Global Warming News

[Ken45101]

It is just my opinion that current profits are excess - but a fact that many were record profits. Makes no difference what I think they should be - but depending on tax money received I wouldn't expect much profit. Also I don't know about company profiles. Why should an investor receive a profit without paying back taxpayer money? (and I agree its not just oil (or wind))

Loren

Loren,

Please provide some documentation of where the major oil companies are receiving tax money? Exxon PAID something like 160 BILLION in taxes last year.

You keep harping on the oil companies receiving tax money, please tell me where!

Ken

 

[CRJCaptain]

I consider the impact of human activity on the planet to be similar to what happens when I pee in my pond. Yes, I'm poluting my pond and making the water unsafe to drink. It's also such a small impact on the pond that in a very short amount of time, the water has overcome this terrible thing that I've done to my pond.

CO2 does not and will not change the temperature of the planet. They can't prove it, and they have to lie to support there assumptions.

Here's another link of their lies to support their postion that the planet is warming.

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming Telegraph Blogs

Eddie

If one really delves into the much-touted "ClimateGate", it turns out it was much ado about nothing, and most likely funded by those who had the most to lose by anything negotiated at Copenhagen. A few cherry-picked and taken out of context excerpts from one single entity does not make a grand conspiracy. The science is still sound. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise...

YouTube - Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack Part 1

 

[texbaylea]

I am a physicist/geologist by training and worked 35 years in aerospace arena utilizing that training. Based on that I feel that I have some understanding of what is forcing the earth's climate.

The major driver of the earth's temperature and climate is the sun. It is in a longer than usual quiet period right now, 772 sun spotless days since 2004 while the usual quiet period is 485 days. Perhaps that is why global temperature is not risnig, cooling even.

Whether the earth continues to warm or cools into another ice age is controlled by the sun and obviously the earth has been hotter and colder in the past. Nothing man can do will make any significant difference in that.

This does not mean that I believe that we should not be working for a clean environment but let's not be stupid about it. It does not have to be and should not be forced by draconian measures that bankrupt this nation. Also there is NO single activity that can solve the problem. We need to do a timed mix of things, some that can be done now and others that need more development time.


Vernon

 

[Pilot]

Lots of posts here, but I don't remember any about scientific consensus, except repeating the assertion that there is consensus. Let's think about that.

First, you start with the 2007 IPCC report that is 2558 pages of technical information. And 40 pages of references. All that is summarized in a 52 page executive summary (which, by the way, was written before the 2558 report was finished). Pretty impressive on the surface.

So you attend the annual meeting of the International Society of Widget Scientists and on the agenda is Item 3: Approval of the 2007 IPCC Report. Now, this could be handled in a number of ways. A committee could be appointed to review the IPCC report, or the executive summary could be passed out, or a committee could be appointed to review the report and report back next year. Regardless, very few if any of your society members actually read and understood the 2558 pages of technical information that is outside their field of expertise. So they rely on the executive summary, which if you check it out was written mainly by the CRU folks and other alarmists, and as I said, was written before the final report was finished, so it was not written based on all the facts.

Now about those 40 pages of references. There is valid and invalid scientific information. In 1912, the finding of a previously unknown human ancestor's skull was announced and the revelation rocked the scientific world. Over the next 41 years over 250 scientific papers were published about it. Then the Piltdown Man hoax was revealed. Until then, almost everybody believed in the Piltdown Man.

In my own experience there is the Fog Drip study. There was a study on our district of the amount of precipitation contributed to the watershed by fog condensing on needles of old growth trees and dripping onto the forest floor. The report claimed the water from the fog drip over a 4 week period amounted to about the equivalent of 53 inches more than in cutover areas. Since the study area was in my district, I visited and worked in the area many times when fog was present at the same time of year as the study. Yes, water did condense on the trees and drip off. There would be a drip here, and few seconds later a drip there, and maybe every 10 or 15 seconds a drip onto your hard hat. Nothing near the amount of precip equivalent to the 1.9 inches per day needed to make up 53 inches in 4 weeks. There was a gross error in the study that no one identified. But the fog drip study was widely cited as a reason we needed to keep old growth stands of trees in watersheds. And a very respected scientist mentioned it in a presentation I attended. So when I challenged him after the presentation, he admitted he knew it was B.S. and had no defense for mentioning it. Just like the CRU scientists, he was practicing advocacy science, another branch of pseudoscience. And the scientist who did the study has the job title of Principal Hydrologist at a forest science lab.

