Manic Misinterpretations of Climate Change Capitulation by US in Bali

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
  • Bookmark and Share

A supposedly sensational climate change pact was agreed upon in Bali on Saturday with the United States and the Bush administration finally capitulating to international demands to stave off the bogeyman known as global warming.

Yet, much as the media completely misinterpreted what came out of the G-8 summit in Germany six months ago, press outlets today are applauding an agreement that fell far short of what global warming alarmists were hoping to achieve, and much like what transpired in June, resulted in absolutely no specific international carbon dioxide emissions cuts.

Not surprisingly, this isn't how the news is being reported here as demonstrated at CNN.com in an article hysterically titled "U.S. Agrees to Bali Compromise" (emphasis added):

The United States made a dramatic reversal Saturday, first rejecting and then accepting a compromise to set the stage for intense negotiations in the next two years aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.

The U.N. climate change conference in Bali was filled with emotion and cliff-hanging anticipation on Saturday, an extra day added because of a failure to reach agreement during the scheduled sessions.

The final result was a global warming pact that provides for negotiating rounds to conclude in 2009.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called the pact "a good beginning." "This is just a beginning and not an ending," Ban said. "We'll have to engage in many complex, difficult and long negotiations."

The Associated Press was similarly jubilant (emphasis added):

World leaders overcame bitter divisions Saturday and agreed to reach a new deal on fighting global warming by 2009, turning a corner in mankind's race to stave off environmental disaster caused by rising temperatures.

The contentious, two-week U.N. climate conference on the resort island of Bali ended with the United States, facing angry criticism from other delegations, relenting in its opposition to a request from developing nations for more technological help fighting climate change.

Surprisingly, Time magazine's website reported much more accurately what transpired on the island of Bali Saturday (emphasis added, watch for oddly placed sentences ending without periods that appear to be their computer glitch):

The roadmap is essentially the beginning of a beginning. The negotiations to come have a specific end date - 2009 - and for the first time, dismantles what the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change executive secretary Yvo de Boer called "the Berlin Wall of climate change," the idea that only the rich nations need to take responsibility for fighting global warming. Both developed countries [sic]

The two sides still have different responsibilities, with developed nations ready to take on more quantifiable emissions cuts, and developing nations preparing to take on less specific national actions, but no country is left behind. That matters because the majority of future carbon emissions will come from the developing world, and no climate deal can work without the participation of China and India. "The developing nations of the South are on the same road as the North," says Peter Goldmark, director for the climate and air program for Environmental Defense. "They're using the same roadmap."

Bringing the developing nations on board made it possible for the U.S. to join.

Readers should understand that this was a huge victory for the U.S., and what was indeed missing from the Kyoto Protocol the Clinton administration, with support from then Vice President Al Gore and 95 senators, refused to ratify in 1997. Now, ten years later, developing nations are the ones that have capitulated and agreed to participate in emissions cuts.

Though most media will downplay this, it was indeed a win for the Bush administration and America, as it establishes that any agreement to emissions cuts in the future - assuming such occur - will include developing nations like China and India. This potentially assures that any climate change agreement the U.S. enters into in the future will not give such nations an unfair economic advantage.

Again, this was a HUGE win for the Bush administration that will likely be downplayed by the press.

Yet, Time had more information about what happened in Bali that most media will ignore (emphasis added):

The Bali roadmap contains no specific commitments or figures on the emissions reductions that developed countries will need to take, beyond language that "deep cuts" will be needed. Earlier in the week the EU fought hard to include a specific target of 25 to 40% cuts for developed nations by 2020, and a need to halve global emissions - two figures cited by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest assessment of global warming science. Neither made it into the final text, thanks largely to determined opposition from the U.S., although a footnote points to the IPCC report. For environmentalists who had hoped that the recent avalanche of data underscoring the rising crisis of climate change might prompt tougher action, Bali was a disappointment. "It was a rather weak deal," said Meena Rahman, chair of Friends of the Earth International. "It's compromised."

In fact, Canada walked away very disappointed with this compromise as reported by The Canadian Press (emphasis added):

Canada helped gut some of the substance from a world climate-change deal and then expressed regret Saturday when the final agreement was ultimately watered down even more than it had hoped.

Environment Minister John Baird hailed as a positive step a United Nations agreement to seek a new global climate-change treaty by 2012.

But he expressed regret that the agreement was almost completely stripped of any reference to numbers and targets which would have been the starting point for the discussion.

In the end, as press outlet after press outlet will report in the coming days that the Bush administration gave in to international demands at Bali concerning global warming, the truth is that much like at the G-8, the White House got exactly what it wanted from this conference, and the alarmists got virtually nothing.

In fact, once again, the Administration demonstrated its diplomatic aplomb concerning this matter, a skill media can't possibly acknowledge.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sounds like the perfect UN resolution!

Preparing to think about getting ready to make plans for beginning to open early discussions on negotiating the issue.

Bravo dervish...Bravo.

Bravo dervish...Bravo. Excellent post.

LOL

Bet you cant say that 5 times fast.Spot on though.

The next American president will lead on climate change

As the Papua New Guinea rep said at the Bali talks - "The world wants the USA to lead on this issue, if the USA won't lead - then please get out of the way."

It was a victory for the other 200 countries - the Bush administration was shamed into compromising and signing more than it wished.

It won't be so hard in Denmark in 2009 with an American president who understands science.

Global Warming is real, accelerating and only 103 scientists could be mustered for the contrarian viewpoint in a letter to the UN secretary general at the Bali conference.  103 - out of several million scientists world wide.

I'm an Australian, and Howard's fate is Bush's near future.  Basically we're seeing the destruction of our Great Barrier Reef (coral dies at CO2 levels of 450ppm - even without the bleaching caused by warming oceans - as acidification means coral cannot calcify) - that would be a Aus$7 billion economy gone, drought and water restrictions bite hard, heat waves kill trees already.  The Australian people have made a big change, so will Americans.

rucky

there are a lot more than 103.

Are you trying to say anyone who didn't sign this one particular letter must be in agreement with the bogus UN view?

Simply put prove before you take my money.

GoHunter08

Sorry to hear about your

Sorry to hear about your reef. I know how you feel. We used to have some really cool dinosaures over here. They all got broke too. They just don't make things like they used to. Did you save the warranty papers?

"please get out of the way

-- but leave your wallet."

Finished that for ya.

Dumb Downunder

"Howard's fate is Bush's near future". Hey ruck, stay out of American politics until you learn about them. eh?

  • Howard - lost an election

  • Bush - by law, can't run for re-election.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Who are we blocking?

As the Papua New Guinea rep said at the Bali talks - "The world wants
the USA to lead on this issue, if the USA won't lead - then please get
out of the way."

One question: How are we stopping Papau New Guinea (or anybody else) from doing something on their own?

One observation: Every country that has bound itself by Kyoto has miserably failed to even curtail CO2 emissions growth although the US has. Seems like the US is leading by deeds and the rest of the world is breaking their word.

Bush can't suffer Howard's fate; he can't run again

"I'm an Australian, and Howard's fate is Bush's near future."

Perhaps as an Australian you are unaware under our Constitution Bush cannot run for the Presidency again.  The Dems aren't strong enough to remove Bush through impeachment, so in all likelihood Bush will peacefully surrender his office as scheduled at noon Eastern U.S. Time on Jan. 20, 2009.  George W. Bush will probably never run for office again. 

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

<<It won't be so hard in

<<It won't be so hard in Denmark in 2009 with an American president who understands science.>>

When it comes to AGW, I'd be much happier if we had more scientists who truly understand science. 

 <<Global Warming is real, accelerating....>> 

 Historically there are three major warming events in the past 100,000 years, mate, along with three major ice advancements (ice ages).  And your explanation for this is.....?? 

<<103 scientists could be mustered for the contrarian viewpoint... 103 - out of several million scientists world wide.>>

Yeah?  So?  That's 103 scientists who understand the science of climatology.   There are a lot more than that out there who didn't sign the letter to the current knuckle-head running the UN.

In the 15th century everyone just knew that the earth was flat, except for a few who understood science and rejected superstition.

<<I'm an Australian, and Howard's fate is Bush's near future.>>

Yeah and you're a tad confused about how we elect our presidents here in the good 'ol States:  Howard lost the election; GW Bush cannot run for a third consecutive term, so he will be out of office by default.

BTW, hasn't your new head of state (name escapes me for the moment) already done an about-face on this ridiculous AGW nonsense?  I'd be rather upset if I were a green freak in Australia.

<<The Australian people have made a big change, so will Americans. >>

Not so fast, pal.  If you're suggesting that just because Australians have bought into this nonsense (and openned their wallets to the perverts in the UN along with it) Americans will also make "...a big change..." you'd better think again.  Americans are, by in large, a lot smarter than to trust the UN, IPCC, and the rest of the goons around the world who want our money!

  A carefully

 

A carefully considered position on the inconclusiveness of the scientific
evidence.

Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

 

http://www.friendsof...

useless actions

But he expressed regret that the agreement was almost completely
stripped of any reference to numbers and targets which would have been
the starting point for the discussion
.

Numbers which would be unattainable as evidenced by the recent information regarding carbon emissions in Europe--the rise--this despite the imposition of their precious targets while the U.S. reduces emissions without even trying.

Dr. Motl today calls these Bali vacationers social parasites and I'd agree with that description. And that's being polite.

 

I like it, September. Social

I like it, September. Social parasites. A polite, yet very accurate description. I think I'll try it out on you-know-who, below. Thanks!

Is China still "developing"?

I'd say they seem pretty "developed" by now. And any treaty that comes out of this should be subjected to the "is it longer than your family's Bible" test, IMO. That generally flunks the bad ones...
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

Solar Cycle 24

By 2009, we'll be into Solar Cycle 24 (which is shaping up to be low intensity), and the temperature will have dropped enough to show the complete lack of any need for any of this posturing.

 

 

denialism gone wild is what

this thread is all about. A group of ignorant deniers explaining their future scenarios regarding climate with ZERO scientific evidence. The rightwing has completed their journey into complete lunacy, where climate scientists are "hysterical" and scientific ignoramuses know what's ahead. Deniers, when you need a brain surgeon, go talk to a plumber. I'm sure he'll give you much better advice.

DENIER, DENIER, BRAIN ON

DENIER, DENIER, BRAIN ON FIRE.

You're simply an ignorant logic denying lout. And that is undeniable.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

JB, taking a break from your

waterboarding fantasies? Or were they realities? or Delusions? Just like your denialism! A grand delusion. Enjoy your bliss, ignorant one.

As usual, the BS "Perfesser" is the real denier

Rather than an honest, thoughtful response to Noel's column, the "Perfesser's" purpose is to derail the discussion regarding the U.S. victory in Bali.  Since he can't deny the victory he resorts to petty cheapshot rhetoric.

I wish someone would

I wish someone would waterboard you, "Professor"! Maybe you'd come to your senses. Global warming is nothing more than the "progressives" latest scheme to redistribute wealth, and exert dictatorial reign over the world's population. The nut job, moonbat vision of the world certainly ain't ours.

I troubles me greatly that you say you really are a teacher.

Gary, tell it to these guys:

http://www.realclima...

 

Also, why would you be troubled by kids learning science?

Sorry, I don't believe

Sorry, I don't believe anything the climate "scientists" have come up with. not one single thing! And before you even drag out the old C word. Science isn't about building consensous it's about getting the best facts.

I tell you what my "little perfesser", when theses yahoos can give me a correct three day forcast for a couple of months straight, I might get excited!

These so called scientists are the same nimrods that were telling us the earth was gonna be frozen over. That didn't happen either. So forgive me if I just don't beleive nothing they trott out here on global warming. These global warmers have no credability

Gary, these "so called" scientists?

http://www.realclima...

You better read their accomplishments before you say stuff like that.

What Accomplishments?

You mean like producing propaganda science?

