[treobk214]

CO2, according to liberals, is now hazardous to our environment.

So, liberals, just hold your breath until your faces turn GREEN and never exhale. Quick easy solution. The rest of us will go about our daily lives, k?

Oh, yeah, and enjoy what little is left of this very shortlived democratic adminstration.

Climategate + glaciergate + goregate + obama's circus of socialization crap = Repub win in 2012. K?

[KAM1138]

CO2, according to liberals, is now hazardous to our environment.

So, liberals, just hold your breath until your faces turn GREEN and never exhale. Quick easy solution. The rest of us will go about our daily lives, k?

Oh, yeah, and enjoy what little is left of this very shortlived democratic adminstration.

Climategate + glaciergate + goregate + obama's circus of socialization crap = Repub win in 2012. K?

Well, technically too much CO2 IS hazardous to humans, but the atmospheric concentration in the worst case predicted isn't anywhere close to "dangerous" in that sense.

What I hope this (and other various statist nonsense) leads to (I love to dream) is the election of Politicians that understand and adhere to the limits of government as our Constitutional system (of Federalism) demands. I'm not for Republicans(necessarily)--I'm just against Statists.

When administrations (such as this) run hard for the Statist (in this case leftist statist) goal line, people tend to get uneasy about it, and I HOPE (not really holding MY breath) that this serves as a wake-up call. Just putting in the same type of Republicans who are almost as happy to expand government as Democrats isn't a solution.

KAM

[KAM1138]

Hello Everyone,

Here is an interesting article:
RFK, Jr. 15 months ago: Global warming means no snow or cold in DC | Washington Examiner

Now, no one should make the mistake of thinking that snowfall is proof of anything. Rather, it demonstrates how AGW advocates DO rely on anecdotes in an attempt to support their beliefs. So, when these AGW advocates are quick to whine about someone pointing to record snowfall, and cold temperatures as being "irrelevant" you can ask--well, why isn't it irrelevant when your side uses anecdotes.

KAM

[Bujin#IM]

Key 'climategate' scientist cleared of wrongdoing - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

In the inquiry the University found the contrary to claims of falsification, the scientists involved were merely trying to explain data..."They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field.
.
.
.

What we have is this situation where the overwhelming majority of the climate science community has got one view of the science, and there are a very small group of scientists, most of the time they're actually not practising in the climate area themselves, [who disagree]," he said.

"And the when you get into the media the mix is more like 50-50, so the public can get the view that there's actually a real debate going on here whereas while there is one in the media, in the science there isn't actually that much of a material debate."

[semprini]

Key 'climategate' scientist cleared of wrongdoing - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Interesting. Pennsylvania State University conducted it's own internal investigation of it's own employee and cleared him. Hmmm. Never would have seen that coming. Oh, well...that means the research money can start flowing back in again.

Rally for Academic Integrity | Pennsylvania State University - Main Campus

First, the university's internal review consisted of three Penn State employees who have strong incentives to protect the school's reputation and the millions of dollars it receives from global warming research grants. There was no external oversight.

Second, the review consisted of looking at a mere 47 emails (out of thousands in question), interviewing Mann, analyzing materials he submitted, and asking only two biased sources about his credibility. Penn State hardly conducted a "thorough investigation" of alleged wrongdoing by Mann.

http://www.commonwealthfoundation.or...limategate.pdf

[bclinger]

It is amazing to disagree with any organization that does a self examination to think it will find itself in the wrong. Amazing.

[clemgrad85]

Not that this is a sign of global "cooling", but woke up in Charleston SC this morning with about 3 inches of snow on the ground. Biggest snow since 1989 (got clobbered that year with Hugo and a white Christmas, strange year). I sure am waiting for this global warming to kick in!

[berdinkerdickle]

How would one use the Bible to prove Global Warming is fake?

Ask this guy

Is there anybody here that believes this guys crap?

Using certain scripture one might be able to find passages that seem to support one or the other side of the argument, but it's a foolish leap to try to disprove or prove Global Warming using Scripture.