So to properly evaluate the 2007 IPCC report, you have to know the scientific literature, you have to know which citations are nonsense (lots of nonsense is published (publish or perish in the universities), which are valid and what important studies were left out.

How many of these scientists who endorsed the IPCC report do you really think read the 2558 page report, how many checked out the citations, how many are even qualified to make a judgment? Very, very few.

And virtually none of the journalists you hear hammering away about climate change have done more than most scientists who only read the executive summary and the journalists understood even less. And these are the people who are spreading the alarm about stuff they don't understand.

Consensus means nothing.

Science is based on testing and retesting of hypotheses. If it works every time, then it is accepted. If someone repeats the experiment exactly and it fails even once, there is something wrong with the hypothesis or with the experiment.

Very little of what the climate change models are based on can be tested by experiment. Pretty much all the IPCC has is models. And where the data has conflicted with the models, the CRU folks went with theory and models and fudged the data.

And that's why the whole area of climate science needs to be reviewed objectively and revised where junk science has skewed the answers. Until then we know nothing.

 

[dave1949]

Yep, you hit the nail on the head that time, Eddie.

When I was a Union Steward, I learned a little trick that worked very well for me. When the other sides starts name calling and making accusations, you learn two things. They are out of ideas, and they are exposing what they think about themselves.

Sorry to see it come to this.

Eddie


I could turn that around Bird and Eddie and say when you don't have a good answer, you accuse the other side of name calling. I notice Eddie has spent a lot of time today explaining how windmills don't make electricity. Someone even mentioned they don't work when the wind isn't blowing.

I don't believe I did call Eddie any names. I pointed out he is saying windmills are not justified. I hope he tells that to the 30-40 countries that are spending billions of dollars installing and using them. Either it is a global windmill plot, or just maybe there is a good justification for windmills. I further pointed out that Eddie is stubborn enough that he would never admit it. So far, I'm batting 100%.

When someone is faced with facts that don't agree with their opinion, and posts their opinion without qualification, how much closer to a fib can you get? I know what we call it when politicians do it.

There is another error in your assumptions about name calling. What makes you think I need more ideas? Are you deciding that for me, so you can criticize? What Eddie refers to as the 'Strawman' arguement?

I am comfortable discussing the ideas that I have written about, I try to limit them to actual facts I have read about or observed and find credible. I also try to keep an open mind. If you look at my posts, it's clear that I favor the idea that human activity can affect the climate, but I think you also see I expect good science from scientists and I don't have a 100% certainty that they are always correct.
Dave.

 

[EddieWalker]

If one really delves into the much-touted "ClimateGate", it turns out it was much ado about nothing, and most likely funded by those who had the most to lose by anything negotiated at Copenhagen. A few cherry-picked and taken out of context excerpts from one single entity does not make a grand conspiracy. The science is still sound. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise...

YouTube - Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack Part 1

You are repeating the talking points to try to minimalize the impact that those emails have on the science of global warming. Unfortunatly, those emails prove exactly what you are denying.

The emails do prove a conspiracy.

They prove that evidence was hidden and destroyed.

They prove that emails were to be deleted to hide what they were discussing.

They prove that they cheated in peer reviewing each others science.

They prove that they blackballed and discredited those who disagree with them.

They prove that they manipulated the numbers to get the results that they want. This has in fact been one of the biggest complaints that the Russians keep making. Hanson (NASA) has had to change data several times when the Russians confronted him about using the wrong data. He has carried summer temperatures into the winter months, and just ignored the temperatures from allot of their weather stations. If it doesn't fit the agenda, change it or don't use it.