What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Environmental Economist)
The Broken Stick (Financial Post, Canada)
The decay of the hockey stick (Climate Feedback)
The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science (John L. Daly)
Lessons & Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual? (PDF) (Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics)
In Climate Debate, The 'Hockey Stick' Leads to a Face-Off (The Wall Street Journal)
NAS report "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 200 Years" (National Academy of Sciences)

"With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al.. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless.

[...] Thus, the public perception that the hockeystick as truthfully describing the temperature history was definitely false.

We find it disappointing that the method of Mann et al. was not sufficiently described in the original publication, and thus not peer-reviewed prior to publication, and that no serious efforts were made to allow independent researchers to check the performance of the methods and of the data used."

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

popular tech, here's your "dummies

Guide to the Hockey Stick Controversy"

http://www.realclima...

 

Please Professor Propaganda

You keep linking to a propaganda blog run by the puppets of James Hansen (Gavin Schmidt) and the discredited Mann. So discredited his propaganda no longer appears in the IPCC 4th assessment report. I realize why you believe the hockey stick hoax because again it is based on a computer program written to create a hockey stick shape no matter what the data fed into it. You computer illiterates never cease to amaze me.

What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Environmental Economist)

The Broken Stick (Financial Post, Canada)
The decay of the hockey stick (Climate Feedback)
The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science (John L. Daly)
Lessons & Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual? (PDF) (Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics)
In Climate Debate, The 'Hockey Stick' Leads to a Face-Off (The Wall Street Journal)
NAS report "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 200 Years" (National Academy of Sciences)

"With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al.. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless.

[...] Thus, the public perception that the hockeystick as truthfully describing the temperature history was definitely false.

We find it disappointing that the method of Mann et al. was not sufficiently described in the original publication, and thus not peer-reviewed prior to publication, and that no serious efforts were made to allow independent researchers to check the performance of the methods and of the data used."

 
Peer Review Evidence Destroying the Hockey Stick:

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies
(Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058, 2007)
- C. Loehle

Comment on "The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years"
(Science, Vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1844, 29 June 2007)
- Gerd Bürger

Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, 1 November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data
(Nature 433, 613-617, 10 February 2005)
- Anders Moberg, Dmitry M. Sonechkin, Karin Holmgren, Nina M. Datsenko and Wibjörn Karlén

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L03710, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

"Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly
always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1)"

Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years
(Climate Research, Vol. 23: 89–110, 2003)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas

Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance"
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L20715, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance"
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L20714, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

I don't have a problem with

I don't have a problem with kids learning science. I do, however have loads of problems with YOU being their teacher. Having you teach is a great miscarrage of education.

Gary, you haven't a clue as to the

requirements of being a good teacher .

Not you

I would not want a computer illiterate teaching my children.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

I would never have a denialist teach

my kids. But I guess it's a good thing to have science illiterates like intelligent design and AGW denier wackos teach science . It makes it much easier for those who had a rigorous science background to compete in the job market.

Like Yourself?

Scientific illiterates like yourself who believe that science is proven due to your computer illiteracy? Fascinating.

Now prove "Man-Made" Global Warming via the Scientific Method without using Computer Models

Nice try with the "intelligent design" remark but you are so clueless you have no idea who you are even talking too.

You compete in the job market? LMAO! You work in a socialist system precisely because you are unable to get a job in the real world since no one hires computer illiterates these days.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Yes, he and we do. Social

Yes, he and we do. Social parasites will be denied.

}}---> Of course Professor

As you have stated in other posts, barely 50% of your students pass your math classes.  And since you consider yourself a good teacher, I think we can extrapolate what your union thinks the qualifications to be.

Again I ask:  "Would 50% successful airline landings be considered acceptable??

I ♣ My Seal

Since when has telling

Since when has telling lies, spreading propaganda, and indoctrinating impressionable young minds with leftists drivel constituted being a good teacher?

 

Since both parties

Started calling socialist ("public") schools a good thing. Hey, you asked!!
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

Social parasites, such as

Social parasites, such as yourself, will be proudly denied at every turn you make.

prof

"with ZERO scientific evidence."

Jesus man, didn't you learn anything from me or poptech or the rest of us over the past few weeks???   We have shown you plenty of documented evidence that shows AGW to be a farce.  You are amazing........

 

 "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

SnT, so with all your evidence, why haven't you

convinced any practicing climate scientists? Are these scientists incredibly ignorant to your "newly discovered" facts?? Or are they engaged in a giant scientific coverup, a CONSPIRACY?? Or are these PHD scientists with many peer reviewed published papers in the climate science field just too stupid to understand the clearly presented arguments of denialism?? Or maybe something else is going on?? So, what explanation do you have?

Hey brainiac, Did I say I

Hey brainiac,

Did I say I was a climate scientist?  A geologist with a masters degree with an influence of study in Holocene climates---but not a climate scientist.  With that being said we have shown you what many climate scientists HAVE SAID AND THEIR FACTS and INTERPRETATIONS.

For instance, here is another for you; 100 scientists many of whom are climate scientists (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/open_letter_to_un.html) who call BS on AGW.  How about you go convince them of your newly discovered facts.  Furthermore, you know I find it intersting you talk all this s**t about realclimate.org; but how many times have you been to climateaudit etc. argueing your case???  Go debate THOSE scientists if you are so sure of AGW.

 "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

SnT

so it is these respected climate scientists who have convinced us?

Do tell.......

GoHunter08

botg, sorry, not

botg,

sorry, not following you.

"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

SnT

the profff asked you to convince 'real climate scientists'

i was pointing out that real climate scientists are the ones doing the convincing.

GoHunter08

gotcha, sorry--can be a

gotcha, sorry--can be a little thick sometimes!  :)

 "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

SnT, so you will understand

the difference between settled and unsettled issues, recognizing that there are hundreds of in-between possibilities. We both know that ideas are given different levels of confidence , based on several factors. One factor is how well tested an idea is. The more tests which give support to the idea, the more confidence one has in that idea. Now, AGW has actually become stronger over time, particularly over the last 20 years. The AGW idea has been accepted by an increasing number of CLIMATE scientists during this time. Doctors, engineers, physicists, biologists and others may have a solid science background, but climate scientists are specialists in this AGW question , so on the whole, should be considered more credible as far as answering this question. If a 1000 chemists were arguing a 1000 geologists about the age of a rock, ultimately, I would trust the answer of the geology scientists more, since they have studied the subject more. That's not to say that chemists don't provide necessary or valid information, it's just that geologists approach the answer from more directions, so their answer would have a higher degree of credibility.

Your arguement is 100%

Your arguement is 100% bogus.  There are climate scientists in the non-AGW camp that debate against those that are.  There are not from two separate disciplines.  You obviously, in this case, didn't read the list and each scientists credentials.

And you totally dodged my question as to why you won't go debate said climate scientists at climateaudit et al., if you are so sure your arguement and convictions. 

"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

SnT, I am aware that there are

legitimate climate scientists in the denial camp. Lindzen, Christy, Ball, Michaels, and many more. They are still the great minority compared to the legitimate climate scientists that are climate scientists. You may have studied regional, not global climate changes. You may have an incomplete picture(or less complete) than climate scientists who specialize in climate. My point is that the most credible debate(whether pro or anti AGW) lies within those climate scientists, which is not to say that all others don't have some say. The specialists of any field are given a higher credibility.

Did I ever say I was the

Did I ever say I was the climate scientist??  In my original post on this thread I was referring to the references I and many others here had posted for you to learn from; never did I say it was my emperical data.

Now, by your arguement, not mine; wouldn't I more apt to discuss these issues based on my background since it is more catered to climate than say a physics degree?  Relatively, degrees in geology and climate study would hold higher credibility don't you think?

"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

SnT, I agree completely with your last post,

mainly because you've studied the issue more and are likely to have better insight. Like chess, each level of the game suggests more insight. Not that an amateur has NEVER defeated a grandmaster, but, on the whole, the words of a grandmaster are given more weight than an amateur. I see climate science in the same way, and you should also.

Fair enough, but why do you

Fair enough, but why do you stop in the middle of the 'game'.  I am trying to open your eyes to other levels---i.e. the other side of the arguement that you so adamantly ignore.

"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

SnT, I was a skeptic in the 80's regarding AGW.

The evidence I've read and observed from looking at articles has convinced me that AGW is happening and is very worrisome. Everyone can have a different level of concern but the mechanism for warming has been pretty decisively established. The Technical summary of the IPCC IV report has data available.

The key portion of the 4th

The key portion of the 4th assessment of  IPCC is that of WG1. Without it all esle is questionable.

 "to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future ‘projections’. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”. "

... the critical chapter 9 “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”.  Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial. 

That list of 100 looks a lot more impressive.

Source

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

The Computer Illiterate

All that IPCC "data" is based on irrelevant computer models. You are a proven computer illiterate who keeps posting alarmist propaganda based on emotion not science.

Now prove "Man-Made" Global Warming via the Scientific Method without using Computer Models

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

First of all, to be accused

First of all, to be accused on "being in denial" of AGW is a gross misnomer. The esteemed climate "experts" you use to support your beliefs (and that's all they are: simply beliefs) have not yet established that AGW is a fact. All they have is a bunch of massaged computer models and a consensus. 

Moreover, their lack of forthcoming when it comes to any substantial debate on the subject by any challenging source suspected of being "a denier" or "in denial" is met with complete revulsion and outright hostility.  Case in point:  scientists and sources who have that opposing view to AGW were given the cold shoulder, treated like crap, refused entry, and largely disenfranchised by UN scum and IPCC goons who were obviously afraid of something at the recent enviro-socialist love-in at Bali. Of course, you won't hear this broadcast by the MSM either, but it's out there.

If the AGW issue is soooooo important that it could have dire consequences either way, then why not do our best to find out what is the real truth, what is fact, what is myth, and which buffoons are out just to get our hard earned $$$ and to distribute the wealth, Marxist style?  Am I making sense, ' prof?

 << Everyone can have a different level of concern but the mechanism for warming has been pretty decisively established>>

Oh , it has?  Could it be that bright ball in the sky that rises in the east everyday has something to do with it?   The planet Mars' atmosphere is 95% CO2, a greenhouse gas according to the IPCC or so they say.  Mars should be a hot house then, correct? but it isn't;  it's pretty damn cold there.  Could the fact that Mars is almost twice as far from the sun as we are have anything to do with that?  I wonder. 

 Supposedly Mars is warming up, but the lack of martian SUVs, coal-fired power plants, and other factors that would increase atmospheric CO2 poses a logical problem for the increased CO2=increased temperature sycophants.

Kool-aid anyone?  I'll pass.

^ is a (*)(*) No brain

^ is a (*)(*) No brain surgeon required to see that.

Too bad global warming isn't real. They might actually have power in Oklahoma if it was.

 

ckc, report your findings to these guys:

http://www.realclima...

I'm sure they'll see how ignorant and stupid they were after you present them your facts.