He uses passages to try and argue that God won't allow man to destroy himself. How does that Prove Global Warming isn't happening?

I wouldn't try and Prove Global Warming using scripture, but a couple scriptures I would use that Man is obviously hurting the Earth would be:

Revelation 11:18 (King James Version)

18And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Revelation 11:18 The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great--and for destroying those w

and:

Matthew 24:22 (King James Version)

22And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Matthew 24:22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.

So now I can make the leap as this guy did and say that unless God steps in, man is going to kill himself off.

All this guy proved by scripture, is god won't allow man to destroy the earth.

[berdinkerdickle]

I've never read anything from Joseph Farah before your posting of the link. I guess there is "an element of truth" in what most people say. I'm willing to consider what Joseph Farah has to say regarding God's promises but prophecy and promises in the Bible have often been misunderstood over time, so I don't automatically accept what others tell me that the Bible says or means. The promise that the world will not be destroyed by another global flood seems pretty clear, but I'm not so sure we can conclude that global warming might not be a problem. Man was also given dominion over the Earth in Genesis and we are the stewards of the Earth. I believe we cooperate with God in maintaining and protecting our planet. The passages he mentions don't really talk about global warming per-se and the Earth warming or cooling a few degrees would not necessarily be the same thing as not allowing believers not to perish. This does not sound like any sort of "proof" to me. Using the Bible to prove or disprove gloable warming seems like a misuse of Scripture to me.

I agree.

Using this Farah's argument, we can pretty much crap on our earth all we want. No problem.

[berdinkerdickle]

Think of a landowner who rents his property to some individuals.
They can better it - make it a more pleasurable place to live. But If they begin to ruin this man's property, they most likely will reach a point to where he will evict them and let a family move in that has proven to appreciate his property.

[cellmatrix]

Its refreshing to see a global warming website that actually references peer reviewed research studies. Now they have an iphone app too.

Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism

And I would just add, that while I am highly disturbed by the recent emails and lack of disclosure, if you throw out everything these people were involved in, there is still a mountain of evidence supporting global warming and man's involvement in it and this is still the scientific consensus, whether some of the right wing activists on this forum like it or not (sorry guys, I admire your chutzpah though).

[semprini]

And the man-made global warming theory continues to break down:

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

[Micael]

Climategate Fraud Admitted

Written by David Arnett, Publisher
Monday, 15 February 2010 10:34



The United Kingdom’s Daily Mail reported Sunday that the scientist at the center of the controversy over fraudulent scientific assertions which serve as the basis for United Nation reports and the Obama Administration’s economy killing energy program has admitted that he has trouble “keeping track” of information and that his record keeping is “not as good as it should be.”

Professor Phil Jones, whose data is crucial to the theory of climate change, is refusing Freedom of Information requests to produce the data. Colleagues say the reason is that the Professor may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Sunday on the BBC Jones said there was truth to the observations of colleagues that he lacked organizational skills. He conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now and suggested global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. Jones said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the exposure of emails openly discussing the manipulation of data. That raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analyzed by his unit, was used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Professor Jones stands accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics. But he denied he had cheated or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made. Asked about whether he lost track of data, Jones said: “There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.”

Professor Jones agreed that there had been two historical periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but he said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

Skeptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries. But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world. Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were as hollow as he had shared with colleagues and ‘mates’ [by e-mail]. He said that until all the data was released, skeptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates and added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats continue to fight for an energy policy they call “Cap and Trade” (or Restrict and Tax by critics) which would cost anyone who owns a light switch or rents one in America. At a time of increasing concern over national financial stability, critics believe such a program would have devastatingly harmful effects both directly and in secondary costs to American consumers.

Supporters also believe Al Gore invented the Internet and that he is not profiteering from climate change claims now suspected to be false.

To read the Daily Mail report, click here..

[berdinkerdickle]

I have a question for both sides.

It seems this discussion has a few facets.

One. it is/isn't happening.
Two. if it is happening, it is/isn't caused by man.

So, my question for those who claim it's caused by man; why are you concerned to prove it? What advantage is there in proving it's caused by man? What is the goal?