They also coloberate allot of the claims that data has been cherry picked or ignored to get the results they want. The ice core samples and the tree rings are two big lies that they tried to keep going, but have since had to remove. One tree in all of Siberis fit their model, but hundreds of others didn't. Guess what was used for the evidence of CO2? The hundreds of trees that disproved it? or the one that did?

What the Global Warming Emails Reveal - WSJ.com

Climategate Document Database : Alleged CRU Email

These are three of the emails. Read them and decide for yourself if they are being honest, or taken out of context. They are very clear and very revealing.

Eddie




>Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:27:48 +0100 (BST)
>From: T Johns <tcjohns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Re: Climate Sensitivity
>To: d.viner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Cc: tcjohns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Status:
>
>Hi David,
>
>I have just got back from leave today - sorry for the lack of response
>to your emails.
>
>On climate sensitivity, the equilibrium sensitivity in HadCM2 was difficult
>to get a definitive answer for initially as the conventional slab experiment
>was unstable, so we estimated it from part of a transient coupled run
>instead. We quoted 2.5 K in the original Nature paper. Recently we
>have done a HadAM2 slab experiment (modified sea ice and slab ocean physics)
>which indicated 4.1 K rather than 2.5 as an equilibrium value. This is
>quoted in a paper submitted as a CMIP study. The HadAM3 conventional
>slab experiment gave the 3.3 K figure I think. The HadCM2 discrepancy
>indicates the perils of this yardstick; other research here suggests that
>the effective climate sensitivity does respond to climate change feedbacks
>in transient experiments (with HadCM2 particularly). The early 2.5 K
>estimate has been revised upwards based on a long coupled run of HadCM2 to
>be closer to the 3.3 K we got from HadCM3 equilibrium slab experiments.
>
>Comparing transient temperature responses to similar time-varying forcing
>may be a better indication of real sensitivity, but so long as we quote
>single climate sensitivity numbers I fear that there is scope for confusion.
>
>Tim.
>
>PS: I will try to get an update on the HadCM3 references sorted out for you.
>
>> Tim
>>
>> I'm a bit confused as now I have seen a numeber of different values, in
>> HCTN2 you mention that HadAM3 has a climate sensitivity of 3.3 degrees K
>> and that this is similar to HadCM2. Is this the case and is such a value
>> available from a comparable HadAM2 experiment.
>>
>> Many regards
>>
>> David
>>
>> PS Did you get my message about references?
>
#--------------------------------------------
# Dr. David Viner
# Climate Impacts LINK Project
# Climatic Research Unit
# University of East Anglia
# Norwich NR4 7TJ
# UK


From: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: THC collapse
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Thomas Stocker <stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jerry Meehl <meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Timothy Carter <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, maureen.joseph@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cubasch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hewitson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Stouffer, Ron" <rjs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, DEASTERL@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Great Tom, I think we are converging to much clearer meanings across
various cultures here. Please get the inconclusive out! By the way,
"possible" still has some logical issues as it is true for very large or
very small probabilities in principle, but if you define it clearly it is
probably OK--but "quite possible" conveys medium confidence better--but
then why not use medium confidence, as the 3 rounds of review over the
guidance paper concluded after going through exactly the kinds of
disucssions were having now. Thanks, Steve

On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:

>
>
> Steve, I agree with your assesement of inconclusive --- quite possible is
> much better and we use 'possible' in the US National Assessment. Surveys
> has shown that the term 'possible' is interpreted in this range by the
> public.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
> Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> on 08/23/2000 03:02:33 AM
>
>
>
> To: Thomas Stocker <stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
> cc: Jerry Meehl <meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Timothy Carter
> <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, maureen.joseph@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, giorgi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> Tom Karl/NCDC, cubasch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hewitson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> "Stouffer, Ron" <rjs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: THC collapse
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello all. I appreciate the improvement in the table from WG 1,
> particularly the inclusion of symmetrical confidence levels--but please
> get rid of the ridiculous "inconclusive" for the .34 to .66 subjective
> probability range. It will convey a completely differnt meaning to lay
> persons--read decisionmakers--since that probability range represents
> medium levels of confidence, not rare events. A phrase like "quite
> possible" is closer to popular lexicon, but inconclusive applies as well
> to very likely or very unlikely events and is undoubtedly going to be
> misinterpreted on the outside. I also appreciate the addition of
> increasing huricane intensities with warming moving out of the catch all
> less than .66 category it was in the SOD.
> I do have some concerns with the THC issue as dealt with here--echoing
> the comments of Tim Carter and Thomas Stocker. I fully agree that the
> likelihood of a complete collapse in the THC by 2100 is very remote, but
> to leave it at that is very misleading to policymakers given than there is
> both empirical and modeling evidence that such events can be triggered by
> phenomena in one century, but the occurrence of the event may be delayed
> a century or two more. Given also that the likelihood of a collapse
> depends on several uncertain parameters--CO2 stabilization level, CO2
> buildup rate, climate sensitivity, hydrological sensitivity and initial
> THC overturning rates, it is inconceivable to me that we could be 99% sure
> of anything--implied by the "exceptionally unlikely" label--given the
> plausibility of an unhappy combo of climate sensitivity, slower than
> current A/OGCMs initial THC strength and more rapid CO2 increase
> scenarios. Also, if 21st century actions could trigger 22nd century
> irreversible consequences, it would be irresponsible of us to not mention
> this possibility in a footnote at least, and not to simply let the matter
> rest with a very low likelihood of a collapse wholly within the 21st
> century. So my view is to add a footnote to this effect and be sure to
> convey the many paramenters that are uncertain which determine the
> likelihood of this event.
> Thanks again for the good work on this improtant table. Cheers, Steve
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Thomas Stocker wrote:
>
> > DEar Jerry, Tim and Ron et al
> >
> > I agree that an abrupt collapse - abrupt meaning within less than a
> decade, say
> > - has not been simulated by any climate model (3D and intermediate
> complexity)
> > in response to increasing CO2. Some models do show for longer
> integrations a
> > complete collapse that occurs within about 100-150 years. If you put that
> into
> > context of the apparent stability of THC during the last 10,000 years or
> so,
> > this is pretty "abrupt".
> >
> > Following up on the discussion regarding THC collapse, I think the
> statement Ron
> > apparently added to Ch9 needs to be made more specific. In order to keep
> Ch7 and
> > Ch9 consistent, I propose to Ron the following revision:
> >
> > "It seems that the likelihood of a collapse of the THC by year 2100 is
> less
> > than previously thought in the SAR based on the AOGCM results to date."
> >
> > There is really no model basis to extend this statement beyond 2100 as
> evidenced
> > by the figures that we show in TAR. There are many models that now run up
> to
> > 2060, some up to 2100, but very few longer.
> >
> > Also I should add for your information, that we add to Ch7 a sentence:
> >
> > "Models with reduced THC appear to be more susceptible for a
> > shutdown."
> >
> > Models indicate that the THC becomes more susceptible to collapse if
> previously
> > reduced (GFDL results by Tziperman, Science 97 and JPO 99). This is
> important as
> > "collapse unlikely by 2100" should not tempt people to conclude that THC
> > collapse is hence not an issue. The contrary is true: reduction means
> > destabilisation.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > thomas
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Thomas Stocker
> > Climate and Environmental Physics stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> > Physics Institute, University of Bern phone: +41 31 631 44 64
> > Sidlerstrasse 5 NEW fax: +41 31 631 87 42
> > 3012 Bern, Switzerland Thomas Stocker - Home Page
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> ------
> Stephen H. Schneider
> Dept. of Biological Sciences
> Stanford University
> Stanford, CA 94305-5020 U.S.A


From: "John L. Daly" <daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Chick Keller <ckeller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Hockey Sticks again
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:47:57 +1100
Reply-to: daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "P. Dietze" <p_dietze@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael E Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wallace@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas Crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, sfbtett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, onar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jarl.ahlbeck@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, richard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, McKitrick <rmckit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bjarnason <agust@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Harry Priem <priem@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, vinmary.gray@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, balberts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Martin Manning <m.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Albert Arking <arking@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sallie Baliunas <baliunas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jack Barrett <100436.3604@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sonja Boehmer-Cristianse <sonja.b-c@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nigel Calder <nc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Christy <christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, cpaynter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, driessen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dwojick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Myron Ebell <mebell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellsaesser <hughel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Emsley <j.emsley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jim Goodridge <jdg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, gsharp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Peter Holle <cog@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Douglas V Hoyt <dhoyt1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "W. S. Hughes" <wsh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wibjörn Karlén <wibjorn.karlen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, kidso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, KIrill Kondratyev <kirill.kondratyev@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Dr. Theodor Landscheidt" <theodor.landscheidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ross McKitrick <rmckitri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, omcshane <omcshane@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Pat Michaels <pmichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, pbrekke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "David M. Ritson" <dmr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, robert.balling@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Segalstad <t.v.segalstad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Fred Singer <singer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Roy Spencer <roy.spencer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hartwig Volz <Hartwig.Volz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gerd-Rainer Weber <gerd-rainer.weber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tlowery@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rosanne D'Arrigo <druidrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Chick & all

> the first is Keith Briffa's rather comprehensive treatment of getting
> climate variations from tree rings: Annual climate variability in
> the Holocene: "interpreting the message of ancient trees", Quaternary
> Science Reviews, 19 (2000) 87-105. It should deal with many of the
> questions people raise about using them to determine temperatures.

Take this from first principles.

A tree only grows on land. That excludes 70% of the earth covered by
water. A tree does no grow on ice. A tree does not grow in a desert. A
tree does not grow on grassland-savannahs. A tree does not grow in
alpine areas. A tree does not grow in the tundra

We are left with perhaps 15% of the planet upon which forests
grow/grew. That does not make any studies from tree rings global, or
even hemispheric.

The width and density of tree rings is dependent upon the following
variables which cannot be reliably separated from each other.

sunlight - if the sun varies, the ring will vary. But not at night of
course.
cloudiness - more clouds, less sun, less ring.
pests/disease - a caterpillar or locust plague will reduce
photosynthesis
access to sunlight - competition within a forest can disadvantage or
advantage some trees.
moisture/rainfall - a key variable. Trees do not prosper in a drought
even if there's a heat wave.
snow packing in spring around the base of the trees retards growth
temperature - finally!

The tree ring is a composite of all these variables, not merely of
temperature. Therefore on the 15% of the planet covered by trees, their
rings do not and cannot accurately record temperature in isolation from
the other environmental variables.

In my article on Greening Earth Society on the Hockey Stick, I point to
other evidence which contradicts Mann's theory. The Idso's have produced
more of that evidence, and a new article on Greening Earth has
`unearthed' even more.

Mann's theory simply does not stack up. But that was not the key issue.
Anyone can put up a dud theory from time to time. What is at issue is
the uncritical zeal with which the industry siezed on the theory before
its scientific value had been properly tested. In one go, they tossed
aside dozens of studies which confirmed the existence of the MWE and LIA
as global events, and all on the basis of tree rings - a proxy which has
all the deficiencies I have stated above.

The worst thing I can say about any paper such as his is that it is `bad
science'. Legal restraint prevents me going further. But in his case,
only those restraints prevent me going *much* further.

Cheers

John Daly

 

[Ken45101]

I'm sure that in some locations, windmills will produce electricity. As I said earlier, most of those locations are NOT where we need most of the electricity.

We live on a ridgetop that seems quite windy at times. I just checked our weather records for last year. Most months, the average wind speed was 3.5 mph. It did get higher in November and December, 4.6 mph.

As I recall, a minimum of about 10 mph is required to turn the turbines and they really need at least 20 mph average to be worthwhile. Now I'm sure there are places out on the Plains and in mountain areas that do have enough wind, but those places are not where most of the nation needs electricity!

I also distinctly remember Sierra magazine (voice of the Sierra Club) having a cover article attacking wind farms. Seems even the hyper Green folks didn't like them.

Take away the government incentives and cost sharing (which the oil companies do NOT get), and you will find, just like ethanol, it doesn't make economic sense in most locations.

If we want to really reduce our "carbon footprint", we need to figure out nuclear power. We could start with Fast Breeder Reactors, but our government won't allow that even though France has been using them successfully for decades. Besides, anything like that, Washington and the environmentalists would tie up with decades of paperwork and counter productive regulations.

No, this isn't about the environment, or global climate change, it's about destroying the economies of the developed nations. As I've said several times, Kyoto and Copenhagen were not designed to change the environment for the good, they were designed to destroy the developed economies and move industrial production to MORE POLLUTING COUNTRIES, a net loss for the environment. I challenge anyone here to tell me how moving industrial production to China will improve the environment. I'm sure that no one will answer that.

Ken

 

[CRJCaptain]

Help me out here.

In reply to a petition that is current and still being added to on a daily basis, you post a reply to a petition agains Kyoto dated 1998?

How is this relevant?

In 1998, I was one of those people that wasn't sure about global warming, or if it was caused by humans. I, like allot of people, didn't know anything about it. I had my concerns and wanted it fixed if it was something that we were causing. I also wondered why the US was the only country that was being penalized and if it was such a terrible thing, why wasn't the whole world working towards fixing the problem? Then there was the most obvious issue, why were the people telling us to not drive cars, heat our homes and fly, doing those things themselves.

If you truly believe that smoking is bad for you and causes cancer, will you start smoking? Some do, but most don't understand what that means when they start smoking. The same is true about so many things. When we know that it's a bad idea and doing so will cause allot of harm, we tend to not do it. So why is it that Al Gore and all of thise leading the Global Warming charge are the very worse offenders out there? Who creates more carbon then Mr Gore? While there are a few poeple that are worse than he is, they tend to pretend that they are also trying to stop global warming.

So my doubts grew. With the internet and the ability to check stories, read other stories and hear oposing views, my understanding of the scam grew. Unfortunately, the most honest newspaper is the UK Telegraph. It has more insite and investigative journalism about what's going on in our country then any of them that are here.

With the release of the emails from East Anglia, it's all become very obvious. It is a scam, it is a hoax and they have been lying. Why anybody would believe any of this after the emails is beyond me. Fortunately, those emails came out, and as a result, this is becoming a non issue.


Eddie

I guess you didn't get it...it's extremely relevant.

It's interesting that you should bring up smoking, Eddie, because as it turns out, this bogus petition actually has a curious link to tobacco.

The person originally responsible for this as you call "current" and "still being added to" petition is none other than Fred Seitz, who used to be a hired gun scientist on the big tobacco payroll to debunk the myth that, NEWSFLASH, cigarettes are addictive and contain known carcinogens and may even cause cancer!

I find it extremely ironic that the exact same people are using the same tactics, but this time to convince us that climate change is a fraud! Who's bankrolling this subterfuge? Could it be big oil and coal?

When Fred Seitz published this petition in 1998, it was intentionally and in a very misleading fashion made to look as if it was put out by the National Academy of Science. The NAS's response was to immediately put out a press release to clarify their actual position, and to point out that Seitz et al. were misrepresenting facts in an attempt to look legitimate.

The excerpt that I posted is one of the first debunkings of the very petition that you brought up as proof of massive support for a scientific consensus against anthropogenic climate change. This scientific consensus that you speak of simply doesn't exist...it's an outright fabrication.

If this isn't relevant to your reference to this flawed petition, please explain to me how it's NOT relevant.

Have a look at this video, an in depth look at your petition:

YouTube - 32000 Scientists

I'd like to hear your rebuttal on this...

I find it interesting that some of you still believe, but like so many of the other members here who used to jump into this topic, they are staying quiet about it now. Did they change their minds? Do they have doubts and no longer want to argue something that they no longer believe in? Maybe. The national polls say it's no longer an issue for the American People. Jobs, the Economy and Terrorism are what's important.Eddie

Maybe they just got tired of a "debate" that's akin to talking to a brick wall and simply went away...

 

[EddieWalker]

I guess you didn't get it...it's extremely relevant.

It's interesting that you should bring up smoking, Eddie, because as it turns out, this bogus petition actually has a curious link to tobacco.

The person originally responsible for this as you call "current" and "still being added to" petition is none other than Fred Seitz, who used to be a hired gun scientist on the big tobacco payroll to debunk the myth that, NEWSFLASH, cigarettes are addictive and contain known carcinogens and may even cause cancer!

I find it extremely ironic that the exact same people are using the same tactics, but this time to convince us that climate change is a fraud! Who's bankrolling this subterfuge? Could it be big oil and coal?

When Fred Seitz published this petition in 1998, it was intentionally and in a very misleading fashion made to look as if it was put out by the National Academy of Science. The NAS's response was to immediately put out a press release to clarify their actual position, and to point out that Seitz et al. were misrepresenting facts in an attempt to look legitimate.

The excerpt that I posted is one of the first debunkings of the very petition that you brought up as proof of massive support for a scientific consensus against anthropogenic climate change. This scientific consensus that you speak of simply doesn't exist...it's an outright fabrication.

If this isn't relevant to your reference to this flawed petition, please explain to me how it's NOT relevant.

Have a look at this video, an in depth look at your petition:

YouTube - 32000 Scientists

I'd like to hear your rebuttal on this...

Unfortunately I'm unable to hear sound on my computer. I found it annoying and either disabled it, or somehow just lost it. I can't play music or anything, so you'll either have to wait for me to fix this, and I'm not planning to do so, or you'll have to provide a link that I can read if you'd like a reply. I do apologize for this as i'd like to see it.

I'm unfamiliar with our comments on Fred Seitz and too lazy to google him. I'll just take your word for it that he's pulled some stunts in his past and has a reputaion for putting out misleading documents. Is it fair to agree that he's a scum bag?

Given that agreement, what does he have to do with the people that signed his petition that disagree with the science of global warming being wrong? Regardless of Fred Seitz and his history, more then 31,000 people signed this. Allot of them are scientists and over a quarter of them are PHD's.

What this proves is that there are allot of educated people who don't believe that man is causing the planet to warm. It doesn't prove that the are correct, or that it's not happening. It doesn't prove anything except that the debate is far from over. It proves that there are allot of people with higher education degrees and credentials that think the scientist who say that man is causing the planet to warm up are not correct in their science.

I'm not one of thoe people who signed it. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not qualified to tell you what is or isnt' happening. What I can and am doing is pointing out where some very important people have gone to allot of trouble to lie and fabricate evidence to prove something that they are not capable of proving with science. In a nutshell, that's all I have to offer to this discussion.

The rest is an attempt to share why I belive what I belive. I've tried to be civil and respond to those who disagree with me, but are willing to have an ongoing discussion without resorting to name calling or tossing out insults. A few have gone that route and that's fine. I'll let others reply to them if there's an interest. I'm letting their posts stand on their own merrits and you can draw your own conclusions.

Eddie

 

[keegs]

Loren,

Please provide some documentation of where the major oil companies are receiving tax money? Exxon PAID something like 160 BILLION in taxes last year.

You keep harping on the oil companies receiving tax money, please tell me where!

Ken

Ken... you'd also have to consider the costs involved in funding the Navy's 5th fleet and Central Command.

Both play a crucial role in maintaining the free flow of oil through the Persian Gulf.

While other countries have been building high speed rail systems, smart grids and twenty first century infrasturctures, for the past sixty years we've been ponying up the funds for the oil the posse.

That situation is a mess!!