10 Alarmists to over 55,000 Skeptics

NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming

19,000 Scientists declare that "man-made" global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever (OISM)
4000 Scientists sign 'The Heidelberg Appeal' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (Heartland Institute)
150 Scientists, Economists and Theologians sign An Open Letter to the Signers of 'Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action' (ISA)
105 Scientists sign 'The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
100 Scientists sign an 'Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations' (National Post, Canada)
77 Skeptical Scientists (Business and Media Institute)
60 Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (Financial Post, Canada)
47 Scientists sign the 'Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
41 Scientists debunk global warming alert (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
35 Skeptical Scientists, 'The Deniers' (National Post, Canada)


Skeptical Scientists:

A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Technical University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Aksel Wiin-Nielsen, Professor of Geophysical Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Alfred H. Pekarek, Ph.D. Geology, Associate Professor of Geology, St. Cloud State University, USA
Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng, Canada
Andreas Prokoph, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University Tubingen, Germany
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Purdue University, USA
Antonino Zichichi, Professor Emeritus of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Ben Herman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, USA
Bjarne Andresen, Ph. D. Theoretical Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Bob Durrenberger, Retired Climatologist, Former President of the American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Boris Winterhalter, Ph.D. Geology, Helsinki University, Finland
Bruce N. Ames, Ph.D. BioChemistry, California Institute of Technology, USA
Bruno Wiskel, B.Sc. Honours Geology, University of Albert, Canada
Carl Johan Friedrich (Frits) Böttcher, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Leiden, The Netherlands
Charles Gelman, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Public Health, University of Michigan, USA
Chauncey Starr, Ph.D. Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Christiaan Frans van Sumere, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, University of Gent, Belgium
Christoph C. Borel, Ph.D. Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts, USA
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Christopher Landsea, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Clinton H. Sheehan, Ph.D. Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Craig D. Idso, M.S. Agronomy, Ph.D. Geography, Arizona State University, USA
Daniel B. Botkin, Ph.D. Biology, Rutgers University, USA
David Deming, B.S. Geology, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David E. Wojick, B.S. Civil Engineering, Ph.D. Mathematical Logic, University of Pittsburgh, USA
David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA
David G. Aubrey, B.S. Geological Sciences, Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, USA
David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Physics, MIT, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David L. Hill, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
David Nowell, M.Sc. Meteorology, Royal Meteorological Society, Canada
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D. Geology, University of Washington, USA
Donald G. Baker, Ph.D. Soils, Geology, University of Minnesota, USA
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Duncan Wingham, Ph.D. Physics, University of Bath, UK
Eckhard Grimmel, Ph.D. Geography, University of Hamburg, Germany
Edward Wegman, Ph.D. Mathematical Statistics, University of Iowa, USA
Eigil Friis-Christensen, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Elliot Abrams, M.S. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Eric S. Posmentier, Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth, USA
Ernst-Georg Beck, M.Sc. Biology, Merian-Schule, Germany
Fred Goldberg, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Fred Michel, B.Sc. Geological Sciences, M.Sc. Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University of Waterloo, Canada
Fred W. Decker, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, USA
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Princeton University, USA
G. Cornelis van Kooten, B.Sc. Geophysics, Ph.D. Agricultural & Resource Economics, Oregon State University, USA
Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia
Garth Paltridge, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
Geoff L. Austin, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
George E. McVehil, B.A. Physics, M.S. Ph.D. Meteorology, AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George Kukla, Micropalentologist, Special Research Scientist of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
George Wilhelm Stroke, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D. Consulting Meteorologist, Germany
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D. Physics, Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD Geology, New Zealand
Gordon E. Swaters, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics and Physical Oceanography, University of British Columbia, Canada
Graham Smith, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada
H. Grant (H.G.) Goodell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
Hans Erren, B.Sc. Geology and Physics, M.Sc. Geophysics, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hans Jelbring, Ph.D. Climatology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Harry N.A. Priem, Professor Emeritus of Isotope and Planetary Geology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, The Netherlands
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Henry R. Linden, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA
Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Indur M. Goklany, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, India
J. Scott Armstrong, B.A. Applied Science, B.S. Industrial Engineering, Ph.D. MIT, USA
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK
James O’Brien, Ph.D. Meteorology, Texas A&M University, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D. Groundwater Hydrology, University of Arizona, USA
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, University of Queensland, Australia
Joel Schwartz, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Planetary Science, California Institute of Technology, USA
John Brignell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Electronics & Computer Science, University of Southampton, UK
John E. Gaynor, M.S. Meteorology, UCLA, USA
John K. Sutherland, Ph.D. Geology, University of Manchester, UK
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Joseph (Joe) P. Sobel, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany, Arizona State University, USA
Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D. Nuclear Physics, Natal University, South Africa
Kenneth E.F. Watt, Ph.D. Zoology, University of Chicago, USA
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, The University of Leningrad, Russia
Klaus Wyrtki, Ph.D. Oceanography, Physics, Mathematics, University of Kiel, Germany
Lance Endersbee, Professor Emeritus of Engineering, Monash University, Australia
Lee C. Gerhard, Ph.D. Geology, University of Kansas, USA
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Rutgers, USA
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Manik Talwani, Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Mel Goldstein, Ph.D. Meteorology, NYU, USA
Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael D. Griffin, B.S. Physics, M.S. Applied Physics, Ph.D. Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, University of Washington, USA
Michel Salomon, M.D. University of Paris, Director, International Centre for Scientific Ecology, France
Neil Frank, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Nils-Axel Mörner, Professor Emeritus of Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Norman Brown, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Ulster, UK
Ola M. Johannessen, Professor, Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Norway
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate, Atmospheric Sensing Group, Tartu Astrophysical Observatory, Estonia
Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Ph.D. Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc. Agronomist, Canada
Paul Copper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Canada
Paul Driessen, B.A. Geology and Field Ecology, Lawrence University, USA
Paul Reiter, Professor of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, France
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Patrick Moore, B.Sc. Forest Biology, Ph.D. Ecology, University of British Columbia, Canada
Peter Stilbs, Ph.D. (TeknD) Physical Chemistry, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Piers Corbyn, B.Sc Physics, M.Sc Astrophysics, Queen Mary College, UK
R. Timothy (Tim) Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
R.
W. Gauldie, Ph.D. Research Professor, Hawaii Institute of Geophysics
and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology,
University of Hawaii, USA
Randall Cerveny, Ph.D. Geography, University of Nebraska, USA
Reid A. Bryson, B.A. Geology, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Richard C. Willson, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, USA
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Roger A. Pielke (Sr.), Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., Forest Microclimate Specialist, Canada
Robin Vaughan, Ph.D. Physics, Nottingham University, UK
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, USA
Robert C. Whitten, Physicist, Retired Research Scientist, NASA, USA
Robert E. Davis, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology, Yale, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert L. Kovach, Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University, USA
Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology, University of Cambridge, Australia
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Sylvan H. Wittwer, Ph.D. Horticulture, University of Missouri, USA
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Alaska, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Thomas Schmidlin, Ph.D. Professor of Geography, Kent State University, USA
Timothy (Tim) F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, University of London, UK
Tom Harris, B. Eng. M. Eng. Mechanical Engineering (thermo-fluids), Canada
Tom V. Segalstad, B.S. Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Vern Harnapp, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Akron, USA
Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK
W. Dennis Clark, Ph.D. Botany, Sacramento State College, USA
Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Physics, University of Texas, USA
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
William B. Hubbard, Ph.D. Professor of Planetary Atmospheres, University of Arizona, USA
William Cotton, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, USA
Willem de Lange, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, New Zealand
William E. Reifsnyder, B.S. Meteorology, M.S. Ph.D. Forestry, Yale, USA
William
J.R. Alexander, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and
Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William (Bill) M. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Wolfgang Thüne, Ph.D. Geography, University of Wuerzburg, Germany
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland

Meteorologists:
A.J. Colby, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, AMS Certified, Meteorologist WKYC-TV, USA
Andre Bernier, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Anthony Watts, AMS Certified, Chief Meteorologist KPAY-AM, USA
Arlo Gambell, AMS Certified, Meteorologist, USA
Art Horn, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WVIT-TV, USA
Asmunn Moene, former Chief Meteorologist, Oslo, Norway
Austin W. Hogan, AMS Certified, Meteorologist, USA
Bill Meck, Chief Meteorologist WLEX-TV, USA
Bill Steffen, Meteorologist WOOD-TV, USA
Bob Breck, B.S. Meteorology & Oceanography, University of Michigan, Chief Meteorologist WVUE-TV, USA
Brad Sussman, Meteorologist, USA
Brian Sussman, Meteorologist, USA
Bruce Boe, Director of Meteorology Weather Modification Inc., USA
Bruce Schwoegler, B.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Christopher Plonka, Meteorologist USAF, USA
Craig James, B.S. Meteorology, Penn State University, Chief Meteorologist WOOD-TV, USA
Dan Maly, Retired Meteorologist WOIO-TV, USA
David Aldrich, B.S. Meteorology, North Carolina State University, Meteorologist WTXF-TV, USA
Dick Goddard, Chief Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Don Webster, Retired Meteorologist WEWS-TV, USA
Douglas Leahey, Meteorologist, Canada
Eugenio Hackbart, Chief Meteorologist MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center, Brazil
Grant Dade, Meteorologist KLTV, USA
Herb Stevens, Meteorologist WNYT-TV, USA
James Spann, AMS Certified, Chief Meteorologist WCFT-TV, WJSU-TV, USA
Jason Russell, Meteorologist, WTEN-TV, USA
Joe Bastardi, B.S. Meteorology, Penn State, Expert Senior Forecaster AccuWeather, USA
John Coleman, Meteorologist, Founder of 'The Weather Channel', Chief Meteorologist KUSI-TV, USA
Jon Loufman, Meteorologist WOIO-TV, USA
Justin Berk, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, AMS Certified, Meteorologist WMAR-TV, USA
Karl Bohnak, B.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, AMS Certified, Meteorologist WLUC-TV, USA
Kevin Lemanowicz, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, Chief Meteorologist WFXT-TV, USA
Kevin Williams, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, Chief Meteorologist WHEC-TV, USA
Lee Eddington, Meteorologist Geophysics Branch, U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, USA
Mark Koontz, Meteorologist WFMJ-TV, USA
Mark Breen, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Senior Meteorologist Fairbanks Museum and Planetarium, USA
Mark Johnson, AMS Certified, Chief Meteorologist, WEWS-TV, USA
Mark Scirto, B.S. Meteorology, University of St. Thomas, AMS Certified, Chief Meteorologist KLTV, USA
Morgan Palmer, AMS Certified, Meteorologist KLTV, USA
Nick Morganelli, Free-Lance Meteorologist, USA
Randy Mann, AMS Certified, Meteorologist KREM-TV, USA
Richard (Rich) Apuzzo, Chief Meteorologist Skyeye Weather, USA
Roy Leep, B.S. Meteorology, Florida State University, Meteorologist WTVT-TV, USA
Sally Bernier, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Shane Hollett, Meteorologist WMJI-FM, USA
Steven Nogueira, NWS Senior Meteorologist, USA
Stewart W. Franks, Ph.D. Environmental Science, Lancaster University, U.K.
Terry Eliasen, B.S. Meteorology, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Meteorologist WBZ-TV, USA
Thomas B. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, USA
Tim Kelley, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist NECN, USA
Tom Chisholm, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, Lyndon State College, Chief Meteorologist WMTW-TV, USA
William Kininmonth, M.Sc, Colorado State University, Retired Head of Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Australia

Social Scientists:

"The
assessment of regional environmental and social impacts is a
multidisciplinary task that involves natural and social scientists working in tandem with policy makers."
- American Meteorological Society

Andrey Illarionov, Ph.D. Economics, St. Petersburg University, Russia
Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Daniel R. Simmons, B.A. Economics, Utah State University, USA
Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Don Aitkin, Ph.D. Political Science, Australian National University, Australia
James Inhofe, B.A. Economics, University of Tulsa, USA
John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Macquarie University, Mensa, Sydney, Australia
Marlo Lewis, B.A. Political Science, Ph.D. Government, Claremont McKenna College, USA
Margo Thorning, Ph.D. Economics, University of Georgia, USA
Myron Ebell, M.Sc. Economics, London School of Economics, USA
Richard Tol, Ph.D. Economics, Vrije Universiteit, The Netherlands
Richard W. Rahn, Ph.D. Business Economics, Columbia University, USA
Robert Bradley, B.A. Economics, Ph.D. Political Economy, University of Houston, USA
Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Economics, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Roger A. Pielke (Jr.), Ph.D. Political Science, University of Colorado, USA
Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada
Thomas A. Birkland, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Washington, USA
Thomas Gale Moore, Ph.D. Economics, University of Chicago, USA
Vaclav Klaus, app. Ph.D. Economics, University of Economics, Prague, Czechoslovakia
William Evans, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, Notre Dame, USA
William Nordhaus, Ph.D. Economics, MIT, USA

Deceased:

"Some of this noise won't stop until some of these scientists are dead" - James Hansen, 2006

Adrian H. Gordon, Meteorologist, University of South Australia, Australia (Died: April 12, 2000)
August H. Auer Jr., Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, USA (Died: June 10, 2007)
Duwayne M. Anderson, Professor Emeritus of Geology, Texas A&M University, USA (Died: October 4, 2002)
George H. Sutton, Professor Emeritus of Geophysics, University of Hawaii, USA (Died: January 25, 2004)
Heinz Lettau, Professor Emeritus of Geophysics, University of Wisconsin, USA (Died: August 4, 2005)
Helmut Metzner, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Botany, University of Tubingen, Germany (Died: September 20, 1999)
James P. Lodge Jr., Ph.D. Consultant in Atmospheric Chemistry, USA (Died: December 14, 2001)
John R. Apel, Ph.D. Physics, Johns Hopkins University, USA (Died: August 16, 2001)
Larry H. Brace, B.S. Physics, University of Michigan, USA (Died: August 28, 2005)
Michael J. Higatsberger, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Experimental Physics, University of Vienna, Austria (Died: January 7, 2004)
Paul Handler, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Illinois, USA (Died: January 24, 1998)
Robert E. Stevenson, Ph.D. Oceanography, University of Southern California, USA (Died: August 12, 2001)
Roland (R.A.D.) Byron-Scott, Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Meteorology at Flinders University, Australia (Died: January, 2004)
Thomas Gold, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy, Cornell University, USA (Died: June 22, 2004)
Tor Ragnar Gerholm, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Stockholm, Sweden (Died: June 27, 2007)
William (Bill) A. Nierenberg, Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University, USA (Died: September 10, 2000)
William Mitchell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Oxford, UK (Died: October 30, 2002)

Skeptical Scientific Organizations:

American Association of Petroleum Geologists, USA (31,000+ Members)
American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Truth, you are

Truth, you are delusional.  Your boys over at realclimate do not debate on neutral forums when they can avoid it and those few times they do, they lose. 

