Post Reply
Page 10 of 25  •  Prev 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 25 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Global Warming, Are you a Believer
3 years ago  ::  Mar 27, 2012 - 1:51PM #91
drawout
Posts: 5,910

I'm just saying the big fish in the energy industry will eat us alive if they could. They are funding the conservative that deny their product is harming us little guys.

'When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.' - Mark Twain
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 27, 2012 - 6:35PM #92
Bodean
Posts: 9,698

Mar 27, 2012 -- 10:55AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Mar 27, 2012 -- 9:40AM, Bodean wrote:


SO .. the NEW EN VOGUE approach ... "extreme weather".



When you don't inform yourself on time, chances are you see this indeed as a "new approach". But then, when you don't inform yourself, chances also are your opinion doesn't matter very much. Isn't all your "nothing new under the sun" preaching 100% superfluous, by definition?





Speaking of "informing" .... and of course, all that fake science you speak of .... what are your thoughts on this .... peer reviewed, published study, from Academia ....


www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pi...


conclusion: "This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula."


OH THE HUMANITY!!


I mean .. .Leftists have told me for years that the MWP and LIA were just "regional" events.  Mann and his Tree Ring Circus with the clown gang at the IPCC have assured us of this, yet peer reviewed study after peer reviewed study .. including this latests one ... tend to prove otherwise.


SO ... it all comes back to legislation again.  Should we support the legislation supported by the CAGW Cabal, who have told us that the MWP and LIA were just "Regional", who've been caught colluding on keeping alternative studies and hypotheses out of the IPCC documents, who recently got caught forging documents to frame a group who does not embrace their perspective, and who have benefited from BILLIONS of dollars in tax funded research grants ......


OR ....


Should we give a second look to the REST OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, who have to scrape for research dollars, who are moving forward with SCIENCE, and who are NOT INVOLVED in any political wrangling at all, other than raising an eyebrow at the lies, deciet, and political postering of the CAGW crowd.


P.S. ... I've been well aware of the "extreme weather" slant for some time.  The "latests" is in the context of the continueing saga .. ya know .. hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, heatwaves, etc etc.  All such claims that turn out to be false, but none-the-less, are parrotted by leftists in the media for poltical propaganda purposes.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 3:09AM #93
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

I think, Bo, you should - like me and other scientists - take a more relaxed attitude and view the whole science aspect stripped of political implications.


Then you'd more clearly see that overall, there is considerably more evidence in support of mankind having had a decisive impact on global climate, than against it.


Science is a group effort of our whole species. There rarely are all-conclusive single studies. We need to take the whole body of research into account, and yes, we also need to take into account the socio-economic incentives under which the body of research was generated.


But after considering all this, the big picture supports the theory that mankind has decisively affected global climate. Your one little study suggesting that one detail in the global climate story may have to be re-told doesn't mean much in this context - not yet and not until reproduced by many other research teams, as the other validated research was.


-


Now, after settling the state of the science, you may then start deriving political implications from it. But not the way you do it now, first start with political enmity to "Leftists" and then judge all science they may call into court as bad science. Such a stance, your stance, just doesn't float.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 9:40AM #94
Bodean
Posts: 9,698

Mar 28, 2012 -- 3:09AM, CharikIeia wrote:


I think, Bo, you should - like me and other scientists - take a more relaxed attitude and view the whole science aspect stripped of political implications.


Then you'd more clearly see that overall, there is considerably more evidence in support of mankind having had a decisive impact on global climate, than against it.


Science is a group effort of our whole species. There rarely are all-conclusive single studies. We need to take the whole body of research into account, and yes, we also need to take into account the socio-economic incentives under which the body of research was generated.


But after considering all this, the big picture supports the theory that mankind has decisively affected global climate. Your one little study suggesting that one detail in the global limate story may have to be re-told doesn't mean much in this context - not yet and not until reproduced by many other research teams, as the other validated research was.


-


Now, after settling the state of the science, you may then start deriving political implications from it. But not the way you do it now, forst start with political enmity to "Leftists" and then judge all science they may call into court as bad science. Such a stance, you stance, just doesn't float.





Charik .. I would hold that it is the Left who do not look at the bigger picture, and it is the Left who exclude "the greater body of science".