And, my question for those who claim it isn't caused by man; why are you concerned to prove it isn't? What advantage is there in proving it isn't caused by man? What is the goal?

[Micael]

I have a question for both sides.

It seems this discussion has a few facets.

One. it is/isn't happening.
Two. if it is happening, it is/isn't caused by man.

So, my question for those who claim it's caused by man; why are you concerned to prove it? What advantage is there in proving it's caused by man? What is the goal?

And, my question for those who claim it isn't caused by man; why are you concerned to prove it isn't? What advantage is there in proving it isn't caused by man? What is the goal?

With all due respect, Berdinkerdickle, but I don't think you've actually been reading my posts. This is no longer a debate with "sides". It's amazing to me that people aren't realizing that the debate is over, man-made caused global warming was a hoax that has been ADMITTED TO by those that fabricated the numbers and data that propped up the hoax.

Their side was false, fake, based on lies - and again, ADMITTED TO BY THOSE THAT CREATED THE HOAX.

So there's no longer a debate. There is only the time and effort necessary to make people realize that they've been fooled, and to repeal Cap and Trade legislation.

What ****es me off most is the brainwashing that's been inflicted on our children.

[berdinkerdickle]

With all due respect, Berdinkerdickle, but I don't think you've actually been reading my posts. This is no longer a debate with "sides". It's amazing to me that people aren't realizing that the debate is over, man-made caused global warming was a hoax that has been ADMITTED TO by those that fabricated the numbers and data that propped up the hoax.

Their side was false, fake, based on lies - and again, ADMITTED TO BY THOSE THAT CREATED THE HOAX.

So there's no longer a debate. There is only the time and effort necessary to make people realize that they've been fooled, and to repeal Cap and Trade legislation.

What ****es me off most is the brainwashing that's been inflicted on our children.

Thanks,
I'll go back and review the thread.
I wasn't so much wanting to continue the 'True/False'.
But Why would one want to make it up if it's false?
Or on the other hand; Why would one want to squash it as False, if it is really true?

[Micael]

Thanks,
I'll go back and review the thread.
I wasn't so much wanting to continue the 'True/False'.
But Why would one want to make it up if it's false?
Or on the other hand; Why would one want to squash it as False, if it is really true?

Because one side wants to find cause to take even more control of our lives, and the other side is saying "not so fast"!

[KAM1138]

I have a question for both sides.

It seems this discussion has a few facets.

One. it is/isn't happening.
Two. if it is happening, it is/isn't caused by man.

So, my question for those who claim it's caused by man; why are you concerned to prove it? What advantage is there in proving it's caused by man? What is the goal?

And, my question for those who claim it isn't caused by man; why are you concerned to prove it isn't? What advantage is there in proving it isn't caused by man? What is the goal?

My goal would be to make an accurate determination of what is the truth.
Clearly the climate is changing (and it always has). The questions are what the major influences are, and if there is anything we can do to control them. This REQUIRES a proper understanding of all the elements that are involved, not a chosen villain (man) and that villain's tool (Carbon Dioxide) which is forwarded as a notion because it serves some purpose chosen by politicians.

My personal view is that man has had some effect on the Environment, but it is rather small, compared to overwhelming influences of nature, including the Sun, ocean currents, water vapor in the air, clouds, etc.

To be generous, we have a very imperfect understanding of these issues, even when looked at objectively. Add in the fact that we've had various manipulation, data tampering and selective data, and there is very little certainty, yet the politicians and politically oriented scientific organizations keep on insisting that their conclusion is correct anyway.

If only we WERE pursuing objective science in a dispassionate manner in order to FIND a conclusion, instead of choosing a conclusion and finding data to match, we wouldn't have any of this controversy in the first place.

Bottom line--a solution based on false information isn't a solution to anything, false solutions tend to have many detrimental effects--not least of which are economical.

KAM

[ryleyinstl]

.

[KAM1138]

.

Isn't it funny how AGW advocates mention anecdotal examples as supporting their position, but are quick to criticize when someone uses the same types of anecdotes when they support the other side?

KAM