Let them come over here and debate.  They won't. You should think about why this is so.

You don't debate here.  All of your arguments may be distilled to this:  "go to realclimate.org and learn the truth I can't convince you of.  There you will see the error of your ways."

Can't win the debate?  Then capitulate or depart.  Otherwise, be prepared to defend your case.

NL, why should they bother?

Do you think evolutionary biologists want to waste time smacking down every creationist argument? They don't have time to answer every bogus point denialists make. They do ORIGINAL research and have many credentials and publish many peer reviewed journals. I have yet to see a single denialist argument prevail in even the most miniscule way there. Their site is far more informative .

They do not come because

They do not come because they cannot afford to be seen losing a debate in a public forum against people whose identities and credentials are unknown.  Gavin Schmidt's humiliation in the I-squared debate last spring was no accident, albeit at the hands of Richard Linzen. 

These are people who's entire livilhood depends on continued government funding.  Any public relations failure that threatens that funding is to be avoided.  Any public admission that AGW is so small compared to natural variations as to be inconsequential is public relations failure.  In short, your heroes are corrupt men who are cravenly and shamelessly sucking the public tit.  This fact is no better illustrated than by this quote:  "The MBH98/99 work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility."

The technical summary of IPCC IV states that

human forcings are a significant part of global warming. If a scientist knew AGW was a hoax, the oil companies would pay him millions. If I personally thought it was a hoax, I'd be buying plane tickets to Australia today. The physics of CO2 and it's relation to trapping outgoing energy is well established. Climate models predict future warming of various amounts but still, more warming. Climate extremes like increased droughts, fires and flooods have been documented over the last 20 years. The hockey stick model may be controversial but is accepted as a reasonable plot of temperature.

The AGW position is far more robust after several decades of debate . The AGW scientists far outnumber those who doubt the idea.

Too Funny

It is soo sad computer illiterates such as yourself are teaching impressionable children. Computer models CANNOT predict the future and prove nothing nor can they ever. Only real world testing and observations can prove science.

Please provide me with your list of AGW scientists and then give me their computer science degrees.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Changing the subject

Evolution has nothing to do with the Climate.

Do you have any concept of how a debate works? Posting a challenging question on their site where they can screen all posts, delete what they do not like, ignore what they want and respond to only those they think they can win proves nothing. Not to mention them responding with an excess amount of words does not win a debate.

Plenty of scientists challenging their alarmist views have original research and have published Peer-Review work. It is of no surprise that liberals think that the more papers you publish or the more words you use proves something. All you and RealClimate.org do is state propaganda.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Deny this

The truth is out there (from REAL scientists), then again, you're really out there too "Professor" (way out).

You can't deny that.

D

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

DFTT, why haven't you convinced the

many practicing climate scientists who have published peer reviewed papers with your denialism evidence?

Puffie ;what do you propose to do to SAVE the planet?

Other than free government issued ox carts.. WHAT OHH TRUTHIE isss your PLAN????

iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..

So when ARE the Russians going to finish the iranian atoms for peace power plant?

upcountry, here's your answer:

Stop wasting resources!

upcountry, here's your answer:

Stop wasting resources!

Who gets to determine what constitues wasting?

I'm sure the snake oil AGW salesmen like Al the jetsetter Gore isn't 'wasting resources'. Who then?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Mighty, here's your answer(incomplete):

A consensus of countries in the world can decide this.

Talking Point

You're back to the embarassing "consensus" again?

Sheesh...idiocy redux.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blonde, we were discussing the

possibility of who is more credible to give advice for brain surgery, a fast food worker or a brain surgeon. Perhaps with all your direct experience in this, you can provide an answer.

Certainly, Perv. Talking Point

I'd be happy to refer you to a brain surgeon. 

Since I know how hard you are working to train the next generation of fast food worker.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blonde, my name is Professor Truth,

not Larry Craig or Ted Haggard or Mark Foley or Bill "loofa" "sexual harrassment" O'Reilly so please don't use the "perv" label.

No Perv. Talking Point

Your "name" is not Professor Truth.  That's merely an appellation...a misnomer, BTW, which you've given yourself.

Your true name is probably something less than inspiring...like Dick Schmick....I could hardly care less.

But I'm glad you're enjoying my "Perv" nom-de-screen for you.  It's payback for "Blaaaahndie"....and for calling me son.

Don't mess around with blondes, you dumba**. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

PTP&C

What in the "wor--HERRRLD" do Craig, Haggard, Foley or BOR have to do with your silly screen-name and our rights under NB's Terms & Conditions to mock it as we see fit?

Did I miss funny threads that compared you to these fellas?

 

"No wonder I turned out so amazingly amazing."

-- Leon (Robin to Professor TP&C's Batman)

Mr Shy, I'm sorry that your name was

given to me but it was Blonde's idea? Mr Shy, is it true that your thong pouch sizes are XL, L, M, S, XS, and "shysize"?

Perv TP&C

What are you rambling on about in your perverted, icky way?

Thong pouches??? (I guess that's..... funny.... you are obsessing.)

 

"No wonder I turned out so amazingly amazing."

-- Leon (Robin to Professor TP&C's Batman)

blonde

Get his name right... it's Professor Talking Points & Cheetos.

Let's all be on the same page here with NB's renaming of PT.

:)

 

"No wonder I turned out so amazingly amazing."

-- Leon (Robin to Professor TP&C's Batman)

actually Shy (hi)

'pervessor' fits pervfectly

GoHunter08

botg, just one problem with that name:

shouldn't a Republican have the "perv" prefix? Like, Mark "page molester" Foley, or Larry"wide stance" Craig, or Ted "closet gay, public gay basher" Haggard????

pervessor

only if your willing to share (and invite Barney Frank to your group)

GoHunter08

Did you just...

Did you just call Homosexuals perverts?

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Mr Shy, why not have a "thong" party.

You can plan your strategy in the comfort of home. You can model your latest products to your guests.

oohhh nice comeback

Looks like TP&C is losing his cool. Reverting to  personal off-topic insults? Not very compelling in a debate.

Aawww, but I forgot, Blonde called you perv. After a month of calling her (and me) son, even when asked not to, I kinda think you had that one coming.

candance

if the pervessor wishes to indulge a fantasy of his perversion we should not be part

GoHunter08

sorry, Candance. I'm havin' fun!

Convince these guys of your denialism 'truths."

http://www.realclima...

I'm sure your climate insight and credentials far exceeds theirs.

No Need

These scientists credentials exceed the 10 James Hansen puppets at realclimate.org:

NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Candance

Welcome, my friend.....to the female troll kicking club.  You are a quick study!  I am so laughing. 

We need a better class of troll, here.

(This one is smelling like month old laundry).

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Prof TP&C

What in the world moved you to drum up THAT scenerio? (I know you have a thing for my line of Shywear (R) thongs -- available now at www.mr-shy.com -- and everything, but this is like the third time you've visualized something...)

Blonde and botg may have you pegged right after all.... the "PERVessor".

 

"No wonder I turned out so amazingly amazing."

-- Leon (Robin to Professor TP&C's Batman)

Hey, Shy

I always trust my instincts.  They're spot-on.

And the Perv's fascination with your ShyWear thongs kinda prove the point, yes? 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blonde

Hi, and yes, indeed they are.... and indeed he is.

My new signature (below) exceeds the NB limit of 4 lines, so for now I'm copying-pasting it every time :p I'll figure out a shorter one eventually...

 

You know you're a pervert when you post things like this:

Mr Shy, why not have a "thong" party. You can plan your strategy in the comfort of home. You can model your latest products to your guests.

Mr Shy, is it true that your thong pouch sizes are XL, L, M, S, XS, and "shysize"?

Mr. Shy, I needed some grease rags but your prices were just too high.

-- Pervessor TP&C

It's good, Shy

Keep typing. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Mr Shy, but what can you tell these guys about

your denialism ideas that will convince them that AGW is a "hoax."

http://www.realclima...

By the way, Mr Shy I needed some grease rags but your prices were just too high.

Not that annoying

Not that annoying realcimate.com link again.... man.... Are they paying you for this?

 

You know you're a pervert when you post things like this:

Mr Shy, why not have a "thong" party. You can plan your strategy in the comfort of home. You can model your latest products to your guests.

Mr Shy, is it true that your thong pouch sizes are XL, L, M, S, XS, and "shysize"?

Mr. Shy, I needed some grease rags but your prices were just too high.

-- Pervessor TP&C

Shy didn't you expect it?

TP&C is like a doll with a string in the back. No matter what question you pose, pulling the string will get you one of five pre-programmed statements, even when they're not applicable to your question.

candance

I know! He's a weird one, alright.

 

You know you're a pervert when you post things like this:

Mr Shy, why not have a "thong" party. You can plan your strategy in the comfort of home. You can model your latest products to your guests.

Mr Shy, is it true that your thong pouch sizes are XL, L, M, S, XS, and "shysize"?

Mr. Shy, I needed some grease rags but your prices were just too high.

-- Pervessor TP&C

Mr Shy, nothing personal.

"It's strictly business."http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10

nice move proff

Any scientist who remains skeptical, no matter their education, is equated to fast food workers while any scientist who accepts global warming, no matter their education, is equated to brain surgeons.

Who is playing class warfare again? Who looks down on working class America? These self-annointed champions of the working poor always get their kicks by insulting the working poor. And these supposed proponents of free speech and mutual respect attack their enemies by comparing them to trailer trash.

Just like Leon and every other die hard liberal, you think a sharp insult is to call someone working class. Drop the fake concern for caring about the poor. All you care about is using them as leverage.

candance

You, along with fitz (and Blazer/or?) are fast moving up the ladder to Blonde's top-spot of best NB Smackdowner!

Nice one :)

 

"No wonder I turned out so amazingly amazing."

-- Leon (Robin to Professor TP&C's Batman)

ok, candance . You're right.

From now on, I'll state my analogy as ,"would you prefer to get advice for brain surgery from a brain surgeon or from George W Bush? Satisfied now?? By the way, I would like to see fast food workers paid a much higher starting salary with much higher benefits. Who's your class warfare person now?

Of course you would, Perv. Talking Point

Fast food workers are so skilled and all....they deserve the same salary, as, oh....say, a teacher! 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Perhaps, Blonde, they deserve the salary of

a teacher. Certainly they deserve YOUR salary!

So Perv Talking Point....

What do you suppose my salary is?  Hmmm.... 

Go on....speculate....this ought to be fascinating.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blonde, your salary is.....

whatever you can steal, mislead or ripoff the public for. If you're a hedge fund manager or a financial services manager, perhaps you've riped off the public for millions or even more. Whatever you do, it's far less important than my job.

Riiiiggght, Perv.

I knew your answer would be nonsensical. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blonde, not the part where I stated

that my job is far more important to society than your job.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10

WOW

That is a hate-filled and vicious attack if I ever read one.

I happen to know what Blonde does for a living and it's pretty darn important. Maybe not as important as brainwashing children about the consesus on AGW, but she does a very needed job that has nothing to do with hedge funds.

You really need to stop before you look even worse.

candance, if Blonde's job is so important, why

doesn't it be made public? National security?

Get a grip, Perv.

None of your damn business.

Keep thrashing, tho.  It's cute.

We need a better class of troll, here. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blonde, too bad you have such a

meaningless job. Must be tough on you?

Perv,

Bawahahahaha.

It's killing you that you're clueless, yes?

We need a better class of troll, here. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

A little sadistic

A little sadistic trait. 

I like.

You go girl.... 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

duh proff

Maybe she doesn't need you attacking her job as "not as important as yours" just because you've decided that.

I mean really. This is a new low for you. 

candance, until you have the complete

story, you should withhold judgment. I treat people just as they treat me. I've been reasonably respectful to you(unless you can show me otherwise) while I'm totally disrespectful to those who do the same. Now, if you are intellectually honest, you must agree that disrespect is a two way street. Regardless of our political alliances, either you admit you are an idealogue or you admit that those who disrespect others in turn receive disrespect.

what complete story?

I guess you mean the complete story about you dissing Blonde? Really I couldn't care less about that. But you were the one who mentioned her salary first, and when she asked for your guess as to her salary, you launched a vicious attack calling her a professional thief.

There's a difference in being rude/snappy and just plain attacking someone, and that was an attack.

I thought we picked on each other and made up nicknames for fun. I didn't realize that was the same as calling someone a thief.

Perverted Cheeto

Yes, I happen to be privy to what Blonde's job is, and it is indeed out of national security concerns that it can not be divolged.

I'm afraid, if she tells a creepy teacher like you, she will have to kill you.

:p

 

You know you're a pervert when you're a troll like Pervessor TP&C, repeatedly posting perverted things about Mr. Shy's Shywear.

Mr Shy, I didn't want to imply that your thongs were only grease

rags. Are they adaptable as toilet scrubbers?

candance

have you seen the Trolls training film? 

GoHunter08

candance!

That was hilarious! :) Thx!!

 

You know you're a pervert when you're a troll like Pervessor TP&C, repeatedly posting perverted things about Mr. Shy's Shywear.

wasn't me shy

That was botg.

You may have seen this

You may have seen this interview I found several days ago over at youtube. I posted it before but some re-runs are classic.

http://www.youtube.c...

The position of teacher is important

However, considering your lame behavior here, Perfesser BS, I wonder how many good teachers it takes to fix the damage you do to your students.

RJ, you "worked" in an insane asylum as

employee or patient?

"Insane asylum?" How un-PC of you, Perfesser BS

Since you bring it up, I worked there while I was in school, but I remember several patients with personalities remarkably similar to yours.

Since we're asking questions, how many years on average does it take to undo the damage you do to your students?

RJ, I don't damage students who fail.

They're either absent or asleep and don't listen. I guess I damage those students who listen to me by having them get scholarships to 4 year universities. Is that the damage you are referring to?

I can only judge your performance here, Perfesser BS,

...not your claims.  Based on that, you can't help but damage your students. 

How many good teachers does it take to undo that damage?

Another "when did you stop beating your wife"

question! What denial evidence can you "enlighten" these guys with, RJ?http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10

See, that's exactly what I mean Perfesser BS

That illogical non-sequitur is another example of what I'm talking about.  I feel truly sad for your students.

RJ, how many perjoratives can you

create? Some students like my class, smoe despise it, some are indifferent. The problems of education go far beyond what a single teacher does in the class room.

So you claim, Perfesser BS

But based on your performance on this board, including your intellectual dishonesty, there's not much reason to believe you're anything but a detriment to the education of your students.

once again

Liberals like proff base someone's merit on superficial accomplishments and their ability to climb the latter, while ignoring any damage to inherent sensibility. Anything to keep up the argument.

missed the point again proff

Workers get paid based on the job they perform, not their inherent intellect. There's a big difference in saying "your contribution to this company is only worth 8 bucks an hour" vs. "you work here because you're stupid." You know that, but you're twisting things to try to stay on top.

And the point I was making is that your original analogy was stupid. The scientists who decry global warming are not fast food people. They are real scientists who work in that field and have access to the same data. They are people who work around climate information.

It's more like asking "who do you go to for advice on brain surgery - this brain surgeon who agrees with ME, or this brain surgeon who does not?" But you can't make a fair comparison. You want to intentionally insult the intellect of skeptical scientists and your first impulse is to call them cashiers.

And anyway, who would I want to get climate advice from - a group of scientists who discuss it based on merit (for or against) or a high school teacher calling them names for disagreeing?

candance, anyone can take anyone's advice.

Hedge fund managers who took in a billion dollars and helped create an economic credit crisis which is still developing get paid for their performance. Imagine what would happen if a billion dollars of minimum wage labor(think 20 cents an hour in China) were permanently removed from the economy vs that same amount from a plutocrat CEO. The effect of the former would be hundreds of times more disastrous than for the latter.

 

I know there are legitimate climate scientists on both sides of the debate. If a very large majority favors one position, all other uncertainties considered, I go with the majority of experts. Maybe they'll be discredited over time but I still choose them over the minority, especially after having seen evidence and arguments from both sides. If 10 surgeons opt for one procedure, while two opt for another procedure, which procedure do you select? I use a slide rule, while others use a calculator, so which is better?

...okay...

I agree about people in China being paid crap and I was actually against NAFTA from the beginning - but what does that have to do with this? You were the one who said skeptical scientists don't know what they're talking about because they're on the same level as a waitress. If you want to show us you care about poor people, don't use them as a benchmark for stupidity.

As your decision to go with the majority, I have a few nits to pick. This is the first time I have EVER heard you admit real scientists are skeptical. There's a big difference in a majority opinion and a consesus - and that's what we object to.

As to two brain surgeons disagreeing, it depends on the reason for the disagreement. In a case like this where the science behind it is so politically motivated, we have to wonder about the agenda, and when those two brain surgeons are painted as being no better than waitresses simply because they reach a different conclusion, we're toying with fascism.

candance, if I had stated that if you want advice for brain

surgery, you would be better to talk to brain surgeons vs chemistry teachers. Are you ok with this analogy? My point is that when there are petitions claiming that thousands of scientists have stated AGW is a hoax, this petition is very misleading and might be considered as dishonest. What % were practicing climate scientists? An HONEST petition would include only practicing climate scientists(possibly others if they had worked extensively in the field). The wording of the petition could also be either ambiguous or misleading. Most CLIMATE scientists see AGW as a serious threat. All climate models predict future warming. The MECHANISM causing the warming is well established!(CO2). There is agreement that the planet is warming even among all skeptical scientists.

http://www.realclima...

okay prof

That analogy is better, I concur, but there you go with that consesus talk again. What % were practicing climatologists? Why don't you go find out? And the CO2 factor is well established (consesus)? That's news to me.

Even with this, your argument falls through. Al Gore is America's official spokesman on global warming and he's not any kind of scientist. Why is it okay for actresses, politicians, and college dropouts to prop up global warming, but anyone who remains skeptical has to have a PHD? If 2 of those brain surgeons remain unconvinced, it's not fair to look at their backers and say "you people have no right to speak."

That's a double standard.

candance, the radiative forcing due to greenhouse

gases can be found in the IPCC technical summary. The % of each greenhouse gas and the heating efficiency per molecule are used to calculate forcings. The data is available for everyone. Spencer Weart has an excellent essay about radiative physics and climate science history at realclimate. Most scientists see an established mechanism for much of the warming as CO2 and have a high confidence level that the CO2 is human created. There have been climate models trying to do all kinds of things, some are more successful than others, but the warming trends are present in all climate models.

I thought we were talking about the consesus?

We've gone from debating the consesus to a full-blown AGW lesson?

Of course the IPCC says so. What else would the International Panel on Climate Change say? That's like saying football is the best sport because the NFL says so.

The difference here prof, the fundamental difference between you and me, is that you assume WHO and the IPCC have no agenda. Whatever they say is gold because they're strictly professionals with no ambition of embarrassing America. That is the basic assumption behind all of your arguments.

You are convinced George Bush and the GOP have some vast right wing conspiracy to turn America into a fascist state. But when we say the IPCC just might have an agenda of their own, we're the ones who are kooks.

 

consensus

or con-jobus

"everytime you take a shower, you are a mass murderer" -- the Pervessor

so pervessor

does he explain how cooling followed the warming (and subsequent rise in CO2)  1,000,000 times in in the past 1.5 billion years  (1500 year cycle) without the UN stealing money?  I know, i know it has happened a million times in a row but this time it won't unless you give us money!  How stupid do you think we are?

"everytime you take a shower, you are a mass murderer" -- the Pervessor

Junk Political Science

What % were practicing climate scientists?

Heh...I remember listening to a G.G.Liddy show at least 10 years ago where an Art History professor suddenly found himself asked to sign an AGW petition. He found the request rather odd because he had no expertise in the debate. When he asked the petitioner for a list of other members of the academy who had been petitioned and what their areas of expertise were, he was informed to either sign on or fark off.

You've been caught projecting again.

Do you mean the same

Do you mean the same countries that want to leach as many US dollars as possible from her taxpayers. Those countries?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

It was just a suggestion.

The answer will be imposed on everyone in the future, and it won't be pretty.

puffer,, thats YOUR dream, moving into the 7 th century

 

government issued ox carts in every garage!

your buddies the islamofascists on every corner.

Western countries NEED oil to keep the present civilization running. And your stinking computer on , fuelish dudelette!

iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..

So when ARE the Russians going to finish the iranian atoms for peace power plant?

Time mags top scientist's take on global warming

Here you go, from the smartest scientists in the whole wide world.

D

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

Do not impose on me. Do not

Do not impose on me. Do not tread on me. It won't be pretty.

Sounds like a Marxist

Sounds like a Marxist revival to me, prof!

Let the countries of the world decide?  Put the UN in charge?  Allow the "world community" to dictate how Americans are supposed to live and what they're supposed to do on a daily basis?

If I remember my history correctly we told the British Monachy where to stick it approx. 225 years ago for reasons like the ones you're suggesting!

Yep, America is destroying the world's climate, and here's the UN's and the "world community's" big chance to cut the USA down a few notches both ecomonically and militarily.

 

pouffer, dudelette, you can start by not posting twice!!

resource WASTER, WASTER, shut off screen, man,, hurry!

iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..

So when ARE the Russians going to finish the iranian atoms for peace power plant?

Shack, upcountry.

Excellent.  I am sooooo laughing.  Thx.

We need a better class of troll, here. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blonde, Yes we sure do.

puffer is well ,fun to banter with.. dimwitted dudelette throughly public schooled and all.

iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..

So when ARE the Russians going to finish the iranian atoms for peace power plant?

upcountry

dimwitted dudelette

I somehow feel compelled to add to that basic sentiment....you've inspired me!

dimwitted dudelette doesn't do doodly....dreading droll damned something-or-others....that's about it....but it's the beginning of something bizarre!

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

LMAO

I made your list, sweet!

iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..

So when ARE the Russians going to finish the iranian atoms for peace power plant?

Blonde, I didn't realize you had songwriting

skills?

Perv Talking Point

Congratulations. 

You don't realize anything at all....do you? 

Keep thrashing, tho.  It's cute.

We need a better class of troll, here.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

puffer where's your double post. go? resource waster ,

resource waster??

iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..

So when ARE the Russians going to finish the iranian atoms for peace power plant?

DFTT, I deny your "truth."

1500-Year Climate Cycle

The truth is scientific reality...

The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle (National Center for Policy Analysis)

Earth Cools In Persistent, 1,500-Year Rhythm, Say Columbia Scientists, Working From Sea Cores (Science Daily)
Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years, Says Ohio State University Researcher (Science Daily)
Natural Climate Change May Be Larger Than Commonly Thought (Science Daily)
Pacific Ocean Temperature Changes Point To Natural Climate Variability (Science Daily)

Peer-Review Papers supporting the 1,500-Year Climate Cycle:

A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
(Nature 316, 591 - 596, 15 August 1985)
- C. Lorius, C. Ritz, J. Jouzel, L. Merlivat, N. I. Barkov

A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates
(Science, Vol. 278. no. 5341, pp. 1257 - 1266, 14 November 1997)
-
Gerard Bond, William Showers, Maziet Cheseby, Rusty Lotti, Peter
Almasi, Peter deMenocal, Paul Priore, Heidi Cullen, Irka Hajdas,
Georges Bonani

A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
(Science, Vol. 294. no. 5546, pp. 1431 - 1433, 16 November 2001)
- Richard A. Kerr

Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic
(Science, Vol. 301. no. 5641, pp. 1890 - 1893, 26 September 2003)
-
Feng Sheng Hu, Darrell Kaufman, Sumiko Yoneji, David Nelson, Aldo
Shemesh, Yongsong Huang, Jian Tian, Gerard Bond, Benjamin Clegg, Thomas
Brown

Decadal to millennial cyclicity in varves and turbidites from the Arabian Sea: hypothesis of tidal origin
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 34, Issues 3-4, Pages 313-325, November 2002)
- W. H. Bergera, U. von Rad

Late Holocene approximately 1500 yr climatic periodicities and their implications
(Geology, v. 26; no. 5; p. 471-473, May 1998)
- Ian D. Campbell, Celina Campbell, Michael J. Apps, Nathaniel W. Rutter, Andrew B. G. Bush

Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
(Nature 438, 208-211, 10 November 2005)
- Holger Braun, Marcus Christl, Stefan Rahmstorf, Andrey Ganopolski, Augusto Mangini, Claudia Kubatzki, Kurt Roth, Bernd Kromet

The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change
(PNAS, vol. 97, no. 8, 3814-3819, April 11, 2000)
- Charles D. Keeling, Timothy P. Whorf

The origin of the 1500-year climate cycles in Holocene North-Atlantic records
(Climate of the Past Discussions, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp.679-692, 2007)
-
M. Debret, V. Bout-Roumazeilles, F. Grousset, M. Desmet, J. F. McManus,
N. Massei, D. Sebag, J.-R. Petit, Y. Copard, A. Trentesaux

Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, NO. 10, 1510, 2003)
- Stefan Rahmstorf

Timing of Millennial-Scale Climate Change in Antarctica and Greenland During the Last Glacial Period
(Science, Volume 291, Issue 5501, pp. 109-112, 2001)
- Thomas Blunier, Edward J. Brook

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr
(Geology, v. 30, no. 5, p. 455-458, May 2002)
- André E. Viau, Konrad Gajewski, Philippe Fines, David E. Atkinson, Michael C. Sawada

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

ZERO scientific evidence

Scientists respond to Gores warning of climate catastrophe.

Don'tcha just hate it when facts get in the way and refute your stupid talking points head-on?

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

TnT, tell these guys your story:

No data, no facts, no credibility

Your link doesn't include anyone with good facts or data. You have no credibility. The real link with the best data is here: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Double post

Sorry -- double post.

No Need

Professor Propaganda

Why does a computer illiterate like yourself keep posting the same propaganda? You cannot predict the future, least of all with bogus computer climate models written by non-computer scientists using sloppy fortran code.

I am a computer analyst, your not. I understand how computer climate models work, you don't. Which is why I am not fooled by the propagandists on RealClimate.org who are NOT computer scientists.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

popular tech denier, Are you ready to be served some CROW??

Let's see those multiple links to very dicey sources. One of your sources was the Great Global Swindle. Here is your crow, courtesy of real climate:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

and HERE is another helping for you:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

Professor Truth

PT,

I've given you a lot of leeway here, as well as slack. However, I respectfully request you cease and desist from referring to AGW skeptics as "deniers." This is insulting and vitriolic.

I won't ask again. Understood?  ns

The Science in The Great Global Warming Swindle

Professor Propaganda you haven't served anyone crow... 

The Science in The Great Global Warming Swindle (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics)

The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:

1. There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have precedednot resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is “unusual” using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is "unusual" by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous “hockey–stick” temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited.

2. If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:

  • Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or elaborate cap–and–trade schemes
  • Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy”
  • Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors
  • Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere

Ironically, even if CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend, all these schemes would be ineffective—unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent!

3. Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea–level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many economists argue that the opposite is more likely—that warming produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. Why do we assume that the present climate is the optimum? Surely, the chance of this must be vanishingly small, and the economic history of past climate warmings bear this out.

But the main message of The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote our scarce resources to what is essentially a non–problem, and ignore the real problems the world faces: hunger, disease, denial of human rights—not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that can wipe out most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid, such as the onethat wiped out the dinosaurs? Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to squander our limited resources to fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real problems. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Great Britain tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100, with a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously!

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

scammer

in the past 4.49 billion years there have only been 24 cycles?

GoHunter08

The climate scientists should use

all the denialism evidence to revise their conclusions. I don't know why these PHD climate scientists don't listen to all the arguments and evidence presented by deniers regarding their "hysteria." Maybe it's for thesame reason that brain surgeons don't get advice from fast food employees on how to remove brain tumors. Denialism gone wild!!

You speak of brain surgeons alot...

Was your surgery preformed by a low cost third world 'Dr' in a socialist nanny state? That would be my guess. Next time at least ask em to put back the 'extra parts' they left out after the operation. (not to worry, probably stuff you "wont miss" anyhow) :-)

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Mighty delusional, you believe that fast

food workers know more about brain surgery than do brain surgeons if you take the arguments of the scientific ignoramuses who post denialism arguments over practicing climate scientists.

Since when did...

Skepticism = Denialism? You seem to be the one in denial by not admitting the possibility of agenda driven AGW alarmists.

All a skeptic is asking for is proof and reasons for drastic actions.

If a comet where heading towards earth don't you think the skeptics would wise up when the damn thing got bigger than the moon in the night sky?

AGW is going to blow over in a few years, I hope you are around to eat some crow.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

skepticism is fine except when there is overwhelming

evidence pointing to AGW. Why has the AGW argument strengthened over the past 20 years?? There is increasingly compelling evidence for AGW, that's why. Was OJ innocent or guilty based on the evidence?

Proffff

you sound like a flat-earther

GoHunter08

botg

IMO he borders on being a "Flat-liner" :-)

Brain dead, the paddles wont help! D-N-R!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Yeah but HOW MUCH AGW?

Significant or insignficant? And if it is insignicant maybe the best thing to do is NOTHING!!!!!!!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Increased over the last 20

Increased over the last 20 years. R square for the US between CO2 and tempertures for the last 10 years. .05. Some strengthening you got there. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

News to me

Now prove "Man-Made" Global Warming via the Scientific Method without using Computer Models.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

puffie, Brother to islamofascists, embracing ox cart technology

Welcome to puffies world, no cars, airplanes, oil pumping, refrigeration or electricity. You may get your wish poofster!

iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..

So when ARE the Russians going to finish the iranian atoms for peace power plant?

 The TruthProfessor is a

 The TruthProfessor is a freakin' science teacher?
And you wonder what's wrong with education today.
jeesh

And why Bali? What's wrong with Omaha for a climate conference on AGW?

Rackie, are you ok??

Have you taken your meds??

Well, yes...

Solar Cycles were discovered in 1843. After study of other evidence, they were noted back to 1755, where the count began.

Paleo studies have identified many others, but we only count from 1755.

Despite the ravings of Professor unTruth and others, that's called science.

scamman, those evil climate scientists must

be conspiring against the truth and knowledge that only you could discover. Be sure to query a fast food worker and not a brain surgeon before your radical lobotomy surgery.

Hmm Professor T

 "Be sure to query a fast food worker and not a brain surgeon before your radical lobotomy surgery."

 

I take it you speak from expierence.Myself I'll pass.Just curious was Al one of your science students?

sorry well, but I won't be able

to provide a reference for a good fast food worker. Talk to Blonde or RJ or Free Stinker, though.

Dear Nutty Professor; You

Dear Nutty Professor;

You might want to rethink your brain surgeon analogy. 
Just because you're smart, doesn't mean you're right.

Rackie, maybe those who post here

are right. On the other hand, maybe these scientists know a little more about the subject? http://www.realclima...

So do the folks at

So do the folks at Icecap.us . And climateaudit.org ,  afterall they've corrected the folks at realclimate a few times.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Sure talking point....

I'd refer any of your students for that fast food job you've mentioned. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blonde, I'm sure your climate science

pearls of wisdom surpass anything these guys could think up:

http://www.realclima...

Perv Talking Point,

You are surely a one trick pony.

That's all you've got?  The same old tired link?  Oh yeah...I forgot....you continue to throw around the word "consensus".  

I'm convinced.

We need a better class of troll, here. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blonde, no more cheap fantasies!

I'm sure you're much more climate science savvy than these guys:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10

Yawn.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

No Perv.

That's what bored NB's do when you regurgitate for the umpteenth time your idiotic talking points.

Double yawn. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

An assessment to the

An assessment to the wonderful folks at "RealClimate"

There might be some legitimate criticism in Gavin's text but I couldn't find any. The comparison of Gavin Schmidt and Steve McIntyre as "auditors" couldn't be more startling. While McIntyre always analyzes the finest detail of the reconstructions, he reruns all relevant programs (and does some reverse engineering when necessary), Schmidt builds on superficial, Woit-like defamations and pseudocriticism that he often makes up in which he doesn't even link to the relevant papers or sources because he probably knows himself that what he writes is not true and it only designed to manipulate with gullible readers.

If you realize that charlatans such as Gavin Schmidt are paid for their work while Steve McIntyre must work as an outsider, the state of affairs in the present climate science seems sad, indeed.

Source

 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

There you go name dropping

There you go name dropping again.  Again, as I posted below:

"Furthermore, you know I find it intersting you talk all this s**t about realclimate.org; but how many times have you been to climateaudit etc. argueing your case???  Go debate THOSE scientists if you are so sure of AGW. "

I implore you to go over there and prove your (talking) points if you are so sure of your debate.

 

 "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

Wow. I'm impressed. 10

Wow. I'm impressed. 10 people. Verses 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

"...truth and knowledge..."

That "only" I could discover?

What I wrote was historical fact on the subject.

You've just proven to me that you're a troll.

LOL scammer

that's like proving the sky is blue

earlier i was merely noting that 24 are the only numbered cycles the actual history goes back much much much further

GoHunter08

scamman, historical fact does not equal

relevance. Today's warming is driven by CO2 primaily. Go read the IPCC technical summary, particularly where they list climate forcings. Nobody denies climate cycles, but the PRESENT warming is attributed mainly to CO2.

any one who cites the UN

as a source of scientific truth really needs a clue.

GoHunter08

Not the Summary

No, don't read the Summary, read the entire report (as I have):

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

And, for that matter, WHICH Summary do you mean? The one that was announced with a lot of hype and nonsense, or the corrected one that was released quietly 4 days later?

By all means read the complete report. Anyone with an open mind will be appalled by how much evidence contradicting the THEORY of AGW was swept under the rug.

Warning is driven by CO2? 

Warming is driven by CO2?  This is complete rubbish.

warmoing on this planet is driven first by the sun.  The sun accounts for 255 of the 288 degree K mean near surface temperature of this planet.   The second factor is water vapor. It accounts for 90-95% of what's left.   That leaves about 2-3 degrees K of warmth attributable to CO2 in combination with every other greenhouse gas.

This data is no mystery.  It can be googled with no difficulty.  What is difficult is understanding what scientific basis the alarmist have to make their sorry ass predictions on.  Computer models are no substitute for empirical science.  The guys you are blindly following have a collection of theories that are not supported by the empirical science. 

what do YOU do, if

what do YOU do, if anything, to help reverse GW, or do you just bitch and moan about the right?

how did the earth get out of the ice age with out humans making the earth warmer?

why was the world scared about global cooling years ago?

 

 

 

"Get off the phone you big dope!!!!!!!!!!" Mark Levin

311, No one came up with an idea TO TAX THE PEOPLE FOR IT

Back in 1972-78.. lots of HUGE ideas were dreamed up.to slowdown gobal cooling , to MELT polor ice caps however .no funding ;(

Beauracrats not wanting to miss a HUGE taxgrab shoved into their faces, are all over man made warming; salivating for billions of taxes, fines and fees, for what? a 2nd. UN like AGW UN branch,

iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..

So when ARE the Russians going to finish the iranian atoms for peace power plant?

now if we can just get

now if we can just get proff truth to answer that

 

 

"Get off the phone you big dope!!!!!!!!!!" Mark Levin

botg, I thought you guys only believed

in a 6000 yr old Earth?

'you guys'????

NBers? that's news to me!

what orifice did you pull that claim out of?

GoHunter08

Same one, B....

Where he gets all of his other talking points.....sheesh! 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

hi B : )

maybe cool arrow could let us know

GoHunter08

Back at you, botg

I see you've been having fun with the latest simple class of troll here, today. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Well B

if he had a scintilla of wit it could be more interesting

GoHunter08

Bruce

Unfortunately, he wouldn't know a scintilla from an amoeba.   

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

"NBers? that's news to me!

"NBers? that's news to me! what orifice did you pull that claim out of?"

 

Probably the same one his head resides in most of the time.

ckc

and thus cool arrow is mentioned

GoHunter08

CKC

I take it he suffers from head in rectal defilate syndrome.

It's called PT's

It's called PT's bigotry

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

db, AGW must be addressed NOW!

Read the resumes of AGW climate scientists:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10

Must suck to be you, Henny Penny

The sky is falling!!!!

The sky is falling!!! 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Read the resumes of the

Read the resumes of the scientist who are sceptics?

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Totally unrelated to

Totally unrelated to realclimate bs. your statement " in a 6000 yr old Earth?" Shows your bigotry.

Deal with it.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Bush wins in Bali!

"Bush wins in Bali!"

"World wealth redistributors suffer setback!"

"Media completely misrepresents...again!" 

"Led by AlGore, their guilt assuaged by carbon credits, thousands of Warmists take off for non-polluting return flights."

That is where the discussion on this thread should focus, not on Perfesser BS's lame rehashing of his talking points.

RJ

So you got bored with the prof too eh?  I moved on a while ago.

Well stated, that IS the purpose of this thread.  The media spun non-action and talk as an acquiesce of the U.S. to the UN's AGW socialistic agenda.  They can't ever report the truth.

"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

SnT, if nothing is done about AGW

the consequences of non action will be far more severe. When there's a hurricane coming toward you, you need to take action. The precautionary principle should apply. We've seen massive increases in climate disasters over the past twenty years. It's only prudent to make sacrifices for our kids.

Being I deal with

Being I deal with hurricanes directly. As does Blonde and a few others. I will say. You have no clue as to the reality of hurricanes.

 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

danbo, I understand some things about hurricanes.

"hurricane" was a metaphor for the AGW looming crisis.

whatever proff

I love how AGW fanatics keep trying to tell us hurricanes didn't exist until the 1990s.

candance, the hurricane issue is only a part of

AGW theory. Reputable scientists like Kerry Emmanuel of MIT have ideas and others like Chris Landsea and Dr William Gray have other ideas. This is only one piece of the puzzle.

Riiiight, Perfesser BS,

According to the "experts" pushing AGW, all bad weather is officially man-made.   And, according to their figures and predictions, "climate change" only began recently, while the only global cooling and warming worth talking about has been recent history.

But, again, that's beside the point of this thread, Perfesser BS. 

RJ, a more appropriate headline should read:

"Bush wins in Bali, world's future suffers another setback"!

Or, more accurately, Perfesser BS,

World Socialist movement suffers another setback.

As has been reported here at NB (but not by the MSM), AGW organizers at Bali admitted openly that Wealth Redistribution is a top goal of the AGW movement.

 

I wonder if Noel will celebrate massive droughts and

population migrations of millions of people as a result of AGW? Maybe all you RWers can bring out your party hats and noisemakers after some major climate catastrophe.

There are two things Rightwingers care about: 1) taking as much wealth as they can from everyone else and 2) distracting people while they do (1)! (from the rational radical, Jack Clarke, approx. quote)

PUFFEER , The only moving going on will be TO AMERICA!

You have your movies twisted, Is it cooling, is it warming?

iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..

So when ARE the Russians going to finish the iranian atoms for peace power plant?

upcountry, AGW is REAL and it's predicted

to create more severe weather and climate problems like increased droughts and floods. There has been a huge increase in climate related disasters over the last twenty years. SEVEN of the last EIGHT years have been the HOTTEST on record. Oceans have increased acidity from increased CO2 dissolving.

You have to be kidding

You have to be kidding me?  The largest reservoir of CO2 on the planet is the oceans; the colder the temp the more dissolved CO2 the oceans retain. Therefore as temps increase more CO2 is liberated from the water column.  Now note, as the data shows, the temp increase occurs first.  That is why CO2 FOLLOWS global temperature rise.  If that is the case then how can you blame CO2 for global warming???!! 

And I am not even going to touch the increase in severe weather, drought BS.

"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

SnT, if CO2 outgassing occurs, the

pH of the ocean increases(increased pH= less acidity). The EXACT OPPOSITE is happening(pH is dropping= MORE acidity). So ocean outgassing of CO2 is contradicted by observations of changing ocean acidity. Also, outgassing of O2 will also occur which would increase the O2 concentration of the atmosphere. The EXACT opposite of this is also occurring. For thousands of years the ratio of carbon isotopes(C12 to C13) was fairly constant at about 2%C13. Plants preferentially fix C12 isotopes. So, the burning of fossil fuels and plants has the effect of diluting the atmosphere with more C12, thus lowering the C13 concentration. The changing C13 atmosphere concentration suggests that the increased CO2 levels are manmade.

Which is irrelevant

Proving that a fixed amount of recent CO2 emissions come from man proves absolutely nothing. It does not prove that it is responsible for climate change or will in the future catastrophic climate change.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

puffer, the 30's were the hottest, after NASA fixed their data.

More people die when it;s cold than when it's hot.

iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..

So when ARE the Russians going to finish the iranian atoms for peace power plant?

NASA "fixed" the data like

someone "fixed" a basketball game or fixed the data meaning they updated it after recalibrating their equipment?

there it is

IPCC could not possibly have an agenda, but NASA is busy cooking the books and lying about their research.

pretty serious charges, candance.

Why don't you give this to right wing radio so they can run with it. Except , for Rush Limbaugh, who got punked with a global warming denier hoax, and announced his "discovery" nationwide to millions of uninformed dittoheads. Alternately, give this info to the denier scientists who have lots of petrodollars to spew out misinformation.

uhh....

That didn't even make any sense TP&C. This conversation is getting tedious and redudant. I'm off to bed. Gotta go to church in the morning so I can do my part for the vast right wing conspiracy.

PROFESSOR TRUTH!

Yes NASA did some recalibating, and the 30's were the HOTTEST on record. feel the heat

iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..

So when ARE the Russians going to finish the iranian atoms for peace power plant?

upcountry, are you ready to get punked??

That recalibration of NASA was for the US, about a few % of the total

surface area of the Earth. Here is the REAL story from a REAL climate website with REAL climate scientists who do REAL studies:

http://www.realclima...

As much as your friends at

As much as your friends at realclimate try to minimize it. That's 10% of the total for 100 years. Just in that one error. I'm sure if the error was the other way you'd be lecturing us.

Although it's only for the US; the US has the best and most consistent records. As we look at the proof of warming around the globe with consistent long tern recoprds there's little to support it.

Of course you never read climateaudit  and the where's Waldo series.

Your warming may be more localized than what the brains at realclimate brushed off as localized warming when they claimed the MWP wasn't global.

And they're not through with the series. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

pooffer

you are a stewpid trool LMAO

iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..

So when ARE the Russians going to finish the iranian atoms for peace power plant?

And leftwingers only care

And leftwingers only care is to: 1. take money from the working people (countries) and give it to the lazy under achievers---good ol' income redistribution---& 2. distract people with non-issues, like AGW, while they do (1)!

For the record, I am and always have been an independant.

"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

SnT, I assume minimum wage earners are "working"

people. I certainly want people who actually build products to be fairly compensated. AGW is a real problem, and it won't matter whether you're in first class or coach when the airplane(earth's ecosystem) crashes. Having a science degree, you owe your allegiance to rational thinking if you are truly a scientist. Allowing AGW to increase is a crime on all who will suffer it's effects.

"Having a science degree,

"Having a science degree, you owe your allegiance to rational thinking if you are truly a scientist. "

Beg your pardon?  I have and continue to read/evaluate new data that comes out on both sides of the issue-that is science.  You however, as a 'scientist' have done a disservice to the definition by ignoring one half of the data.  If you are really a scientist, or at least trained in the sciences for teaching, you wouldn't be able to say that AGW is a consensus and closed case---period.  At least not honestly.

"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

Perfesser, repeat with me,

Perfesser, repeat with me, slowly: There is no global warming, there is no global warming, there is no global warming.

Now repeat this: Algore is a crook, Algore is a liar, Algore is a fraud.

Repeat all of this many times daily and in no time, you'll be cured!

This is your only hope for true happiness!

Hmm

Since you are a independent you must be right.Independants are never wrong.Debate over.Anyhow it seems the purpose of this conference was about leeching money.The UN's sole purpose it seems these days.We need to get the UN out of the US and we need to quit supporting their habit.They are addicted to corruption.The idea behind it intially was good but it strayed many decades ago.

Well99, Why the jab about

Well99,

Why the jab about the independent?

And I agree, it is all a money boon-doggle for the UN.  The $40 bill will by squandered like the UN always does; and my bet is that a chunk of it will end up in the hands of countries dictated by terrorist regimes.

"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

Well

Actually I am a independent.My post

"Since you are a independent you must be right.Independants are never wrong."

is just stateing a fact.I took a survey and 1/1 people agreed with me so it must be true.It was a attempt at humor.
Back OT yes you know a high percentage would be siphon off by UN agencies.I will never understand why we put up with the UN.

Bada Bing!  My bad at

Bada Bing!  My bad at recognizing the humor--been a long day.  And for the record you can make that 2/2, so it must be true!  Has a nice ring to it.

"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

I hear that

Also I think this thread is longer than the book I am reading.It is only 300 pages.

I tell you one thing well99

After the Oil for Food fiasco, I can't believe people really think a carbon tax would actually go to poor countries to develop technology. And given how well that Kyoto thing worked out, I can't believe people really think those countries will do anything.

Even IF there is something to this AGW warming thing how is a global tax the best way to fix it? Why can't we get the world's best minds to develop the technology and resources to overcome it. Why is it that conveniently our only solution is global socialism?

I agree candance

Global tax would just go into pockets of a few just like Oil for food.Scientist working towards cleaner energy resources is fine that and it would be great to get the world off depending on oil.With Chavez types out there countries need to be more self sufficient.

See, now you just proved

See, now you just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are delusional!

It is YOUR party that wants wealth redistribution. It's your party that is constantly looking for new ways to lie to the public. It was YOUR fav, Mrs. Bill Clinton, who said: "I'm gonna take those profits, for the greater good"!

Put the bong down for a minute, and listen! Repulicans are the ones who care about the little guy. It has been Republican ideas that have created millions of jobs, ususally after a dim screwed it up!

If you really are a teacher, you should give every student you have ever taught a refund, for you have waisted their time, and not given them any useful knowledge.