Nobody disputes that CO2, and by relation, "man", has an effect on Climate.  The debate is about magnitude, and whether or not that magnitude justifies draconian measures implemented throught political means.


While there is considerable evidence that man is having an effect, the weight of evidence, including the CAGW cabals own predictions, suggests that the magnitude is nowhere near what the poltically driven left would have.


When I line up all the claims put forth by the Leftists CAGW Cabal, to justify their political activism, and push for govenrment intervention, there can be no doubt who is driving the madness.


Just like in the OP of this thread, the LEFT, not the skeptics, have leached onto every little conincidence to support their position, and "suggests" that it is because of Global Warming.  But in every incidence, their claims are proven false.  For example .....


- After Katrina, they claimed increased Hurricanes and Strength ... the science says, no.


- Kilamanjaro, Left claims due to CO2 and AGW ... science says no. [logging]


- Floods in India, Left claims CAGW ... science says no.


- Polar Bears, Left claims they are going instinct, ... science say no they are not.


- Heat Wave in Russia, Left claims CAGW ... science say no.


- Warm Winter here in the States this year, Left uses it to ask do you believe in AGW .. science says .. no.


This is ALL nothing more than propaganda to try and garner public support for their legislation curbing fossil fuel usage ... IMO, primarily because Leftists HATE the oil companies, and particularly, the Koch Brothers.


As for the science ...


- For 20 years now, the CAGW Cabal has predicted catestrophic warming as a result of increasing CO2.  Yet, the Climate has not responded even close to what their "models" have predicted. [yet the CAGW Cabal still insist their models are right].


While the Left continues to jump and down and "claim" that it is Man's CO2, and pushing for an IPCC driven, Government Control of Fossil Fuels, there is a plethora of real science pushing forward, continueing to search for the truth.  Svensmark and his Cosmic Ray, Cloud Studies, Astrophysicists, who've been given a golden opportunity with the fall of solar parameters such as Magnetics, Solar Wind, Sun Spot Area, Ap Index, etc etc etc.  Other groups looking at Cloud Physics, and how they respond to increased temps, work on the oceans, and how they are cycling, etc etc.


Then there is the "ethics" issues.  You can always tell who's got the most to gain by looking at who plays the dirtiest.


- It was the CAGW Cabal, who are on record prior to 2001 saying "we must get rid of the MWP".


- It was GISS [Hansen] and Hadcrut [Jones], who've hidden data and code adjustments, such that the rest of the scientific community could not replicate and validate their work.  Jones is even on record in email saying "why should I give you the data so you can disprove it". [Because that's the scientific method Phil .. that is how you validate your stuff]


- It was the "team" who manipulated data to get rid of the MWP, inappropriately using Tree Rings, even when the Tree Experts said it was inappropriate. ... and then of course, the "team" made up the claim that the MWP was "regional".  The study I posted is not "one" study, .. it is the latest of many, to dispute this false claim.  In fact, there is an entire project dedicaated to collecting these studies www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php .. and visual map of some of the more relevant summarized at joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hoc... .


- It was the CAGW crowd who've been caught in Climategate I and II, obfiscating the truth and engaging in dirty practices.


- It was Glieck, a member of the CAGW crowd who forged a document in order to frame Heatland.


As was confirmed in the Climategate II email dump ... by a warmist no doubt ...


ClimateGate email 1285


"So while not endorsing this attempt at undermining our basis for current exceptional global warming, I must say I find myself in sympathy with much of what Will Hutton writes. In particular his conclusion that the debate around climate change is fundamentally about power and politics rather than the environment seems undeniable. There are not that many "facts" about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal. I am copying this to Asher Minns, since Asher has been giving the issue of "sound science" and Tyndall's reaction to it some thought recently. Mike [Hulme]"


Let me repeat a part there Charik ... not that many "facts" about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal.  YET .. Leftists, will tell me that "the Science is Settled" .... ad nauseum.


And what is this crap about "our basis for exceptional global warming".  The World should not be worried about their pet "basis", but the truth, and legislation most certainly shouldn't be derived from it.  [ie., hence, why it really is just politics and not science at all].


