimidate public companies to join the cap-and-tax bandwagon. She issued "guidance" to them about reporting to the SEC about their operation's risk to global warming. Then on Feb. 9, the administration has established the Climate Service under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It will be promoting predictions for global warming.

    The global warming fiasco has awakened the American people. Science practiced with objectivity and integrity has advanced mankind. Politicians disguised as authentic scientists are charlatans who want to subjugate the people of the world for their own personal gain.

    If meteorological predictions of local daily weather and hurricanes are any indication of the accuracy of the field of science, why would anybody buy into this inconvenient politics except to honor Nobel Peace Prize "scientist" Al Gore and IPCC "scientist" Rajendra Pichauri.

    There is no definitive proof of global warming or CO2 emissions being a cause. But we now know there are many political factors driving this charade. The jig is up.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. #2179  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    This simply isn't true. Maybe 'manipulated' isn't the right word in some circles, but omission of data that changes the context is the same as manipulation, to me.... its the manipulation of perception. Of this, at the very least, those "scientists" are guilty as charged.
    Ok I understand what you are saying but again an overwhelming majority of experts in looking at a variety of data from various sources, and not just the CRU data, have come to the same conclusions. Does that mean that all scientists are guilty of this? Does that mean that the scientists on the "denier" side have been doing the same thing to prove their point?
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2180  
    Quote Originally Posted by Superjudge View Post
    Ok I understand what you are saying but again an overwhelming majority of experts in looking at a variety of data from various sources, and not just the CRU data, have come to the same conclusions. Does that mean that all scientists are guilty of this? Does that mean that the scientists on the "denier" side have been doing the same thing to prove their point?
    No, this means that good scientist disagree, as always. Meanwhile, a group of them fudge around with the graphs and misrepresented things, form alliances, lobby governments - in such a way that BILLIONS of dollars have, (and in the coming decades this will mean TRILLIONS), change hands.

    What's at stake here isn't scientific show and tell and face saving for their community. What's at stake here is the rest of us and our livelihoods. Many jobs, even whole industries, will be destroyed. Taxation will climb. Additional government regs and controls will be implemented.

    All for political gain. This is about political and economic control of the entire planet.

    Meanwhile.... climate change happens, in spite of us.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

Posting Permissions