Coming from a Guy who takes

Coming from a Guy who takes is Q from Gavin Smith and M Mann.

and the Plumber blog of science... realclimate.whore

 

http://www.climateau...

acadia, are YOU ready to get PUNKED?

your link is from denier Steve Mcyntrye who, along with a guy named Mckittrick, produced a study which "discredited" M. Mann's hockey stick, or so thought deniers: http://www.realclima... and you can read more about their now thoroughly discredited study here:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11#falseclaims

 

Wrong! Mann was discredited by the NAS

What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Environmental Economist)

The Broken Stick (Financial Post, Canada)
The decay of the hockey stick (Climate Feedback)
The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science (John L. Daly)
Lessons & Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual? (PDF) (Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics)
In Climate Debate, The 'Hockey Stick' Leads to a Face-Off (The Wall Street Journal)
NAS report "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 200 Years" (National Academy of Sciences)

"With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al.. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless.

[...] Thus, the public perception that the hockeystick as truthfully describing the temperature history was definitely false.

We find it disappointing that the method of Mann et al. was not sufficiently described in the original publication, and thus not peer-reviewed prior to publication, and that no serious efforts were made to allow independent researchers to check the performance of the methods and of the data used."

Peer Review Evidence Destroying the Hockey Stick:

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies
(Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058, 2007)
- C. Loehle

Comment on "The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years"
(Science, Vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1844, 29 June 2007)
- Gerd Bürger

Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, 1 November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data
(Nature 433, 613-617, 10 February 2005)
- Anders Moberg, Dmitry M. Sonechkin, Karin Holmgren, Nina M. Datsenko and Wibjörn Karlén

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L03710, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

"Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1)"

Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years
(Climate Research, Vol. 23: 89–110, 2003)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas

Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance"
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L20715, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance"
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L20714, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Mann's work was also

Mann's work was also discredited by Dr. Edward Wegman, a statistician from George Mason University on the grounds that Mann had not correctly applied statistical sampling theory to his study.  What Wegman had to so was this:  Mann had essentially cherry-picked his data to get his result.  he had chosen an interval of data inappropriate to establishment of a centered baseline.

Read Wegman's testimony. It is illuminating and it unerscores much of what is wrong with "climate science".

Professional liar I meen TP

Just recently two people won a Nobel Prize for climate change. One was a politician one was a scientist both associated with the IPCC one returned his reward and stated AGW was BS. Which one was the scientist?

worm, what is your point?

accusing me of lying? like Bush?

Wrong Answer! The non-Scientist is AL GORE

Al Gore only has a B.A. in Government (no higher degree achieved, no science degrees)
The Education of Al Gore (The Washington Times)

"Mr. Gore's high school performance on the college board achievement tests in physics (488 out of 800 "terrible," St. Albans retired teacher and assistant headmaster John Davis told The Post) and chemistry (519 out of 800 "He didn't do too well in chemistry," Mr. Davis observed) suggests that Mr. Gore would have trouble with science for the rest of his life. At Harvard and Vanderbilt, Mr. Gore continued bumbling along.

As a Harvard sophomore, scholar Al "earned" a D in Natural Sciences 6 in a course presciently named "Man's Place in Nature." That was the year he evidently spent more time smoking cannabis than studying its place among other plants within the ecosystem. His senior year, Mr. Gore
received a C+ in Natural Sciences 118.

At Vanderbilt divinity school, Mr. Gore took a course in theology and natural science. The assigned readings included the apocalyptic, and widely discredited "Limits to Growth," which formed much of the foundation for "Earth in the Balance." It is said that Mr. Gore failed to hand in his book report on time. Thus, his incomplete grade turned into an F, one of five Fs Mr. Gore received at divinity school, which may well be a worldwide record."

Gore Deserves Nobel Prize for Propaganda (CNSNews)
Gore's guru disagreed (Financial Post, Canada)
The Gore Lies (National Review Online)
The Science of Gore's Nobel (The Wall Street Journal)

"What a pompous jerk. ...it's time for Al Gore to get over himself." - Jack Cafferty, CNN, 2007

Hypocrite:
Al Gore and Global Warming - Is He a Hypocrite? (Video) (10min)
Al Gore's Gulfstream (Video) (7min)
Al Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner (The Wall Street Journal)
- Environmentalist Gore allowed zinc mine (USA Today)
Al Gore's Inconvenient Toxic Waste Dump (NewsMax)
Al Gore, polluter? (WorldNetDaily)
Al Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate (CorpWatch)
Bush's Ranch House 'Far More Eco-Friendly' Than Gore's (CNSNews)
- George W. Bush's eco-friendly ranch compared to Al Gore's energy-expending mansion = True (Snopes)
Eco-warrior Al Gore serves up endangered fish at daughter's party (Daily Mail, UK)
Gore home's energy use: 20 times average (WorldNetDaily)
- Al Gore's residence uses considerably more energy than the average American home = True (Snopes)
Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe (USA Today)
Hypocrite Gore Should Practice What He Preaches (The Tech, MIT)
Integrity in the Balance: Al Gore's Record On the Environment (CorpWatch)
Meet the real Al Gore (WorldNetDaily)
Occidental Petroleum Corporation Connections (The Wall Street Journal)
Old-Growth Timber used to Rebuild the Veranda of the Vice Presidential Mansion (Newsweek)
Whose Ox Is Gored? The Former Vice President's Environmental Exaggerations and Hypocrisy (The Wall Street Journal)

Al Gore Pushes 'Pollution Tax' (NewsMax)

Profiteering:
Al Gore Gets Rich ($100 Million) After White House (ABC News)
Al Gore is criticised for lining his own pockets after £3,300 ($6,757) per-minute green speech (Daily Mail, UK)
Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns (WorldNetDaily)
Gore Cashing in on $6 Trillion Energy Business (NewsMax)
Global Warming, Inc. (The Wall Street Journal)
The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade (Human Events)

Will Not Debate:
Dennis T. Avery Challenges Al Gore to a Debate (The Heartland Institute)
Lord Christopher Monckton Challenges Al Gore to a Debate (Center for Science and Public Policy)
Ivy League Professor Bets Al Gore $10,000 He’s Wrong About Global Warming (NewsBusters)
Why Won’t Al Gore Debate? (The Heartland Institute)
Will Al Gore Melt? If not, why did he chicken out on an interview? (The Wall Street Journal)
Sign the Petition: Al Gore, Debate Global Warming (5500+ Signatures)

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Aint It Obvious

The terms you use like Denier or consensus are political terms they are not scientific. It’s obvious that you have not done your research you just parrot talking points that are posted on realclimate. Whether your lying or not I’m not sure I am quite sure that you are either wholly misinformed or your ignorant of the actual facts one way or another as a teacher you should know better. What ever happened to critical thinking skills?  Here’s a link for you think AGW is real take his money I will be expecting a small finders fee $10 would be good just to show your appreciation. http://www.junkscience.com/ And my point if you haven’t figured it out is Al has something to gain by his stance the scientist in question has everything to lose by denying AGW and yet he did anyway.   

I've been to the junkscience website

by Steve Milloy, a true junk scientist. He constructs essays based wholly on the work of others, has done no original research himself, has no published peer reviewed papers, and has been roundly ridiculed and refuted by real climate, a website which has REAL climate scientists who do REAL original climate research, and who have REAL peer reviewed published papers. I am very aware that peer reviewed does not equal truth, but it adds another layer of confidence to the claims of those scientists who go through it. Nobody here seems courageous enough to even present their ideas to realclimate, which suggests a deep down uncertainty of belief. If I was SO certain of a belief, I would have no such reservations . Milloy's AGW bet is loaded and realclimate explains that canard also. In conclusion, realclimate is a one stop site for debunking anti-AGW claims.

Professor Propaganda

Realclimate.org is the puppet site for James Hansen which includes his puppet Gavin Schmidt and the discredited Mann.

Guess what? Steve Milloy is more qualified to discuss Climate Change than Gore!

- Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA

- Al Gore, B.A. Government (no higher degree achieved, no science degree)

But their are plenty of websites with other scientists including:

ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA)
The Reference Frame (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Czech Republic)
Watts Up With That? (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, USA)

Climate Audit (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Canada)
Climate Police (Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, USA)
Climate Science (Roger A. Pielke, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA)
Comment & Information on Climate Change (Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology, Australia)
EcoMyths (Graham Smith, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada)
Number Watch (John Brignell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Electronics & Computer Science, UK)
Science & Environmental Policy Project (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, USA)
The Politics and Environment Blog (Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, Australia)
World Climate Report (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, USA)

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

acadia, are you ready for another serving of CROW?

http://www.realclima...

Another link to the discredited Mcyntyre-Mckittrick denial con attempt.

Professor Propaganda - Mann was discredited by the NAS

What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Environmental Economist)

The Broken Stick (Financial Post, Canada)
The decay of the hockey stick (Climate Feedback)
The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science (John L. Daly)
Lessons & Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual? (PDF) (Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics)
In Climate Debate, The 'Hockey Stick' Leads to a Face-Off (The Wall Street Journal)
NAS report "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 200 Years" (National Academy of Sciences)

"With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al.. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless.

[...] Thus, the public perception that the hockeystick as truthfully describing the temperature history was definitely false.

We find it disappointing that the method of Mann et al. was not sufficiently described in the original publication, and thus not peer-reviewed prior to publication, and that no serious efforts were made to allow independent researchers to check the performance of the methods and of the data used."

Peer Review Evidence Destroying the Hockey Stick:

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies
(Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058, 2007)
- C. Loehle

Comment on "The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years"
(Science, Vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1844, 29 June 2007)
- Gerd Bürger

Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, 1 November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data
(Nature 433, 613-617, 10 February 2005)
- Anders Moberg, Dmitry M. Sonechkin, Karin Holmgren, Nina M. Datsenko and Wibjörn Karlén

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L03710, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

"Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1)"

Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years
(Climate Research, Vol. 23: 89–110, 2003)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas

Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance"
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L20715, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance"
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L20714, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

 

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Even if all environmental claims were false,

from both a political and economic view, cutting down emissions is a necessary idea. With looming peak oil and the need to fight wars to secure more energy resources, a serious cutback on fossil fuel use would produce lower energy costs for all(according to supply-demand law) along with less need to ally with despotic regimes.

what this country needs

is a good mid-sized nuclear generation program (like France has)

and open up ANWR

wind and solar power take too much land and those solar receptors----toxic!!

now i am for individuals being incentivised to put solar on their rooftops

"everytime you take a shower, you are a mass murderer" -- the Pervessor

Any agreement that will

Any agreement that will compromise the quality of life for everyone based on nothing more than a theory supported by a coincidence is a victory for no one.

-

Exactly.

"When there's a hurricane

"When there's a hurricane coming toward you, you need to take action."

Yeah, RATIONAL action. We don't try to control the hurricane, and then blame it on suvs when a totally average hurricane makes landfall the same way hurricanes have been making landfall for millions of years.

Man cannot control climate. Man cannot regulate global temperature. Man can't even regulate the temperature in a large office building so that it remains at a constant temperature.

Here's how accurate the models are. In my area, they were predicting a warming of about 10 degrees for last night, followed by cooling later today. We're still waiting for that 10 degrees of warming. We're still waiting for 2 degrees of that 10 degrees.

Global warming is a scam. It is possible the biggest scam ever perpetuated in the history of mankind, and is without a doubt the biggest scam in modern history. I suspect it is merely a preview of things to come.

The global warming sham has proven beyond any doubt that some folks will believe just about anything, and, as a result, with money to be made, I foresee a never-ending cycle of "man-made" disasters on the horizon peddled by slick car salesmen types, disasters that, naturally, can only be averted with American money. And catastrophobes (like professor clueless) will be more than happy to drink the kool-aid for every disaster flavor-of-the-moment that rolls around, no matter how ridiculous or outrageous, as they seek some sort of meaning for their empty little lives.

This is what it's all about...

"The contentious, two-week U.N. climate conference on the resort
island of Bali ended with the United States, facing angry criticism
from other delegations, relenting in its opposition
to a request from developing nations for more technological help fighting climate change."

It's always about money/technology transfer to "undeveloped" countries when the UN is involved.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.