So .. when I have an email, found on a server exclusive to the CAGW Cabal, written by one of the Alarmists, that flat out agrees this is not about environment, but about politics and power ... along with the PLETHORA of other data and studies, and other unethical events surrounding this group, ......... sorry, .. but you have a seriously HUGE burden to convince me that this group is above board.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 9:53AM #95
amcolph
Posts: 17,957

Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:40AM, Bodean wrote:


 


Nobody disputes that CO2, and by relation, "man", has an effect on Climate.  The debate is about magnitude, and whether or not that magnitude justifies draconian measures implemented throught political means.


 




by "draconian measures"  I take it you mean anything at all which interferes with the divine right of corporations to do with the environment as they see fit.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 9:57AM #96
Bodean
Posts: 9,698

Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:53AM, amcolph wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:40AM, Bodean wrote:


 


Nobody disputes that CO2, and by relation, "man", has an effect on Climate.  The debate is about magnitude, and whether or not that magnitude justifies draconian measures implemented throught political means.


 




by "draconian measures"  I take it you mean anything at all which interferes with the divine right of corporations to do with the environment as they see fit.





Why patronize me amcoph??


I"m all for better gas mileage, better efficiency, better technology, cleaner environment.  But there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it.  The Left chooses the wrong way.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 10:09AM #97
amcolph
Posts: 17,957

Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:57AM, Bodean wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:53AM, amcolph wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:40AM, Bodean wrote:


 


Nobody disputes that CO2, and by relation, "man", has an effect on Climate.  The debate is about magnitude, and whether or not that magnitude justifies draconian measures implemented throught political means.


 




by "draconian measures"  I take it you mean anything at all which interferes with the divine right of corporations to do with the environment as they see fit.





Why patronize me amcoph??


I"m all for better gas mileage, better efficiency, better technology, cleaner environment.  But there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it.  The Left chooses the wrong way.




And the right way, of course, is to do whatever can be done without compromising ideological purity, practical considerations be damned.


At one time, of course, the Right was more pragmatic.  Since the merger with Christian fascism, the Right pursues social Darwinism by divine mandate.  Even if the science supporting AGW became entirely persuasive, they still couldn't back down.    

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 10:10AM #98
loveontheair
Posts: 4,057

Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:53AM, amcolph wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:40AM, Bodean wrote:


 


Nobody disputes that CO2, and by relation, "man", has an effect on Climate.  The debate is about magnitude, and whether or not that magnitude justifies draconian measures implemented throught political means.


 




by "draconian measures"  I take it you mean anything at all which interferes with the divine right of corporations to do with the environment as they see fit.





Hello,



We have enough *regulations as it is. Those dreaded *corporations. Your Gospel would be better suited for China.



love

Good works will never produce faith, but faith will always produce good works. loveontheair
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 10:46AM #99
amcolph
Posts: 17,957

Mar 28, 2012 -- 10:10AM, loveontheair wrote:


 



We have enough *regulations as it is. Those dreaded *corporations. Your Gospel would be better suited for China.



love




No, we don't.  The problem is, that we have too many bad ones, too many unevenly enforced ones,  too many written in collusion with the big players to the detriment of the small fry.


And the absolute economic Darwinism that the religious fascists tout as being God's undoubted will is not the only alternative.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 10:22PM #100
Bodean
Posts: 9,698

Mar 28, 2012 -- 10:46AM, amcolph wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 10:10AM, loveontheair wrote:


 



We have enough *regulations as it is. Those dreaded *corporations. Your Gospel would be better suited for China.



love




No, we don't.  The problem is, that we have too many bad ones, too many unevenly enforced ones,  too many written in collusion with the big players to the detriment of the small fry.


And the absolute economic Darwinism that the religious fascists tout as being God's undoubted will is not the only alternative.





We just have the wrong regulations.


We all agree that we must have some regulation .. especially about quality.


The problem with our regulation is that it "cost money".  It cost money, because the governmet is in the business of taking our money.  It's what they do.  You want to open up such n such .. fine, it'll cost you this much in fees, permits, and studies, and this and that ... etc etc.


It is not a wonder that companies go elsewhere.


We all agree on "quality" regulations.  Hey .. I want my water to be clean, I want my food to be edible, I want my air to be breathable.  But there is no reason the Government should make a red cent on an industry trying to get started.  In fact, amcoph ..it is the tendency of our regulation to cost money that skews it towards the "big guys" and against the "small fries".

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 10 of 25  •  Prev 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 25 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook